HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/00/1990, - ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL * %tyo CItS-..OfSA i WIS03BISPO
.A
0 Ott t O COUNCIL HEARING ROOM a CITY HALL• 990 PALM STREET 6. SAN LUIS OBISPO
5 **Lead Peu on - Item .to come back .to Counc
is 0�� *Denotes action by Lead Peon
No A6 to izk - Inbonmati.on On.Zy
MR
A G E N D A Aq
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1990 - 4:00 P.N.
COUNCIL HEARING ROOM - CITY HALL s
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Ron Dunin
ROLL CALL: Vice-Mayor Jerry Reiss, Councilmembers Peg Pinard, Penny
Rappa, Bill Roalman and Mayor Ron Dunin
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
(Not to exceed IS minutes)
Immediately prior to scheduled items, members of. the public may address the City
Council on items that DO NOT appear on the printed agenda. Please observe the
time limit of three minutes.' A speaker slip (available in the Foyer) must be
filed with the City Clerk prior to the beginning of the meeting.
As a general rule, action will not be taken on issues not listed on the agenda.
Staff will generally be asked to follow-up on such items. The Council is
interested in hearing from the public regarding issues or concerns of the Pau
community and welcomes your input.
STUDY SESSION
1. PUBLIC ART (JONAS/477 - 1 hr. )
Consideration of policy issues and update on the status of the City-wide
public art program.
RECOMMENDATION: Give direction to staff on key policy issues as outlined in
the attached draft staff renort.
Jonas* FINAL ACTION: . Council gave conceptual 6uppott to AIlteAnati.ve 3 ,fon a 1% aubZi.e
altoc.ation pncgndm excluding Uti?.it;Les Cancta2 Improvement Pno1ec6.
Sta.sb dihected to provide pub.ti.c incenti.veSfA OF CALIFORNIA
C_:jNTY 0,= SA,-j L1gS OSIS?0 ) SS
I
^ariury 'p at I
L•y f:;• am employe
�y a �,:. _^L n t-",8 r;ty Cleric's
Pae 1 of 2 ue rY,;,r,
Page a o L.,_ _ r stall ,rds
front �� he
door of city tiai i
Date
�gn ture
Council Agenda February 5, 1990
COMMUNICATIONS
During the balance of this meeting, any Councilmember or the City Administrative
officer may informally update the City Council of written or oral communications
and ask for comment and/or discussion. State law provides that Council take
action only on such matters which have been noticed at least three days in
advance of the meeting unless special circumstances are found to exist. Formal
action or approval is not preferred and such items should be continued to the
next Regular meeting.
A. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION.
B. ADJOURNMENT.
Page 2 of 2
G,ty /.* CItyi SAn vuis C131s o
p
W 004 t O COUNCIL HEARING ROOM t CITY HALL • 990 PALM STREET t SAN LUIS OBISPO
CA
�,i t s O
A G E N D A PAM'S AGENDA .
DISTRIBUTION LIST (1/11/90)
ADJOURNED REGULAR NESTING OF THE CIT; ' AIA President
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1990 - 4:00 I; ARC (reg.mtgs.: in box)
COUNCIL BEARING ROOM - CITY BA ASI president
BIA (in box)
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Ron Dunin Chamber of Commerce (in box)
Housing, Authority (in box)
KCOY
ROLL CALL: vice-Mayor Jerry Reiss, Council ; KCPR
Rappa, Bill Roalman and Mayor ;- -- ------
KKUS --------
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD % KSBY
(Not to exceed 15 minutes) KVEC
i League of Women Voters
Immediately prior to scheduled items, members of the pj Library (reg.mtgs. : front desk)
Council on items that DO NOT appear on the printed aq-: - ----- --- — ——
time limit of three minutes. A speaker slip (availal Mustang Daily
filed with the City Clerk prior to the beginning of tPlanning Comm* (reg.mtgs: .iu box)
Settle, Allen (until 6/30/90)
As a general rule, action will not be taken on issues Telegram Tribune (in box)
Staff will generally be asked to follow-up on suchPacific Gas & Elect.Co. (reg.mtgs
interested in hearing from the public regarding is-
community and welcomes your input.
STUDY SESSION
1. PUBLIC ART (JONAS/477 - 1 hr. )
Consideration of policy issues and update on the status of the City-wide
public art program.
RECOMMENDATION:
(Report not received by agenda close. To be distributed under
separate cover.)
Page 1 of 2
Council Agenda February 5, 1990
COMMUNICATIONS
During the balance of this meeting, any Councilmember or the City Administrative
Officer may informally update the City Council of written or oral communications
and ask for comment and/or discussion. State law provides that Council take
action only on such matters which have been noticed at least three days in
advance of the meeting unless special circumstances are found to exist. Formal
action or approval is not preferred and such items should be continued to the
next Regular meeting.
A. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION.
B. ADJOURNMENT.
Page 2 of 2
MCUMVEU
/t:SaA _ .
city Of San IUIS OBISPO JAN 3 01990 M22/j's"j�9oTE
EMIL COLMC'L AGENDA RT nW NUMBER:
FROM: old Jonas, Community Development Director; By: Jeff
Hook s ciate Pla er
CT: Study Session on Citywide Public Art Program
CAO ION: Give direction to staff on key policy issues:
1) The overall program concept as outlined in an attached
draft staff report.
2) Should the program include a mandatory "percent for art"
requirement for new construction?
3) If so, should it apply to public projects, private
projects, or both?
4) What percent for public art is appropriate?
5) How should the "percent for art" in city projects be
funded?
BACKGROUND
This study session will update the council on the status of the
public art program, and discuss policy issues which have emerged
in recent months. The ad-hoc citizens' committee on public art
completed their work on the program last summer. The recommended
program and draft council report were tentatively scheduled for
council review in August, but were postponed for further study.
