EXHIBIT 2
City of Santa Ana – Community Development Agency
Public Comment Response Matrix
Comment # Written Public Comment Received Response
1 Pat Gomez – LA County Dept of Arts & Culture, Senior Civic Art Manager Comments in support with no questions
The City acknowledges the
comment.
2 Irene Cabanas – resident
Comments in support of prioritizing Santa Ana-based artists and culturally-relevant art. Suggests added language for AI-generated designs
The City acknowledges the
comments and have added AI
language.
3 Stephanie Butler – resident
Comments in support of the policy and transparent process. Submitted questions & comments:
- define “Santa Ana’s unique cultural identity”
- support thematically appropriate art in context of the location - support the encouragement of innovation
- support the establishment of a Public Art Trust Fund
- questions rubric for quantifying the commitment of an artist outside of the city but who would like to be considered a “Santa Ana artist”
- suggests increase in pages for CV/resumes and number of images to submit for proposals over $50k - requests a public rubric for assessing the artist merit and originality of a proposed design - questions how a new-to-Santa-Ana artist can be added to a pre-qualified list of artists generated from the RFQ process
- suggests changing “nominal stipend” to “equitable stipend” for those on the pre-qualified list, so that it does not imply a “small” amount
- supports that the artist provide a lifecycle maintenance and conservation plan for the artwork - supports not using AI-generated designs for artwork
- supports distinguishing between “signage” and “murals” - requests transparent guidelines for proposal budgets
- supports artist providing/obtaining their own insurance, current Santa Ana business license, and city permits
- supports protection of historic properties when considering public art attached to it - supports artists soliciting community input for the design of the public artwork but questions if they can use the City communication channels to outreach to the public - questions if we have a 1% For Art program
- requests timeframe for private property owners to address graffiti and vandalism - suggest that we include material brands for maintenance and conservation of the artworks - suggests we include augmented reality to language in policy The City acknowledges the
comments and added appropriate
changes, suggestions, and
questions.
- The list of pre-qualified artists is
not static and is in effect only for
the specific RFQ/RFP.
- The City currently does not have
a 1% For Art program.
EXHIBIT 2
- suggests addition of “artist’s endowed foundation,” “Artist Legacy Foundation,” or “Artist’s Estate” to protect artworks after original artist has passed
- suggests adding to the list of criteria for de-accession based on “severe moral or character defects of the artist” (criminally, fraudulent, abusive, etc.)
- requests definition of a “reasonable timeframe” for an artist to remove their artwork regarding VARA laws
4 Megan Belmonte – UC Irvine, Claire Trevor School of the Arts, Director of Access & Engagement Comments in support of the policy. Submitted questions & comments:
- questions if the City has additional policies addressing art on private property - questions how public art is currently funded
- supports that sustainable funding for public art is essential to the policy’s success - questions the make-up of the review panel for the RFQ & RFP process - supports that the artist provide a lifecycle maintenance and conservation plan for the artwork - suggests a public rubric for evaluating RFQ/RFP
- suggests clarifying the language about artists being able to use a portion of the project budget to cover the cost of permits. Change to “allowable expense.”
- requests clarification on whether murals on private walls that face public right-of-way is still considered private property
The City acknowledges the
comments and have added
appropriate changes, suggestions,
and questions.
- Since the City does not have
jurisdiction over art on private
property, it strongly recommends
that the policy be used as “best
practices.”
- Public art is funded through the
City’s General Funds designated
for specific programs such as
Artist Grants
5 Julia Rigby – resident
Comments in full support with no questions
The City acknowledges the
comment.
6 Mire Molnar – resident
Comments in support of the policy. Submitted comments:
- regarding alteration or removal of artwork, suggests a minimum of 30-day public comment period; public notice through city website, on-site signage, and community outreach; a summary of public input and final decision rationale; written notice to artist at least 90 days in advance; consultation with artist/estate; and emergency exceptions only for public safety or structural concerns - suggests artist selection panels should include representatives from the Arts & Culture Commission and community members connected to the project site or neighborhood - supports community engagement for each project
- supports establishing a Public Art Trust Fund
The City acknowledges the
comments and have added
appropriate changes, suggestions,
and questions.
7 Victor Payan – resident
Submitted questions & comments:
- comments that policy favors murals and ignores other forms of public art. Suggest that policy should be future-thinking and include augmented reality art, digital artwork, solar power, etc. - recommends that all projects, regardless of budget, go through the RFQ and RFP process - recommends additional community meetings to gather more public input for proposed policy The City acknowledges the
comments and have added
appropriate changes, suggestions,
and questions.
EXHIBIT 2
- suggests adding “ensure the equitable distribution of public art opportunities and resources to diverse artists and protect against monopolization by predatory or unscrupulous artists or groups.” - suggests adding to the definitions of public art: “sculpture” and “installation” as separate from “monuments”
- supports creating funding programs for the creation of new public art works as well as restoring existing ones
- suggests funding be equitably distributed to ensure the creation of public art in all 6 wards - supports artist review process strictly adhering to conflict of interest policy, including the disqualification of artists who lobby or influence the panelists
- recommends that artists “should” be required to participate in community engagement activities, not “may”
- suggests timeline for RFQs be no less than 60 days from public announcement to allow for appropriate awareness and preparation
8 Sara Guerrero – resident
Comments in support of the policy. Submitted comments:
- regarding alteration or removal of artwork, suggests a minimum of 30-day public comment period; public notice through city website, on-site signage, and community outreach; a summary of public input and final decision rationale; written notice to artist at least 90 days in advance; consultation with artist/estate; and emergency exceptions only for public safety or structural concerns - suggests artist selection panels should include representatives from the Arts & Culture Commission and community members connected to the project site or neighborhood - supports community engagement for each project
- supports establishing a Public Art Trust Fund
The City acknowledges the
comments and have added
appropriate changes, suggestions,
and questions.
