HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.2 Wallis Ranch Art
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE:August 16, 2016
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Wallis Ranch Public Art Proposal
Prepared by: Tegan McLane, Cultural Arts & Heritage Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider a proposal by artist Eric Powell and Wallis Ranch
developer Development Solutions WR, LLC, for a quartet of sculptures, "Archeology,"
that they wish to install instead of "The Globe," a 30-foot sculpture previously approved
by the City Council in October 2015.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends City Council approve the proposed artwork "Archeology" for
installation in the developer-built park at Wallis Ranch. The artwork meets the
requirements of the Public Art Ordinance and goals of the City, as stated in the Public
Art Master Plan.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
All costs associated with the development and installation of the art pieces will be borne
by the Developer.
DESCRIPTION:
Artist Eric Powell and developer Development Solutions LLC seek City Council approval
of a new art design instead of the previously approved piece “The Globe,” a 30’ tall
sculpture that was to be placed at the north end of the adjacent developer-built public
park.
Mr. Powell's new design, "Archeology," is a set of four steel sculptures inspired by
historic iron farm tools that Mr. Powell recovered from the development site during his
first visit. The sculptures are approximately 15’ tall and are designed with the idea that
the public will approach and interact with them. (Attachment 1)
The grouping will be located near the entrance to the developer-built park the south end
of the park, near the entrance road opposite Quarry Lane School. (Attachment 2, 3)
Page 1 of 3
The change was motivated by the fact that seismic engineering for “The Globe” was
proving difficult and would have required significant alterations to the design, according
to the artist. Also, after discussions with City Facilities Development staff, it was agreed
that the south end of the park offered better visibility for public art. With these two
considerations, the artist proposed to design a replacement sculpture that would be
more site-specific to the Wallis Ranch Community Park area and easier to engineer.
The new sculpture design was reviewed by Parks and Community Services and Public
Works staff. The pieces are appropriately scaled to the site and pose no significant
safety concerns. The fact that the art pieces are inspired by artifacts found on site offers
an interesting heritage educational opportunity. (Attachment 4)
At the July 14, 2016, Heritage and Cultural Arts Commission meeting, the Commission
voted (4-2-0, with Cms. Deets and He opposed and Cm. Tutino absent) to recommend
the work be approved. It should be noted that the Commission had initially considered
this proposal at its June 9, 2016 meeting and voted to recommend against approval on
grounds of safety concerns (4-2-0, with Chair Blackburn and Cm. Minniear opposed and
Cm. Tutino absent). Concerns were related to the risk to someone who might climb and
fall from the sculptures onto the decomposed granite surfacing below; "attractive
nuisance" factors with the horseshoe being inviting skateboarders and the pulley being
inviting to mischief-makers who might wish to loop a rope through the eye and scale the
piece; and seismic concerns about the pulley.
Staff addressed each safety concern in greater detail at the July meeting. Senior
Building Division staff described the City's inspection process with public art and
assured the Commission that the sculpture would be inspected for seismic stability and
accessibility. The Staff Report also included a letter from the City's Risk Management
Officer Jim Hill and ABAG Plan attesting that the City's insurer does not find the piece
an undue safety risk. (Attachment 5)
Staff recommends City Council approve the proposed artwork "Archeology" for
installation in the developer-built park at Wallis Ranch. The artwork meets the
requirements of the Public Art Ordinance and goals of the City, as stated in the Public
Art Master Plan.
These requirements and goals can be summarized as follows:
· The art is created by qualified artists.
· The art is original, not mass produced.
· The art is appropriate in scale to the surroundings - large enough, appropriate
color contrast, etc.
· The art is durable - resists weather, vandalism, can be repaired.
· The art appears to pose no significant safety risk to the public.
· The art is consistent with community values - not obscene or offensive.
· The art enhances a public space.
· The art helps establish a gathering spot for pedestrians.
· The art is located to provide maximum public exposure.
· The art strengthens the unique character of the place - relates to the purpose,
history and natural environment.