In September, the ad-hoc committee reconvened and discussed ways
to strengthen the program. The committee made the following
changes in the recommended program:
1. Public art contribution for public projects was increased
from 1/2% to 1 1/2%; increasing to 2% in 1992.
2. City should allocate $50K for matching grant funding for
public art every 2-year budget cycle, rather than $10K
per year (up to a maximum of $50K)
3 . Funds included in the program to cover the cost of
additional staff time to administer the program.
The staff report and revised program was then routed to all city
departments for comment, and also scheduled for management team
review. The management team consensus was that while the program
concept was good, its fiscal effects and implementation details
needed further study before the program was ready for final action.
In this report, Finance, Administration and Community Development
u� i��II�II � N city of san tuis oBispo
Morms COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 2
staff have tried to summarize the program's fiscal implications,
and to suggest some alternate implementation strategies. Attached
is a listing of the percent-for-art monies generated by city
capital projects under various scenarios. The original, draft
staff report is also attached to provide council with an overall
discussion of the proposed program.
DISCUSSION
Percent For Art Requirement
A key question throughout committee and staff discussions was
whether a mandatory "percent for art" should be included.
Committee members agreed that the city should take the lead in
promoting public art by enacting a percent for art requirement for
new city projects. To do that, committee members felt strongly
that some mandatory provision was needed -- even if it only applied.
to city projects. They cited the limited amount of public art that
had been installed in recent years under a voluntary approach.
Not all projects are appropriate for public art. The committee
wanted to see public art encouraged in areas with high public
visibility, like downtown, in public facilities, and in tourist-
commercial areas. They also recognized that for some projects
where we might otherwise want public art, it may not be possible
to include artwork on site due to site planning or safety reasons.
In those instances, they suggested that the artwork be: 1) located
offsite but visible from the use, 2) located offsite in a public
facility, 3) met through payment of in-lieu fees into a citywide
matching grant fund.
As noted in the main staff report, cities as diverse as Santa
Barbara, Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles have successful
public art programs with a percent for art requirement. In
contrast, Brea, a small city in Orange County, has a successful
public art program based on an administrative policy of requiring
public art in most new development -- without a specific ordinance
or council resolution to that effect.
Public or Private Development Projects
Committee members did not feel that the time was right to require
public art in private development projects; moreover, the city's
matching grant program would encourage developers to include public
art in their plans, and a mandatory provision might be premature
until the community has had more experience with the program. i
i
During management team discussion, some staff voiced concern about
the equity of mandating public art only for public projects. The
kat
'111111111211 city of san tuis oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 3
minority view seemed to be that if the city required public art,
it should apply equally to both public and private projects.
Alternatives to the committee's recommendation include:
a. Percent for art requirement applies equally to both
public and private projects.
b. Percent for art requirement applies to both public and
private projects, but with different requirements for
each. For example, public art could be required for all
new public buildings, but only for those new private
buildings over a certain size or cost.
C. Percent for art is encouraged but not mandatory for
either public or private projects. (This is the approach
the city has used through architectural review of new
development, with only limited success) .
What Percent is Appropriate
Most public art programs are based on one to two percent of project
construction costs, including land acquisition but excluding so-
called "soft costs" like planning, design, or marketing fees. But
there's no set standard or rule to follow. Use, costs of
construction, property values, and other factors will affect what
"percent" is needed to fund public art. But public art doesn't
have to be expensive. Some of the better examples of public art
are small-scale pieces which are integrated into streetscapes,
landscape planters, or parks.
The ad-hoc committee recommended that the city set its funding goal
at one and one half percent initially, increasing to two percent
in 1992 after an evaluation of the program's effectiveness. In
addition, this report provides alternative levels/approaches to
funding the program. Regardless of the level chosen, staff
recommends that the following guidelines be used in allocating
funds for public art.
1. The percent for art would not apply to most public
utility projects like new sewer or water lines, sewer or
water plants, or other projects with little public
visitation or visibility. Public buildings, parks,
plazas, and street improvements would include public art
unless specifically exempted by council.
2. If the 1 1/2% level is chose, the percent for art should
be graduated, based on project cost as follows:
/-3
city of san Luis osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 4
Project Cost Percent
$5 million or less 1 1/2%
$6-10 million 1%
$10 million or more 1/2%
3. "Project costs" would not include design, operation,
maintenance or other soft costs. The city's project
manager would integrate public art into eligible projects
from the outset of planning and design, using the
percentages above. Provisions for public art would be
included for council review as part of approval of plans
and specifications. Emergency projects, State- or
Federally-funded projects, minor projects (eg. street
repairs or minor building additions) , or city projects
with little or no public use or visibility would be
exempted from the requirement, subject to the council
making special findings.
4. The percent for art would cover design and installation
of the artwork. Maintenance and repair would be budgeted
on an on-going basis.
i
5. The percent for art could apply to some enterprise-
funded projects (e.g. , an administrative building) , as
well as to any debt-financed projects such as the
Performing Arts Center, Civic Center improvements, and
Fire Station No. 1 replacement.
The ad-hoc committee's recommended program, "alternative 1" in the
attached budget scenarios, would generate about $730, 000 worth of
public art in city projects, from FY 1990 to FY 1993 . This figure,
which is not based on the recommended graduated scale, assumes the
following:
-Applies to most above-ground, permanent capital improvements
which involve construction, including utilities, fire and
environmental safety, streets and flood control, parking,
cultural facilities, and parks and recreation;
-1 1/2 percent for art,- based on estimated construction costs
and excluding acquisition, design, and operation costs;
-That all eligible capital projects are actually built during
the budget cycle; and i
l-
city of San Luis osIspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 5
-The engineer's estimated project cost is increased by 1 1/28
to pay for public art.