9 Sandra Pocha Pena – resident
Submitted questions & comments:
- recommends additional Arts & Culture staff and Public Art Board to oversee and implement the policy - suggests adding explicit descriptions of “best practices” as modeled by the Chicano Park Steering Committee in San Diego
- suggests a training session by mural masters for city staff - questions meaning of the exclusion of “city-issued grants” from being governed under “this policy” (on the first page at the end of the second paragraph)
- suggest City standardize anti-graffiti efforts by buying the coating in bulk and providing it to muralists either free of charge or a nominal fee
The City acknowledges the
comments and have added
appropriate changes, suggestions,
and questions.
- “City-issued grants” refers to
how this policy does not apply to
murals on private property even if
the mural was created using city-
issue grants.
10 Roger Reyes – resident
Comments in support of the policy. Submitted comments:
- regarding alteration or removal of artwork, suggests a minimum of 30-day public comment period; public notice through city website, on-site signage, and community outreach; a summary of public input and final The City acknowledges the
comments and have added
appropriate changes, suggestions,
and questions.
EXHIBIT 2
decision rationale; written notice to artist at least 90 days in advance; consultation with artist/estate; and emergency exceptions only for public safety or structural concerns - suggests artist selection panels should include representatives from the Arts & Culture Commission and community members connected to the project site or neighborhood - supports community engagement for each project
- supports establishing a Public Art Trust Fund
11 Matt Williams – resident
Comments in support of the policy. Submitted comments:
- regarding alteration or removal of artwork, suggests a minimum of 30-day public comment period; public notice through city website, on-site signage, and community outreach; a summary of public input and final decision rationale; written notice to artist at least 90 days in advance; consultation with artist/estate; and emergency exceptions only for public safety or structural concerns - suggests artist selection panels should include representatives from the Arts & Culture Commission and community members connected to the project site or neighborhood - supports community engagement for each project
- supports establishing a Public Art Trust Fund
The City acknowledges the
comments and have added
appropriate changes, suggestions,
and questions.
12 Cynthia Rebolledo – resident
Comments in support of the policy. Submitted comments:
- regarding alteration or removal of artwork, suggests a minimum of 30-day public comment period; public notice through city website, on-site signage, and community outreach; a summary of public input and final decision rationale; written notice to artist at least 90 days in advance; consultation with artist/estate; and emergency exceptions only for public safety or structural concerns - suggests artist selection panels should include representatives from the Arts & Culture Commission and community members connected to the project site or neighborhood - supports community engagement for each project
- supports establishing a Public Art Trust Fund
The City acknowledges the
comments and have added
appropriate changes, suggestions,
and questions.
13 Annabella Pritchard – resident
Comments in support of the policy. Submitted comments:
- regarding alteration or removal of artwork, suggests a minimum of 30-day public comment period; public notice through city website, on-site signage, and community outreach; a summary of public input and final decision rationale; written notice to artist at least 90 days in advance; consultation with artist/estate; and emergency exceptions only for public safety or structural concerns - suggests artist selection panels should include representatives from the Arts & Culture Commission and community members connected to the project site or neighborhood - supports community engagement for each project
- supports establishing a Public Art Trust Fund
The City acknowledges the
comments and have added
appropriate changes, suggestions,
and questions.
EXHIBIT 2
14 Ali Coyle – resident
Comments in support of the policy. Submitted comments:
- regarding alteration or removal of artwork, suggests a minimum of 30-day public comment period; public notice through city website, on-site signage, and community outreach; a summary of public input and final decision rationale; written notice to artist at least 90 days in advance; consultation with artist/estate; and emergency exceptions only for public safety or structural concerns - suggests artist selection panels should include representatives from the Arts & Culture Commission and community members connected to the project site or neighborhood - supports community engagement for each project
- supports establishing a Public Art Trust Fund
The City acknowledges the
comments and have added
appropriate changes, suggestions,
and questions.
15 Ruby Woo – resident
Comments in support of the policy, citing the importance of murals in safeguarding cultural heritage and community identity.
The City acknowledges the
comment.
16 Alicia Rojas – resident
Comments in support of the policy. Submitted comments:
- recommended clear notification procedures, robust artist consultation standards, greater community involvement in decision-making
- recommended establishment of dedicated funding, such as a public art trust fund, to support maintenance and conservation efforts
The City acknowledges the
comments and have added
appropriate changes, suggestions,
and questions.
17 John Spiak – resident
Comments in support of the policy. Submitted comments:
- recommended increased funding
- emphasized the need for meaningful community engagement in public art decisions The City acknowledges the
comments and have added
appropriate changes, suggestions,
and questions.
18 Marina Aguilera—artist
Comments in support of the policy. Stated that she will follow up with written comments for further consideration.
The City acknowledges the
comment.
19 Andrea Pinedo—resident
Comments in support of the policy. Submitted comments:
- recommended strengthening transparency, artist protections, and community involvement, including public notification procedures, artist consultation aligned with relevant state laws, community representation in selection processes, and the establishment of a public art trust fund to support maintenance and conservation efforts.
The City acknowledges the
comments and have added
appropriate changes, suggestions,
and questions.