Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2019-156 N.C.S. 09/16/2019Resolution No. 2019-156 N.C.S. of the City of Petaluma, California RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE APPEAL FILED BY MICHAEL AND DEBORAH SHOCKRO AND UPHOLDING THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE'S APPROVAL OF FINAL DESIGN FOR A FINE BALANCE PUBLIC ART INSTALLATION ON WATER STREET File No.: PLAP-19-0002 WHEREAS, on June 17, 2013, the City Council of the City of Petaluma adopted the Petaluma Public Art Master Plan (Resolution 2013-064 N.C.S.) created by the Petaluma Public Art Committee with consultant Chandra Cerrito/Art Advisors LLC; and WHEREAS, the Petaluma Public Art Master Plan includes detailed recommendations for enhancing Petaluma's public art program, including the identification of sites for future public art projects on public property; and WHEREAS, the Petaluma Public Master Plan identifies the Plaza near the Water Street Bridge as a site, among others, for future public art on public property, and the City of Petaluma may implement a public art project on public property using the Public Art Fund as outlined in the Public Art Master Plan; and WHEREAS, in 2014 the Petaluma Public Art Committee decided to develop a Request for Qualifications and Request for Proposals process for a public art project, using the Public Art Fund, at the Plaza near the Water Street Bridge site; and WHEREAS, the priorities of the art commission as stated in the initial RFQ included creating enlivened public spaces by adding focal interest, whimsy, humor and/or beauty, identifying the plaza and its vicinity in order to create a sense of place, strongly considering the range of the City's historical, physical attributes, and demographic and social characteristics, and encouraging enjoyment and celebration of the human spirit and artistic creativity; and WHEREAS, in December 2014, the Petaluma Public Art Committee issued the Water Street Public Art Request for Qualifications, and subsequently selected five finalists to receive the Water Street Public Art Request for Proposals for submission of site specific art concepts; and WHEREAS, the Petaluma Public Art Committee selected two of the five finalists from the Request for Proposals process to participate in a community open house event held on April 14, 2016, and subsequently, after garnering input from stakeholders and the community, found that neither proposal sufficiently met the intent of the Request for Qualifications/Proposals and elected to terminate the process without selection of a final artist; and WHEREAS, during the Spring and Summer of 2016, the Petaluma Public Art Committee revised the Water Street Request for Qualifications process to both address lessons learned during the previous artist solicitation effort and incorporate public art best practices found within other local jurisdictions; and Resolution No. 2019-156 N.C.S. Page 1 WHEREAS, on October 13, 2016, the Petaluma Public Art Committee reissued the revised Water Street Public Art Request for Qualifications; and WHEREAS, the Petaluma Public Art Committee appointed a selection panel of eleven stakeholders, including two PPAC members, a Planning Commissioner, a City Councilmember, local artists, and downtown property and business owners to review complete artist submissions and selecting a finalist based on a set of selection criteria for recommendation to the Petaluma Public Art Committee; and WHEREAS, on February 9, 2017 the Selection Panel reviewed all complete Request for Qualifications submissions and invited six finalists for subsequent interviews; and WHEREAS, on April 12, 2017 and April 18, 2017, the Selection Panel interviewed those six finalists and after continued deliberation based on a tie vote recommended two artists, David Best and Brian Goggin to the Petaluma Public Art Committee; and WHEREAS, at a special meeting on May 31, 2017 the Petaluma Public Art Committee interviewed David Best and Brian Goggin, and ultimately selected Brian Goggin as the project finalist for recommendation to the City Council for consideration of contract award through a Professional Services Agreement; and WHEREAS, on August 7, 2017 the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the contract award of a Professional Services Agreement with Brian Goggin for Public Art Services for the Water Street Public Art Project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, on August 7, 2017 the City Council approved Resolution No. 2017-123 N.C.S. authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Brian Goggin for public art installation on Water Street and including approval of a Scope of Work for design, public outreach, fabrication, and installation; and WHEREAS, on August 17, 2017 the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Petaluma and Brian Goggin was fully executed; and WHEREAS, consistent with Deliverable 1C of the approved Scope of Work, the PPAC hosted two community input meetings at the Project location on October 14 and 28, 2017; and WHEREAS, on February 22, 2018 Brian Goggin presented a draft concept to the PPAC at their regular public meeting and the PPAC voted to accept the draft concept and to schedule community meetings to solicit input on the initial concept; and WHEREAS, on April 30 and May 1, 2018, the PPAC hosted a community meeting held at Aqus Cafe at which Brian Goggin presented the concept and received feedback from members of the public; and WHEREAS, at their meeting on May 24, 2018 the PPAC reviewed public comments from the community meetings regarding the concept design, compatibility on Water Street, and potential view obstruction, and the PPAC requested that the Mr. Goggin host a "story pole" event to visually represent the proposed Project on the site; and Resolution No. 2019-156 N.C.S. Page 2 WHEREAS, in response to an increasing amount of public opposition and comments, the City Council requested that staff provide an update on the Project to date and review of the scope of work to allow the community to provide public comment to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on July 16, 2018 the City Council reviewed the process, milestones, and status of the Project, received public comment, and provided consensus feedback to allow the process to continue