HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/03/2009, C3 - APPROVAL OF PUBLIC ART FOR BUENA VISTA AT MONTEREY ROAD REALIGNMENT PROJECT council MSD 3 0
j acEnaa REpoRt d� 3
CITY OF SAN .LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Betsy Kiser, Director of Parks and Recreation .
Prepared By: Shannon Bates, Public Art Coordinator
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF PUBLIC ART FOR BUENA VISTA AT MONTEREY
ROAD REALIGNMENT PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION
1. As recommended by the Public Art Jury and the Architectural Review Commission (ARC),
approve the public art piece entitled Bequest for the road realignment project at Buena Vista at
Monterey streets.
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with the artist for$88,000 for completion
of the project.
DISCUSSION
Background
In 2003, Public Works staff identified a significant collision pattern at the location of Buena
Vista Avenue and Garfield Street at Monterey Street which involved westbound vehicles turning
off Monterey Street, crossing the intersection diagonally and colliding with southbound Buena
Vista vehicles. The solution called for a realignment of the intersection which also provided
opportunities for aesthetic improvements within the unused portions of the right-of-way.
At its September 17'', 2007 meeting the ARC granted approval of a concept plan which included
landscaping in front of 2000 Monterey (Chevron), within the pedestrian refuge island, and within
the area directly in front of 2074 Monterey (La Cuesta.Motor Inn). The ARC's approval came
with the request that the area directly in front of 2074 Monterey (La Cuesta Motor Inn) be
deferred to a second phase so that public art could be considered for this location and a cohesive
landscaping plan developed in conjunction with the public art piece (see Attachment 1 for site
map).
As part of the 2007-09 Financial Plan, Council approved specific projects for public art funding
and one of these projects was the Buena Vista at Monterrey streets public art piece suggested by
the ARC. In May, 2008 a request for proposals (RFP) was released, resulting in the eventual
selection of a piece of artwork by a public art jury, and the subsequent approval of that piece by
the ARC.
Public Art Jury Review
On August 13, 2008, a public art jury met to review thirty four proposals submitted in response
to an RFP released for public art at the intersection. The jury consisted of Kenneth Schwartz,
C3- /
}
Approval of Public Art for Monterey and Buena Vista streets Page 2
artist; Stephan Lamb, artist/Arts Council member; Pat Mayeda, advisory body member; Gary
Havas, advisory body member; Floyd and Sandy Hitchcock, business owner; William Watson,
business owner and Glynis Tingloff, artist. The jury evaluated each proposal using the following
Guidelines for Public Art (see Attachment 2 for Guidelines):
1. Artistic excellence.
2. Appropriateness of scale, form, material, content and design relative to the environment.
3. Relationship to the social, cultural and historical identity of the building.
4. Appropriateness of materials relative to structural and surface integrity, protection against
theft, vandalism, public safety and weathering.
5. Ease of maintenance.
6. Appropriateness of proposed method of installation of artwork, and safety and structural
factors involved in installation.
The jury selected six pieces for further review. On September 22, 2008, the selected artists
presented their proposals to the jury. At the conclusion of this review, the jury recommended
that two artists return with refined concepts addressing specific concerns that surfaced in the
initial presentations. On October 20, 2008, the two selected artists presented their artwork to the
jury. After presentations by each of the artists, the jury unanimously selected the piece Bequest
by Santa Barbara artist Brian Chessmar, for its artistic excellence and broad appeal.
Proiect Description
The public art project entails the design, fabrication and installation of a sculpture trio, entitled
Bequest. The sculptures represent dancing figures on cubes with their arms invitingly extended
towards various directions of the City. Each sculpture will vary in size and orientation (15, 12
and 9 feet tall respectively). Conceptually, the balance between the figures and cubes
encompasses the intricate poise between commerce, agriculture, tourism and education within the
City. The sculpture trio will be fabricated out of 316L stainless steel which will require little
maintenance and is suitable for San Luis Obispo's climate (rust and corrosion resistant in coastal
environments). The infrastructure will consist of stainless steel square tubing that will be welded
to stainless steel plates. The plates will be bolted to concrete footings which will be covered with
landscaping so that the sculptures appear to be balancing on the corners of the cubes. The finish
uses the inherent beauty of the stainless steel and therefore does not require wax, polish or paint
(see Attachment 3 for photos of proposed artwork).
ARC Review
On February 2, 2008, artist Brian Chessmar, presented Bequest to the ARC for discussion and
approval. Using the Guidelines for Public Art, the ARC found that the artwork meets the criteria
for public art and recommended its approval to the City Council.