Page 2 of 3
· The art enhances Dublin’s identity.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
The Developer notified nearby residents by postcard of the June 2016 Heritage and
Cultural Arts Commission meeting at which this artwork proposal was presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Archeology Images
2. Site Plan
3. Site Plan Detail
4. Tool Images Found on Property
5. Letter from Jim Hill, ABAG
Page 3 of 3
La
n
d
U
s
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
L
a
n
d
u
s
e
Gr
o
s
s
A
c
r
e
s
U
n
i
t
s
G
r
o
s
s
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
G
r
o
s
s
A
c
r
e
s
U
n
i
t
s
G
r
o
s
s
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
L
o
w
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
15
.
4
58
3.815.4926.0
Me
d
i
u
m
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
57
.
1
62
9
11.057.15299.3
Me
d
i
u
m
H
i
g
h
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
1
3
.
1
24
8
18.913.118514.1
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
D
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
B
a
s
i
n
2
.
9
2.9
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
P
a
r
k
10
.
4
10.4
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
83
.
3
83.3
P
u
b
l
i
c
/
S
e
m
i
P
u
b
l
i
c
1
.
9
1.9
T
o
t
a
l
18
4
.
1
93
5
5.1184.1806
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
S
t
a
g
e
2
P
D
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
Proposed Stage 2 PD Development Plan
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
2
Me
d
i
u
m
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
10
1
H
o
m
e
s
15
.
6
G
r
o
s
s
A
c
r
e
s
6.
2
d
u
/
a
c
G
r
o
s
s
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Tr
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
2
-
s
t
o
r
y
S
F
D
3,
8
4
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
L
o
t
s
(
4
8
x
8
0
)
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
3
Me
d
i
u
m
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
74
H
o
m
e
s
8.
9
G
r
o
s
s
A
c
r
e
s
9.
1
d
u
/
a
c
G
r
o
s
s
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Al
l
e
y
-
L
o
a
d
e
d
3
-
s
t
o
r
y
S
F
D
2,
9
7
5
s
q
.
f
t
.
L
o
t
s
(
3
5
x
8
5
)
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
4
Me
d
i
u
m
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
14
7
H
o
m
e
s
12
.
3
G
r
o
s
s
A
c
r
e
s
11
.
3
d
u
/
a
c
G
r
o
s
s
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
3-
s
t
o
r
y
6
-
u
n
i
t
G
r
e
e
n
C
o
u
r
t
H
o
m
e
S
F
D
2,
5
6
7
s
q
.
f
t
.
L
o
t
s
(
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
)
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
5
60
H
o
m
e
s
6.
0
G
r
o
s
s
A
c
r
e
s
13
.
6
d
u
/
a
c
G
r
o
s
s
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Al
l
e
y
-
L
o
a
d
e
d
2
-
s
t
o
r
y
T
r
i
p
l
e
x
S
F
A
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
1
Lo
w
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
92
H
o
m
e
s
15
.
4
G
r
o
s
s
A
c
r
e
s
6.
0
d
u
/
a
c
G
r
o
s
s
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Tr
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
2
-
s
t
o
r
y
S
F
D
4,
7
5
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
L
o
t
s
(
5
0
x
9
5
)
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
8
Me
d
i
u
m
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
13
9
H
o
m
e
s
14
.
3
G
r
o
s
s
A
c
r
e
s
10
.
1
d
u
/
a
c
G
r
o
s
s
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
2-
s
t
o
r
y
S
F
D
C
o
u
r
t
H
o
m
e
s
2,
4
5
1
s
q
.
f
t
.
L
o
t
s
(
4
3
x
5
7
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
)
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
7
Me
d
i
u
m
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
68
H
o
m
e
s
6.
0
G
r
o
s
s
A
c
r
e
s
11
.
5
d
u
/
a
c
G
r
o
s
s
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Al
l
e
y
-
L
o
a
d
e
d
3
-
s
t
o
r
y
S
F
D
1,
5
4
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
L
o
t
s
(
2
8
x
5
5
)
Wa
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
B
a
s
i
n
2.
9
G
r
o
s
s
A
c
r
e
s
En
t
r
y
G
a
t
e
&
A
n
t
o
n
e
P
a
v
i
l
i
o
n
TA
S
S
A
J
A
R
A
R
O
A
D
Pu
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
4.
9
G
r
o
s
s
A
c
r
e
s
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
P
a
r
k
3.
0
G
r
o
s
s
A
c
r
e
s
Public Park 5.5 Gross Acres
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
83
.
