Arts_Task_Force
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 MEETING OF THE ARTS TASK FORCE
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
4:00 p.m.
City Hall Room 201
Revised Minutes
The meeting was called to order at 4:20 p.m.
- Roll Call
Voting Members Present
Karen Ames
Jeffrey Ferns
Rick Galbreath
Tim Gaskin
David Gluck
Elaine Katzenberger
Krissy Keefer
Tony Kelly
Pamela Wu Kochiyama
Maria X. Martinez
Anjali Nath
Vinay Patel
Pamela Peniston
Richard (Rick) Putz
Alma Robinson
Laird Rodet
Marc Vogl
Debra Walker
Voting Members Excused
Ken Foster
Virginia (Ginny) Carollo Rubin
Voting Members Absent
Darryl Smith
Nonvoting Members Present
Tim Hallman
Rich Hillis
John R. Killacky
Elizabeth Murray
Richard Newirth
Geraldine O’Brien
Kary Schulman (for Renee Hayes)
Nonvoting Members Excused
Charles Roppel
Nonvoting Members Absent
Bob Davis
Mike Farrah
P.J. Johnston
Carolyn McMillan
Gloria Woo
NOTE: ALL VOTES ARE UNANIMOUS UNLESS OTHERWISE RECORDED.
- Announcements by the Chair
Item number 4 (Update on Task Force Report) was taken out of order to give time for Mr. Lord and Mr. Hillis to arrive.
It was announced that Supervisor Ammiano would make remarks regarding the purpose of the Task Force at the next meeting.
There was no public comment on this item.
- Presentation Regarding Land Use Programs and Policies
Paul Lord was recognized and introduced himself as a practicing artist and as the staff person who led the Planning Department on the arts element of the general plan.
Mr. Lord stated the he believed there will always be inequities in City funding for the arts: the challenge is to level the playing field to support emerging arts, indicating that there are incredibly diminishing returns in dealing with the City. He said that time would be better spent networking with business and other arts organizations than trying to deal with the City.
He cited a study by San Francisco State, which exclusively studied the nonprofit arts economy in 1990, and found a huge for-profit arts community that dwarfs the nonprofit arts and essentially found that all nonprofit organizations need space in very land-poor San Francisco. Ultimately, Mr. Lord posits, artists want to be here because of the artistic vitality of San Francisco.
Mr. Lord also stated that the development fee percentage for arts assessed on downtown development could be raised, but not without a fight. He suggested a tax on rental cars. Essentially, he suggested building something new and thinking outside the traditional paradigm. He believes the Task Force has a once-in-a-decade opportunity to improve the lot of artists in San Francisco.
He said that land use policy should piggyback on other uses to take advantage of the 24/7 nature of arts facilities which create street-level activity so important to all other development.
Mr. Lord suggested that the current western SOMA planning and rezoning process be scrutinized regarding the incentives vs. exactions models of fee-supported arts development. Mr. Lord offered that incentives will work better since exactions require nexus study. Working with the Board of Supervisors, a model could be developed that balanced the two approaches and would coordinate all the different “percent for arts” programs that now lack any central policy or administrative coordination.
Mr. Lord further stated that accessory uses still exist and are an opportunity to do real “live-work” affordable space for artists but that there is a real need for a true “Mayor’s Office of Community Development,” i.e. an umbrella administrative and policy body to cover redevelopment, planning, transportation, housing, etc., which are currently far too balkanized to get broad agreement across so many fiefdoms.
Mr. Lord agreed that a “Cultural Arts Ombudsman” would be an essential and desirable element in integrating the bureaucratic cultures of the existing City infrastructure.
Marc Vogl offered that the bar to using underutilized public school facilities for arts programming was one of liability insurance. Mr. Lord agreed and, while not having an immediate solution for the immediate problem, suggested the longer-term solution of establishment of an arts land trust to acquire buildings for arts purposes in perpetuity—as ownership is the surest guarantee against rising rents.
There was no public comment on this item.
- Update on Task Force Report
Tony Kelly, Vice-Chair of the Task Force, was recognized. He related that his workgroup has met informally twice since last meeting and has been coalescing comments from Task Force meetings and public comment and are integrating all the ideas and recommendations into discussable “pods.”
Maria X. Martinez has recommended Yolanda Alindor, a nonprofit, for-profit and government organizational development consultant, to facilitate the drafting of the Task Force’s recommendations. Ms. Alindor conducts board retreats and staff retreats, and has a long history of facilitating meetings and handling conflict resolution.
Ms. Alindor facilitated an extensive colloquy regarding the charge of the Task Force, which allowed members to express their understanding of the purposes of the Task Force. The discussion especially focused on the apparent tension between major arts organizations and smaller, less well-funded groups, as well as on the definition of “community-based” as it pertains to the charge of the Task Force.
The exercise resulted in some positive outcomes and agreements vis-à-vis the work of the Task Force. Following are some of the issues the Task Force has been addressing.
How do we strengthen the arts generally, and formulate a model for state and national support for the arts? How do we support the arts in the face of declining official support? How do we design institutions to support the arts and foster broader community-serving organizations?
What are the relative needs, where are the gaps and how do we need to address them?
How do we take historical notice of inequity of arts funding and community-based organizations (“CBOs”)? For example, small dance groups would apply for grants calling themselves CBOs, where the ballet would call itself a world-class institution.
How do we prioritize use of public funds, and make policy recommendations to avoid having to band-aid emergency support during lean times?
How do we use public funds to leverage solutions to problems being faced by the City?
Public Comment
Andrew Wood explained that “CBO” is a specific term used by grantwriters to define an organization that interacts with a constituent group that is as much about community empowerment and expression as it is about presentation. He noted that he was involved in the drafting of the Task Force’s enabling legislation, and said that the second goal of the Task Force, dealing with economic development, was designed to include large-budget organizations whose expertise was both welcome and desired for advice on leveraging funds and creating new opportunities for the arts community as a whole.
Katherine (no last name given) said she had attended the Mission meeting and asked for clarification on Karen Ames’ self-definition of “community-based”: not necessarily not community-involved, but if economic development were to stay in the hands of six organizations, nothing would change. She advocated a shift into an incubator for CBO housing (noting that a recent article in the local paper found that 75% of emergency responders live outside the city because of the high cost of housing) rent free. Incentives to small and medium organizations would be necessary to keep CBOs in San Francisco.
- Outreach Update
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
- New Business
There was no new business.
There was no public comment on this item.
- Public Comment
There was no further public comment.
- Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m.
1/17/06 DW/RG/spr
