At the September 15, 2020 Special City Council Meeting , Council and Staff discussed the standards and review process for wall murals. It was a very interesting meeting, and worth watching the full broadcast version at the link above.
Currently, if a mural design has to undergo review, a number of “authorities” in Glendale control the process under specific conditions. City Council reviews murals in the Central Glendale Redevelopment Project Area. City Council has authority over murals in the Downtown Specific Plan on new buildings/additions greater than 10,000 square feet. The Community Development Director (currently Philip Lanzafame, known for city development plunder and his hostility toward residents), has authority over all other murals in the DSP. The Design Review Board has authority over all other murals throughout the city (huh?). Irrespective of which authority makes the review, a $3,840.00 review application fee is imposed on the artist or sponsor. So at this time, we have plenty of unqualified bureaucratic ‘fingers in the pie,’ collecting exorbitant fees, and acting as art critics.
Council members Dan Brotman and Ardy Kassakhian were the greatest advocates for consolidating authority and placing mural review exclusively in the hands of the Glendale Arts and Culture Authority. They were also very specific about the review fees being reduced to $0.00 in cases of non-Arts and Culture Authority review, and maintaining a $0.00 fee for ACA reviews. Each wanted the ACA to develop a more “robust” mural policy under which they would make the decisions for the entire city, leaving only situations of appealed projects to City Council. That way, City Council would have to do the ‘heavy lifting’ only when considering greater mural related issues like First Amendment application. After questions about applications/protections in residential zones, Paula Devine’s position aligned with her thoughtful colleagues.
Councilmember, Ara ‘Dark Days’ Najarian, wanted to maintain power over artists and their sponsors by the current batch of bureaucrats who have little to no expertise in reviewing art. His justification was that he wanted to be a “part of the process.” He made claims of “liking murals'” even though, as a councilmember, he was unaware of how the City of Glendale defines one. As usual, he had a self-aggrandizing moment (this time regarding painted utility boxes) before demonstrating his lack of knowledge on the subject -and others. He advocated for greater authority of, and workload burden upon, City Council. Last year, Najarian introduced ‘dark days,’ eliminating one City Council meeting monthly so staff could catch-up on their workload, essentially giving a generously paid staff some paid days off while simultaneously reducing Council’s service to the public. Community Development Director, Philip Lanzafame, was on hand to explain how the City currently maintains its authority over murals and how it keeps restrictions on privately created murals. Unable to successfully oppose the direction Council was taking on the issue, Najarian voted “yes” along with his superior colleagues; thereby making his voting record look good while simultaneously concealing his lack of character, consideration for the public, and willingness to relinquish authority to a body with more expertise. At least he offered some comic relief to the meeting (see video below). Though often wrong on issues brought to Council, this time he deserves a bit of credit. He only missed it by….
Mayor Agajanian was having a hard time processing some facts. He asked a few questions, that offered little or no insight to the topic being discussed, and required clarification from staff on points already discussed. He contributed his all too common ‘roll with the pack’ “yes” vote. So, thanks to councilmembers Brotman, Devine, and Kassakhian, the Mayor was able to find the right side of the issue to take.
I think that pretty much covers it in summary. Enjoy the video.
(Originally posted to Nextdoor 10/17/2020)
ASSOCIATED COMMENTS:
There are some quite controversial murals on Victory Blvd, installed by a commercial concern that didn’t follow their permit. Do you propose, by eliminating fees, that the community ought to absorb the full cost of review and controversy? Seems like that burden should be on the applicant and not the taxpayers. 29 Sep
Phillip M • Riverside Rancho I know the murals to which you refer, and recall they stirred some controversy in our Riverside Rancho neighborhood. Understandably so. IMO, they are unattractive and not inspiring whatsoever. But if the creators didn’t follow permit procedure and requirements, then the City has a responsibility to deal with that issue. I’m not sure they have. I support the proposal Dan Brotman introduced which was seconded by Ardy Kassakhian. It doesn’t make sense to charge almost $4K so Council, Community Development, or the Design Review Board can play art critic. Delegating that responsibility to the Arts and Culture Authority just makes good sense. If there is an administrative cost which is found to require a fee adjustment, ACA is capable of expressing that to Council. But I do not believe, the current fees for simply reviewing include any monies held for possibilities of controversy/appeal. So appeals are at the cost of appellants, just as they are in cases of inappropriate development, anyhow. If mural appeals become frequent, or costly for the City, then perhaps Council will need to reexamine that process to determine how much the cost should be and which parties should shoulder it. 29 Sep
No matter who reviews it, there is a cost in staff time and resources. What makes you think the Arts & Culture won’t themselves be playing “art critics”, with much less accountability than Council since voters have no input into their selection? 29 Sep
Phillip Marks • Riverside Rancho Whatever cost is involved, if not negligible, ACA will inform Council. ACA is instructed to to develop the standards for review. In doing so, they will be better informed of all of the considerations required when reviewing mural proposals. We haven’t even seen what the ACA has drafted for review process standards yet. And if anyone plays “art critic,” I would trust the ACA infinitely more than the Design Review Board, or Community Development’s ‘Lanzafame and Co.’ And why would we bring routine mural proposals to Council? Do you think it’s more efficient to have three non-art departments handling city art-related issues? And whether or not voters selected ACA seats (or even vote on the art itself), they still have the appeal process which would go to a City Council that is accountable. — even if a couple of 2019 leftovers don’t act like they are. 29 Sep
Recent Comments