3
G
r
o
s
s
A
c
r
e
s
P/SP 1.9 Gross Acres
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
E
n
t
r
y
Community Bridges
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
C
r
e
e
k
&
T
r
a
i
l
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
6
12
5
H
o
m
e
s
7.
1
G
r
o
s
s
A
c
r
e
s
14
.
4
d
u
/
a
c
G
r
o
s
s
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Al
l
e
y
-
L
o
a
d
e
d
3
-
s
t
o
r
y
T
o
w
n
h
o
m
e
s
S
F
A
WA
L
L
I
S
R
A
N
C
H
D
U
B
L
I
N
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
DECEMBER 22, 2015ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN0200100400
La
nd
Us
e
S
umma
ry
La
nd
use
GrGG
oss
Acre
s
Unitii
s
GrGGossDensitiiyttGrGGossAcresUnitiisGrGGossDensitiiytt
Low
Densitii
ytt
Re
sidii
e
ntnn
iaii
l
15.4
58
3.815.4926.0
Me
didd
uii
muu
De
nsitii
ytt
Re
sidii
entnn
iaii
l
57.1
629
11.057.15299.3
Me
didd
uii
muu
Higi
hg
Densitii
ytt
Re
sidii
e
ntnn
iaii
l
13.1
248
18.913.118514.1
Wa
te
r
Qualill
tii
ytt
Dete
ntnn
ioii
n
Basinii
2.9
2.9
Ne
igi
hg
bhh
orhood
P
ark
10.4
10.4
Open
Spa
ce
83.3
83.3
P
ubu
lill
cii
/Se
mimm
P
ubu
lill
cii
1.9
1.9
Total
184.1
935
5.1184.1806
Exis
ting
Stage
2
PDPP
D
e
ve
lopmemmntnnPlanProrrposedStage2PDPPDevelopmemmntnnPlan
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
2
Me
d
i
u
m
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
10
1
H
o
m
e
s
15
.
6
G
r
o
s
s
A
c
r
e
s
6.
2
d
u
/
a
c
G
r
o
s
s
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Tr
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
2
-
s
t
o
r
y
S
F
D
3,
8
4
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
L
o
t
s
(48
x
8
0
)
0G
13
.
6
d
u
/
a
c
G
r
o
s
s
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Al
l
e
y
-
L
o
a
d
e
d
2
-
s
t
o
r
y
T
r
i
p
l
e
x
S
F
A
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
1
Lo
w
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
92
H
o
m
e
s
15.4 Gross Acres
6.
0
d
u
/
a
c
G
r
o
s
s
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Tr
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
2
-
s
t
o
r
y
S
F
D
4,
7
5
0
s
q.f
t
.
L
o
t
s
(
5
0
x
9
5
)
Wa
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
B
a
s
i
n
2.
9
G
r
o
s
s
A
c
r
e
s
En
t
r
y
G
a
t
e
&
A
n
t
o
n
e
P
a
v
i
l
i
o
n
P
u
bl
i
c
P
a
rk
4.
9
G
r
o
s
s
A
c
r
e
s
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
P
a
r
k
3.
0
G
r
o
s
s
A
c
r
e
s
Public Park PbliPk 5.5 Gross Acres
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
83
.
3
G
r
o
s
s
A
c
r
e
s
P/SP 1.9 Gross Acres
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
E
n
t
r
y
Community Bridges
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
C
r
e
e
k
&
T
r
a
i
l
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
6
12
5
H
o
m
e
s
7.
1
G
r
o
s
s
A
c
r
e
s
14
.
4
d
u
/
a
c
G
r
o
s
s
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Al
l
e
y-L
o
a
d
e
d
3
-
s
t
o
r
y T
o
w
n
h
o
m
e
s
S
F
A
0200100400GATESART PANELSSCULPTURE LOCATION
BE
N
C
H
CO
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
A
R
T
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
From:James Hill
To:Tegan McLane
Subject:Public Art Project....Risk Management Concerns and Consideration
Date:Friday, July 08, 2016 2:53:11 PM
Hi Tegan,
We do appreciate and note the concerns raised by the City and Cultural Arts Commission.