In essence, this means that for many capital projects in the
current budget, their estimated cost would be revised upward by 1
1/2 percent, and additional funds allocated at the time council
authorizes plans and specifications. It would not require an
immediate, across-the-board budget increase, since it is unlikely
that all capital projects included in the current budget will be
built during this budget cycle. Public art costs would be spread
out over a much longer period than the figures suggest. Cost
estimates for most major city projects typically include a
"contingency" factor of ten percent or more. For these projects,
some or all of the cost of public art might be covered by
contingencies, without increasing the estimated cost of
construction.
Alternatives 2 through 5 in the attached budget scenarios show
lower-cost methods of applying the percent. for art. For example,
alternative 2 exempts public utility projects from providing public
art. This would exclude about $26 million in capital project costs
(most of it in the Sewer Treatment Upgrade project) , and reduce the
1989-93 estimated funding for public art by about $400,000, to
about $329,000. Alternatives 3 and 4 also exclude public
utilities, but use 18 and .758 for allocating public art monies.
These would generate $219, 103 and $164,328, respectively, for the
installation of public art.
Alternatives 5a and 5b show average project costs over the four
year period, using 18 and .758 percent for art. They illustrate
another approach in allocating public art. .Rather than fund
artworks as part of individual capital projects, a flat amount
could be set aside annually for the development of public art in
city projects. A separate reserve fund could be set aside to cover
the estimated cost of public art during the budget period, using
these averages. Monies would then be allocated to projects when.
plans and specifications are approved.
At this time, there is no new source of revenue to pay for the
added cost of public art; therefore, most of the additional costs
would be supported by the General Fund. Overall, the program would
entail an adjustment in budgeting with greater emphasis placed on
public art. Less money would be available for other capital
projects; however the actual budget impact will depend on: 1) the
method used to allocate funds for public art, and 2) the order and
rate with which capital projects are built.
Increased public art funding is expected to have the following
public benefits:
I-S
IIII1111111110011 city of San Luis OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 6
1. Improve the quality, appearance, and public enjoyment of
city facilities;
2. Expand access to the visual arts for city residents and
visitors;
3. Provide indirect economic benefits through increased
tourism and recreational opportunities for citizens;
4. Encourage private sponsorship of the visual arts; and
5. Instill community pride by enhancing San Luis Obispo's
unique visual and cultural character.
Next Step
Following this study session, council's preferred funding option
and any other council direction will be integrated with the
attached draft staff report. Staff will then schedule the
comprehensive Art in Public Places program and transmit the revised
staff report to council for final adoption (attachments 3 and 4) .
i
Attachments':
-Public Art Budget Scenarios
-Capital Improvement Plan: Projects proposed for public art
-Draft Council Report
-Draft Public Art Program
I
C PUBLIC ART BUDGET SCENARIOS
ALTERNATIVES FY1989-90 FY1990-91 FY1991-92 FY1992-93 TOTAL
1
Public Safety 13,000 40,000 3,950,000 0 4,003,000
Public Utilities 26,320,500 117,000 50,000 300,000 26,787,500
Transportation 1,575,300 1,530,000 2,275,000 1,700,000 7,080,300
Leisure, Cultural&Social Services 486,000 136,000 4,930,000 275,000 5,827,000
General Government 0 0 5,000,000 0 5,000,000
Total Construction Cost 28,394,800 1,823,000 16,205,000 2,275,000 48,697,800
1.5%Public Art 425,922 27,345 243,075 34,125 730,467
2 (Excludes Public Utilities)
Total Construction Cost 2,074,300 1,706,000 161155;000 1,975.000 21,910,300
1.5% Public Art 31,115 25,590 242,325 29,825 328,655
3 (Excludes Public Utilities)
Total Construction Cost 2,074,300 1,706,000 16,155,000 1,975,000 21,910,300
1%Public Art 209743 17,060 1611550 19,750 219,103
4 (Excludes Public Utilities)
Total Construction Cost 2,074,300 1,706,000 16,155,000 1,975,000 21,910,300
0.75%Public Art 15,557 12,795 121,163 14,813 164,328
Sa (Excludes Public Utilities)
Total Construction Cast 2,074,300 1,706,000 16,155,000 1,975,000 21,910,300
0.75%Public Art 15,557 129795 121,163 140813 164,328
Average cost of projects for 4 years = 21,910,300/4 = 5,477,575/year
Average 0.75%cost of public art for 4 years = 164,328/4 = 41,082/year
5b (Excludes Public Utilities)
Total Construction Cost 2,074,300 1,706,000 16,155,000 1,975,000 21,910,300
1%Public Art 20,743 17,060 161,550 19,750 219,103
Average cost of projects for 4 years= 21,910,300/4 = 5,477,575/year
Average 1%cost of public an for 4 years = 219,103/4 = 54,776/year
44.0
/-7
i
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROJECT DETAIL AND PHASING - PUBLIC SAFETY
r
1989-90 1990-91 1991.92 1992-93
REQUESTED PROPOSED PROJECTED PROJECTED
POLICE PROTECTION
DENOTES PROJECTS SU&JECT TO PERCENT
Patrol Services FOR ART REQUIRII04T .