as outlined in the approved scope of work and under the oversight authority delegated to the PPAC under the City's public art regulations; and WHEREAS, on October 25, 2018 Brian Goggin attended a Development Review Committee meeting with City staff to receive initial feedback from a variety of departments on issues and concerns associated with the artwork and placement of the five proposed installations; and WHEREAS, on November 29, 2018 Brian Goggin presented a status update to the PPAC at their regular meeting; and WHEREAS, a second DRC meeting was held on December 13, 2019 to review updated plans, including circular plinths to address accessibility concerns for the visually impaired, location modifications to address accessible access around each installation and to ensure adequate emergency vehicle access, and details to address initial structural and maintenance concerns; and WHEREAS, on January 12, 2019 the PPAC hosted a "story pole" event on the project site and Brian Goggin's team erected a life size mockup of one of the installations in each of the five proposed sites to provide scale and context to the proposed artwork at the specific location; and WHEREAS, a detailed maquette of the artwork was also presented at the story pole event to provide greater detail of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2019 the artist, staff, and Committee member Plank met with representatives from the Petaluma Craft Beer Festival to discuss and strategize on location to minimize conflicts with space needs for the popular annual event; and WHEREAS, on February 28, 2019 the PPAC approved the final design, authorizing Brian Goggin to move to construction drawings and permitting; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2019 an appeal of the PPAC's decision was filed by Michael and Deborah Shockro; and WHEREAS, on April 9, 2019 the Project was presented to the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee (HCPC) as an informational item for feedback on the artwork given its proximity to the City's historic downtown core and in response to concern voiced through public comment that the input from the HCPC was important to the full consideration of the project; and WHEREAS, throughout the process there has been a significant amount of public comment provided in writing and presented verbally at public meetings before the PPAC, the Planning Commission, the HCPC, and the City Council; and Resolution No. 2019-156 N.C.S. Page 3 WHEREAS, on September 5, 2019 a public notice for the appeal hearing before the City Council was published as an 1/8th page ad in the Argus Courier and transmitted electronically to an e-mail list of all interested parties; and WHEREAS, a staff report dated September 16, 2019 and incorporated herein by reference analyzed the appeal; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the appeal at a noticed public hearing on September 16, 2019, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Petaluma as follows: On September 16, 2019 the City Council fully considered all evidence presented before and at the duly noticed public hearing regarding this matter, and on the basis of the staff report, testimony, and other evidence, and the record of proceedings herein, denies the appeal of Michael and Deborah Shockro filed with the City Clerk on March 13, 2019 and upholds the Public Art Committee's approval of final design for A Fine Balance a public art installation on Water Street based on the findings contained in this resolution. 2. The City Council, adopts the following findings for denial of the appeal, as supported by the record of proceedings: a. California Environmental Quality Act The requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) were satisfied with the finding that the Project was categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and by the General Rule (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The project will involve the construction and location of one or more small structures along Water Street within a city owned right of way and does not appear to have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The project also does not trigger any of the exceptions to the exemption as outlined in CEQA Section 15300.2. This finding was discussed in the City Council staff report from August 7, 2017. Additionally, Resolution No. 2017-123 N.C.S. adopted by the City Council on August 7, 2017 also included a recital that provided: "WHEREAS, on August 7, 2017 and prior to acting on this request, the City Council considered the staff report analyzing the Professional Services Agreement request, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determination included herein". Staff believes that the Project qualifies for the exemption for small structures in Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines and the general rule in Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines that applies where it can be seen with certainty that a project will not have significant environmental impacts. b. Implementing Ordinance Implementing Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18 governing Public Art states the intent and goals of the City's public art program in the following terms: Public art helps make cities more livable and more visually stimulating. The experience of public art makes the public areas of buildings and their grounds more Resolution No. 2019-156 N.C.S. Page 4 welcoming. It creates a deeper interaction with the places people visit, and in which people work and live. Public art illuminates the history of a community while it points to the city's aspirations for the future. A city rich in art encourages cultural tourism which brings in visitor revenues. IZO Section 18.120 specifies the following requirements for the City's public art: A. The art must be designed and constructed by an artist; B. The art must relate in terms of scale, material, form and content to immediate and adjacent buildings and architecture, landscaping or other setting so as to complement the site and its surroundings, and must be consistent with any applicable action of the Planning Commission, or City Council as it may relate to any development entitlements for the private or public construction project; C. The art must demonstrate excellence in