Loading...
02-05-2008 - Formation of Public Arts Commission• • City of West Covina Memorandum TO: Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager AGENDA and City Council ITEM NO. H-1 FROM: Douglas N. McIsaac, Planning Director DATE February 5, 2008 SUBJECT: FORMATION OF PUBLIC ARTS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council select either. Option 1 (leave responsibility for Art in Public Places Program with Planning Commission) or Option 2 (add members to the Planning. Commission to sit as Public Arts Commission) of the four options identified in the stafffreport. DISCUSSION: At the Council meeting of January- 15, 2008; the City Council voted to concur in the request ;of Councihnember Herfert to consider the possibility of forming a Public Arts Commission. This report presents information and options for the Council's consideration. Background In August 2004, the City Council adopted the Art In Public Places (AIPP) Ordinance, which requires most new, development projects to incorporate public artwork into their developments or pay an in -lieu fee to the City to be used for the creation of public art in other locations. Under the AIPP Ordinance, the responsibility for overseeing the City's Art In Public Places Program was granted to the Planning Commission. The City's AIPP Ordinance was developed in a. fashion similar to most typical municipal Art In Public Places programs whereby the responsibility for making recommendations and decisions in the implementation of the program is given to a City board or commission. In West Covina's ordinance, this responsibility was initially granted to the Planning Commission because of connection of public art to land use and development. In other; cities with AIPP programs, the structure of such boards and commissions vary, but most typically it is a board whose focus and emphasis is primarily on the arts and/or cultural'i=affairs. Attachment 1 to this report provides a listing of how other Southern California cities govern their AIPP programs. In the three -plus years since the West Covina AIPP Ordinance was adopted, several steps have been taken to further the implementation of the AIPP program with the involvement of the Planning Commission. These include: March 26, 2007 Toured public art sites in the City of San Diego. May 29,'i2007 Toured public art sites in.the City of Santa Fe Springs. June 12,i2007 Conducted a training workshop with the Planning Commission to gain more knowledge and education on forms of public arts. October,23, 2007 Adopted Art In Public Places program guidelines as required by ordinance. November 27, 2007 Reviewed AIPP Developer Guidelines providing detailed guidelines on how to fulfill AIPP program requirements., December 11, 2007 Reviewed framework for3 to 5-Year Implementation of the AIPP Program i January,22, 2008 Held study session to develop recommendations to City Council for 2008- 09 AIPP Work Program., F Z:\City Council\SFRPTSDM\Public.Arts.Commission.doc Formation of Public Arts Commission February 5. 2008 — Paee 2 Options for Public Arts Commission Listed below are four options for the structure of the oversight body for the City's AIPP program. Pros and cons for each option are also included. Option 1: Leave responsibility with Plannine Commission This would require no action and would continue to have the AIPP oversight functions performed by the Planning Commission as they have been since the program's inception. Pros: This would be the most cost-efficient option as it would simply preserve the status quo and not incur any of the additional costs associated with any of the other options., It would also allow the Planning Commission to continue to utilize and build' upon the training and experience that have already gained in working with staff and- .the : City's public art consultant in developing the AIPP program to ,this point. Cons:. Four of the five current Planning Commissioners are laypeople in the field of art. To the extent that a new or expanded Public Arts Commission or Committee were appointed, an'opportunity would exist to involve persons with more formaltraining and experience in this field. Option 2: Add members to sit with the Planning Commission as the Public Arts Commission Under this option, between two and four persons would be appointed to sit with the existing Planning Commission when AIPP matters were being considered. There could be a requirement or a stated preference that these additional commissioners ,have some experience or background in the arts. When meeting as the Public Arts Commission, the sitting Planning Commission would simply "change hats." Meetings of the Public Arts Commission could be held as needed at a stated time prior to the regular Planning Commission meetings. Pros: This option would allow the current Planning Commission to continue to apply their training and interest to the AIPP program, while also allowing additional Commissioners (possibly with formal background in the arts) to add their perspective and expertise as well. There would be some added cost in training and providing compensation and benefits to new Commissioners, but considerably less than staffing a new and separate Commission or Committee. Cons: Could cause some minor complications in terms of coordinating meetings between the Planning Commission and the Public Arts Commission. With a limited ; number of additional members, a different appointment system would need to be used other than each Councilmember making their own individual appointments. Option 3: Create new separate Public Arts Commission This option would result in the creation of a new and separate