Commercial Truck Enforcement
Vehicle - Acquisition "15,000
Training Range
Study 5,000
Design 2,000
ConctrLctinn
13,000
Total Police Protection 35,000
FIRE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
Emergency Response
Fire Station No. I Replacement
Design 400,000
Acquisition 2,500,000
C 2UU firm 2:85®
Training
Regional Training Facility 1-100,000-
Technical
-100.000 Technical Services
Storage Structure at Fire
Station No. 4
Design 5,000
Construction . 40.000
Hazardous Material Equipment
Trailer - Acquisition 30,000
Underground Fuel Tanks
Monitoring & Removal
Acquisition 120.000
Total Fire and
Environmental Safety 2,900,000 195,000 3,950,000 0
TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY $ 299359000 $ 195,000 $ 39950,000 $ 0
l
Phasing - All amounts are for construction unless otherwise indicated.
Si9EaCIP/2PRJDETAL
B-11 �-�
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
�. PROJECT DETAIL AND PHASING - PUBLIC UTILITIES
1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93
REQUESTED PROPOSED PROJECTED PROJECTED
WATER SERVICES (THESE WOULD BE ECNPT UNDER BUDGET SCENARIOS 2-5)
Water Source of Supply
Groundwater Well Development 350.000
Water Treatment
Ozone Pilot Study 120,000
Water Treatment Plant Ubgrade, 440"000.
Reservoir No. 1 Improvements
Design 20,000 20,000
Construction 50.000 300.000
Chlorine Building Equipment
Acquisition 30,000
Water Distribution
Telemetry/Conservation Truck
Acquisition 15,000
Telemetry System
Acquistion 170,000 70,000
Distribution System Improvements 300;000 400,000 500,000 600,000
Maintenance & Inventory System
Acquisition 14.000
Total Water Services 1,425,000 484,000 570,000 920,000
WASTEWATER SERVICES (THESE WOULD BE E8vpr UNDER BUDGET SCENARIOS 2-5)
Wastewater Treatment
Plant Improvements 25.364.000
Maintenance of Major Plant
Equipment
Study 1,500 500
Acquisition 11,000
Construction 75.500 .17.500 24.000
Plant. Maintenance Vehicles
Acquisition 11,000 11,000
Wastewater Collection
Laguna Lake Lift Station
Study 500
Design 1,000
Construction 166.500 117,000
Relief Sewers/Infiltration
and Inflow Reduction 5,200,000 1,110,000 1,860,000 800,000
Replacement of Sewer
Collection Mains 280.000 170.000. 120,000250.000
Total Wastewater Services 31,070,000 1,437,000 2,004,000 1,050,000 \
TOTAL PUBLIC UTILITIES $32,4959000 $1,9219000 $2,574,000 $1,970,000
Phasing - All amounts are for construction unless otherwise indicated.
B-12 /
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROJECT DETAIL AND PHASING - TRANSPORTATION y
1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93
REQUESTED PROPOSED PROJECTED PROJECTED
STREETS AND FLOOD CONTROL
Streets - General
Murray/Broad Street Improvements
Study 10,000
Design 7,000
Const�on 90,000
Other Neighborhood
Traffic Management Improvements
Design 70,000
Construction 100,000 100,000 100,000
DowntoSidewalks & Bulb-Outs 350,000 .350 35.0,000:. 3501000
Freeway Commcrciai Signing �
Bikeway Improvements 20_ 200,000 2.0.0.000
Seasonal Crew Vehicle
Acquisition 12,000
Streets - Pavement
,Street &Reconstruction
Red tt 620,000_ 645.000 675.000 700,000._
Downtown Street Resurfacin250
i sera Widenin-at Marx"Vta 100,000
Intersection Improvements at
Hi¢ueraand Tank Farm Road 100.000
Orcutt Road Widening
Acquisition 100,000
Construction 100.000
Streets - Signals and Lights
Traffic Signal Improvements
Study 11,500
Design 14,200
Construction RS_ 00 95.000 200.000 200.000
t Phasing : All amounts are for construction unless otherwise indicated.
SigExCIP/2PRJCETAL
B-13
CAPITAL IMPROVEME,aT PLAN
PROJECT DETAIL AND PHASING - TRANSPORTATION (continued)
U
1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1.992-93
REQUESTED PROPOSED PROJECTED PROJECTED
Flood Control
Minor Storm Drain Improvements 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Seasonal Crew Vehicle
Acquisition 13,000
Elks Lane Bridge
Study 5,000
Design 24,000
Construction 450-000
Creek Improvements at Old
Garden and Center Street 25.000
Total Streets and Flood Control 1,827,000 1,540,000 2,275,000 1,700,000
PARKING
Land Acquisition for Parking
Garage No. 3 10,000 1,000,000 50,000
Parkins Lot No. 2 Reconstruction 55.000
Total Parking 65,000 1,000,000 50,000 0
TOTAL TRANSPORTATION $ 118929000 S 29540,000 $ 2,325,000 $1,7009000
�J
7 j
Phasing - All amounts are for construction unless otherwise indicated.
SigExCIP/2PRAETAL
B-14
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN -
PROJECT DETAIL AND PHASING - LEISURE, CULTURAL; AND SOCIAL SERVICES -�
1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93
REQUESTED PROPOSED PROJECTED PROJECTED
PARKS AND RECREATION
Recreation
Administrative Offices
Design 50,000
Construction 650.000
Community Recreation Center
Study 50,000
Senior Citizen Center Furnishings
Acquisition 12,000
Aquatics & Swim Center
Tot Pool Dressing Rooms
Design 2,000
Construction 28.000
Swimming Pool Shell Repair 50.000
Swim Center Bank Stabilization
Design 3,000
Construction 27,000
Multi-Purpose Room Improvements
Design 13,000
Acquisition 23,000
ronc� tri 49.000
Parks and Landscape
Laguna Lake Master Plan
Study 50,000
Rodrigues Adobe Restoration 25,000
Parks Irrigation Telemetry
Design 10,000 10,000
Construction 30,000 100,000
Parks Restroom Renovation 15,000
Johnson Park Irrigation
Design 3,000
Construction 49,000
Sinsheimer Park Tennis Court
Resurf cing 22.000
Sinsheimer Park Tennis Court
Lights
Design 5,000
Construction 50.000
Sinsheimer Park - Phase VII
Design 10,000
Construction 200.000
Minor Park Improvements !00.000
Sinsheimer Stadium Drainage 16.000
Phasing - All amounts are for construction unless otherwise indicated.
