SR-303-013~~ t
~
DL:mpr
Council Meeting: 12/10/85
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staf~
~ //-~
DEC ~. Q 1985
3t~3~~~3 o~e~7~
Santa Monica, Cali~ornia
SUBJECT: Recammendatians Related to the Creation, Siting, and
Funding of a Natural Elements Sculpture (NES) Park
along the Santa Monica Beachfront.
Zntroductian
This repart provides Counci~ with the history of the NES Park
concept, the steps which ha~e been taken to date to seek
proposals from interested artists, and the extent to which
mem}~ers of the public have beEn involved in seZecting and ranking
tha proposals. The report also describes techna.cal concerns
which memlaers o~ City staff have expressed regarding the project
and the changes which have been made ta the pieces ~n response.
Additionally, the results of recently held joint public meetings
af the NES Park project are described which invalved members of
the Arts and Recreation and Parks Commissions. Lastly, the
recommendations regarding siting and funding o~ the project are
provided from each commission and from a jaint subcommittee of
the two commissions for Counci~.'s consideration. This report
recammends that Council apprave the NES Park concept, choose the
option regarding siting and fundinq developed by a subcammittee
of the Arts Commission and the Recreation and Parks Commission,
authorize sta~f to submit an application for a coastal permit far
- 1 -
~~'~
DEC ~ D 1~
DEC ~ 7 i~85
} ' ~ ~
, ~~ ~
the seZected artwQrks and an application far an NEA grant for the
proj ect.
Background
A. NES Park Concept
The Arts Com~ission in 2983 proposed a Natura7. EZements
Sculpture Park along the thrae-mile str~tch of beach in Santa
Monica. NES Park, the only permanent sculpture park ever
proposed for a beach, would present outdoor beach sculpture
that deals saith sand, wind, s~n, 3ight, the horizon l~ne, the
ocean's force, and the solstice as integral parts af the
beach. Understanding that mi~lions of people visit Santa
Monica's beaches each year, the Arts Commission believed that
their experience could be enhanced by elamental scu3.pture on
the sand. Nat only would individuals' perceptians increase
thraugh their experience with cantemporary art, but the
cammunity would gain both esthetically and financial~y as NES
Park would become an internationaily known attraction. The
concept of NES Park would be unique in that it would
integrate contemporary art, the beach environment, and the
human element. In designing thase sculptures, artists would
take into consideration that the works must be safe,
touchab].e, climbable, and not interfere with the view of the
ocean or the use of the beach.
B. Selection Process
1. Invitational Competition
- 2 -
F ~ ^ ~
~ ~
A common method of selecting artwork, utilized by
government agencies and arts organizations (such as the
Seattle Arts Commissa.on and the Los Angeles County
Museum af Art), is an invitational competitian. Using
this process, in early 1984 the Arts Caminission invited
29 prominent and community artists to submit prapasals
for NES Park. The artists were as fOIIaWB:
Lita Albuquerque, Los Angeles
Larry Bell, Taos, New Mexico
Beverly Buchanan, Macan, Georgia
Carl Cheng, Santa Manica
Houston Canraell, New York~ New York
Sauren Crow, Los Angeles
Fred Eversly, Venice
Gearge Geyer, Los Angeles
Mineka Grimmer, Los Angeles
Lloyd Hamrol, Venice
Maren Hassinger, Los Anqeles
Helen and N~wton Harrison, Dei Mar
Jonathan Hirschfeld, Venice
Doug~as Hollis, San Francisca
Nancy Holt, New York, New York
Robert Irwin, Los Ange~es
Tom Jenkins, Santa Man~ca
' Michael McMillan, Santa Monica
Maria Nordman, Santa Monica
Eric Orr, Venice
Pat Patterson, New York, New York
Michelle Stuart, New York, New York
Allan Sonfist, New York New York
James Turrel, F~agstaff, Ariz~na
Susan Vagel, Weavervilie
Connie Zehr, Fu~lerton
Elyn Zimmerman, New York, New York
2. Exhibitians
From these proposals ten artists were invited to build
maquettes, or ~odels, of their ideas. These models
were initially exhibited in tha lobby of City Hall
during May and June, 1984. Because af pu}~lic interest
- 3 -
r • ~ ~
in the exhibition, it was moved to the San~a Manica
Public Library and extended from June through November,
1984. Also, two of the maquettes were l~aned to art
galleries for exhibitions.
3. Catalogue
For educational and fundraising purposes, the Arts
Cammissian printed a catalogue which describes the NES
Park praject in detail. (Attachment A)
4. Cammunity Input
During the City Hall and Main Library exhibitions, the
public was requested ta express its opinion on the
cancept of NES Park and the ten maquett~s through a
questionnaire of survey sheets. The response to this
infarmal po~l was good. Ot the 326 responses recei~ed
during these exhibitions, the proposals ranked highest
by the public were those by Carl Cheng, Dauglas Hollis,
and Nancy Ho].t.
In adda.tion ta the public opinion survey, th~ Arts
Commissxon has given the following series of
presentations about NES Park to City StaFf, City Boards
and Commissions, and community groups:
a. City Staff - November 8, 1983
b. Planning Commission - June 4, Z984
c. Architectural Review Board - June 6, 1984
- 4 -
, .
~ ~
d. Recreatian and Parks Commission - January 5, 1984
e. Church in acean Park - May 20, 1984
f. Santa Monica Arts Foundation - January 5, 1984,
June 19, 1984, January 24, 1985
In addition, press releases describing NES Park were
sent to all local media and were published in
periodicals such as the Santa Monica Evening Outlook,
the Los Angeles Times, and Artweek.
Based on the community input it received, the Arts
Commissian voted, at a.ts meeting on January 21, 1985,
ta praceed with the NES Park proposals from Car1 Cheng,
Dauglas Hollis, and Nancy Holt.
C. Technical Look Conunittee
These three proposals were reviewed by the City's Technical
Look Committee (TLC), camposed of representatives of
virtually al]. City departments, at its meeting an February
13, 198~. The TLC had the following comments regarding all
three propasals:
l. Permits from CoastaZ Commissi~n wi~.l be ne~ded ta
install these artworks on the beach.
2. The extreme sauth and of the beach is the least used
portion ot the beach. Therefore, siting the artworks
-- 5 -
r ~ ~
~
in this area af the beach (as opposed to other areas)
poses a~esser problem for beach maintenance.
3. However, vandalism is a problem in a~l areas of the
beach. All materials usad for these artworks must be
very durable.
The TLC raised the following specific issues concerning Cari
Ch~ng ~ s ~lArt Tool" :
l. A limited schedule for the use of beach maintenance
vehicles to pull the roller will need to be arranged
with the Recreation and Parks Department at the time
the roller is compZeted.
2. When not in use, the rolZer could be observed by the
public as it could be lock~d and displayed on the
beach. Or~ it could be moved to the Beach Maintenance
Yard, north flf the Santa Monica Pier~ for safe starage.
