1 CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
MINUTES OF THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION
February 7, 2022
Meeting by teleconference (Zoom) – in accordance with procedures on agenda 1400 Highland Avenue
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
A. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Marcy called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
B. ROLL CALL
Present: Manna, Spackman, Tokashiki, Chair Marcy
Absent: Ryan
Staff present: Eilen Stewart, Cultural Arts Manager (CAM), Ginna Muzingo, Agenda Host, Parks and Recreation, Rosemary Lackow, Recording Secretary.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -
December 20, 2021: Moved and seconded (Tokashiki/Manna) to approve as submitted.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Manna, Rubino, Spackman, Tokashiki, Chair Marcy
NOES: None
ABSENT: Ryan
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried by a 4-1 (Ryan absent)
D. CEREMONIAL – None
E. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION (3-Minute Limit) – None
F. GENERAL BUSINESS
1. Leadership Manhattan Beach mural discussion
CAM Stewart provided an overview with the aid of graphics , summarizing that the request is from the Leadership Manhattan Beach (LMB) to implement as its annual project. It involves a community painted mural on the parking lot wall of the Manhattan Beach Art Center, facing the public right-of-way on 11 th
street. The project has a tight, fast-tracked (6-month) timeline and is congruent with one of a number of components of the current CAC Work Plan Art Center Revamp project. The task for the CAC now is to review and give input regarding two proposed mural designs and if possible, indicate a preference. The project has already been approved by City Council. In a show of hands, three of the five currently seated Commissioners (Manna, Marcy, Tokashiki) indicated they are alumni of the LMB program.
CAM Stewart invited LMB representatives Greg Cicchino and CAC Commissioner Betsy Rubino to make a presentation.
Mr. Cicchino, using slides, provided more details, indicating that the installation is to be a commun ity involved “painting extravaganza” that will take place on a single day. The design is intended to be relatively
2 simple as the technique will be similar to “paint by number”. The project is identified as a component of “Phase 3” of the Art Center Revamp Work Plan item. Regarding public noticing, a postcard will be sent mid-February to neighbors within 1,000 feet of the project in order to gauge nearby resident opinions and currently LMB website is conducting a poll. The LMB group is engaged in fund ra ising and is about halfway to their goal.
Ms. Rubino indicated that the Council has been given a presentation and gave its unanimous support. LMB will go back to the Council on March 1, 2022 for final approval. So far there have been 37 respondents to the online poll, 28 preferring option 1, and 8 preferring Option 2, and 1 person objecting to the project.
Mr. Cicchino and Ms. Rubino responded to Commission questions: 1) LMB is donating the mural to the City and it will then be the responsibility of the City to maintain it; 2) the mural is going to have a graffiti prevention seal coat and is expected to last 5-10 years; 3) the installation budget is approximately $2,000; 4) While LMB is getting opinions from nearby residents, including those right across from the wall, and strong support has been received so far, LMB has a “Plan B” in case the proposals are rejected; 5) Both artists have a city connection; 6) The wall will need some prep work (e.g. power washing) but if the City cannot do that prep, LMB will get it done; 7) the wall is 137 feet in length of which about 10 feet has some adjacent vegetation which is not anticipated to be removed and the plan is to paint the entire wall including where vegetation exists.
Commissioners, one-by-one, provided input.
Chair Marcy stated he likes both options but leans toward #1 because of the vibrant color. He asked whether the design can in some way be more cohesive with the Van Hamersveld frieze on the site building.
Commissioner Spackman stated he understands the attraction of option 1, but prefers option 2 because it specifically has imagery relating to Manhattan Beach.
CAM Stewart advised that regardless of the CAC preference, ultimately the project design is up to LMB with approval by the City Council.
Commissioner Tokashiki stated that she likes both options but prefers #1 for the colors and the fact that the foliage represented is native to the local area and agrees with a comment that it would be good if the mural somehow works with the Van Hamersveld frieze.
Commissioner Manna stated he prefers #2 because of the city image tie-in. He understands that the color of #1 makes it stand out but he feels that the street it faces (11 th Street) is a quiet and much less traveled
frontage and therefore does not need to “pop out”.
Chair Marcy asked for any additional input and seeing none, summarized that there is a 2-2 split on the mural preference, Marcy and Tokashiki preferring #1 and Manna and Spackman preferring #2.
CAM Stewart advised it would be appropriate that the Commission entertain a motion to support the LMB mural project but without a design preference.
It was discussed briefly that the project regardless of which design is chosen, is consistent with CAC goals and will advance the progress of the MBAC revamp project, a component of the approved CAC work plan.
It was moved and seconded (Manna/Tokashiki) that the Commission endorse and support the subject LMB mural project while not indicating a preference of a design option.