Si9ExCIP/ZPRJ0ETAL
B-15
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROJECT DETAIL AND PHASING - LEISURE, CULTURAL, AND SOCIAL SERVICES
1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93
REQUESTED PROPOSED PROJECTED PROJECTED
Parks and Landscape (continued)
Meadow Park Turf Extension 18,000
Storage Buildings
Design 2,000
Construction 24.000
Santa Rosa Field Restroom
Design 5,000
Construction 48,000 .
CL Smith Joint Use Fields 24,000
Islay Hill Park - Phase I 200.000
French-Park Development 120.000 65000
Playground Improvements
Design 7,000
Cnn¢true-tine_ 100 000
Memorial Grove
Design 2,000
Construction 8.000 10,000
Open Space/Parkland Acquisition 300,000 300,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
�\ Golf Course
Bridge 24,000
Utility Tractor - Acquisition 20,000
Mower - Acquisition 16,000
Water Tank - Acquisition 50.000
Total Parks and Recreation 1,228,000 459,000 2,212,000 1,309,000
CULTURAL FACILITIES
Performing Arts Centers
Downtown - Fremont Theatre
Study 50,000
Acquisition 1,300,000
Design 100,000
Construction 1,000,000
Cal-Polv Auditrum 2.890.000
1� Firefighter Monument 80.000 _�
Total Cultural Facilities 1,530,000 0 3,890,000 0
TOTAL LEISURE, CULTURAL_,
AND SOCIAL SERVICES S 297589000 S 459,000 S 69102,000 S 1,3091000
Phasing = All amounts arefor construction unless otherwise indicated.
SisExeIP/2PRJDETAL
B-16
HS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROJECT DETAIL AND PHASING - GENERAL GOVERNMENT
1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93
REQUESTED PROPOSED PROJECTED PROJECTED
BUILDINGS
City Hall Systems Furniture
Acquisition 85,000
Civic Center Improvements
Design 250,000 .
Acquisition 600,000
Construction5.00,E 0.0_
Corporation Yard Expansion
Design 200,000
Corporation Yard Trash Transfer &
Drainage Improvements 50,000
Corporation Yard Bulk Storage &
Composting Area - 30.000 12
TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT $ 415,000 S 120,000 S 5,600,000 S 200,000
Phasing • All amounts are for construction unless otherwise indicated.
SigEXCIP/2PUDETAL
B-17
- MEETING DATE.
^����1i1111 city of San tuffs OBISPO C) �A -.T
RBN NUMBER:
= I COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FROM: Randy Rossi, Interim Community Development Director; By: Jeff Ho ?K—
SUBJECT. New Citywide Public Art Program
CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution approving the public art program.
DISCUSSION
As one of its 1987-89 budget objectives, councilmembers asked staff to work with the
Planning Commission, Architectural Review Commission, Promotional Coordinating Committee,
and with community members to develop a public art program, including guidelines for
matching grant funding. A 10-member ad hoc committee was formed, composed of two members
from each commission, one San Luis Obispo County Arts Council representative, and three
citizens. The committee developed the program during a series of meetings held between
April '88 and September '89. City commissions have held several public hearings to
review the draft 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).
The new program would establish: (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. Under the committee's recommendation,
the city's role in reviewing and supporting public art would be expanded, and the Arts
Council would play a key role in reviewing art projects, and acting as a liaison between
the city, developers, and the 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.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The public art program is currently funded for $58,500:
Matching Grant Funds, FY 1989-92 $50,000
Maintainance of public art 5,000
Public brochure on program 3.500
$58,500
As proposed, the program would increase the cost of city projects by 1 1/2 percent,
increasing to 2 percent in 1992 with council approval. This would raise about $719,000
for public art if all planned projects were built during the period covered by the
current Capital Improvement Plan. To administer the new program, additional funding is
requested for a part-time staff person. Estimated cost for the additional staffing
$15,000 annually.
CONSEQUENCE OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION
The City is not required to adopt this program, nor is there a specific deadline for its
adoption. If this program isn't adopted, public art may still be developed; however, its
review and approval would continue to be unwieldy and unnecessarily complex. 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.
���m�► �Nlllil� city of san tins osispo
MoZe COUNCIL ADEN®A REPOFM
Staff Report
Page 2
ADVISORY BODY COMMENTS
Architectural Review Commission
At its June 19th meeting, the Architectural Review Commission strongly supported the
program, and emphasized the importance of early public review. Commissioners recognized
the need for 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 Response: 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 public
artworks; however, the final decision would be made by the ARC or, if public funding were
involved, the City Council. There would be ample opportunity for early public review and
comment.
Promotional Coordinating Committee
At its July 6th meeting, the committee expressed general support for the public arts
program, but recommended several changes or clarifications and continued the item to its
August 9th meeting. Subsequently, the program was amended to address PCC concerns with
possible conflicts with the existing Grants-in-Aid program, and the committee supports
the program as recommended. Concerns expressed by committeemembers were:
i
1. Performing arts should not be eligible for Public Art matching grant funding since
a separate, PCC-administered grants-in-aid program already covers performing arts.
2. Does the State of California have its own approval criteria, and if so, how do the
proposed criteria compare?