The TLC raisad the following specific issues cancerning
Douglas Hol~is' "Beach Chairs":
1. The chairs, as designed, are far too fragile for
installatian on the beach. The ateei tubing in the
chairs would need to be doubled in size. The artist
has agreed with this suggestion and wil~ need to
- 6 -
r ! ~
~
redesign the chairs accordingly.
2. The heigth of tha chairs exceeds the height limitation
of 13'6" for structures at the highest grade l~ve~ of
the beach, as mandated in the Ocean Park Beach Plan. A
waiver af this limitation wi11 need to be made as part
of the Cflastal permit application.
The TLC raised the following specific issues concerning Nancy
Holt's ~~Solar Web" :
1. As the artwork will also be functianing as jungle-gym
equipment, it must be made sa~e as playgrou.nd
equipment. All its corners and edges naed to be
rounded, and the concrete circle needs to be covered
with a hard rubber s~rface. The artist has agreed ta
incZude both these safety measures.
2. Again, this proposal exceeds the height limitation for
the beach and its Coasta~ permit application wauld need
to request a waiver.
D. Description of Artwarks (Attachment B)
As a res~].t of the revisw of the Technical Look Commi.ttee and
the changes that were recommended, the fallowing is a
description of each of three proposals for NES Park:
_ ~ .~
~ .
1.
~ ~
Praposal: "Art Tao1", by Car~ Cheng
Dascription: This sculpture consists of a large
water-fiZled aluminum roller whose
surface indentatians would print
miniature houses, streets, cars,
gardens, and high-rises on the sand.
City-scapes would be created by
pulling it along tha beach using beach
maintenance equipment. When not in
use, the roller would be locked and
e~ibited on the beach or stored in
the beach maintenance yard.
2.
Specifications: The roller wauld be available to roll
over the entire beach.
Total Cost: $60,000 (Some of this may be possible
as in-kind cantributions
Proposal: "Beach Chairs", ]ay Douglas Hollis
Description: One group of chairs, which respond
sonically to the wind, with pipe organ
sounds, would be placed on the sand.
Size: The chairs would be approximateZy ].8
feet in height.
Specifications: The Chairs would be constructed of
~tain].ess steel tubing and fiber-
reinforced cancrete.
Location: The artist's preference for siting the
- 8 -
, _
~ ~
chairs is in an area between the Pier
and the foot of Pico Boulevard.
Total Cost: $17,000 (~ group of 2 Chairs)
3. Proposal: "Solar Web'~, by Nancy Holt
Description; The sculpture is a networlt af steel
pipes in a twelve-pointed sunstar
frame-work which relates to three
concrete elements on the sand. The
piece is a marker for the summer and
winter solstices and the sprzng and
fall equinaxes, with a particular
highlight at noon an the summer
salstice. Also, the sculpture wi1Z
provide a place to look at the
shifting shadQw patterns Gast by the
pipes on the sand.
S~ze: The structure itself is 16 feet high,
52 Feet wide, and 72 feet long. The
concrete circle on the sand has a
diameter of 15 feet.
Specifications: The artist~s preference for siting the
piece is ~.n an area at the extreme
southern end af the beach.
Total Cast: $6o,0a0 ($10,000 af this ~s in the
for~- of in-kind contributions)
_ g _
f ~
~
E. Joint Public Meetings
Before proceeding with the NES Park project, members of the
R~creation and Parks Commission felt strongly that additional
opportunities should ba made availabla to involve the public
in siting and selecting the pieces. Therefore City staff
designed a public input pracess which involved a series of
two public meetings and the creation of a subconimittee of the
Arts and Recreatian and Parks Commission to develop
recommendations based on the public coit~rnent.
Approximately 4,000 beach front households were sent an
informational brochura on NES Park inviting participati~n in
two public meetings on ~ctober 30 and Novemher 6, 1985.
Notices were also published in the Evening Outlook.
Approxi~ateZy 20 peaple attended the first meeting and 30 the
secand. Meeting participants were provided with descriptions
of the pieces, concerns related to beach cleaning and safety,
and information on the funding currently available for the
praject. They were then asked to taur the beach €rant during
the intervening week to select appropriate sites.
Individuals were also ask~d to rank the proposals.
At the second meeting the artists were available to describe
their piaces in more detail and survey sheets were
distributed regarding ranking and siting of the pieces.
Comments on the survey sheets are sumxnarized b~low:
~ lfl _
~ ~ ~ ~
1. Siting of the Three Proposals
a. Cheng - Na siting is necessary.
b. Ho~lis - of those persons who expressed a siting
preferance for this artwork, a majority w~uld like
to see the "Beach Chairs" north of the Pier.
a. Holt - A clear majority of the fifteen respondents
agreed wi.th the artist that the "Solar Web" shauld
be sited at the extreme southern end of the beach.
2. Ranking of the Thrae Proposals
The public's ranking of these three proposals did not
change from the public ranking that was made during the
exhib~tion of the NES Park maquettes in 1984. The
ranking remained as follows: Chenq {highest), Hol~is,
and Halt.
3. Other Comments Regarding the Three Proposals
A wide variety of opinions were axpressed. So~e people
are enthusiastic in their support of PTES park, whereas
some people are compietely opposed to it. FinalZy,
some people have specific criticisms of the process
that has been used to solicit public input.
- I1 -
~ ~ ~ ~
~. Recommendations fro~ the Arts Commission and the Recreation
and Parks Commissian
l. Subcomm~ttee Recommendations (Option 1)
This public inp~t, along with previous letters and
petitians in support of the praject were reviewed by
the NES Park subcammittee of the Arta Commission and
the Reereation and Parks Commission when it met on
Wednesday, November 13. The following Cammissianers
attended this m~eting:
Arts C~m~ission: Glenna Boltuch, Browne Goodwin,
Ela~ne Hoffman, and Lindsay Shields.
Recreatian and Parks Commission: JiI A}~ramsky, Linda
Evans, and Fred Harris.
Following their review of all the public input
ragarding the three NES Park proposals under
consideration, the subcommittee made the following
reco~mendations regarding funding and siting:
a. Carl Cheng's "Art Too1"
As this proposal has consistent].y been ranked as
the public's favorite artwork, it is recommended
that it receive $24,040 of the City's funds that
have been ailocated for NES Park. Alsa, these
funds shou~d be used as the matching funds far an
- 12 -
. ~ ~ ~
NEA grant application. The subcammittee further
recommends that the artwork, when not in use, be
stared in the Beach Maintenance Yard or be
displayed public~y nearby (with other display sites
also possible). AZso the subcommittee recommends
that the "Art Tool" be rolled along the beach,
using beach maintenance equipment, not less than
twice each month. Finally, a schedule a~ these
occasians and a li~ting of its display ].ocations
should be announced ta the public.
b. Douglas Hollis' "Beach Chairs"
As this proposal has also been ranked as an
extremely popular artwork, it is recommended that
it receive $17,OOD of the City's funds far NES
Park. These funds will be used to design,
fabricate, and install twa chairs. Also, as these
funds wil~ be the basis for an NEA matching grant
application, one ar two additianal chairs may a~so
be possible for this project.
