HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-16-2019 Item 01 - Monument Policy
Department Name: Parks and Rec Admin
Cost Center: 7001
For Agenda of: July 16, 2019
Placement: Study Session
Estimated Time: 30 Minutes
FROM: Shelly Stanwyck, Assistant City Manager Community Services
Prepared By: Lindsey Stephenson, Recreation Manager
Rachel Balella, Parks and Recreation Policy Intern
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION ON MONUMENT POLICY
RECOMMENDATION
Review and discuss research information developed on monument policies and provide feedback
regarding next steps.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
This report offers a comparative research analysis of monument policies of several California
and a few national cities. The California cities are somewhat similar to the City of San Luis
Obispo (City) in size, demographics, location and culture, and serve as the primary references for
research. The City’s typical “benchmark cities” were studied, but very few had monument
policies. The report summarizes findings, discusses reoccurring themes, analyzes various
monument processes and addresses areas for Council consideration and study session feedback.
This report was developed through the lens adopted by Council in its Vision for its 2019-21
Major City Goals regarding Inclusivity: The City of San Luis Obispo is a dynamic community
embracing its future while respecting its past with core values of civility, sustainability, diversity,
inclusivity, regionalism, partnership, and resiliency.
DISCUSSION
Background
On February 5, 2019, Council directed staff to research a potential monument policy; with the
first step as gathering information for a Study Session and presenting it to Council for
consideration and further direction.
Notably, while the City has a public art policy (which has been used as an analysis framework
for privately donated statuary in the past) the City does not have a policy specifically addressing
the installation of monuments on public property. In reviewing and researching this subject, staff
found that the definition of terms was very important.
Packet Pg. 9
Item 1
Two in particular, “monument” and “memorial” are defined below with the Merriam-Webster
definitions noted as applied throughout this report.
Monument
mon·u·ment | noun. A statue, building, or other structure erected to commemorate a famous,
or notable, person or event.
Memorial
me·mo·ri·al | noun. Something, especially a structure, established to remind people of a
person or event.
Summary of Research Findings
Monument policies define the parameters for placement of commemorative structures;
recognizing the lasting impact commemorative structures have on a community and its visitors.
Monuments personify history and are a reflection of community values, making it important that
the values reflected by a monument or memorial align appropriately with the City in which it is
housed. In conducting comparative (amongst cities) research, several common topics within
monument policies were identified and are discussed below. Because of the uniqueness of each
city, the location of where a monument is placed is almost always included as a policy criterion.
a. Term Usage
Although monuments are traditionally thought of as three-dimensional sculptures with
commemorative intent; monuments in some cities have recently presented in forms such as
fountains and murals. It is common for monuments and memorials to be used
interchangeably as terms within the same policy. Staff found that monuments are most often
categorized as funerary or structural, a tribute to ideas/ideals, or the commemoration of
significant individuals.
b. City Connection
Research showed that a historic connection or relation to the community by a monument is
almost always a requirement. If there is not a connection to the city, or if a monument’s
relation to the community is not determined to be sufficient (as defined by policy), it may
create conflict within the community. Often, cities without policies on this subject have
failed to address the full scope of a monument’s impact or consider its context in long-range
planning.
c. City Size
The monuments of larger cities reflect more national topics, whereas smaller cities
monuments are typically more focused on local community figures and events. Because of
their size and history, cities such as New York, Philadelphia and Washington D.C. house
monuments commemorating the history of the nation, and monuments that tell a national
narrative are often more widespread and relevant to the area. In smaller cities, such as Santa
Cruz, no monument definition is specified, yet the policy currently under review does
describe the remembrance of a person, persons, or historical event in direct relation to the
City of Santa Cruz.
Packet Pg. 10
Item 1
d. Placement
Placement of a monument on public property requires thoughtful analysis of future impact
and community engagement. A monument will serve as a memory and representation of a
city in the present and future for residents and visitors. Additionally, staff found that different
locations may be appropriate for singular and multiple monuments and should be evaluated.
e. Monument Removal
Staff found that monuments were most often removed due to discriminatory views
represented by, or related to a monument. Obvious controversial monuments, such as
confederate leaders, have caused conflict among their host communities, but even
individuals, such as Mahatma Gandhi have caused public debate in the City of Davis.
