A plan to expand public art in Santa Maria sparked a heated debate about who should pay for it and whether developers should fund projects through a special fee.
The City Council approved the Public Art Master Plan last month, but it rejected a proposal to add a one-quarter of a percent fee on projects to pay for public art.
Recreation and Parks Director Alex Posada said it was a reasonable fee and would help address community effects of new development.
But the council majority opposed levying the fee — proposed as one-quarter of a percent on the value of building permits between $50,000 and $2 million.
“I don’t think we need to put it on the backs of those that get regulated and mandated with fees and costs all the time, and there’s not an end to this,” Councilwoman Etta Waterfield said.
Other discussion centered on whether the city should fund public art.
“It’s not just that we don’t want to fund it; it’s just that I don’t see how we fiscally can,” Mayor Alice Patino said.
“We are creating a precedence for any other good-feeling or good-type situation for the city of Santa Maria to fund,” Waterfield said.
The council members contended that public art should be funded through a nonprofit organization and suggested that city staff report back on the efforts to establish a funding source.
Councilwoman Gloria Soto lobbied hard to include the funding mechanism, and she criticized how her colleagues characterized the public art program.
“I think it’s really unfortunate we keep talking about the arts as a burden, it’s another cost, it’s another burden, rather than really seeing it as a return on investment,” Soto said.
She added that a one-quarter percent fee for public art won’t stop development.
“They will continue. They will build,” she said. “They will have a return on investment, and I can guarantee that it will be more than the $5,000 they are putting down.”
It wasn’t the first time that the City Council had rejected the fee. Two years ago, when the draft plan was unveiled, the council rejected a 1 percent fee for the project and referred the matter to a special seven-member committee to get input from all facets of the community.
The committee, which included a council member, planning commissioners, recreation and parks commissioners, community members and developers, suggested a one-quarter percent fee instead of 1 percent.
Based on the past year’s permits through October, the fee would have generated about $76,000 for public art, according to city staff.
Members of the arts community, including some who were encouraged to show up by the Santa Maria Arts Council, filled the council chambers and urged the panel to adopt both the plan and the funding mechanism.
Muralist Ruben Espinoza said he often works outside of Santa Maria in communities that have funding for public art. He said the focus today is on creating experiences for shoppers and guests via art used as backdrops for selfies.
“I wish to work with developers within the city limits if this ordinance passes because I think with more public art there’s more foot traffic and you get more customers to spend money,” Espinoza said.
Several members of Chicano Renaissance also spoke in support of public art.
“Every person in this group is an artist, a creator, a visionary, seeking positive changes in the community,” said Leo Ortega, with fellow members standing behind him holding signs that read, “Support Public Art.”
“Creating beautiful designs, murals, sculptures, public art galleries, in Santa Maria will change who we are as a community,” Ortega said, adding that instead of attracting attention for violence, the community would be known for its art.
The development fee would be capped at $5,000, even for developments with a value higher than $2 million.
“It’s such a small price to pay to beautify the city,” said Craig Schafer, a longtime city resident who sat on the committee that reviewed the proposal.
He urged the city to adopt the plan “to transform the city from bland to dynamic, from uninspiring to vital, from lackluster to relevant.”
But representatives of the developer, home builder and business communities asked the council to reject the fee.
Laurie Tamura of Urban Planning Concepts said she did not support the master plan, especially the fee.
Of the 23 jurisdictions in Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Ventura counties, only four have a similar fee. Three of the four charge the fee only on municipal capital projects. Pismo Beach includes all projects.
“This is not something that’s done everywhere,” Tamura said. “I want to say to the community, a bad law does not make for good art.”
Glenn Morris of the Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce said the city could encourage developers by adding a density bonus, in which instead of 10 residential units, a project could build 12 units in exchange for adding public art.
“I think there are a number of tools that the city has in its toolbox, that instead of making it a mandatory project, it can become an incentivized and a voluntary one,” Morris said. “I don’t think you’ll find anybody that is just adamantly saying, no, don’t do it. I think everyone agrees with the goal of adding public art to the community. It’s a win for the community across the board.”
— Noozhawk North County editor Janene Scully can be reached at jscully@noozhawk.com. Follow Noozhawk on Twitter: @noozhawk, @NoozhawkNews and @NoozhawkBiz. Connect with Noozhawk on Facebook.