The chairs wil~ be re-designed and different
materials will be used in their fabrication in
order to accommodate the concerns of the public and
the subcom~aittee {these changes have resulted in a
$2,000 increase in the design and fabrication casts
of the project). The chairs will be approximately
Z8 feet in height and will He constructed a~t af
- 13 -
~
~ ~
fiber-reinforced cancrete (for the seats) and steal
tubes (far the sound}. In this way, the seats
should stay cool in the summer. Each chair wi~l
produce 5 tones, and these wi1Z be tuned to create
a harmoniaus chard. The sound should axtend to a
maxiintun radius cf 200 feet. The artist has
requested that the chairs be sited on the beach
between the Pier and the foot of Pico Bau~evard.
Howaver the su}acommittee recommends that the chairs
be sited on the beach at the foot of Ca~ifarnia
Avenue, in order to take full advantage of the
northwesterly winds. The artist proposes to make
sound tests (with prototype tubing) in arder to
determa.ne the best siting for the chairs.
c. Nancy Holt's "Solar Web"
The subcommittee recommends that this proposal not
be funded and not be installed on the beach. The
subcommittee bases this recoinmendation ~n public
comments that were made at the two public meetings
and on its opinion that the artwork would have an
overly abtrusive presence on the beach due to the
artwork's large scale, height, and black color.
2. Arts Commission Recommendations (Option 2)
At a.ts meeting on November 18, the Arts Commission
considered the recoinmendatians of the NES Park
- ~.4 -
. ~ ~ ~
Subcammittee. In discuss~ng these reca~~~ndations, the
Arts Commission reaffirined its intent to proceed with
plans t~ fund and install all three proposala currently
being considered for NES Park. Specifically the Arts
Commissian vated to:
a. Recommend the selection af the three NES Park
pieces,
b. Begin funding with the two chairs by Hall~s,
fallawed by the Cheng piece and then the Holt
piece,
c. Apply for a grant from the NEA for the maximum
available ($5~,000}, and
d. Submit ali three pieces to the Arts Foundation, of
Santa Monica for funding.
3. Recreation and Parks Commission Recommendations
(Option 3)
At its meetzng ~n November 21 the Recreation and Parks
Commission considered the recammendations o€ the NES
Park Subcommittee and the Arts Cammission. After
discussing these recQmmendations and the history of the
NES Park project, the Recreation and Parks Commission
vated to adopt the following recommendation:
-x~-
. , ~ ~
"Aft~r a period of more than seven months af study,
this Commission chooses not to accept the concept of
NES Park and recommends to Council to delay their
finding for a period of time not to exceed one year in
hopes that the two commissions can determine an
amicable and joint decisian."
G. Outstanding Issues
In presanting to Council these three optians for NES Pazk,
staff recognizes that the follawing issues have yet to be
resolved:
~. Coastal Ca~mission Approval
Follawing Council action on these three recommended
artworks, applications for Coastal permits for them
will need to be made. The applicatians for coastal
permits for "Beach Chairs" and "Solar Web" would need
to include request for waivers fram the existing height
limitation in existing coastal permits.
2. Pacific Dominion Approval
Instal~ation of the "Solar Web" propasal would be
subject to approval by the Pacific Dominion Property
Company. According to the agreement between th~ City's
Redevelopment Agency and Pacific Dominion, any changes
in the beach i~nprovements portion af the settZement
plan (including maximu~ heigth and view blackage)
- 16 -
. ~
~
require prior written approval. This appraval wauld be
needed as the "So1ar Web" would be sited in the
affected area of the beach.
3. Fundraising
The cost of these three proposed artworks exceeds the
amount of funds currently avaiZable gram the City.
Therefore, additional funding wi11 have to be raised
for NES Park. Both Option 1 and Option 2 include
potential funding from the Art in Pub~ic PZaces Prog~am
of the National Endowment for the Arts. Caunci].
approval of either of these two ~ptions wo~ld need to
include the authorization for staff to prepare the
necessary grant application by the Decamber 15
deadline. Also, Option 2 recognizes the need for
additional funding ta come from the Arts Foundation of
Santa Monica.
Budget f Financial Impact
As part of the FY 1985-86 budget Council appropriated $41,000
(11-740-521-000-907) for the Natural Elements Sculpture (NES)
Park. The fol].Qwing expenditures would be made to fund each af
the three options:
- 17 -
~ ~
Funding Sourc~s
City NEA Private Total
option 1
1. "Beach Chairs"(4) $17,000 $17,OOD -0- $34,000
2. "Art Tools" $24r000 $33t000 $12~000 $60~000
Tatal $41,000 $50,400 $12,000 $94,000
~ption 2
~. ~~Beach Chai.rs~~ {2y $17, 000 -0- -0- $17, 000
2. "Art Tool" $12,000 $25,000 $23,000 $60,000
3. "Solar Web" $12,000 $25r000 $23rD00 $60r000
Total $41,000 $5D,OD0 $46,000 $137,000
option 3 has no budget or financial impact on the City at
this time. Howavar, the annua]. NEA deadlina for Art in
Public Places grant appiicatians is December 15. Therefore,
Council adoption of this option would delay any submissian o~
an NEA grant appiication for NES Park until Dece~nber ~5, 198b
(for funding in July, 1987).
The ongoing cast associated with each of these artworks are
maintenance costs, which have b~en projected by each artist
to be minimal. Both Douglas Hollis~ ~'Beach Chairs" and Nancy
Holt's "Solar web" would require occasianal re-painting and
hand-cleaning of the beach area on which they would be
- 18 -
r ' ~ ~
lacated. Carl Cheng's "Art Tool" would require occasianal
lubricatian of the roller.
Recommendations
Staff recammends that Council:
1. Approve Option l, as proposed by the subcommittee of
the Arts Commission and the Recreatian and Parks Comm
ission, for th~ siting and tunding of the initial
artwarks for a National Elements Sculptur~ (NES) Park,
2. Authvrize sta~f to prepare and subm~t an application
€or a caastal permit for the approved artworks, and
3. Authorize staff to prepare and submit an app~ication to
the Art in Public Places Program af the National
Endowment for the Arts for the approved artworks.
Prepared by: John Jalili, City Manager
- 19 -
~ , i s r ~ n ~
~
i ~ -- - _ T _
I
\
' ' ~
~
~ _ r `;~, ~~
I ~ r
r
~~ ~f ~ ~ r~ ' - ,
_ __" ~,,~ T ~~` /` ~' ', ' ~~` `"~ ~ _
- - .~.• ~ / ~
~ ~~ ~ ~ J \ ~ ---
I ~.. l ~ ,
/ //////+++---~~~~//_--- • ~/ ~1
~, ~_ ~~ ..~,~-_"~ "~'- ~~/,' • ~. ~ -.