3. No developer incentives, such as density bonuses, height exceptions, or open space
credits should be granted to encouraging public art.
i
I
4. The program may treat new and existing developments differently.
I
5. The PCC is not comfortable with emphasis being placed on local artists.
Developers should be free to seek works by out-of-area artists.
6. The public arts flow chart is hard to understand and seems inconsistent with the
text.
Staff Response:
1. The program emphasizes permanent or temporary, physical artworks -- not performing
arts. Nevertheless. Ad Hoc committeemembers felt that it is difficult to rigidly
categorize visual art, and wanted to include one-of-a-kind, special performing art
events as eligible for matching grant funding. These could be distinguished from
other types of performing arts by requiring that these special events be free of l
charge, one-time-only events, and not receiving any other PCC funding.
�,��»,ivl�lllltipp �l city of san tuns 08Ispo
COUNCIL. AGENOA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 3
2. The California Arts Council does have criteria which vary from year to year.
Their funding efforts are focused on art and public buildings. The city's
recommended grant criteria aren't patterned after, but are generally consistent
with the CAC's grant criteria.
3. Removing obstacles, rather than granting land use incentives, was the Ad Hoc j
Committee's main objective. They realized that incentives would need careful
crafting and review, and sought only to raise the issue, not necessarily resolve
it at this time.
4. Both new and existing development are eligible to receive matching grant funding.
The program particularly encourages, but does not mandate, public art in new
development projects. Typically, public art to be developed with a new office.'
for example, would be reviewed by the ARC concurrently with the project.
5. Ad Hoc Committeemembers and staff felt strongly that, all other things being
equal, the city should give preference to local artists and sponsors in awarding
matching grants. The origin of the artist or sponsor would not be a factor in
reviewing public art which did WL involve city funding.
6. The flow chart. Exhibit "B", has been revised to clarify the review process.
Planning Commission
At its July 12th meeting, Planning Commissioners discussed public art, and voiced
general support for the program, while differing on program specifics. Following is a
summary of their comments:
1. The role of the SLO Arts Council needs to be clarified; and close coordination
between the City Council, staff, and the Arts Council was needed for their "peer
review" role to be effective.
i
2. Performing arts may not be appropriate for public art matching grant program
(Commission opinion seemed split on this issue.)
3. Some commissioners questioned the purpose or validity of the "underserved
audience" statement under Goal #4.
4. The public art guidelines might define art too narrowly, thus encouraging banal or
bland artwork.
5. The review process should be further streamlined to encourage public art; possibly
deleting the ARC from the process and limiting the review to jurying by a
subcommittee of the Arts Council (commissioners also seemed split on this issue).
6. Density bonuses, height or open space exceptions in return for public art were
probably not appropriate, but further study was warranted,
C
��� � ►i�BIIIR�P II MY Of San WIS OBISPO
111011 1 COUNCIL ADENOA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 4
Staff Response:
1. The SLO Arts Council's recommended role is discussed below. Committee members
felt that the Arts Council's assistance in reviewing public art would improve the
quality and objectivity of review, and be consistent with its designated role as
the liaison between artists, public agencies, and citizens. However, they agreed
that the final decision on public art, like other development projects and land
use entitlements, should be made by a public agency and with citizen input.
.1. When most people think of "public art", they're thinking of two- or
three-dimensioned "visual art in public places": sculptures, murals, landscape
art, and similar permanent and temporary artworks. Historically, this type of
public art has not had the same depth or range of funding that the performing arts
have had. Although performing arts that meet the criteria would be eligible for
matching grant funding, most grant funding would probably involve visual art
projects.
3. A key role of public art is to enrich the cultured opportunities of all citizens,
not just those who can afford it. The "underserved audiences" goal is an
outgrowth of that philosophy, and is similar to goals found in Seattle's and Santa
Barbara's highly successful public art programs.
4. Committeemembers acknowledged that public art is often controversial, and felt
that art should not be designed or selected to avoid controversy. Nevertheless,
staff and committeemembers felt that public art should make citizens feel good
about themselves and the community. The criteria were crafted to include a wide
range of artwork, including pieces that might be thought-provoking, contemporary,
or controversial.
5. The recommended program tries to balance the need for public input with the desire
to streamline the review process. For small public art projects, a "minor or
incidental" review process could be used, significantly reducing processing time.
Most other public art projects would be reviewed only by the ARC, with Arts
Council input. This is a major streamlining from the previous process which
required at least four review steps for all public art projects.
6. More study is needed to determine if such incentives are feasible. If the council
feels the idea has merit, it should direct staff to return to the Planning
Commission and council with specifics at some future date.
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.
Z. 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. p
1111aligmig city of San Luis OBISpo C
ME COUNCIL. AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 5
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 1/2 percent would increase to 2 percent in 1992. Private
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.
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.
DISCUSSION
Purpose of Public Arts Program
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 cultural 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
suggests 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
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, 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.
City Of San-lues OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 6
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.
Many cities now require public art as part of new public and private development
projects. While.program specifics vary, these seem to be common elements in many other
cities:
1. Adoption of a formal resolution or ordinance establishing an Arts in Public Places
program;
2. Designation of a committee or lead agency to review artworks and administer the
arts programs;
3. Establishing policies and procedures for public art;
4. Require inclusion of public art in new development as a condition of permit
approval. In some cases, a fixed percentage of project costs must be earmarked _
for public art. In others, the amount is left to the discretion of the developer
subject to approval of the artwork by a citizen committee or by a planning \�w
director.
5. Amendment of zoning ordinances and other development standards to remove statutory
barriers to public art and provide incentives.
6. Publicizing the community's public art program through self-guided tour brochures,
educational programs, publicity, special events, and displays.