3 ROLL CALL:
AYES: Manna, Spackman, Tokashiki, Chair Marcy
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Rubino
The motion carried by a 4-1-1 vote (Ryan absent, Rubino abstain)
LMB representative Cicchino thanked the Commission for its support.
2. Discussion of 2022 Work Plan items
The Commission and/or staff discussed and provided status reports:
a. Rainbow Crosswalk: CA staff working with PW regarding design; the x-walk by Polliwog is a top priority and a realistic timeline is being developed; anticipating bringing to Council April 5 to dovetail with a street slurry seal project at the site. b. MBAC Revamp Project: no significant new info: staff working on frieze mural repair. c. Art Grant – Utility Beautification: based on Council concerns, it is appropriate for this subcommittee to reconnect and discuss the project description and goals. d. Art Grant – Murals: no new information.
e. Art Grant – Digital Wall Art: this will be discussed at the next (March) CAC meeting. f. Art Grant – Performing Arts: no new information
g. Art Grant – Sculpture Garden (temporary works): no new information h. Art Grant – Permanent Sculpture: no new information
i. Art Grant – School Education: it was clarified that this project is staying on the work plan, but not a priority at this time.
G. STAFF ITEMS
CAM Stewart reported:
• MBAC Charles (Chick) Lynn Bragg Retrospective: a reception was held for the opening, 150 attended including CA Commissioners; there was a strong educational component (“Color the Giant Wall”); the exhibit will close April 3rd. CAM Stewart noted that there are 4 MBAC exhibits per year and the dates are posted on the Cultural Arts webpage and calendar. • Art classes: going well.
• Public Arts Trust Fund has had no significant change in the last month. • City Council updates: the Rainbow Crosswalk is anticipated to be within the allocated budget. • Manhattan Beach Education Foundation (MBEF) Proposal : CAM Stewart addressed that the item was supposed to have been called out on the agenda, however was omitted due to a clerical error. As it is a Staff Item requiring no vote, it is still appropriate to discuss it at this time. CAM Stewart provided a background and description, using slides, of a proposal by the MBEF to install a donor recognition mural with ceramic tiles on the east side (facing Shade Hotel) of the existing fountain wall located in the north Metlox plaza. Slides were shown depicting two artists’ renditions which include images refl ecting educational subjects, and oval shapes that will contain names of donors, with the size of the ovals corresponding to donation amounts. The project has already been presented in concept and approved by the City Council and MBEF will go back to council on March 15, 2022 for a decision as to which design scheme to apply. The concept is being shared today to inform the CAC and provide an opportunity for CAC input.
CAM Stewart responded to questions, clarifying the wall’s location, ownership (City owns) but was not able to state whether the project is being funded fully by MBEF. She understands that the location
4 was chosen because it is a very visible and central to downtown, and is fitting in that the school system is an integral anchor that attracts people to the city. D iscussion ensued and some concerns were expressed regarding the location, and review process.
CAM Stewart went over the City Council ’s sole authority to review such projects and clarified t hat the project will be a joint venture between the city and MBEF: the city donating the site for the project while MBEF will maintain and update the donor wall as needed. The input the Council is seeking from CAC is: 1) Are you in support? 2) Do you prefer either of the two artistic renderings? 3) Do you have any concer ns? Of these the council is most wanting input on the design, which of the two is preferred.
Chair Marcy took a straw poll seeking input, resulting in the following: Tokashiki: supports but has a concern for the space/location (can it go on the school district office site; can this be reconsidered?), prefers design #2. Spackman: strongly supports in general, feels it is unfortunate that the CAC missed being in the conversation earlier, does not support a location at the school district main office in that he recalls that site as poor public visibility and prefers design #2; Rubino: supports the MBEF and council with concern for the location (would like to see closer to a school), and has a strong preference for #2. Manna: would like to see consideration for a location closer to the City H all or library, and also prefers #2.
H. COMMISSION ITEMS
• Commissioner Spackman inquired as to the MBEF matter not being on the agenda; CAM Stewart noted that it was intended to be on the agenda but was inadvertently omitted and assured that such omission is not legally incorrect since the item was a request for input, not a formal recommendation to council.
• Commissioner Manna congratulated CAM Stewart and staff on doing a great job, especially on the Bragg retrospective, inquiring as to a previous proposal to have Bragg paint a mural on the east wall of Joslyn Community Center; CAM Steward noted that the wall at the Joslyn Center, while a nice location and space, does not have a type of surface that lends itself to Bragg’s type of mural.
• Chair Marcy will discuss the status of Commissioner Ryan with staff in light of her absences.
I. ADJOURNMENT
At 7:25 P.M, with no objection, Chair Marcy adjourned the meeting to March 21, 2022 at 6:00 p.m.