~~, ~`~ '_.,_.~ _ ~ 4~~?.i.:l... 4_"5'~
` , ` + _ - ~..:~'_:~° =-
, ~r"^~ ~ ~ ; ^~.'~.-~".~'-~C~~P
}. ` S\~ ` ~_ __ _ "''~. ,,..1,,...7
` ' "- _~ __ ~ -. ~.
V ~'I ~ ~ ~ ~~`'^
ti /
, ~ - ~~~
,. -- ~ _ ~ _. __
, * ' y ''
~~` ~ `J\/y, \~1~ ` J . "
`~ " ~~• t,\ ~~ _~_ ,.._"" "__ _'___
{ 17ti `
f
, . ,
~
~ '.~~ -"~~_ „ ' . _ „ ` _ , f '
-~,~~ '. ~., ~?i.l~ ~k~ ~^~....-._~_~_`~` _~_ '~: _ __~_ ' ' ' ~ .
'R'"'--'-~~,~~-~~G~~_ . -. ~~ -: _3 . ~ .
' _ - _ _ - - . ~.,,[J , ' .
- - -: --_ _ . - ~ , _ .
_ a R~ ~
~a~ P M " _'___", . ._.. ., _,_ ._. ,_'_'"_'_'___ _ ~..-~. ; ,A` I ~
!` ` ' t~
i . - ~
1
- ' ' ~ ....- _ .~... . ~. ~ , a.. ~.. ~_r.
~1iaP GR6M~ ~'n'7~LI~ C~AIR
~,cn~~ I' - ~'o' ~
' N E s r}nRK ~'~atF.c7
~ 'tiou~C.-.s F~ou.ts 1~30'85 I
, . _ . _. . _ _ . .._
~
~.L.s^ Ki'~V/.~L'~a -.,,_ .,~
T-~s: ~MNL~ IN ~*Rt
~ r''~'
1 ~~ ,
~~ i
.., ... _ ,_.._.,
'... .' "" ~~i OU Hanp~~~b Jyy~~ r~ft
~ ` A.
__ ,. ~
1-
-'_ ~ 1~
r ~ ~ ~~II~, fy/I~
~ ~ ~
';-rcP"e~.~,~ s.r x, -._ ._.__ . ,.,...., ~ ~ ~
Tuni~-ri~._, , h i~ I, ~~ ~i ~
..,._.
_...~.,~.~~ i~..T_r
~ ~--..:_~_ . ,:_ ~: _ .. . .. ~
,
I '~ ~ ~~~ '~ '~ ~
;~~~ ._. -~ ~
-_ 1_
ra~WL Uw~~ I_'r~
i j
~ * ~
~
' • 1
_.~l~o~.ft F.u~ih'1'~GN
i -
~/_ - I ± '
~ i f 1 '
.5 l I
1 1 . II~ _. .•~~ U C: RAL ~L~T ~ N[T SM~~ N~
O !' A; F.([T7leH ~ YIPE ON ~~L'1L SI~
' ~ .. 17 Tr~Y ~ Y T'Tn'.. . .
m ~ 6 "L-,----~ I ~ - '
~ ii I _- ' ~ .
~ ; ~ i ~,~ ~ - .
i ~. __ , i ~.-- r , -
E { ~~- + '
i ~ .
I , i _._,. _. _._~•x3• *xv,ra~o~c~vc.a~cu~-rc
~ ~
~ _ -c3 ~Te.4~r G.GS7~b 5 ST~
cl i ~ ' ~~ ,..,... ,._ _ .CTm~ .
~, ~~ s -
~ , ~ . _-
~ "' ~_~ ?~~ '_ _ - ~
, i ; !_.____.___/ ~ ~~ . . . , • , ~ .
I ~~' _~ __ ~ .
; ,~ - ~ . ~. ` ~
~ _ ' _ _ . - 'i S.~ } .. . - ,.. .
_~~~ ~ . . . . ---- - - - - . . . _s~~~.~ ' .
~'~ :~ ~ u _ ` ' 1~ . •. ' ~ -: . ~ ~
j# ~ _ s in~ M.EVhTiO~.J E-~-~+f;~[~ rs.~rE. sue ec_.,a ''_.
, ~ . ~ _ - - Y~ . ~ ,
_ _~.._ __..___.~_~_-- -.___.__.~.__... .~ _.____.___y..__._______._.. - - ~_._.,.~~_ ' ..__
+ ~ ~ _ . ' • ~ ' ay .'
~
.
. ' . ~y
~ ~ ~1--1~-
/2. - ~ ~-~ ~"
ITEM 17-A: NATIONAI, ELEMENT SCUI,PTURE PARiC
TRAI~SCRIPT OF PORTY01~ OF COUNCIL MEE'~ING OF AEGEM~ER 17, 1985
Staff renort gi~en.
JALILI: The Arts Comma.ss~.on in ~983 proposed the NE~ Park along
tnis 3-mzle streteh af the beaeh. 'Fo our knowledge thzs was the
first ~ermanent sculpture park e~er proposed fqr anv l~eac~. It
was felt at that time the c~mmu~ity wc~uld gain bt~th aestheticall~
and finaneially as the park was expected to be an xnternationally
known attraet~on. To this end, var~e~y c~f ineetzngs were held and
a number of cammunYtv reside:~t~ and others wer~ requested tQ
submit prvp~sals and the art w4rk that is before ~as represents
the ones tha~ were selected and recei~ed the largest number of
publze approvals. Sinc~ the:~, the Ree. & Parks Gamm. and the
Arts C~mmissi~n have ha~ s4me differer~ces on which pro~ect they
should nrocee~ with and how t~ey sh~uld go about it. And a
series af ineetings were held, I atte~ded some of them. What
we're propvsing to vou zs essentially the rec~mmendatzc~n vf the
subcomm~ttees af the Rec. & Parks and the Arts Gvmrn. and w~at we
are suggesting as that we proceed wztk~ a rc~l~er a~ta fund it fr~~m
with $2~,000 fr~m alread,v appraprzated funds. You mav recall the
budget is for these funds fr~m the beach funds durxng the last
yearts budget, and thzs is to be rnatched w~'th NEA monies. In
a~~~tzon, beach chazrs, $17K ~lus matoh fram ~iEA an~ this is t~
- 1 -
~ ~
be l~eated at the f~ot of Gaiifarnia. The solar web as you know
has also been conszdered but zt's nc~t funded right now, s~ our
recommendat~on is ~n order to make sure that we praceed wzth the
process of C3astal Commzssion an~ other re~iew procedures that we
go bef~re the Coastal Comm. ini.tiallv nn these ~wo items tv make
sure we a~tually get s~ar~e~ untZl we have addz'tional ~nformatic~n
c~n s~lar web but we belzeve as a matter of policy v~u may want to
seleet ~hat as the next art pa.ece ta pr~ceed so e~eryone knows
that'~ the ane for whzeh they go raise funds for. That eoncludes
our recommendatzons.
A. KATZ: Re funds...
EPSTE7N: Re safetv issues...