C3 -a
Approval of Public Art for Monterey and Buena Vista streets Page 3
CONCURRENCES
The Public Art Jury, and the ARC reviewed Bequest and recommended that the piece be
approved for the pedestrian refuge island at the intersection of Buena Vista, Monterey and
Garfield streets (see Attachment 4 for minutes).
FISCAL IMPACT
$90,000.00 is available for this project. $88,000 has been allocated for the art piece, with the
remaining funds held in reserve for finalist's stipends, the ,identification plaque ,and the
dedication ceremony.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council could reject the piece and direct staff to reissue the RFP. This is not recommended
based upon the concurrences identified above.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Guidelines for Public Art
3. Photos of proposed artwork
4. Draft minutes from the February 2, 2009 ARC meeting
7.
G:\ADMIIV\Public Art 2\Current Projects\Buena Vista Intersection\CAR.doc
�3 '-3
111 1 � I sit
GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC ART
Architectural Review Commission Criteria
1. Publicly funded public art shall be located within the public right-of-way, a public building or
otherwise shall be easily visible or accessible from a public right-of-way. Interior locations for
public art are permitted, and shall be freely open and accessible to the public.
2. Privately funded public art shall be located on privately owned land or buildings which are places of
high visibility to the public. Such places shall be in exterior locations, and not within buildings. If
privately funded public art is donated to the City,Guideline No.I above applies to location of art.
3. Consideration shall be given to the size, massing, location and scale:of the proposed piece and to
potential conflicts with present or future vegetation or construction.
4. Public art shall be compatible with the immediate site and neighborhood in terms of historic, social
and cultural characteristics, architectural scale, materials, land use, and geographical and
environmental context.
5. The design and placement of public art shall not impede pedestrian or vehicle traffic, or conflict
with public or private easements.
6. Consideration shall be given to any public safety or public health concerns created by the artwork.
7. Public art shall be integrated with the site and/or building, and include landscaping, lighting,
interpretive information and other amenities where appropriate.
8. Public art shall be securely installed.
Public Art Jury Criteria
I. Public artwork shall be original and of high artistic quality and shall not include any signage or other
advertisement or logo, literal or abstract.
2. Public art should be considerate of the immediate site and neighborhood in terms of historic, social
and cultural characteristics, architectural scale, materials, land use, and geographical and
environmental context:
3. Public art shall be integrated with the site, and include landscaping, lighting, interpretive information
and other amenities where appropriate.
4. Permanent public art shall be constructed of durable,high-quality materials and require minimal or no
maintenance. Temporary public art shall be constructed of materials appropriate to its duration of
public display.
5. A wide variety of artistic expression is encouraged. However, expressions of profanity, vulgarity or
obvious poor taste are inappropriate.
Other Review Criteria
Public art proposed for areas of high historical sensitivity, such as Mission Plaza and its creek, should be
given the closest scrutiny, including input from the Cultural Heritage Committee, before approval by the
jury.
CADocuments and Settings\sbates\LocalSettings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK92\Guidelines for Public Art Revised final draft 10808.doc
03 -S
o
� o
i
0 0.
7 �Y/
� b f
Y.
t
� � o
col, d
i
i
o
0
1
1
"r �I'I
iT
ri' b ' r 1 .
I C-�
01
';y'�,I� if t
I'
000 13 ; ,
I
'Op
5 `
Iin
1
't1,) �
r
1 v
1 I,
j 'd
,
I
i
. �
023 - -
ATTACHMENT
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
February 2, 2009
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Steven Hopkins, Zeljka Howard, Anthony Palazzo, Chris
Weber, Vice-Chair Greg Wilhelm, and Chairperson Allen Root.
Absent: Commissioner Duffy
Staff: Brian Leveille Associate Planner, Jake Hudson Senior Traffic Engineer,
Shannon Bates Programs Manager, and Janet Miller Recording Secretary
ACEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA-
The agenda was accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no further comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Buena Vista at Monterey Improvements. ARCPA 140-07; Review of a proposed
public art project and landscaping associated with adjacent street improvements;
City of San Luis Obispo — Public Works Department, applicant (Pam Ricci)
Jake Hudson, Senior Traffic Engineer, presented the Staff report, recommending the
Commisssion approve the public artwork entitled "Bequest" since the project meets the
City's Guidelines for Public Art, based one findings, and subject to conditions and grant
final approval to the Option A concept of the landscaping plan.
Shannon Bates, Programs Manager, gave a description of the project and introduced
the artist.
Brian Chessmar, artist of"Bequest", gave a description of the art project.
Commr. Weber asked if it was the intent for the public to touch the artwork. Mr.
Hudson answered it was not the intent, and that no public seating had been
incorporated into landscape.