Monument Policies and Frameworks
In conducting this research, multiple California cities’ monument policies were studied
(Attachment A). The table below describes the document or framework under which a specific
city’s monument policy is housed. Some cities place their monument policy within their public
art policies whereas other cities have completely separate monument policies and some have
none.
California Cities Monument Policy Framework
1. City of Auburn Yes Public Art Policy
2. City of San Jose Yes Monument Policy
3. City of Davis Under Review Cultural Art Plan
4. City of Santa Barbara Under Review Visual Art in Public Spaces
5. City of Santa Cruz Under Review Memorial Policy
6. City of Clovis, Napa,
Monterey, Paso Robles,
Petaluma, Santa Maria, Santa
Monica, and Ventura
No N/A
National Cities Monument Policy Framework
7. City of New York, NY Yes Mayoral Advisory Commission on
City Art, Monuments and Markers
8. City of Washington, DC Yes National Capital Planning
Commission, Memorials and
Museum Master Plan
9. City of San Antonio, TX Yes Monuments, Memorials, Markers
and Plaques Policy
10. City of Philadelphia, PA No N/A
Packet Pg. 11
Item 1
Discussion of Topics covered by City Policies
a. City Connection
In the monument policies researched, most had a criteria section that specifies the need for a
monument to have a connection to the city in which it will be placed. Most monuments
installed commemorate individuals or events. Below are the monument policies where this
criterion is described.
City of San Jose City of San Antonio City of Santa Cruz City of Auburn
Monument Policy Monuments,
Memorials, Markers
and Plaques Policy
Memorials on City
Property (in Review)
Monuments in
Public Parks
Approved Government
Speech Topic Criterion:
The contributions of
individuals or groups who
made a substantial impact
upon the City of San Jose
or Santa Clara County;
1. The history of San
Jose, California, or of
the United States;
2. Historical or cultural
influences on San
Jose;
3. Native flora, fauna and
wildlife of San Jose
and the greater Bay
area;
4. Local innovation or
creativity that has
contributed to San
Jose’s growth and
prosperity.
Approval Conditions of
Site:
1. All proposed
monuments or
memorials must relate
to and support their
proposed site and/or
community.
2. Community
Significance: Proposed
projects must serve to
commemorate or to
identify a particularly
significant historic
event or person.
Projects that seek to
honor particular
individuals or events
should appeal to the
broader interests of the
community.
Policy Ordinance:
1. Persons or groups
that have a long-
standing association
with the community;
2. A historical event of
significance to the
community;
3. A person, family, or
organization which
has contributed
significantly to the
community;
4. A person or group
which has made a
significant
contribution to the
City.
Ordinance 2.9.010
Purpose and
Introduction:
1. Monuments can
convey a powerful
connection
between Auburn
and its history,
and in some
instances its
future.
b. Monuments Prevalence by City Size
City size and culture are strong determining factors of monument occurrence within a city.
Larger cities that are characterized by a role in the nation’s history, often house more
monuments, whereas smaller cities with less-defined values and different histories often have
few monuments. Towards the East Coast the founding of the nation is a more dominant
monument presence due to related historical context.
Packet Pg. 12
Item 1
City City of
Auburn
City of
San Jose
City of
San Antonio
City of
Washington D.C.
City of
New York
Policy Monume
nts in
Public
Parks
Monument
Policy
Monuments,
Memorials,
Markers and
Plaques Policy
National Planning
Capital
Commission,
Monuments and
Memorials
City Art,
Monuments
and Markers
Population 77,472 1.03 million 1.51 million 702,445 8.54 million
Monuments
Identified
1 3 5 51 72
c. Stakeholder Process
Identifying stakeholders is a crucial component of monument policy processes and
preservation. Involving stakeholders allows for inclusivity and thoughtfulness for the
community, and results in less conflict during the process. Ideally, stakeholders would be
individuals or groups that are knowledgeable about the monument subject and relevant
community members and groups who want to have a role in the process.