~3ENNINGS: I want ta get clarifi~at~on on a e~uple of things. 3s
zt correct that an anblicatiion t~ntative or atherwise has alreatlv
been subm~tted t4 the N~A for fu~ding?
LI~TZ: Yes, zr. ar. arrangement that I was able ta work out with
the endowment staff, we we?-e able to subm~t what is basicallv a
plaee ho3der appzcatzon sznce the deadline has alreadv passed,
witY~ the un~erstanda.ng that the real substance of that
applacatzon ~s entirel,v dependent on Cou:~cil action tonlght and
they're waiting to hear from us as to what t4 dn with what thev
have on hand, whether to aecept it as a fac'~, whether to thr~w it
at~t, whether ta re~ise zt, whatever,
- 1a -
` ~ ~
JENNINGS: So that's amendable until when?
LUTZ: They've gzven us till Ja~~arV, maddle of January.
JENNINGS: W~th respec~ ti~ the solar web, it z5 e~rreet zsn~t it
tha~ the artist has expressed w~llingness to talk about redueing
the seale ~f necessary, a~though n4t specific?
LUTZ; Yes...
JENNIIdGS: Would you explain to me why i~he s~ze of i~ makes a
difference one way or the nther-.
LUTZ: This is the }~ieee as deszgned by the artzst, this is what
she wants. Tha.s is her visicsn.
CQNN: Mr. ~a.~ilz, in your staff report, you saad that y~u W~re
suppori~zng option ~, but option 1 as I read it Qn page 14 says
that we nt~t fund and not install the so~ar web 4n the beaeh. I~ow
what is ~t that vou're advoca~ing here?
JALILI: What we are sav~ng ~s that you, we are recommendzng
optaon 1 but that we are suggestxng t~at vou select s~lar web as
the next prioraty. I think one of the problems is there~s nq
funding for e~ervthing.
COAiH: Right, bu~ what are ~ou asking us to da with regards ta
the so~a~- w~b?
- 2 -
~ ~
JALILI: T~ indicate yoia appr~ve the solar web, that's the next
pie~e ts~ t~e fund~d ance the Comtt~~ssit~n cames before vou wzth
funding, t~en vc~u can proceed w~th ~t, but that ~hat be dealt
wi~h, ~n ather words, a separate proeess be f~llc~wed, sv when we
c;~o b~~orethe Coastal Commission, the initaal 2 pieces are gonna
be reviewed separate frflm sQlar web. Our concern zs if you
comb~ne everything together, we may ~ot get there.
JENf1INGS: Is the solar web as is?
JALIL-I: Rs redesigned.
REED: So yc~ur praposal to put solar web an hold essentza~ly is
f~r twcs reasons: ~ne, beeaUSe there's no money for it, and twcr,
to allow the staff ar,d the C~mmisslon sc~met~.me to Work on the
aspeat of ezther making it smaller or changing the hea.ght of it
some wa~?
REED; Alright, Ys that elear t~ everyb~dy? ...Mr. Jennings has
another question.
JENNINGS: I have another que~t~vn for staff but I think it's
pr~bably for the C7tv Attorney and I don't know. I'd like a
clarifzeataon af the r~spectz~e ~azly works of the two
c~mmisszor.s that are znvol~ed, the Arts Comm., and the Rec. an~
Park C~m~a. as it re].ate to these pzeces.
- 2a -
, ~ ~
MYERS: B4th bodies have speeif~ed p~wers the Ree, & Park Comm.
on the eharter an~l the Arts Comm. bv ordinance. The Arts Cc~mm.
~s en~owered to act with respect t~ art ar.d I can refer y4u ta
the specYfic proviszons zf vou need to know that, and the Rec. &
Parks C3mm. is ad~lsory wa.th respect t~ Parks and Rec. through~ut
the Cztv of Sar.ta Monica.
JEMNINGS: Bu'~ as it re~ates to artworks ~n the beach, what is
thezr respecti~e resp~nsibil~tles? In other words, whv has
respons~.bzlz~_y w~th respect 'to what concer~ing artworks vn ~he
beach...?
MYERS: (i~o provkde answer later).
Discuss~on held...
Membsrs of the ~ublic.,.
JENNIIVGS: I wr~uld first like to make a motzon ~cs get thi.s tha.ng
started and address it if I get a sec4nd, and that is I move the
staff reeommendati~n.
H . KATZ : S~et~nd .
REEb: Ok, thank you, Mr. Jenr.ings, now yQU may speak vn i~. Mr.
Jennings is recammending optaon 1 of the staff reeommenda~i~n.
ZANE: There is a staff recommendati~n that is written zt seems
- 3 -
~ ~ ~ i
to me was embellished ~r added to zn the oral presentation, I am
try~ng to be clear as t~ which ~ne of thes~ ree~mmendations
you're moving.
JENNINGS: The embell~shment was...?
ZANF: The embellishment had t~ do with the contlnu~ng ~he
nrocess on the s~lar. The staff rea4~me~datzon as wrzt~en has 2
~xeees s~pported zf zt ~oesn't urge any partic~lar actzQn with
respect to the other and the oral embel~~shment as I'm
charaeterzzing zncluded a proeess for a~ntinuzng review in
~eepzng the solar web on the table.
~ENNI~GS: Xes, tna~ was m~ intent.
ZANE: The aral one?
JENNINGS: Yes.
R~ED: Alright, thank you. ~he motz~n has been clar~fzed. Mr.
Jennl~gs to s~eak to the matzon.
J~NNINGS: W~at I want t~ mentaon zs several points. First of
all, zt str~kes me as there ~as been a ~erv large suppart f~r the
c~r.ceQt of NES Park, axceqt for the Reereataon Parks Commissior..
~hese partieular thz~gs were displayed in ~he lobby of the City
Hall for quz~e some tzme and also I believe ~n the lzbrary.
There was a mueh greater nUmber of people who expressed supp~rt
- 3a -
~ ~ ~ ~
f~r that and voted with respect t~ which of these various thzngs
thEy lzke, then ge~erally attend Gouncal meetings even qn
eontro~erszal nzghts(?). I~ was a rath~r large number of people.