The proposed program for San Luis Obispo includes all of the above elements except #4,
the mandatory percent-for-art provision. Although the committee did not support a
percent-for-art program at this time, members felt that it was an option the city may
want to reconsider at its next public art program evaluation, possibly in two or three
years.
General Plan Policies
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 architectural, landscape, infrastructure
(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. j,�
,1191101111§ city of san tuffs oBispo
Mi6 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 7
Current Status of Public Art
Until 1985, the city had no formal program for public art, although some art projects had
been completed largely through private efforts. In 1985, the City Council took the first
step toward creating of a public art program when it adopted Resolution No. 5645,
encouraging public art in development projects and recognizing the SLO Arts Council as
the lead agency for promoting and administering public art in the city (Resolution
attached, Exhibit "B"). Councilmembers considered, but opted not to adopt a
percent-for-art program. They wanted to reevaluate the program in three years and gauge
its effects before taking more specific action. Since then, one public artwork has been
completed, and council began the current program planning.
.In 1987, council approved interim guidelines for public art. The city had received
proposals for two new public art projects at Railroad Square and Mission Plaza -- and
councilmembers wanted criteria to evaluate these and other future art projects.
As a 1987-89 budget objective, council also directed staff to work with the Promotional
Coordinating Committee, Architectural Review Committee, and the Planning Commission to:
(1) establish guidelines for matching grant funding for public art, and (2) Encourage
physical improvements that enhance the cultural life of residents and promote tourism.
Importantly, councilmembers set aside a seed fund of $10,000 in matching grant monies.
As yet, the matching grant has not been used.
Since the 1970's, several public artworks have been installed, and have been well
received. These include the hanging metal "fish" sculpture over San Luis Obispo Creek, a
"bas-relief" on the walls of Johnson's for Children, a mural a Creekside Toys in Mission
Plaza, "mother and child" in front of Home Savings, and the metal figure on the creekside
of the Arts Museum. More recently, Mission Plaza's "Bear and Child" sculpture by Paula
Zima was installed using private funds, with city assistance.
The Arts Council has selected an artist and a specific design for the Osos Street
turnaround in Railroad Square. However, lack of funding has stalled the project. Public
art was to be included in two public projects: the Palm Street parking structure and the
City-County Library. However, limited funds and staff time have postponed its
installation. Construction of a second parking structure is also slated to include
public art.
Background on Public Art Review Procedures
Designing a review process was probably the most challenging task. Committee members
grappled with two potentially conflicting needs: (1) to meaningfully involve the
community in the review and selection of artworks, and (2) to protect the integrity and
creative freedom of the artist and sponsor. Exhibit "A" shows the committee's
recommended review process. The review process is a balancing act, and facilitates
communication between the artist and the community. In that sense, lively debate,
controversy and criticism should be allowed, even encouraged, early in the process, and
not wait until an artwork is installed.
Nevertheless, committeemembers felt strongly that art designed by committee was not art
at all, and would not produce the high quality, innovative public art the community
deserved. Artists must be sensitive to the community's values going into the process,
and anticipate city concerns based on the adopted guidelines. Early and close
coordination between the art sponsor, Arts Council, and city staff will be essential. /� A/
city o f san tins oB1spo
j
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 8
SLO Arts Council Role
When the city received a public art proposal, the proposal would be routed to the Arts
Council for comments and a recommendation. A standing subcommittee of the Arts Council,
composed of appointed members of the art community, one ARC member, and one member of
city staff (as a non-voting participant) would evaluate the technical and artistic merit
of the artwork and forward its recommendation to the ARC. This review step would
normally take about four to six weeks -- about the time it normally takes for an item to
go to the ARC. Consequently, it should not significantly increase processing time.
For simple, small-scale, and most temporary public art, "minor or incidental"
architectural review would normally be followed. With this approach, artwork would be
submitted for Community Development Director approval. Such proposals would 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 it to the commission.
The Arts Council supports this approach, and believes that their current staff and budget
are adequate to cover this new role without additional funding from the city. Depending
on the number of public art proposals received and the Art Council's time commitment,
some city funding for staff time or printing costs may be appropriate in the future.
This would be considered when the council reviews the program in one to two years.
1
The committee based the recommended review process on three principles:
1. Public art review should involve the city's existing development review process,
without creating a new review committee or process.
2. ARC would evaluate public art for basic compliance with the guidelines, with
technical evaluation and a recommendation from the SLO Arts Council. The
commission would make a recommendation to the City Council, who would take final
action on public art proposals.
3. If public parks were involved, the Parks and Recreation Commission would review
the artwork and forward its recommendation to the council. If matching monies
were requested, the Promotional Coordinating Committee would review the proposal
and make a recommendation to the council.
The most direct art review route -- staff/SLO Arts Council/ARC -- would normally take
about 8 to 10 weeks. Minor or incidental review would take must less -- about 10 to 14
days. Committee members felt that the success of the process depended on reasonable
interpretation of the public art guidelines, and avoiding the tendency to focus on minor
details and rigid interpretation of personal style or taste. In the committee's view,
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 th 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.
A �l city of San LUIS OBISpo
ONIGe COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT'
Staff Report
Page 9
What Type of Public Art is Appropriate
Controversy and public art sometimes seem to go together. For example, Richard Serra's
"Tilted Arc" case in Manhattan (see attached article by Gibson) underscores the need for
communities to play more than just a passive role as the recipients of art. 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 get community support.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt the resolution approving the public art program, with or without changes.
In developing the program, committeemembers and staff discussed several alternatives.
Some of the possible changes or alternatives are discussed below:
A. Require public art in all new private development projects at the 1 1/2 percent
rate in 1989 - 1991, increasing to 2 percent in 1992. Exempt individually built
homes, apartments and condominiums under 10 units, and affordable housing.