City of Auburn,
Monuments to be
Located in City
Parks and on City
Property
1. The Mayor may recommend to City Council the approval or denial of
monument proposals. The Mayor may enact administrative guidelines
and procedures to implement this chapter, including procedures for
consideration of locations deemed amenable to monuments. The mayor
shall also designate the lead department or departments for monuments
located on city property depending on the proposed location of the
monument and the potential impact to city departments.
2. The Director of the lead department shall coordinate with the Director
of Parks, Art and Recreation if there are any questions or issues as to
whether a proposed monument is primarily public art, or whether it
otherwise fits into the city’s public art programs.
Mayor→Director of Lead Department and Director of Parks, Art and Recreation→
Review process begins
City of Santa
Cruz, Memorial
Policy Process
*In Review
Each application will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Applicant(s)
shall submit a written request to the corresponding Department Director,
with justification to aid in considering the proposal. The proposal shall be
placed on the appropriate Advisory Body agenda (if required), allowing
appropriate time for review by the Advisory Body and to publicize and
receive input from the public at the Advisory Body meeting. The
Advisory Body’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council
for final determination.
Packet Pg. 13
Item 1
Application → Department Director → Advisory Board Public → City Council
City of San Jose,
Monument Policy
Process
The City Manager or his or her designee shall provide the initial
screening of Monument proposals to determine if the proposed
Monument complies with the provisions of this Policy including
without limitation, to evaluate the suitability of the proposed
Monument site, if any. The Director of Public Art shall recommend
and advise the City Manager, whether a proposed Monument is
primarily an original “work of art”. A “work of art” is defined as a
monument that is designed by and crafted by or under the supervision
of a professional artist. A Monument that is deemed primarily a
“work of art” shall be considered “public art” and shall become part
of the City’s Public Art Program inventory.
City Manager → Director of Public Art → Work of art → Public Art → Office of
Cultural Affairs → Public Art Committee Arts Commission → Public Works
Packet Pg. 14
Item 1
d. Public Engagement Process
Cities vary with the inclusion of public outreach process in monument policies. San Jose and
Auburn do not hold public forums about the installation of new monuments, as monuments
are housed on city-owned land and protected by government speech. Other cities rely on
public forums as an opportunity to inform the community about monument intent. Below are
portions of each City’s Monument Policy ordinances that describe the public engagement
process.
City of San Jose City of Auburn City of Santa Cruz Washington, DC
Monument Policy Monuments to be
located in City Parks
and On City Property
Memorial Policy—In
review
Monument Policy
1. By placing
Monuments on City
property, the City
intends only to
engage in
government speech1
and does not intend
to open a public
forum for free
speech activity.
1. The City retains, in
its sole discretion, the
rights to control the
message of monuments
in its city parks and on
its public property.
2. By placing
monuments on city
property, the city
intends only to engage
in government speech2
and does not intend to
open a public forum for
free speech activity.
1. The proposal shall
be placed on the
appropriate Advisory
Body agenda allowing
appropriate time for
review by the
Advisory Body, and to
publicize and receive
input from the public
at the Advisory Body
Meeting.
1. A group of
citizens has the right
to suggest and
support the
placement of a
commemorative
work.
2. Memorial
applications must
meet specific
criteria,
commemorating an
event or person that
is important to the
nation, not just a
particular group.
1 The City’s commemoration of persons or events of note, or to otherwise convey the City’s position on various
topics.
2 “Government Speech” means the speech of the city per the doctrine addressed in Rosenberger v. Rector and
Visitors of Univ. of Va. And cases relying thereon. Under this doctrine, when the city retains the power to control
the message conveyed, the statements and expressive actions are government speech of the city even if it uses other
persons or entities to communicate its messages.
Packet Pg. 15
Item 1
Key Takeaways from Research
1. Policy. Cities may choose to adopt or not adopt monument policies. Those policies are
located as standalone policies or within a public art policy framework.
2. Definitions are Important. A clear definition of a monument is necessary. Because
monuments often vary in definition and interpretation, this is an important section because it
defines the parameters for a monument’s evaluation and protects the city from ambiguity
with monument proposals.
3. Community Connection (past or present) is Critical. Historic ties, and/or relation to a city
is almost always a criterion. Lack of strong community connection is a significant reason for
a monument to not be installed.