Des~zte what we'~e heard from t~e speakers tonzght, the ranking
was nat by the ~ublzc wYth the whole or Hol~ piece n~. 1. As a
matter of fact, the rankang was with the whole ~i~ce no. 3. The
highest rankang gaven by the puhlze tv these pzeces was the
Cheng(?) piece no. 1, ~he hollowest(?) pzece w~ich zs the
windchazrs no. 2, and the whole or Ho~t pieee ~~. 3. From what I
heard from cou~cilmembers, they get the vpinz~n counezlmembers xn
gen~ral Iike a1I three pieces, and the whole ~iece, as you
probably ha~e ~eard, zs reeommen~ed t~ be put at where the
Faezfle Ocean Park used to be. The very south beaeh, the eoncept
being that it's supnosed to measure where the sun goes down,
so~stice, and Stone~enge purposes...e~e. re the ~ieees. Mv
concern about all these is that zf we lum~ aIl three of these
pieces together ar.d we go to the Coastal Commission with res~eet
to all three, I don't believe that the r~ller and the chazrs have
any substantza~ impact on beaeh use negati~ely and maybe ~t~s
p~sztive. The only thing that seems to me the C~as~al Comm~ssi~n
wau~d ob~ect to ~s the thzrd q~ece, and by lumping all thre~
tcge~her, I'm afraid zt will damage the abilzty of us to get the
other two. ~ot ~nlv that, but there are s~me people, espeeially
some of the members of the ftec. and Parks Comm, who have
expressed sueh antipathy toward the s~lar web concept that I'm
afrazd that that would motivate them to go as ~ri~ate cztzzens to
the Caas~al Cflmm. and oppose the whole concept, and z don't want
the thing ~p~os~d, I th~nk ~t should sail t~rough the Coastal
- ~ -
~
i
Comm. as a great i~ea. I don't have that much prc~blem wzth the
H~lt pzece l~cated where Ms. Ho1t wants xt...etc. The ~o~nt ~s
that I think we s~iould approve thYS and ha~e i~ go forward btat I
thi::k after we get through with thzs mc~tzon, we have als~ got t~
address the need f~r a procedure fQr rest~J.vir.g disputes between
~he Ar~,s Comm. and ~he other c~mmissions they have tia interact
with...
FPSTEIN: I'tn gonna try a subs~~tute motic~n and see if I get a
second. I agree wzth Ms. Finke~. I think that what th~s ~roject
needs as, what ~his whole idea needs, is a ~is~.bl.e pro~eet that
wi11 make a statement. Unfortunately, the art toQl is an
~.ntrzgu5.ng i~ea but it's SUDI~CIS£'CI ta come ~ut twzee a month or so
or on special oecasio~s, and the scale of the other pro~eet, the
chaa.rs, is ,7ust not large enough tc~ be, it seems to me, the first
pzece tha~ wi1l make f~hat statem~nt. it says nothing about the
merit, or the lack of ~t, of that prv~ect. But the solar web, ~t
seems to me, and the fact that iti's a~traeted more OppOS1t20T1r
maybe i.t's a sign Df that, it does make a statement. It does
sort of embady ~his concept.
REED: What is your substztut~ motion, Mr. Epstein?
~PSTEIN: flk, my substitt~te motic~n zs that we mo~e forward after
appropr~ate safety ~evaew and consultati~n w~th the artast, that
we move forward w;th solar web and that we adopt the other two as
~he next pr~~ects in the pipeline.
- ~4 a -
T ` , ~ ~
REED: Alr~ght, so y~ur substitute motzon zs to reorder the
priority and t~ put solar web first, an~ to put the other twQ ~n
tne lower priQrity. Is there a second t~ Mr. Epstein's
subst~tute motion? There is n~ seeond to th~ substitute motio~,
we still have Mr. Jennzngs' ~ain moti~n Qn the flo4r. Mr. Herb
Katz.
H. KATZ: I thznk it's important that we take the ~wo that we
have some money for and mo~e it. It's equally imqortant that we
eflntinue with the wh~le pro~ect, I lzke it very mueh. And
possibl,y give zt tQ the Arts ~ommzsszon whaeh would be a separate
m~tion tn g~t s~me m~~ey for. I'm gQZng wzth this mati~n because
I want to see NES Park ga ahead. That's my reasqn.
A. KATZ: Question f~r Mr. Jalili. If we apnrove the m~taon as
i~ is, would we be able to mo~e the H~lt pzece tfl the C~astal
Commission as w~11 even though it's ~nly in the pipeline if you
wlll as opp~sed to ah..
JAL2LI: Our recommendati~n is that vnu d~n't do that. We feel
that some redes~gn maY be nece~sa~y, sn other words, when we go
before the Coastal Commzssion, we want t~ tell the~ exaetlv what
at is that we're pr~p~sing. Secqr.~ly, we don~t have fundz~g for
z~, zf y~u really want to in faet, see that don2, you're gonna
have to appropriate monies. What we~re suggesting Zs that you
prioritize that so the Commission can in fact do some funding.
A. KATZ: I think we should be clear here ~hat this is not a case
- 5 -
~ ~
of whether we're ~ro-Holt ar antz-Holt. I had the mzsfortune of
liv3ng a few blocks from where Dark Star Park was eventually
locate~ before it was lacated there, and from the pletures we've
seen here, zt zs marvelous, and I sur-e wa.sh ~t was there when I
lived in R~slvn and quickly m~ved out of it. I thir~k we have an
obligatic~n t~ move fvrward wYth NES Park both for, wher~ Ms.
Hoffman talk~d about the economze value of adding a toc~rist
attraetion plus the statement it makes. All 3 of these items are
of extreme artzstic merit fr~m my perspective and I really don~t
feel qualified to ~valuate whieh zs a better statement ~ne ~ersus
the other. There has been a nrocess, ~his se~ms tc~ be the best
compr~mise that has came out of zt, and I will suppart it
alth4ugh I am curiotas Mr. Conn, as ~o why ypu ~zd nvt sec~nd the
mota.on. Would yc~u care tfl enlight~en me on that, Mr. Conn?
CONN: As you kn4w, I suggesi~ed in the press that the Holt piece
was the one pzece that has the eapacity to be a signature ~~.ece
for tha.s pro~eet, I still believe tl7fl~~5 true. Unfortunately,
there are other peop~e zn the e~t~y, and in the public wh4
dzsagree with that, and I think it's absvlutely essential zf
s~meth~ng go forward, and so I'm wa.lling to sunpart i~he staff
reec-mmendation, and i~~pe that at some point, there wzll be a fi~lt
p~ece on the beaeh.
REED: Thank you, Nir. Zane.
ZAN~: Well, I would like to congratulate Mr. Conn...etc. I want
to say that I didn't secD~d the motion in support of the solar
_ 5a _
~
~
web even though I, t~o, believe evxdently alc~ng with a number c~f
councilmembers tha~ of the pieces here is the o~e that I want or
~ne ~ersonally prefer to thznk that zt accompl~shes somethzng
importan't for the pro~ect as a whole and the concept, but I thznk
there ~ther ~alues that are zmportant as well and that zneludes
the abilitv vf eomm~ssionsmen w~thin the ezty t4 wark wel].
~agether..I disagree substantiively with the Rec. & Parks
Cvmmission, although I respeet them, and I respeet their rzghts,
the przvzledge that we've given to them, their duty ~n faet to
give us their, what they conszder to be their fzrmest 4pinzon
about the ma~ter. H~we~er, I wz1.1 reserve ju~gment to disagree
w~.th them ahout that, and I want to make it verv clear that my
disagreement with them about the s~~.ar web pzece Yn no way
refleets upon ray ,~udgme€~t about thea.r abz].ztv as a eammzssf~~.