Commr. Hopkins asked if grass and lighting had been discussed during the planning
process. Mr. Hudson replied that grass would not be used though lighting would be part
of the project, with the exact positioning as yet to be determined.
Draft ARC Minutes 4T T ACHMENT_L.-----
February 2,2009
Page 2
Vice Chair Wilhelm questioned if existing trees would be removed and there would be
visibility issues with new landscaping. Mr. Hudson replied that trees would be removed
and a sight study could be conducted to determine appropriate plantings to allow
visibility.
Vice Chair Wilhelm questioned the height of grading in sloping topography of site. Mr.
Hudson replied option A would grade the site down to level.
Chair Root requested information on the finish of the artwork. Brian Chessmar, artist,
discussed the finish and composite materials.
Chair Root questioned if there were alternatives to the mission style concrete. Mr.
Hudson replied that there were alternatives and gave different materials that could be
used.
Chair Root questioned the trees used and asked for further information on trees.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mr. Wood, owner of La Cuesta Inn, did not support the proposed planting of the trees
due to the potential height of the trees and the fact they would block visibility of his
business. Mr. Hudson, Staff, replied that other trees could be considered.
Floyd Hitchcock, owner of Peachtree Inn, commented the "Option B" was preferred
since he was concerned that the flat areas proposed for "Option A" would encourage
loitering around the art.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Wilhelm noted Option "B" was preferred since it was more natural,
provided a better setting for the art, and is less expensive.
Commr. Palazzo requested that a modification to the motion would be to provide
direction on landscaping to include a more enhanced plan for the Commission's
preferred "Option B" similar to the border shrubs shown in "Option A".
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Hopkins seconded by Commr. Howard. to -grant final approval
of the proposed public art project and landscaping associated with adjacent street
improvements, based on findings and conditions, with staff providing further direction on
landscaping.
CL -3
Draft ARC Minutes ATiACHIVENT
February 2, 2009
Page 3
AYES: Commrs. Howard, 'Hopkins, Palazzo, Weber, Vice Chair Wilhelm, Chair
Root.
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Duffy
The motion passed on a 6:0 vote.
2.. 1957- 1991 Santa Barbara.Avenue. ARC 118-08; Review of a proposed mixed-
use projec located in the Railroad Historic District; C-S-H zone; Quaglino
Properties LL , applicant (Brian Leveille)
Brian Leveille, Ass iate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the ARC
grant final approval the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. He
noted two additional nditions requested to be incorporated into final conditions of
approval.
Commr. Hopkins requeste further information on lighting standards. Mr. Leveille gave
a description of lighting and onsiderations for the night sky ordinance.
Vice Chair Wilhelm requested i formation on the parking reduction proposed and asked
if the project's parking was cons Bred separately from an adjacent mixed used property
considered by the Commission. ian Leveille replied that this project met requirements
and had been considered a stand-a ne project.
Chair Root requested further informs 'on on sidewalk materials used and mixed use
parking regulations. Mr. Leveille provi d sidewalk material information and noted that
the project met the City's requirements.
Vice Chair Root requested clarification on 'dewalk materials. Mr. Hatch and Mr. Pults
replied that they were meeting requirements r the project.
Matt Quaglino, applicant, gave a description of a project. He noted that management
of the property would come from the owner of the ite as well the City.
Kim Hatch, property owner representative and a hitect provided background on
considerations for the design and a further description f the site.
Vice Chair Wilhelm requested further information on to tion of the trash receptacles.
He noted a letter from a neighbor referencing the subject. r. Hatch replied that he had
chosen the site based upon the request from the garbage ompany. Mr. Hatch was
open to changes proposed for the trash garbage site.
Steve Pults, property owner representative, gave a descn tion and reasoning
concerning boardwalk construction. Mr. Pults referenced the conc ns of meeting both
ADA and City requirements for boardwalks.
D" v
SAMATA MANAGEMENT, INC. 3 ° c: �;
March 3, 2009
San Luis Obispo City Council
Council Hearing Room
City Hall - 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Application # ARCPA 140-07, Buena Vista at Monterey
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter today. As a business owner of:the Days
Inn on Garfield Street, I am very concerned about the cost expenditueb for public art on
Buena Vista at Monterey Street. During this difficult economic period, it is unreasonable
for the city to spend such a large amount of money on one,piece of public art. Our
company would prefer that the city examine other approaches to providing public art,
such as providing art for children, instead ofspending,approximately $88,000 on this
one piece of art. Furthermore, the public art piece chosen does not represent the city of
San Luis Obispo or the gateway into our city.
Thank you for your attention and cooperation.
Sincerely,
Pragna J. Patel-Mueller
Samata Management, Inc.