4. Discriminatory views are usually reason for removal. Almost every monument that has
been removed, has been removed for racist or bigoted views held by the individual to whom
the monument represents.
5. Stakeholder Identification. Identifying stakeholders is a crucial component of monument
policy processes and preservation because it results in less conflict during the process.
Stakeholders should be carefully considered, and potentially impacted groups should be
incorporated into the process as stakeholders.
6. Location. Location is an important component of monument policy. It needs to be addressed
whether the location of a monument is intended to house a single monument, or if the
location is open to the addition of other monuments. If the location is open to the addition of
other monuments, it is important to consider whether any monuments, or only monuments
that fit a certain theme (e.g. Civil Rights, Conservation, Women’s Rights) will be considered
for this location.
7. Public Engagement. It is important to consider the extent of public engagement and
identification of stakeholders. The extent to which the public will be incorporated should be
addressed, as public forums can often prolong the process.
POLICY CONTEXT
As noted earlier, the City does not have a monument policy, however the City does have a Public
Art program. The Public Art program to date has accepted projects and followed evaluation
criteria set forth in the Policies and Procedures Manual (Attachment B - updated June 2017) and
the original resolution adopted in May 1990.
To date there have been a few public art projects that reference people and/or a time period, but
do not call out a specific “named” person such as a memorial or monument; Garnet on Higuera
at Nipomo Street, Iron Road Pioneers at Railroad Square and Oh Great Spirit on South Higuera
at Prado. These projects met the City design guidelines and followed the Public Art approval
process including the Public Art Jury, Architectural Review Commission and the City Council.
Packet Pg. 16
Item 1
The City Council established and funded a Public Art program – Visual Arts in Public Places,
terms defined below:
(1) “Visual Arts in Public Places” or “Public Art” means any visual work of art
displayed in a publicly 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, 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 5.40 of the Municipal
Code.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
At the direction of City Council, this study session is based on analysis and informational
research from other municipalities. Due to the focus on research for the study session the public
outreach conducted has been focused on alerting the public about the study session. In
preparation for the Council meeting on July 16, 2019, email correspondence on this study session
topic, date, time and location have been sent to individuals and groups who have expressed
interest in monument policies in the past. Additionally, staff contacted Arts Obispo, the
Chamber of Commerce, Downtown SLO, the Cultural Heritage Committee, Human Rights
Commission and posted as the News Topic on the City website, Public Art website, and social
media channels for Parks and Recreation regarding the meeting and providing links to the
Agenda Report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended action in th is
report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15378.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2019-21
Funding Identified: No
Staffing: Additional resources and/or tradeoffs on workload may be required dependent on
Council direction.
Packet Pg. 17
Item 1
STUDY SESSION FRAMEWORK FOR FEEDBACK TO STAFF
At this study session Council will receive a summary presentation of this report, hear input from
the public, and provide feedback to staff regarding next steps if any. In providing feedback to
staff, below are series of questions that Council may want to use to guide that discussion.
Question #1. Does Council feel like it has sufficient information on Monument policies? If not,
what further research would Council like to receive and how it would it like to receive it (in
memo form or another public meeting for example).
Question #2. Is there Council consensus on the definitions used for monument/memorial here in
San Luis Obispo?
Question #3. Does Council want to pursue the drafting of a Monument policy? If so, the
following topics would helpful to have Council comments on:
a. What necessary steps would the Council want included in a project plan to develop a with a
monument policy?
b. Should the such a policy be stand alone or in the Public Art policy framework?
c. What City connections does the Council want? Of the policies presented are there any that
the Council favors?
d. How does the Council want to identify and define stakeholders? And at what point of the
process should the stakeholders be involved.
e. What type of Public Engagement should be required in a monument policy? Does the
Council want to hold public hearings, workshops and advisory body meetings (CHC, PRC
and the HRC); as an opportunity to inform the community about the monument intent.
Question #4. If the Council does choose to create a monument policy, how does the Council
want the Vision for Inclusivity and Diversity analyzed and applied to the monument policy?
ALTERNATIVES
Council could determine they do not want to pursue a monument policy. The Public Art Program
and Polices and Procedures Manual will continue to be the framework for accepted forms of
public art.