I woul~ like to see the staff c~ntinue i.n the ciry plan to see
the solar web a.nstalle~ on tha.s beaeh. There may be
r~odificatzt~ns to reflec~ ~h~ ne~d f~r safety c~ncerns, e'tc. but I
do not choose to support ii~ as a priority nro,~eet here beeause I
tihink it r~eeds ta be made alear ~a all commzssa.ons in this
community 'that zt's important and neeessarv the people learn to
wflr~C together ~.nspzte af what their passzons are. EverybQdy has
passi~ns, and eve~ybody's oass~ons deserve ta be izstened to.
REED; Thank v~u Mr~. Zane. rn eQneluding the debate, I'm the ~r~ly
person who hasn't said anythzng about all these ichings. I wauld
like t~ say that I da have a great concern abo~t the camments
that Ms. Bramsky(2) r~ade with regar~ i~o the laek of a good
working relationship between the 2 commissions wh~.eh I know t~e
- 6 -
~ . F ~
~
eounczlmemhers ha~e a fair amount ~f znf~ ~n. My own personal
concern is as to publ~c liabilzty W~3Ch I bel~e~e is a c~ncern
that some of the recreati~n commissioners also had and I would
lzke peaple to understand elearly that the c~unczlmemhers cann~t
only make aesthetic ~udgments. ~he e~unczlmembers know how ~ften
the citv zs sued for what anv person with eommpn sense and the
f~undati~n can verify thas, sued for rkdzeulous things but
gceass~o~allv large ones are awarded on thase same ridieul~~s
lawsuits, and we can't allow pro~eets to go farward whleh exeeeds
~eas~nable ~e~ght recommendati~ns ~f the reareati~n staff when
the prQ~ect itself ~s mean~ to be el~mbed upon. That presents
serious and public liability aroblems for ~he city and prgblems
that only th~ e4une~~ can address that we d~n't expect th~ art
commission ~o be kn~wledgeable ~n or ~a address, a~d I suppor~
the staff's eancern zn ~hat regar~ and Wauld not supp4rt Mr.
E~stein's mQtian nri~cipallv ~ecause ~f my coneerns abo~t publ~c
lzabzlztV with regard t~ the clim~zng structure. Now every4n~
has had their say and we have the motzon on the floor which is to
apnrove the staff recommendat~on as Mr. Jalil~ enhaneed it zn his
verbal report. ~r. Jennin ~s, they want a restatement of the
~ , , _ r
rnot~on.
~ENNTNGS: The motion was the s~aff recammendati~n, lncludzng
keeping the Holt pz~ce ~n the hopper, the option ~nen fvr it ta
be cunsidered at a later ~ime.
- 6a -
~ ~ ~ i
~
REED: It was to indzeate the Hcrlt pzece is the thir-d gri4ra.ty
but to no~ submit zt z~ the Coastal process, but t~ contlnue to
work an the safety aspects and the fundang aspects, r~ght?
~QNN: Right.
ZANE: I want to clar~fy. Thai~ mean~ that zt's the i~tention flf
'the motion that the staff is basically working act~veJ.y with the
commisszon and res~lution af us than in issues ~r~ this. Thzs is
noi~ llke next year, we're gor~na flnd out whether s4mething
happened? Thank y~u.
REED: Mr. ~pstezn.
EPSTEIN: I haue an amendment whieh is tQ direc~ the ~taff a~ ~h~
tzr~e of 'the m~d--year budgeti re~+~ew t.~ rep~rt on wY~ether any
ftanding crptzons exzst for the sviar web.
REED: Is there a second to Mr. Epstezn's.,?
A. KATZ: If it's not aecepi~ed I'Il second it.
JENNINGS: Well, I'll aceept it in the motzan, zf there's ennugh
time between nnw.
REED: Mr. Jal,zJ.~.
JALILI: I belie~e the ques'tion zs on funding ~nly. Fund~ng, we
- 7 -
. ~ - . ~ ~
would explore possxbie c~'ty s~urees.
REED; Now this ks they want you to rep~rt at the mid-year budget
re~~ew.
JALILI: Yes.
REED: Ok, this zs an amendment which has beer~ aceep'ted into the
motior. Is everyane ready tv ~4te? Piease eall the rall on the
mation.
Conn-aye; Epste~n-yes; Jennings-yes; A. Katz-yes; H. Katz-yes;
Zane-yes;
M~y~r Reed: No, and I wota~~ ].xke the recor~ to reflect that I do
not want to vote t~ enciorse ~n any way a c~ntinuing discusszon on
the solar web until the publ~c liability questic~ns have been
answered satisfactorily and they ha~en't, and that is my vote,
and that is the end oF this matter. The chair needs a rest here
for 5 min~tes or so.
JENNINGS: Wa~.t a mi~ute, I'm not finished with 'the mattEr yet.
Snme follow up motiflns. I think we hav~ to address the
interactzon betwee~ the Arts Comm, and the c~ther comm~ssit~ns, ar~d
espeeially the recreatzon and garks ec~mzn~sszon. I wc~uld move
that we dzreet those two edmrnis~ions, with the assistanee af
staff as necessary to negota.ate a tr-eaty between themselves, as
- 7a -
. . ~ - ~ ~
to hflw they are going to interaet from now c~n, concerning the
recztang (residing) questzon.
REED: Mr. Jennzngs, why don't we get the l~aisons t~ the two
eommissions t9 wark with the staff vr this problem without making
it znt~ this sort ~f ..
JENNINGS: Ha, becaUSe it won't wgrk that way. It will not wark
that way, we've gone through a.t thzs time, we've gc+ne thro~agh all
k~.nds vf headaehes, there's onl.y e3ther they a~point some
committees whieh b~nd the cammisszans, or they have to have t~e
two commissaons sit down face to face..
REED: Is there a second t~ Mr. Jennings' motivn? There is no
sec~nd to Mr. Jennings mo~zon.
JENNINGS: Then I have another mot~on. (garhled)..Percent for
the Arts Committees for 'the purpose of makzng recammendations
about artworks, and I woul~ mo~e that we ~ireet those committees
to re~ort to us on the general standards tfl be applzed wath
res~eet t~ the artwor[~s ~hey're cansidering, not the artworks,
but rather the standards 1i~e if an ar'twork thev~re gonna ehvose
c~n1y gpnna go on grass, then they repvrt tha~ t4 us and we adopt
that as the standard or zf the mural they're conszderzng an~y
goes ~n the south facing the wall, they repvrt tha~ to us and we
advqt lt, so we don't har~e this argumen't come up with the percent
for the arts artwork.
_ g ..
r~r ~ r i ~
REED: Is there a second to Mr. Jennings' r~ation? I thznk vfl u
might have to do a littie work, ,you [~now, in ennverting peQple
here.
JENNINGS: If vau don't do samething about th~,s, we're gonna get
the same damned headache everytzme we have an argument between
this commzss~on,
REED: Even zf we ~o these things we're ganna have this headaehe.
JENNINGS; Not if vc~u foree them to sit down and w~rk out haw
they're gonna handle thzs.
