title
ACTION ITEM: (1) Consideration of the Professional Review Panel’s Recommendation of the Architecture as Art Proposal at 9810-9814 Washington Boulevard by Brooks Scarpa Huber on Behalf of Rethink Culver, LLC.; (2) Review, Discuss, and Provide Comments; and, (3) Make a Motion to Advance the Recommendation to the Cultural Affairs Commission.
body
Meeting Date: March 31, 2026
Contact Person/Dept: Sam Lee/ Cultural Affairs Analyst, Office of Economic and Cultural Development
Phone Number: (310) 253-6001
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: Yes [X] No []
Public Notification: Meetings and Agendas - Cultural Affairs Commission (03/26/26)
Department Approval: Sally Unsworth, Cultural Affairs Manager (03/25/25)
______________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Cultural Affairs Commission Public Art Subcommittee (1) Considers the Professional Review Panel’s Recommendation of the Architecture as Art proposal at 9810-9814 Washington Boulevard by Brooks Scarpa Huber on Behalf of Rethink Culver, LLC.; (2) Review, Discuss, and Provide Comments; (3) Make a Motion to Advance the Professional Review Panel’s Recommendation to the Cultural Affairs Commission.
BACKGROUND
Architecture as Art was approved by the City Council in 1995 as an option in fulfilling the City’s public art requirement for tenant improvement projects exceeding $250,000 and new development projects in excess of $500,000. Specific language was added under Sections §15.06.160 and §15.06.165 of the City’s Public Art Ordinance #2013-003 to include this component. (These criteria include that the architect shall be substantially recognized in the art world; the underlying concept of the architecture shall be expressive of high artistic merit and extend beyond the utilitarian; the materials and craftsmanship shall be of high quality; and, the architecture shall meet all the general criteria of Section §15.06.130 et seq. for placement of artwork on private property). A fact sheet that summarizes the process and procedures for approving Architecture as Art as outlined in the City’s municipal code is included the staff report dated 12-08-25 (ATTACHMENT 1). This staff report also provides a background on the proposed development located at 9810-9814 Washington Boulevard as well as information about the Art as Architecture proposal from Brooks Scarpa Huber proposal on behalf of Rethink Culver, LLC.
On December 8, 2025, Cultural Affairs Division (CAD) and the Cultural Affairs Commission Public Art Subcommittee convened with the Brooks Scarpa Huber team. Lawrence Scarpa and Carlos Augusto Garcia provided background on the architectural firm and presented their proposal. Discussion ensued between CAD staff, Public Art Subcommittee members, and the project representatives. Subcommittee members recommended to the team to refine their examples of graphic/diagram, 3D renderings/visualizations, the narrative and tie-in to Culver City, and to highlight the art component and lighting, thus placing emphasis on the dynamics of the sculptural aspect of the art. Subcommittee members also requested to review the revised proposal before it would be shared with the Professional Review Panel. Pending the revised presentation deck, the Subcommittee approved to advance the proposal to a separate professional review panel, comprising of two commercial architects, one visual artist, one public art administrator, and a general professional. The Art in Public Places (APPP) Ordinance dictates that at least one of the panel members shall be a Culver City business owner or resident. The panel shall make a recommendation to the Cultural Affairs Commission for consideration.
In February 2026, CAD staff were successful in procuring a full panel with two commercial Culver City architects (who are also Culver City residents), one visual artist, one public art administrator, and one general professional. The revised proposal (ATTACHMENTS 2 & 3), evaluation guidelines (ATTACHMENT 4), scoresheet, and the APPP ordinance were provided to each panelist two weeks in advance of the scheduled March 12, 2026 review meeting.
The Professional Review Panel was comprised of the following:
• Nelson Algaze, Founding Principal & CEO, SAA INTERIORS+ARCHITECTURE
• Richard Berliner, Principal, Berliner Architects
• Katy Krantz, Multidisciplinary Artist & Former Culver City Artist Laureate
• Naomi Okuyama, Santa Monica Cultural Affairs Supervisor
• Meghan Pressman, Managing Director/CEO, Center Theatre Group
DISCUSSION
On Wednesday, March 11, 2026, finals scores were submitted to CAD; they were aggregated and resulted in an average of 47.2 points out of a total of 100 points.
On Thursday, March 12, Cultural Affairs Division and the Professional Review Panel convened in-person with the Brooks Scarpa Huber team. The proposal was presented to the panelists; they were given the opportunity to ask clarifying questions after the presentation. The panel then reviewed, discussed, and made their recommendations to staff in private.
The panel rejected the proposal because it did not meet the review criteria, which were evaluated based on the following four components (total of 100 points):
• Conceptual Development (up to 25 points)
• Innovative Materiality (up to 25 points)
• Spatial & Experiential Integration (up to 25 points)
• Contextual Integration (up to 25 points)
Some comments from the panelists are paraphrased here for context of their determination.
“The development is handsome and well designed. However, based on the criteria set forth in the Ordinance, I don’t buy the art component of the project. The building is beautiful and great, but it doesn’t scream art to me. I hate to say no. The architects are very talented. But if we are evaluating this Architecture as Art proposal and deciding if it is considered as art, I just don’t see it that way.”
“I have seen examples where the architecture raises to the level of art. Inserting art into architecture is certainly a collaboration, and in my mind can be easily identified as art. I am struggling with identifying the screen/louvers as art. They are interesting. The proposal needed something to differentiate it apart from the functional, operational, code-required thing.”
“The text element of the proposal was very strong and exciting, but I didn’t get the same impact when I review the presentation. I worry about the precedence here. If this proposal qualifies, then the floodgates will open. The staircase enclosure is very subtle and not distinctive enough. The movement created by the paseo is a great idea.”
“My biggest hiccup is the real civic connection. The development is designed for the point of view of the inhabitants in mind. They are not going to populate the staircase as much as one thinks because there will be elevators in the building. The argument that this development is going to have the regular movement, interactive art experience falls flat when one thinks of the volume of activity. The paseo and the staircase are not game-changing in terms of street traffic because the end of the block is quite close to where the Kirk Douglas Theatre is situated. There is also absolutely no visibility of the staircase enclosure from the Culver Boulevard side. I am really struggling with the utility of this development from the civic people’s point of view.”
The Cultural Affairs Commission will review the Professional Review Panel’s recommendation.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
Given that there already exists a 1% APPP requirement associated with the pending development, the impact on staff resources is minimal for coordination and oversight. There is no direct fiscal impact other than staff time devoted to guiding the process. The property owner/developer has responsibility for all costs associated with this proposed project including design, materials, and labor.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 26-03-31_ATT 1_Dec 8 2025 Staff Report.pdf
2. 26-03-31_ATT 2_Brooks Scarpa Huber_Architecture as Art Proposal.pdf
3. 26-03-31_AT 3_Brooks Scarpa Huber for Rethink Culver_Architecture as Art Statement.pdf
4. 26-03-31_ATT 4_Architecture as Art_Evaluation Guidelines.pdf.
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS
That the Cultural Affairs Commission Public Art Subcommittee:
1. Considers the Professional Review Panel’s Recommendation of the Architecture as Art proposal; and,
2. Review, discuss and provide comments; and,
3. Make a motion to advance the Panel’s recommendation to the Cultural Affairs Commission for final consideration.