Attachments:
a - Monument Policy for Cities
b - READING FILE - COMPLETE_SLO PUBLIC ART POLICY MANUAL_2017
Packet Pg. 18
Item 1
1
ATTACHMENT 1
ORGANIZATION
YEAR ESTABLISHED 2019
CITY OF AUBURN
City of Auburn, Monuments to Be Located in
City Parks and On City Property
February 13th, 2019
Policy:
Ordinance 2.9.010
A. The city may, from time to time, decide to install permanent monuments on city property to
provide the city’s commemoration of persons or events of note, or to otherwise convey the city’s
position on various topics (referred to as “government speech”). The city retains, it is sole
discretion, the rights to control the message of monuments in its city parks and on its public
property. An application form shall be available from the city clerk and from the parks
department for use by private individuals, groups and entities who wish to request place of
monuments in city parks or on city property.
Criteria:
1. Monuments can convey a powerful connection between Auburn and its history, and in
some instances its future.
2. It is therefore important that the placement of monuments be limited to circumstances of
the highest community-wide importance, both to maintain significance of such
monuments and to minimize conflicts with the active variable use of public spaces.
Definition:
1) “Monument” means a marker, statue or other similar permanent structures and installations to
express government speech, as described and referenced in this chapter, and which are
installed by the city on city property, or which are accepted by the city and installed on city
property with city permission, and subject to the following:
a) Monuments may be in various forms including statues, fountains, buildings, or gardens
among other forms of monuments as determined by the city.
b) Monuments do not include items dedicated in parks, such as benches, trees, small plaques
(plaques not larger than five feet in size), and other memorials with a dollar value that
does not exceed $5,000, as determined by the estimated or anticipated cost of purchase or
construction and installation or placement; provided, however, that if the monument
requires a building permit, it shall be included in the definition of monuments.
Packet Pg. 19
Item 1
2
ORGANIZATION
YEAR ESTABLISHED 2010
CITY OF SAN JOSE
City of San José, California Council Policy
March 23, 2010
Policy:
The City may, from time to time, decide to install permanent outdoor Monuments on City
property to provide the City’s commemoration of persons or events of note, or to otherwise
convey the City’s position on various topics (“referred to as “Government Speech”). By placing
Monuments on City property, the City intends only to engage in government speech and does not
intend to open a public forum for free speech activity. The purpose of this Policy is to establish
criteria and guidelines for the consideration and installation of Monuments outdoors in parks or
plazas deemed by the City to be appropriate to serve as the site for a Monument. In doing so, the
City recognizes the following considerations: 1. Monuments can convey a powerful connection
between San José and its history, and in some instances its future. 2. It is therefore important that
the placement of Monuments be limited to circumstances of the highest community-wide
importance, both to maintain the significance of such Monuments and to minimize conflicts with
the active and variable use of public spaces.
Criteria:
The City may install or accept City-approved Monuments on City property as a form of
“Government Speech” as City recognition of significant events or people or to provide
information from the City on topics approved by the City, as set forth below: The contributions of
individuals or groups who made a substantial impact upon the City of San Jose or Santa Clara
County; The City’s position on topics of interest to the community, as determined by City
Council; The history of San Jose, California, or of the United States; Historical or cultural
influences on San Jose; Native flora, fauna and wildlife of San Jose and the greater Bay area;
Local innovation or creativity that has contributed to San Jose’s growth and prosperity; or Other
criteria selected by City Council and set forth in an amendment to this Policy. The City shall not
place Monuments on City property which have the purpose of promoting, favoring or inhibiting
any religion or which would appear to a reasonable person that the City is promoting, favoring, or
opposing a religion.
Definition:
“Monuments” are markers, statues and other similar permanent installations to express
Government Speech, as further described in this policy, and which are installed by the City on
City property, or which are accepted by the City and installed on City property with City
permission. Monuments may be in various forms including statues, fountains, or gardens among
other forms of monuments as determined by the City.