REED: It can be done as long as we're paying for it. Mr. Zane.
ZANE: I don't think y~su dzrect ~eflple to negotiate a treaty.
The,y'll taever negotiate a treaty that they don't themselves wa~t
to fee~ baund to. But it is clear that there are serzt~us
~roblems that need to be addressed and I would hope that the
cammassions wi11 und~rtake to address those problems that maybe
for us to exere~se political leadershi~o abo~t, an~l for us to some
work ~f our own ab~ut the apprQpriate da.~a.s~,on responsibilzties
here. I don't tha.nk we ean expect to force people and negotiate
tireaties.
REED: TY~ank you, Mr. Zane. Mr. Herb Katz.
- $a -
~ ~
~
H. KATZ: I agree wlth caunc~lman Zane and he's lzazson tn tihe
ree. and parks. I think if he whv as the lkaason should get
t~gether wzth the s~aff and then get together w~th the individual
and then both eommissions and put them together and ~et's get
this resoived, and some of it ~s gonna come frqm svmething vn
where divzsion of power ~f you will or duties are, and we can
stflp s~me of th~s contest.
REE-: Than~ you, Mr. Epstezn.
EPSTEIN: Peoale are gonna f~ght, ar.d ~n thzs ezty, thev wYZI
especzally gonna fzght about art. It's nart of lzfe, I h~pe they
tr~ t~ resolve the~r differences but they're g~nna have fzghts
and zt's nlce pe~ple care about these things, and thev're gonna
ha~e tr~ lzve With ~t.
REED: Mr. ~Iennzngs, did vcau have ~ther mot~ons to offer? Nq,
that's zt. Mr. Conn.
CONN: I ~ust want t~ sa_v that I real].y agprecaate the work the
staff did to try tfl bring some resc~lution to this matter. i
thlnk everybod,v wants to avaid tihese kinds of e~nfiicts, and I
thank it's tough, and I don't know any easy way out csf zt, but I
thz~tk staff has done a real good ~ob at trying and I thznk
they~ve come up with a cotnpromi.se. If the council can get
behand, so can everyb~d_y else.
REED: OK, thank vvu. ~'he chaa.r of the Arts Gommission has
- 9 -
~ ~
, + ` P ~
advised me pre~z~us to ~his ec~ming tv our agenda tha~ she fe1.t
that there were some cvmmuna.aatzon lapses and that she assured me
that she was gonna work harder to make sUre that that didn't
happen in the future, and I'm sure that the same will be true of
the Ree. ec~mmission, and so I hope that we can improve this
prr~cess in the future with those efforts on the parts trf the
eouncilmembers and the ec~mmissivn chairs. Now, zf there are no
other ma'cters on this, we need a motion ~o extend the meetzng and
I would lzke to take a shart breaEs if no one minds...(H. KATZ
mo~ed to extend the meeting, see~nd by Conn.)
PREPARED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFIGF
DECEMBER ~9, 7985
nes~ark
s r~
- 9a -
' i 1 °.~ ~
~ z~ L„' ~3
c r T ~ a ~~v~'~. ~ ' ~
cti ~, ~j ~f~~
' - ~
~ J
~ ~~', i
-~•nsv ~ C~ L~ F V 1~ lY i~
October 1, 1985 ~~ 3 '~ ~/ ~j
Dear Friend:
Rs part af ~ts effart ta ma~Ce art worKs accessibZe ta the public, the Santa
Mon~ca Arts Cammiss~an has been discussing a Natura~ Elements Scu~pture {NES)
Park wh i cf~ wouT d be 1 ocated a~ ang ~he enti re tf~ree mi 1 e 6eachfront . Such a
sculpture park would include pieces which take advantage of the naturaZ e~e-
ments such as wind, ~ight, sand, surf, etc. which are par~ of ~he beachfront
envi ronmer~t .
7hree pieces have been chosen by the Arts Commissian as the first for such a
sculpture park. However, na locatyan h~s been chosen yet for any of the
p}eces.
Yau and all ~nt~r~sted members of the public are invited to part~cipate in the
selection of sltes for the sculptures and ta develop a pr~ority list far which
should be installed first. As th~ Arts C4mmission has l~myted ~Funds for th~s
pro~ect, s7gn~ficant fundraising ~~11 have to ~e done before a~l three p7eces
wil~ b~ comm~ss~oned.
Please ,7~in ~nembers of the C~ty's Arts Comm~ss~on and Recreat~or~ ar~d Parks
Commiss~arr in two ~ubl~c warksho~s o~ the NE5 Park praject. The f~rst wil~ be
hel~ Wednesday, Qctober 30, and t~te second wil~ be he7d We~r~~sday, November 5.
Bot~ ~eetzngs w~ll beg~~ at 7:30 p.m. and wz~~ be he7d ~~r thE cor~~nu~~ty room
af tkte newly remode~ed Qcean ~ark ~ibrary ~at Mair+ and Ocear~ ~ark B~vd.~
~he f~rst woricshop w~ll provide a background on the f~ES Park cance~t, a
descr~pt~an nf the three ~l~ces, and the lssues which must be kept ln mind in
iocating p~eces af art on the beachfront. Participants wiil tfi~en be asked to
walk aiang the beachfrant area dur~ng ~he ~ntervening w~ek to identify
su~tabie sites f4r the pieCes wf~ich wil~ be discussed a~ ~he second worksf~op
on Havember 6. Recommenda~ions f'rom t~ese workshops wi1T be take~ in~o con-
sideration by the two city commissions in developing their recammendations ta
the C~ty Counc~l. After the City Councjl decision, the pro,7ect will be pres-
ented ta the Coastal Commisslon for approval be~ore the pieces can be
installed.
We hope that you will participate in the 1~ES Park project by vo~cing your
op~n~on on the sculptures and their location.
S~ncerely,
"`.1~ ~
i~
Dav~d Lutz
C~ltura7 Arts A~m3nistrator
J',,?~~-~-;n ~'"~-%-~-~- ~
Vivian Rat~stein
Rsslstar~t to the Director
af Recreat~an an~ Parks
for Commc~r~ity ~.iaTSOn
Workshop Dates:
Octo6er 3Q
Wednesday, 7:3Q p.m.
Novemhes 6
Wednesday, 7 3q p.m Far fur#her information, please call.•
David Wtz
D~rector, Arts Commission
458-8350
~os-a~d
31li-a b'a
q~ `eawo~y exueg LOti0611~ 'eawo~y} e~ueg
ZZZ ~IU ~~w~ay ~as~ e~s+sa~ e~ueS ~lZ
~ I ff d uo~sSrwura~ s~r y
a6e3sod g ~
a~e n e~f~oyy ~~~ss f~ ~1!~
~I ~I~ 9
~~
Help plar~
N E S P A R K-~-~s~~~~~~~~~
A Natural Elemen~~ ~u~~ 't~i~le ~ark
Come to the public worksho~s. ~_ -.
We'll see you at the IVew ~ _ ~ .
Qcean Park Library