December 3, 2004

Airport Public Art Master Plan approved

City Council passes the plan; finds fault with the process

By Kymberli W. Brady
Staff Writer

With construction underway on two of the largest projects in San Jose history, much ado has been raised over the mandated 2 percent public art allocation and questions remain unanswered, even after the City Council voted last week to pass the Airport Art Master Plan.

Photo by Julie Davis Berry

Another “minor” amendment sailed though council approval and now paves the way for another 625,000 square feet of building space in the North Concourse terminal, which will contain 1.7 million square feet to accommodate passenger demand.

Along with the 58 percent increase in legroom comes more “eligible” funding that will no doubt plump up the public art budget as well—but by how much?

No one seems to really know. Yet, the 2 percent guidelines for public art as specified in Title 22 of the San Jose Municipal Code look to be simple and specific. Even though initial reports put the budget somewhere between $20 and $60 million, OCA staff is quick to point out that a $10 million budget facility-wide is more realistic.

According to the text—specifically Section 4, Item A—the formula is quite succinct as to which funds are considered “eligible” and which are not. It also comes with an interesting time line, which states, “Funding for an Eligible Construction Project [ECP] shall be determined and fixed at the time funds for the design phase of the project are appropriated.

“The total estimated cost for an ECP shall include the cost of engineering, design, and construction and shall exclude the costs related to land acquisition, soil remediation and off-site improvements. The funding for the Art in Public Places Program derived from each ECP shall be calculated as follows: .02 x Total Estimated Cost = Art Allocation.”

Theoretically, the $355 million North Concourse facility would equate to a public art allowance of $7.1 million, assuming the building is free of land acquisition, soil remediation and off-site improvements. Add the remaining three terminal facilities to that and a potential $25.8 million budget would exist facility-wide—much closer to earlier projections.

However, not mentioned in the ordinance arefunding “limitations” recognized in Title 22 that are set by “special sources of funds that prohibit their use towards public art.”

Broken down, the North Concourse is being funded through airport revenue bonds, federal grants, passenger facility charges (PFC) and the Airport Improvement Program.

Federal dollars and PFCs are automatically excluded from the budget. Depending on how the revenue bonds are structured and who the source of repayment is, they are often excluded as well. After all the unqualified funding was taken away, only $199 million was eligible for the 2 percent determination.

The “public” process
In offering his comments to the City Council on Tuesday, OCA Deputy Director Jerry Allen admitted that the planning process started four years ago with a 12-member steering committee, comprised of mostly city staff.

“We brought together community leadership and broad participation by the community,” he said. “As well as the experience of artists and art administrators who are experts in developing this kind of plan. This has been a four-year planning process that began in 2000 and was interrupted for a while. We took it back a year ago. During that time, some 500 people participated directly in the planning process.

For more than three years, meetings were held without public notice or input, as the master plan slowly took shape without any community involvement. And yet, according to Title 22 Resolution #64284, the moment the 12-member committee gathered for their first meeting in 2000, it and all others became subject to the conditions set forth by the Brown Act (California open meetings act).

Disturbed by a growing number of concerns, the City Council stepped in last August and appointed 13 community members to the steering committee—many of whom felt the ink was already dry and their hands were tied with the eleventh hour appointment.

San Jose Airport Commissioner Catherine Tompkison Graham called it an “appallingly managed process,” especially following her recent—and very brief—involvement as a steering committee member.

“I think it’s been disdainful,” she says. “My personal experience has only reinforced those concerns. It’s not about the art, but the process and the staff. I don’t think it’s particularly a public process, and I don’t think the committee is properly run.”

While Allen further emphasized the fact that there has been “considerable community participation” in the process, with over 500 community members attending nearly 30 community meetings, council members disagreed.

“I’m concerned, along with a lot of other people with the public outreach,” said Councilmember Chuck Reed. “It’s one thing to hold a meeting, it’s another thing to get people to attend.”

The plan
Exploring art and technology to illustrate innovation, diversity and change, OED Assistant Director Kim Walesh said, “It’s our firm belief that there is no other community in the world that is as ready to excel at the intersection of art and technology as a community as we are.”

Walesh defined the criteria for selection as art that uses technology, is inspired by technology or is developed with or comments on technology.

“I’m a little confused about the technology part,” said Council-member Linda LeZotte. “This seems to be all about technology. Nothing here looks to me like traditional art. My concern is that far too much emphasis is being placed on the silicon and not enough on the valley. I think we’re focusing too much on one thing. It’s going to be static.”

“We fully anticipate that the artworks in the airport will include both very traditional art forms; painting, sculptures and photos,” explained Walesh, “as well as new articles like digital prints, interactive installations or software art.”

Councilmember Dave Cortese however, was much more concerned with the proposed 60-percent implementation policy wrapped around a 60-day time line that creates what he calls a “done deal” syndrome.

“The Master Plan being submitted at this point needs to be more general,” he said. “I’m wondering why such a general document needs to be integrated if you’re not getting into specific media, specific renderings. These objections are coming from some of the people involved and others in contact with my office. These are things that I would put in the category of the ‘done deal’ syndrome. How important is it for us to participate, for council to participate in this when it appears that the process is really ahead of the policy?”

Cortese also raised issues with regard to Brown Act compliance. He was prepared to make a motion for records of all minutes, notes and memos pertaining to the project prior to any public involvement, when Allen offered to comply and said he would have them accessible to anyone who wanted to come to the office and view them.
Conflict of interest?

Allen, a high-ranking full-time salaried employee of the city, sits at the helm of not only the largest public art project in San Jose history, he’s also involved in an estimated 40 other projects currently underway in San Jose. Although numerous requests for information regarding his salary and benefits were denied, estimates in the six-figure range would not be unrealistic, as compared to other city employees in similar positions.

Still, he has managed to operate a consulting firm and sell his services to other cities and public art projects, including an $18,850 commission in April 2003 for his work on the Reno Transportation Rail Access Corridor (reTRAC) project—pulled from $400,000 that had been set aside from its public art component. Additionally, he developed the Cultural Master Plan and the Public Art Master Plan for the city.

In 2000, Allen was contracted by the city of San Antonio—a popular destination with city officials as of late, to set up a “community plan for San Antonio’s Creative Economy.” His fee for that project is unknown.

In 1997, Allen received compensation for work he performed on the “Soquel/Front Street Garage Project” in Santa Cruz. Although the amount was never disclosed, payment was said to have been handled “administratively.”

Allen has also been listed as a public art consultant for the city of Huntington Beach since 2002 and is still on the list today.

Ironically, another familiar name surfaced on the same list, that of new Public Art Program Director Barbara Goldstein.

In the meantime, the nation is watching—waiting to see what the technology capitol of the world will unleash with this massive endeavor. However, a tainted history of closed-door meetings and questionable public outreach looms over the OCA’s public art process—or lack thereof, depending on whom you ask.

While San Jose is revered for its model public art program, community members and local officials warn that the wheels have been put in motion on a pending train wreck that threatens to alienate the public and destroy any sense of involvement in a project that aggressively aspires to make San Jose a “destination.”