Packet Pg. 20
Item 1
3
ORGANIZATION
YEAR ESTABLISHED 2017
CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TX
City of San Antonio Monuments, Memorials, Markers
and Plaques Policy
Historical Design Review Committee
Phone: 210.207.0035
2017
Policy:
The City of San Antonio, as the steward of public land, is committed to protecting the parks, open
spaces, public buildings, and other public areas of the city while providing opportunities for
appropriately designed monuments, memorials, markers, and plaques that honor an individual,
organization or event beneficial to the greater good of the community.
Criteria:
Design Criteria: 1. The quality, scale, and character of the memorial should be at a level
commensurate with the particular location or setting. 2. The memorial contributes to the location
from a functional or design standpoint. 3. The memorial should be designed by a qualified
professional in the field appropriate to the size, scale, and complexity of the proposal.4. Logos
(symbols or trademarks designed for easy and definite recognition) may not be used in the overall
design concept of the memorial. Logos may not appear on a plaque acknowledging the
memorial’s donors. The acknowledgment plaque should be incidental to the memorial and not the
main focus of the memorial.
Placement Criteria: 1. The location under consideration shall be an appropriate setting for the
memorial; in general, there should be some specific geographic justification for the memorial
being located in the proposed location. 2. It should be considered that a particular location may
reach a saturation point and it would be appropriate to limit future memorial installations at a
particular location or area. 3. The location of the memorial should complement and enhance
existing and proposed circulation and use patterns. 4. The location of the memorial should be
supported by any public art master plan, neighborhood and community plans, area design
guidelines, and the City’s Master Plan Policies.
Definition:
Monuments are large scale and venerated for their enduring historic significance or association
with a notable past person or event.
Packet Pg. 21
Item 1
4
ORGANIZATION
In Review
YEAR ESTABLISHED # OF PUBLIC ART
PROJECTS
CITY OF DAVIS
Cultural Affairs Program
Address:
23 Russell Blvd., Suite 1
Davis, CA 95616
Phone:
530-757-5602
Email:
cmoweb@cityofdavis.org
1. Davis General
Plan
• Section V:
Community
Facilities and
Services Chapter
12: Art and Culture
• May 2001/
Amended Through
January 2007
• 22 Completed Public
Art Projects
• 20 Public Art Projects
on University
• 11 Public Art
Outlying Davis
• No monuments
Policy: No policies or ordinances specifically dealing with the installation of monuments has
been developed. Below are policies that apply to Public Art in the city of Davis, CA.
Policy A&C 1.1 Encourage and promote regional, city-wide and neighborhood arts and cultural
events, activities and educational endeavors.
Policy A&C 1.2 Enhance the viability of Davis' art and cultural community.
Policy A&C 1.3 Integrate publicly-accessible art and creative thinking of artists into the
planning, design and physical development of the City.
Policy A&C 1.4 Enhance, promote and financially support educational opportunities in all the
arts for all members of the community.
Policy A&C 1.5 The City shall encourage the Yolo County to compensate for the increased
demand in library space and materials by using various expansion techniques, including, but not
limited to, book mobiles and satellite facilities.
Criteria: No criteria specifically dealing with the installation of monuments has been developed.
Below are criteria that apply to Public Art in the city of Davis, CA.
• Develop and implement a marketing plan that promotes the arts and art-related businesses
and promotes opportunities for local artists to market their creative efforts in the Davis
community. Update as needed to ensure that evolving needs are met.
• Expand the City of Davis' collection of art in public places, revising parameters as needed
to incorporate new concepts of public art.
Definitions: No definitions specifically outlining the parameters of monuments (or public art)
has been developed.
Packet Pg. 22
Item 1
5
ORGANIZATION
In Review
YEAR ESTABLISHED N/A
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
Sarah York Rubin, Executive Director
Phone: 805.568.3992
Email: sarah@sbac.ca.gov
Address: 3rd Floor Rotunda, Santa Barbara
County Courthouse
Visual Arts in Public Spaces (VAPP)
Public Art Review Guidelines for City of Santa
Barbara
March 25, 2003
Policy: No policy specifically outlining the parameters of monuments has been developed. Below
is the introduction to the City of Santa Barbara’s Public Art Plan.
