Council Tentatively OKs Developer Fees for Art : Urban affairs: Builders would fund sculptures, murals, rehearsal spaces, theaters and music festivals.

The Los Angeles City Council on Friday gave tentative approval to a public arts program that will require developers to pay millions of dollars annually to install artwork in commercial projects ranging from mini-malls to high-rise office buildings.

Supporters say that the public art program will enliven neighborhoods from the San Fernando Valley to South-Central Los Angeles, putting a new face on a cityscape that critics say is marred by dull architecture and graffiti.

The measure would require developers of non-residential projects costing more than $500,000 to spend as much as 1% of the construction value on “public art” such as sculpture and murals, as well as rehearsal space, parades, theaters and music festivals.

Developers can pay into a public art fund or spend an equivalent amount for art on their own buildings. City officials predict that most developers will prefer spending the money themselves.

The council voted 10 to 1 for the measure, meaning that it will come back to the council for a final vote March 1. Approval requires eight votes, and officials say they expect passage.

In addition to spawning public art projects, officials say that the measure will help integrate the city’s art scene. A city survey estimated last year that 90% of the people who attend art events such as live theater, music performances and museum shows are affluent whites over the age of 60.

“Our purpose is to broaden the arts experience citywide,” said Adolfo Nodal, general manager of the Cultural Affairs Department, which will oversee the public arts program. “We won’t be like other cities that have kept the arts an elitist thing.”

Artists hope the measure will bring more income to their struggling ranks. A city study last year estimated that one-third of Los Angeles artists earn no money from their art, and another third earned less than 25% of their total income from their artwork.

“There are many questions from the arts community, but they boil down to, ‘How much money will be available?’ ” said Tarabu Betserai, the southern field director of the California Federation of the Arts.

Money from developers will be funneled into the Los Angeles Endowment for the Arts, to be spent on local artists and arts organizations as well as major arts institutions such as the Music Center and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Some money will go to support programs for children, who receive only a smattering of arts education at city schools.

Creation of the new arts fee--which is retroactive to January, 1989--is the third component of an arts endowment fund that city officials predict will earn as much as $25 million a year, depending on the health of the local economy. The endowment fund last year also began receiving city contributions equal to 1% of the value of new public works projects and 1% of hotel bed tax earnings, which so far total about $6 million.

“This is going to provide vast new resources to support the arts in Los Angeles,” said Councilman Joel Wachs, who is credited with steering the measure through City Hall for the past five years. “The council recognizes that the arts can make a better city.”

Wachs said the city’s program will bring art to neighborhoods from Chatsworth to South-Central Los Angeles. The council will have final say over how much of the money will be spent, based on recommendations from art review panels and the city’s seven-member Cultural Affairs Commission. The sole vote against the measure came from City Councilman Ernani Bernardi.

Although controversy over public art is expected, city officials said they hope to enlist the help of community members to give opinions about what will be done in their neighborhoods.

“It used to be that five or six museum directors would go meet in a room, then hire an artist to go to a studio and blow up something; they bring it in by helicopter and everybody walking by is saying, ‘Who ordered this?’ ” said Nodal. “We want to get artists working with the community.”

Cities have for years routinely commissioned artists to work on public works projects, but Los Angeles will become one of a handful to require developers to pay for public art. Culver City and Escondido have similar measures, and one is being considered in Santa Monica. The Culver City law survived a legal challenge last fall by a developer.

In Los Angeles community redevelopment zones, developers have been required to spend money on art since 1964, a requirement that has created a number of outdoor sculptures, as well as the Museum of Contemporary Art.

But officials say that the arts program will produce not only monumental art for $100-million projects but include, for example, fountains and murals at new mini-malls.

In Seattle, artists for years have been hired by the city to design public works items ranging from manhole covers to fire stations. Larry’s Markets, a supermarket chain, has voluntarily joined Seattle’s art scene by commissioning an artist to create six 8-foot high metal sculptures of working people to install over a store entrance.

The California Building Industry Assn., which represents developers, opposes new fees that push up the cost of doing business, said Robert Rivinius, the group’s director.

But Rivinius said he did not expect any builder to challenge the city measure, in part because “developers in Los Angeles are reluctant to file lawsuits against the City Council and be branded rabble-rousers.”

Rebecca Boyle of the Business Property Council, which represents 300 Los Angeles county real estate developers, told the council that her group opposes the fees because they will raise costs and make securing bank loans more difficult.

Controversy over the measure also extends to artists. But not all artists agree with the city plan, particularly if city bureaucrats are allowed to dictate the kinds of art that are funded.

“I own Al’s Bar and that’s what we use for a grant,” said Marc Kreisel, who uses proceeds from liquor sales at his downtown nightclub to subsidize an art gallery and live theater group. “That way we don’t have to be accountable to anyone but the IRS.”