craftsmanship, originality in conception and integrity of materials; D. Permanent art must be a fixed asset of the public art site; E. Minimal maintenance must be adequate for preserving the long -terms integrity and enjoyment of the art, as evidenced by a maintenance plan submitted with the public art proposal; F. Art in private construction projects must be maintained by the property owner in a manner acceptable to the city in accordance with a maintenance plan submitted with the art proposal; G. The art must meet all applicable building code requirements. H. The art must be accompanied by an identifying plaque that features the artist's name, artwork title and date of completion. This plaque must be made of a durable material and be installed permanently near the art. The PPAC's approval of final design for the Project was in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18 of the IZO, including Section 18.120, the PAMP, and the Project contract scope of work approved by the City Council, as the record of decision and the following findings in response to the Appellant's contentions on appeal reflect. c. Appellant's Contentions on Appeal 1. As approved, this project would be located in the Petaluma Historic District. The City's Historic Commercial District Design Guidelines are based on the premise that the historic buildings and streetscapes in Petaluma's Historic Downtown are essential to defining the City's character and maintaining its ties with the past. This project is inconsistent with those objectives. The project does not meet the requirement of the Guidelines that it be compatible with the historic character of the downtown. Staff have concluded that the Project installation location is outside the City's downtown Historic District. The City's Design Guidelines provide that "[t]he area generally is bounded by Prospect Street to the north, "D" Street to the south, the Petaluma River to the east, and Kentucky and Fourth Streets to the west. (Guidelines, p. 6). Note that the text description of the Historic District Guidelines indicates that the stated boundaries are "general. " The graphic of the District Boundaries clearly indicates a gap to the east of the District boundary between the boundary and the river, which coincides with the installation location for the Project. The focus of the Guidelines is the preservation of historic resources within the Historic District. The Guidelines are "intended to encourage the maintenance of Resolution No. -2019-156 N.C.S. Page 5 historic structures in their original form, and the rehabilitation of previously remodeled structures to return them to their former historical appearance" (Guidelines, p. 1) and to "aid property owners in making decisions concerning the alteration of a building located with the historic downtown" and to `provide direction and encourage the preservation, adaptive use and enhancement of buildings and streetscapes within the Downtown. " (Guidelines p. 6) The Project does not involve alteration of any historic building. The Project, which makes visual reference to the historic importance of the Petaluma River as a shipping corridor and luxury goods (for the time) such as bathtubs that were delivered for residents at Petaluma river freight and passenger landings, is expressly intended to help citizens and visitors establish connections with Petaluma's past. The Historic Guidelines discussion of streetscapes (Guidelines, p. 33) encourage maintaining a "commercial or cultural `heart' which makes a statement about activities, history, commerce or natural features which the community values. " (Guidelines, p. 34). The Guidelines also encourage maintaining "a sense of uniqueness. This quality can be derived from a single feature, an area -wide design theme, or an event, which is held in a special place each year. " (Guidelines, p. 34). The Project, although planned for a location outside the Historic District, is intentionally consistent with the purposes of the Guidelines and the District by helping provide connection to Petaluma's history and helping enhance outdoor gathering places and adding interest and uniqueness along the District boundaries. 2. Because this project would be located in the Historic Commercial District, significant additional process is required before this project could be approved at that location. Please see the response to contention I of the appeal, above. 3. This project requires approval by the City's Planning Department, including review and approval by the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee after public hearing, review and approval by the Planning Commission after public hearing, and review and approval by the City Council after recommendation from the HCPC and PC after public hearing. As noted above, the Project is a City public art project, not a private development project subject to approval of a development application by the City's land use approving bodies. Accordingly, the Planning Commission has no jurisdiction over the Project. As indicated above, in response to 1, the Project installation location is actually outside the Historic District. The Project was presented to the HCPC on April 9, 2019 in response to feedback on the Project given its proximity to the Historic District. The HCPC reached no consensus and as a body gave no consensus recommendations regarding the Project. As also noted above, the City Council has reserved its authority over approval of the Project contract, which the Council approved on August 7, 2017 by adoption of Resolution 2017-123 N. C. S. 4. This project is subject to review under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The staff report included with the materials considered by the City Council on August 7, 201 7for the contract approval item contained the following analysis: Public Resources Code Section 21084 requires the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines to include a list of classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on Resolution No. 2019-156 N.C.S. Page 6 the environment and which shall, therefore, be considered exempt from the provisions of CEQA. In response to that mandate, the Secretary for Resources has defined classes of projects, listed at Article 19 of the CEQA Guidelines, which do