The City of Santa Barbara is committed to supporting and promoting the arts as an
essential component of the quality of life in our community. To this end, the City Council
established the Arts Advisory Committee by resolution in 1985. The Visual Art in Public
Places Committee (VAPP), a subcommittee of the Arts Advisory Committee, was
established as part of this resolution. All art installations on publicly owned land and,
whether permanent or temporary, must go through the review process described herein.
All public art projects proposed within the City of Santa Barbara must be reviewed and
approved by VAPP. VAPP’s purpose is to make recommendations to the Arts Advisory
Committee, which in turn advises the City Council, concerning the acquisition, placement
and presentation of high-quality visual art on public property throughout the City of Santa
Barbara.
Criteria: Definitions: No criteria specifically outlining the parameters of monuments has been
developed. Below is the introduction to the City of Santa Barbara’s Public Art Plan.
Visual Art in Public Places - VAPP will review the application and evaluate it with attention to
the following:
• 1. artistic merit (inherent quality of the work itself);
• 2. compatibility in scale, material, form and content of the work with the surrounding
area;
• 3. relationship within the City’s collection (which strives for diversity in style, scale,
media and artists); all forms of visual art may be considered;
• 4. structural and surface soundness, including inherent resistance to theft, vandalism,
weathering, excessive maintenance or repair costs, and safety considerations or factors
that may bear on public liability;
• 5. feasibility, professional experience and likelihood of artist’s ability to complete the
proposed work; and
• 6. proposed plan and schedule for short- and long-term maintenance
Definition: No definitions specifically outlining the parameters of monuments has been
developed. Below is the introduction to the City of Santa Barbara’s Public Art Plan.
Packet Pg. 23
Item 1
6
ORGANIZATION
In Review
YEAR ESTABLISHED
2008
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
City of Santa Cruz Memorials on City Property
Beth Tobey
Arts Program Manager
Email: btobey@cityofsantacruz.com
Phone: 831-420-5154
October 28, 2008
Policy:
The purpose of this article is to establish guidelines and procedures to be used when statues,
monuments, plaques or other memorials are erected or installed on City property in remembrance
of a persons or historical event.
Criteria:
1. Permanent statues, monuments, plaques or other memorials may be erected, placed or
installed on City property to honor:
2. Persons or groups that have a long-standing association with the facility or community;
3. Persons or groups for which a facility has been named;
4. A historical event of significance to the facility or community;
5. A person, family, or organization which has contributed significantly to the facility or
community;
6. A person or group which has achieved significant recognition historically on the city,
state, national or international level; or
7. A person or group which has made a significant contribution to the City by:
a) Enhancing the quality of life and well-being of the city
b) Contributing to the historical or cultural preservation of the city
c) Contributing towards the acquisition, development or conveyance of land or
building
d) Making exemplary or meritorious contributions to the City
Definition: No monument definition specified, although the policy does describe monuments
purpose as the remembrance of a person, persons or historical event.
Packet Pg. 24
Item 1
7/16/2019 Item 1 ‐ Staff Presentation
1
Study Session:
Monument Policy
July 16, 2019
Recommendation
Review and discuss research
information developed on monument
policies and provide feedback regarding
next steps.
1
2
7/16/2019 Item 1 ‐ Staff Presentation
2
Vision for 2019-21 MCGs used as a lens
for this research
The City of San Luis Obispo is a
dynamic community embracing its
future while respecting its past with
core values of civility, sustainability,
diversity, inclusivity, regionalism,
partnership, and resiliency.
Background
1. In February 2019, Council directed Staff
to research a potential monument
policy.
2. The City has a Public Art Policy; the
policy does not address monuments.
3. The City’s Public Art Manager and a
Public Policy Master’s Degree Student
conducted research about monument
policies.
3
4
7/16/2019 Item 1 ‐ Staff Presentation
3
Summary of Research Findings
1. Policies define the parameters and
criteria for monuments;
2. Monuments are often
commemorative structures;
3. Monuments often personify history
and are a reflection of values and
culture in a community.
Cities Studied
5
6
7/16/2019 Item 1 ‐ Staff Presentation
4
Five Cities Studied with a
Monument Policy
Auburn Public Art Policy
San Jose Monument Policy
New York
City
City Art, Monuments and
Markers
Washington
D.C.