Committemembers felt it would be premature to require a percent for art for
private development, and felt that voluntary compliance with strong city
leadership may be more effective at this time.
B. Further shorten the review process by eliminating City Council review of matching
grant requests for public art. Such requests could be administered by the
Promotional Coordinating Committee, and reviewed by council only on appeal. i
I
C. Do not hire additional staff, and contract with the SLO Arts Council or an outside
consultant to administer the city's public art program. Staff has not explored
this alternative in depth. Committeemembers felt that for the program to be
effective, program management should remain in-house, and staff responsibility
clearly assigned.
Administration of the program would require approximately 20 hours per week.
Given the large number of projects in .the current Community Development
workprogram, additional staffing would be required, or other departments may need
to assume lead responsibility to effectively administer the program.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the draft resolution to establish a citywide program for public art.
i-a3
DRAFT n
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 excellence and originality in 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
underserved audiences, such as children, low-income families, senior citizens, and disabled
persons.
S. 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. Support visual arts in public places by jointly sponsoring special events, programs,
festivals, exhibits, competitions, and similar activities with other non-profit agencies,
organizations, and individuals.
4. Develop and implement, in conjunction with San Luis Obispo County Arts Council,
administrative policies for public art acquisition, administration, funding, and long-range
planning.
5. 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".
.� A%�
Program
Page 2
6. Develop and implement a Visual Arts Education program in cooperation with countywide arts
interests and local school districts.
7. 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. I,a,,,J
8. Include public art in new capital projects such as parks, city buildings, public plazas, an r 5 �
major street projects; and allocate at least 1 1/2 percent of total capital construction SA
costs for the installation of public art, increasing to 2 percent in 1.992 with council Ai W<
approval.
9. Promote the development of temporary public art, including performance, concerts, exhibits,
and non-traditional art forms in the downtown. Madonna/Central Coast Plazas, and at
University Square Shopping Center.
II. GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC ART
Art eludes precise definition or regulation. Art in a 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 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, land 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.
Program
Page 3
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, and shall be installed by persons
with the necessary technical experience and knowledge.
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. The
current funding level is $50,000 for 1989-91. 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. Applicant has demonstrated sufficient managerial and fiscal competence 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. 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 be publicly owned.
IV. PUBLIC ART REVIEW PROCESS
Public art projects shall be reviewed according to 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.
Program
C
Page 4
V. INCENTIVES FOR PUBLIC ART
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 cycl
to the next.
3. Consider allowing density bonuses or height exceptions to. projects which include public art
tied to open space at ¢ro nd level. For example, a project which included a sculpture and
mini-plaza might receive height or coverage exceptions to allow additional floor area
comparable to the area devoted to public art.
4. Work with the county and state to explore the possible tax incentives for public art.
5. Exempt short-term public art, such as exhibits and performances, from "Temporary Uses"
permit requirements, so that performances, exhibits, displays, etc. don't require public
hearings (Director's written approval, with the option of referral to administrative hearing
or Planning Commission may be adequate).
6. Revise setback regulations (Section 17.16.020) to allow public art within setback areas,
with provision allowing director discretion to require use permits for large artworks, or
for those whose placement may have solar, traffic, or environmental impacts.
C7. Clarify sign regulations vis-a-vis public art.
S. Minimize public review time by waiving construction permit requirements 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.
9. Consider allowing public art to meet a portion of the total required common open space in
condominium projects.
10. 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 chronological order of implementation:
1. Establish Administrative Procedures - In addition to public art policies established by
the City Council, committee members felt that administrative procedures were needed to
support the overall goals of the program. These would be developed by city staff in
conjunction with SLO Arts Council, and would include: artist selection procedures, community
involvement, interagency cooperation, contract preparation, art collection management
guidelines, insurance and liability, and conflict resolution.
J2. Artist Involvement - Since the ARC would review public art projects, committee members
suggested that at least one member of the ARC be an artist. This would assist commissioners
in understanding art issues, and provide the technical expertise to understand public art
materials, techniques, and design implementation.
-� 7
Program
Page 5
3. Public Art Brochure - To assist community groups, developers, and citizens, the city
should 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 availabl
through the Arts Council, and at the public permit counter in City Hall and at 955 Morro
Street.
4. Education Program - The success of public art is measured largely by the community's
understanding of and appreciation for this art form as a cultural resource. To assist in
this effort, the city should help sponsor an "Arts in the Classroom" program highlighting
public art in elementary school classes. This program might also include occasional
articles on public art in the SLO Newsletter which is sent to all citizens.
5. Program Evaluation The public art program should be evaluated on a regular basis,
perhaps in conjunction with the city's budget cycle every two years. Such evaluation would
be prepared by staff, with the assistance of SLO Arts Council and other interested parties..
The written evaluation would describe the status of public art projects, trouble shoot
policies and procedures, and suggest changes to the program as appropriate.
40�
jhpa/pub-art
- r
PUBLIC ART REVIEW PROCESS
SUBMIT
APPLICATION
IF MINOR OR TEMPORARYARTWORK
MINOR OR STAFF
INCIDENTAL EVALUATION
REVIEW
NOT MINOR OR TEMPORARY
ROUTING
IF IN CITYPARK f IF MATCHING GRANTFUNDING REQUESTED
PARKS & SLO ARTS PROMOTIONAL
RECREATION COUNCIL COORDINATING
COMMITTEE COMMITTEE
r
PREPARE
STAFF REPORT
ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW
COMMISSION IF MATCHING GRANT FUNDING REQUESTED
PERMIT CITY
COUNCIL
INSTALL EXHIBIT B
J * Pueuc ARTWORK
HEARING ! "eD