Public Arts Commission and transferring the responsibility of overseeing the AIPP oversight from the Planning Commission. Pros: Creates a separate Commission whose sole focus and attention would be on development and implementation of the AIPP program. Also provides the opportunity to appoint persons with formal training and experience in the arts to provide . more professional expertise to the AIPP program. Cons: There would be new added cost associated with this option. Currently :the average formal budget for the City's four standing Commissions is $12,355 per year. This is exclusive of other hard and soft costs associated with added staff support, .preparing minutes and agendas, staff attendance at additional meetings, etc. Z:\City Council\SFRPTSDM\Public.Arts.Commission.doc Formation of Public Arts Commission �Y February 5, 2008 — Page 3 Option 4: Create new separate Public Arts Committee This option would create a separate Public Arts Committee, not Commission. Generally, a committee would .be granted the responsibility to review and make. recommendations regarding AIPP projects and other matters, but not, to make binding decisions. Pros: As opposed to Commissioners, Committee members do not necessarily have to be City residents and could include staff members or art teachers or professionals from outside the City. In addition, the Committee structure is generally less formal than the Commission structure and could save on time and costs to support a full Commission. Cons: As the Committee would only have advisory, and not decision -making powers, the Committee's recommendations would need -to be reviewed and acted upon by the City Councilor possibly the Planning Commission. This would involve some duplication of effort and where the decision -making body disagreed with committee recommendations, more time and complications involve in implementation of the AIPP program. CONCLUSION: In staffs view, either Option 1• or 2 would seem to be most advantageous at this point in the development of the City's AIPP program. The Planning Commission•to date has had the benefit of considerable training and experience in the initial implementation of the AIPP program. In addition, the Planning Commission has ,expressed considerable interest in being involved in the AIPP program and its continuing successful implementation. Option '42 could be aneffective way to both continue building on the Planning Commission's training and involvement, while also including others with an interest and possiblytraining in the field. Options 1 and 2 are also the most cost-efficient of the. four options. rn� yfzev Prepared Douglas N. McIsaac Planning Director Attachment l : 'Table of Local City AIPP Governing Structures ;r Z:\City Council\SFRPTSDM\Public.Arts.Commission.doc ATTACHMENT 1; ART IN PUBLIC PLACES OVERSIGHT STRUCTURE City Board _ No. of Appointment Composition/ Review' Authority Members Qualifications Anaheim Cultural and Heritage 7 Appointed by City Council. Commission Beverly Hills Fine Arts Commission 7 Appointed by City Council Both advisory and decision -making. upon recommendation of City Council subcommittee. Brea Cultural Arts Commission 5 Appointed by City Council. Burbank Art In Public Places Committee 7 Appointed by City Council. 1 member from Planning Dept., 1 member. from . Final decision -making. Committee Parks & Rec. Dept., 5 members at -large. does not rule upon artistic content. Resident appointees typically have a background in the arts. Cerritos Fine Arts and Historical 5 Appointed by City Council. Commission Claremont Architectural Commission 7 Appointed by Mayor with At least one member must be a licensed approval of City Council. architect and at least one member must be a licensed landscape architect. Culver City Cultural Affairs Commission 5 -Attempt to appoint persons with a background or interest in art. Downey Advisory Committee 5 Each councilmember: makes 1 Committee makes recommendations for individual appointment. final action by City Council. Glendale Arts Commission 7 Appointed by.City Council. Commission makes recommendations to City Council for final action. _Huntington Beach Design Review Board, . _. _ 5 Consists of Plammng.Dir., Public Works Dir., 1 Planning Commissioner, and-2 members appointed at -large. • -Board- No. of_.._. Appointment... Composition/. Review Authority. - - Members Qualifications Laguna Beach Arts Commission 7 At least four members must be artists. Commission makes recommendations to City Council for final action. Los Angeles Art Advisory Panels or Project Area Committees Manhattan Beach Cultural Arts Commission 5 At least 1 member must be an artist and at least member must be from business and development community. Norwalk Art In Public Places Committee 10 Committee consists of 1 Planning Commissioner, 1 Parks & Recreation Commissioner, 1 outside art authority, 1 member of business community or community college representative, and 6 residents. .Pasadena Arts & Culture Commission 9 Seven members appointed individually by each of seven councilmembers, two members appointed by Mayor. Santa Fe Springs Heritage Arts Advisory 10 Comprised of staff and residents. Recommendations are subject to Committee approval by City Council. Santa Monica Arts Commission 13 Appointed by City Council. Members must have significant interest in the City, such as residency, business or residential ownership, or economic involvement. West Hollywood Arts and Cultural Affairs 7 Each Councilmember makes 1 individual Commission appointment and 2 members are appointed by the City Council as a whole. Whittier Cultural Arts Commission 7 Appointed by City Council. 0 •