NCPC, Memorial and
Museum Master Plan
San Antonio Monuments, Memorials
and Plaques Policy
Cities with Monument Policy
In-Review
Cultural Art PlanDavis
Visual Art in Public
Spaces
Santa
Barbara
Memorial PolicySanta Cruz
7
8
7/16/2019 Item 1 ‐ Staff Presentation
5
Definition
of what is a
Monument
Defined Public
Engagement
and
Stakeholder
Identification
Strong
Connection
to the
Community
Common Elements of Policy
Differences
amongst
Local and
National
Cities
Cities define
monuments to
provide parameters
for what may be
celebrated in public
places
Definition of What is a Monument
9
10
7/16/2019 Item 1 ‐ Staff Presentation
6
Monument and Memorial Definition
Monument
mon ꞏuꞏment I noun. A statue, building, or other
structure erected to commemorate a famous, or
notable, person or event.
Memorial
me ꞏmo-riꞏal I noun. Something, especially a
structure, established to remind people of a
person or event.
Strong Community Connection
Why is this important.
1. Past or present relation of monument
subject to community is critical.
2. Lack of relation is often a reason not
to install.
11
12
7/16/2019 Item 1 ‐ Staff Presentation
7
Case Study Santa Cruz
Proposed Policy’s Community
Connections include:
1. Persons or groups that have a
long-standing association with the
community;
2. A historical event of significance to the community;
3. A person, family, or organization which has contributed
significantly to the community;
4. A person or group which has made a significant contribution
to the City.
Public Engagement and
Stakeholder Identification
Public
Engagement.
The process by
which the public
will be engaged.
Stakeholder
Identification.
Identifying
appropriate
stakeholders for
review process.
13
14
7/16/2019 Item 1 ‐ Staff Presentation
8
Public Engagement Process
15
City of San Jose
Monuments on City property. The City intends only to engage
in government speech as legally defined.
City of Auburn
Monuments on City property. The City intends only to engage
in government speech as legally defined.
City of Santa Cruz – In Review
Advisory Body Review and Process
City of Washington D.C. - National
Citizens right to apply for placement of a commemorative
work.
Differences amongst Local and
National Monuments
Eastern cities house monuments that reflect a more
nationalized narrative.
Western cities house monuments that reflect localized
narratives and community values.
16
New York City: 72
Monuments
Washington D.C.:
51 Monuments
City of Auburn:
1 monuments
City of
San Jose:
3 monuments
City of
San Antonio:
5 monuments
15
16
7/16/2019 Item 1 ‐ Staff Presentation
9
Non-National Monument Examples
17
Claude Chana, a prospector who
discovered gold in the Auburn area
leading to the settlement of Auburn.
Thomas Fallon, a military leader who claimed
San Jose for the United States.
The Alamo Cenotaph,
commemorates the
heroes at the Alamo.
San Antonio
San Jose
Auburn
National Monuments Examples
18
New York City and Washington D.C.
17
18
7/16/2019 Item 1 ‐ Staff Presentation
10
Staff Outreach & Public Engagement
for Study Session
Email Correspondence
to Interested Parties
List
Contact Arts Obispo,
Chamber of
Commerce,
Downtown SLO,
CHC, & HRC
News Topic on City
Website
Press Release for
News Item
Post on Public Art
Website
Post on Parks and
Recreation Social
Media Channels
(Facebook, Instagram &
Twitter)
Questions for Discussion
1. Is added information needed?
Does Council feel like it has sufficient
information on Monument policies? If
not, what further research would Council
like?
2. Definitions.
Is there Council consensus on the
definitions used for monument/memorial
here in San Luis Obispo?
3. Maintenance.
Who will maintain a privately funded
monument?
19
20
7/16/2019 Item 1 ‐ Staff Presentation
11
Questions for Discussion
3. Does the Council want a Monument
Policy drafted ?
4. Inclusivity and Diversity.
If the Council does choose to create a
monument policy, how does the Council
want the Vision for Inclusivity and Diversity
analyzed and applied to the monument
policy?
Recommendation
22
Review and discuss research
information developed on monument
policies and provide feedback
regarding next steps.
21
22
7/16/2019 Item 1 ‐ Staff Presentation
12
Questions for Staff?
23