not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, are declared to be categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents. Based on current information available, the proposed public art project appears to be categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and by the General Rule (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The project will involve the construction and location of one or more small structures along Water Street within a city owned right of way, and does not appear to have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The project also does not trigger any of the exceptions to the exemption as outlined in CEQA Section 15300.2. Resolution No. 2017-123 N. C. S. adopted by the City Council on August 7, 2017 also included a recital that provided: "WHEREAS, on August 7, 2017 and prior to acting on this request, the City Council considered the staff report analyzing the Professional Services Agreement request, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determination included herein. " Staff believes that the Project qualifies for the exemption for small structures in Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines and the general rule in Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines that applies where it can be seen with certainty that a project will not have significant environmental impacts. 5. The project is inconsistent with IZO Chapters 15, 16, and 17. The appellants bear the burden of establishing how and based on what the Project is inconsistent with IZO chapters 15, 16 and 17, and have not done so. Chapter 15, which regulates preservation of historic structures, focuses on A. The protection, enhancement, perpetuation, and use of buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts, including archaeological sites, that are reminders of past eras, events, and persons important to local, state, or national history, or which provide significant examples of architectural styles of the past or area landmarks in the history of architecture, or which are unique and irreplaceable assets to the City and its neighborhoods, or which provide for this and future generations examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. B. The development and maintenance of appropriate settings and environments for such structures. C. The enhancement of property values, the stabilization of neighborhoods and areas of the City, the increase of economic and financial benefits to the City and its inhabitants, and the promotion of tourist trade and interest. D. The enrichment of human life in its educational and cultural dimensions by serving aesthetic as well as material needs and fostering knowledge of the living heritage of the past. Resolution No. 2019-156 N.C.S. Page 7 The Project record supports that the Project is consistent with the objectives of Chapter 15. Please also see the comments in response to contention I of the appeal, above. IZO Chapter 16 addressing Hillside Protection applies to development and alteration of properties in hillside and ridgeline areas in order to preserve the essential scenic and natural resources. IZO Chapter 16 does not apply to the Project. IZO Chapter 17 entitled "Tree Preservation " provides regulations for the protection, preservation, and maintenance of groves and stands of mature trees, and mature trees in general. The City's objective is to establish regulations that will result in no net loss of tree canopy in the community. It is also the intent of this Chapter to promote and perpetuate the urban forest through the replacement of trees removed as a result of a new development. The Project involves no tree removal or loss of tree canopy. IZO Chapter 17 does not apply to the Project. 6. The PPAC did not carefully consider alternative locations for this project despite public opposition. The Project was specifically commissioned for the planned installation site on Water Street in accordance with the PAMP. There is no obligation of the PPAC to consider alternate installation sites, especially where the Project is specifically intended for Water Street in accordance with the PAMP. 7. Internet and social media opposition has not been included in the public record. There is no requirement to include social media opposition to the Project in the public record. Even if the Project were a private development project subject to substantive due process considerations there still would be no requirement to include social media opposition in the Project record. All are free to submit their comments, pro and con, concerning the Project, into the record of decision. The City has no duty to review third party social media to add public comment to the record of decision. 8. The project has nothing to do with beauty or history. Beauty is not a requirement of the City's Section 18.120 public art requirements. Public art projects need not be beautiful to be fully consistent with the City's public art requirements. Regarding the Project's connection with the City's history, please also see the response to contention I of the appeal, above. 9. The project has significant, adverse impact on the Petaluma skyline. This objection to the Project does not appear to address any of the City's public art requirements in IZO section 18.120. To the extent that is true, it is not a basis for challenging the Project on appeal. It may be that appellants intend to argue that the Project does not "relate to the immediate and adjacent buildings and architecture so as to complement the site and its surroundings" as required by the public art requirement in IZO section 18.120, paragraph (B). Contrary to this assertion, it Resolution No. 2019-156 N.C.S. Page 8 appears that Mr. Goggin has taken care to ensure that the Project blends into and does not disrupt the City skyline looking west toward the Project and the Historic District. Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City. REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Appro ej as to Council of the City of Petaluma at a Regular meeting on the 16th day of September ' orr is 2019, by the following vote: ! City `orney AYES: Mayor Barrett; Fischer; Kearney; King; Vice Mayor McDonnell; Miller NOES: Healy ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: Deputy rty erk Mayor Resolution No. 2019-156 N.C.S. Page 9