Days Inn—San Luis Obispo
604 Henderson Ave, Suite 200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
OCEANO
E Ld_113 R I BEACHWHITE OAKS
. . FICJ LEL ..
604 HENDERSON AVENUE, SUITE 200 1 SAN LUIS O915P0,CA 93401 1 EN.805.5975191 1 Ex.905.597.5199
W W W.SAMATAMANAGEMENT.COM
Page 1 of 1
0 This message was sent with high importance.
Council, SloCity
From: Dana&Erik Justesen Dustslo@charter.net] Sent: Tue 3/3/2009 8:22 AM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Public art
Attachments:
Dear Council members,
I am a big fan of the arts, supported the art center and feel that art is a fundamental cultural expression that
elevates us as a community. However, now is simply not the time to commit$88,000 to public art.We are in
financial turmoil with BIG financial troubles ahead. There will be a time when we can install these pieces, not
now.
My suggestion is to use a portion of the$88,000 to fund the public opinion survey AND to conduct a fair and
balanced information campaign regarding the implications of binding arbitration. Afar better use of funds at this
critical time. How can we deny the voice of the people, the very same voice we sought to install binding
arbitration in the first place at a far different time in our economy.
Sincerely,
Erik Justesen
J7 LOFY E-twi /L
I F2-- COUNCIL CDD DIR
�L7 FILE d�fl6cirrnrc2 0-FIN DIR
MEET ILG AGE:J'.D- �'�gA!�6r4T;ntc.RQf3-T:IRE CHIEF
ET-AT 0RNEY LTPW DIR
DAT� ITs=!il ;" CL�CLERK/ORIG 3"POLICECHF
$� L7 DEPT HEADS C3 REG DIR
-77�- 2--UTIL DIR
C✓HR DIR
Nt�vn,rr� 2'erAaJ�(L
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inboxftblic%20art.EML?Cmd=open 3/3/2009
Page 1 of 1
Counclil,SloCity
From: Barry Frantz[bjfrantz@charter.net] Sent: Mon 3/2/2009 6:36 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Public Sculpture at Monterey and Buena Vista streets
Attachments:
Dear Council Members,
Do not approve this sculpture proposal. We can do much better.
Reopen the application procedure and try again. I know it is hard to
get qualified artists to submit proposals to these public art
projects, sculpture especially is expensive to produce and almost.
always controversial, but we can do better. The sculpture as
accepted by Parks and Recreation does not represent the high quality
of art for which San Luis Obispo is renowned. Please save our money
for now and try again. This weak current proposal is not in the best
interest of our beautiful city.
Barry Frantz, Sculptor and Professor Emeritus, Cuesta College
f�WrtD Copy E'MA}tt_
FIED FILE RTICOUNCIL DD DIR
�CA9�iry/#C�2 ❑ FIN DIR
MEET IVIG ,4G=� Dt1 � ep'pIRE CH EF
ATTORNEY
ERK/ORIa �W DIR
❑ DEPT HEADS LSP®LICE CHF
(C 51a
Q�UTIL-DIN
HD Din
Al(2J'71ir1� '' G'puUG�
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciUlnbox/Publ is%20Sculpture%20at%2OMont... 3/3/2009
Page 1 of 1
Council, SloCity
From: Duffy,Jim M. PMDuffy@rrmdesign.com] Sent: Tue 3/3/2009 11:59 AM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: City Council Agenda Item C-3- Public Art comment
Attachments:
Dear Mayor Romero and City Council members,
I am writing in opposition to the proposed art project on Monterey.
In my opinion,this piece does not have the artistic merit that would support this price tag. Frankly, I think Its ugly.
It certainly does not meet the same standards of other public art in our community(Photos included).
The location for this installation is a significant gateway to our City and I strongly urge you to deny this project in favor of an
alternate art piece that would better represent the high artistic ideals of the City of San Luis Obispo.
Thank you for your consideration. HWIZC, 'Co CAVA-[�
-C�COUNCIL I�'CDD DIR
Sincerely, �'t'Y{6C[ry rKGC 2-FIN DIR
l�'A�AAASpcay�[a22TIRE CHIEF
a-ATTORNEY aPW DIR
Cr!CLERK/ORIG 2-POLICE CHF
JIM DUFFY ❑ DEPT HEADS Q'REC DIR
0"UTILDIR
1276 SYDNEY STREET __ ?3u�E dI-IR DIR
SAN LUIS OBISPO Ctry ru�[z
I 1
RD FILE
4 I,�
MEETING AGE,:
DATEy
https://mail.sl ocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/C ity%2OCouncil%2OAgenda%20ite... 3/3/2009