The points raised during the discussion are good. Recognizing the generosity of the
developer, along with the intrinsic value of public art to the community, my comments
will focus on the risk and exposures you describe, as well as, explore practical solutions
(including best practices) to reduce the inherent risk/exposure and abate some of the concerns
noted. We have several member cities who have encountered situations you describe (public
art donations - large scale) and we have found ways to manage risk effectively.
First and foremost, the mere presence of public art does not constitute a "dangerous
condition", however, exposure does exist and we should do everything in our power to
avoid negligence (dangerous condition) arguments should an accident occur and a claim arise.
The risk described is real but can be managed in most cases.
That said, how do we identify exposure and eliminate or reduce all related risk to protect the
City's interest?
The first concern of the city/commission was related to the "safety" of the artifact with specific
notation of the size of the structure. A concern was raised regarding the structure toppling in
the event of an "earthquake" or earth movement. These are very astute observations from a
risk management perspective.
To abate concerns relative to this aspect of exposure (collapse, toppling) we have a duty and
obligation to ensure that the artifact is structurally sound and there is design integrity that
won't compromise the structure. We need to ensure that our public works staff and engineers
assess the installation, erection and stabilization techniques to ensure it meets design standards
and meets our objective of being structurally sound to significantly reduce the risk of collapse
or toppling. Design and structural standards of the artifact itself should be reviewed and
approved by city staff. The bracing, anchoring and stabilization of the structure to prevent
collapse will be very important to address the concerns raised. There is also exposure to the
public from the mere installation of the artifact and appropriate barriers and protective devices
should be in place during installation. This element of risk (installation) should be borne by
the developer/contractor. We can manage this risk through contractual risk transfer; hold
harmless/indemnification agreements and obtaining proper insurance (Additional Insured)
from the developer and contractor.
To abate concerns regarding the "attractive nuisance" component of risk (skateboarders, rope
through pulley, horseplay) we should consider techniques like bumpers which annoy
skateboarders and inhibit their ability to "grind" which is a technique known to all
skateboarders (riding on the flat edges). Also we should consider barriers or warning signs.
We have a duty to "warn" in certain situations and warning signage (keep off, no climbing, no
sitting, no skateboarding, etc) can be helpful in defending claims. Barriers delineating "do not
go beyond this point" can help to prevent direct physical access to the artifact(s). I do note
that barrier recommendations can be challenging because they can alter the visual aesthetics of
the art piece(s), however, keeping people away from the artifact itself will ensure accident
frequency will be reduced.
Physical surveillance is also important. Given the fact the art piece is located next to a school,
Parks and Rec department should monitor the situation closely and regularly to enforce our
intent to keep the artifact safe for the good of the public and keep kids from playing on the
structure. Dialog with the school leaders to ensure the school children recognize and
understand this is an art piece and not a playground piece of equipment is helpful and sets the
tone that we want to keep the kids safe while providing cultural arts benefits to our community
constituents.
Once the piece is transferred to the City, we have exposure to property damage to the structure
itself (the value of the art). I would recommend we get an appraisal on the artifact(i.e.
determine the value to insure the property) and schedule the art on our property insurance
schedule at an "agreed amount". This will be helpful should there be any physical damage to
the structure(s) which would require it to be repaired or replaced. Eliminates any disputes
regarding valuation should we submit a property damage claim for the art.
Ongoing inspection and maintenance of the artifact will be important to ensure our risk
control techniques are not compromised due to the age or wear and tear of the structure as
time elapses.
In the final analysis, I would not rule out the project and art donation on the theory of "risk"
alone. I would focus on additional ways to reduce risk/exposure and eliminate any
potential condition which could result in an accident or injury. While my commentary and
recommendations do not eliminate the entire spectrum of risk, they do provide guidance in
reducing exposure and abating some of the concerns, all of which are notable from a risk
management perspective.
We have our Loss Control Specialist standing by for additional consultation if necessary.
Please review with your team and let me know your thoughts.
Jim
Jim Hill, ARM-P
Interim Risk Management Officer
ABAG PLAN Corporation
(415) 820-7969 Phone
ABAG has moved.
Effective Monday May 23, 2016 our mailing address and location is:
Association of Bay Area Governments
375 Beale Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 820-7900
My email address will remain the same.
My phone number will be (415) 820-79XX (last two digits remain the same).
We look forward to seeing you at our new location along with our regional partners, the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.