Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2026-04-14_10b Public Art_Monarch BooksItem 10.b. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Andrew Perez, Interim Director of Community Development BY: Patrick Holub, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Architectural Review 25-005; Public Art on Private Property; Location – 201 E. Branch St.; Applicant – Monarch Books, Taneesha Regez DATE: April 14, 2026 RECOMMENDATION: 1) Adopt a Resolution denying Architectural Review 25-005 for a proposed mural at 201 East Branch Street; and 2) Find that the denial of the proposed mural is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency disapproves or rejects (Pub. Resources Code §21080(b)(5); State CEQA Guidelines, §15270(a)), and the denial will not have direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental impacts (State CEQA Guidelines, §15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3); § 15378). IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: No financial impact. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Monarch Books, proposes to paint a mural on the west side of the building located at 201 E. Branch St, adjacent to the City-owned walkway between 133 East Branch Street and the subject property (Attachment 2). The walkway provides pedestrian access from East Branch Street to the parking areas located behind the buildings that front East Branch Street. The proposed mural meets the definition of public art and is subject to the City’s Public Art Guidelines and Public Art Donation Program1 (“the Guidelines”). The Guidelines were most recently updated on May 14th2, 2024, when City Council adopted Resolution 5358. The stated purpose of the Guidelines is to establish a 1 https://arroyogrande.org/documentcenter/view/1690 2 https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=10890 Page 389 of 406 Item 10.b. City Council Architectural Review 25-005; Public Art on Private Property; Location – 201 E. Branch St.; Applicant – Monarch Books, Taneesha Regez April 14, 2026 Page 2 framework to facilitate and encourage property owners to provide outdoor public art. The Guidelines define "Public Art" as art located either: 1. On private property with a non-residential land use that is visible from a public right-of-way or public property; or 2. In the adjacent public right of way; or 3. On property owned or managed by the City of Arroyo Grande (City), that is openly displayed to the public without charge. The Guidelines establish the City's goals regarding art that is publicly displayed and accessible to the public. The City recognizes that art and artistic expression is a protected activity and these Guidelines are not intended to unduly restrict creative expression or limit the types of public art possible. Rather, they are intended to facilitate and encourage the best possible combination of sites and artwork and help to guide what is essentially a form of communication between the artist and the community. The Guidelines also describe the approval process and selection criteria for public art proposals. Under the amended guidelines, all public art projects require review by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC), which makes a recommendation to the City Council. Decisions by the City Council shall be based on compliance with the selection criteria. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Project Description The proposed mural would measure approximately 150 square feet, with dimensions of 10 feet in height by 15 feet in width. The mural area is calculated by enclosing the outer limits of the text that distinguishes the mural from its background within a single continuous rectangular perimeter. The focal point of the mural is a navy circle approximately five feet in diameter, centered at mid-wall height and inscribed with cream- colored text reading: “What’s your story?” The text is surrounded by imagery that add visual interest, including a Monarch butterfly, bird, rabbit sitting atop a stack of books, horse, UFO, and ocean imagery including a whale, waves, and sailing ship. There is a silhouetted figure shown on the drawing that will not be included in the mura l. The presence of the figure is intended to show where members of the public may stand for photos with the “selfie wall.” The applicant also proposes painting the remainder of the western wall in the color “Hale Navy” to match the color of the front façade. This paint color, described as a shade of navy with a classic maritime feel, was found to be consistent with the Design Guidelines and Standards for the Historic Character Overlay District (D-2.4)3 by the ARC on June 26, 20234. Figure 1 below depicts the proposed mural. 3 https://arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/280/Village-Design-Guidelines-PDF 4 https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=7294 Page 390 of 406 Item 10.b. City Council Architectural Review 25-005; Public Art on Private Property; Location – 201 E. Branch St.; Applicant – Monarch Books, Taneesha Regez April 14, 2026 Page 3 Figure 1: Rendering of Proposed Mural Review Process Under Public Art Guidelines Following an initial determination on the completeness of the application by the Community Development Department, the ARC reviews all public art applications and makes a recommendation to the City Council. The Selection Criteria, which both ARC and the City Council will use to review applications, is discussed below. Architectural Review Committee (ARC) The ARC reviewed the proposal at the regular meeting on November 3, 20255. The Committee was supportive of the location near a public walkway and the intent to create public art that engages the community and creates conversation. The ARC commented6 that the fonts and colors are appropriate and that murals are consistent with the historic period. The ARC recommended approval of the proposal as presented. 5https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=dd228ecd-9569-4083-b34d- 655bcb4b62e1&lang=English&Agenda=Agenda&Item=14&Tab=attachments 6 https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=16685 Page 391 of 406 Item 10.b. City Council Architectural Review 25-005; Public Art on Private Property; Location – 201 E. Branch St.; Applicant – Monarch Books, Taneesha Regez April 14, 2026 Page 4 Subsequent to ARC’s review of the proposal, concerns were expressed about the imagery relating to products sold by the business. In that review, it was determined that the imagery is closely related to the products sold by the business and is in conflict with selection criterion 7.e. of the Guidelines. Staff recommended that the applicant consider minor changes to the artwork to alleviate this concern. However, the applicant has decided against modifying the proposal prior to City Council’s consideration of the application. Selection Criteria The Guidelines state that certain selection criteria (the “Selection Criteria”) shall be the basis for all decisions on public art applications. The first seven criteria apply to all public art applications, and the final criterion is specific to proposals in the D -2.4 Historic Character Overlay District. The Selection Criteria are as follows: 1. Evaluation of artistic excellence, examining: a. The artist’s qualifications, including education, training, experience, body of work, recognition of the artist, and the consistency of the artist’s qualifications with the stated goals of the project; b. The artist’s record of previous collaboration with other agencies, organizations, artists, fabricators, or installers to achieve a successful result in implementing the proposed project; c. The artist’s experience working in the public realm; d. To the extent applicable, the artist’s previous proven successful experience in creating, producing or otherwise implementing projects similar to the one proposed; e. The original nature of the proposed concept; f. The inherent artistic quality and aesthetic merit of the work; 2. Appropriateness of scale, form, material, content and design relative to the immediate neighborhood and environment; no mural shall be approved if the mural, as proposed, would create an objective risk to public health, safety, or welfare (e.g. a mural near a roadway would be rejected for the use of reflective materials, like mirrors, which could cause a distraction to drivers). Scale is defined as the relative size of a building element in relation to other fo rms and the human body. Form is the shape or configuration of the artwork; 3. Appropriateness of proposed materials in regard to structural and surface integrity. Materials should be considered in the context of ability to deter against vandalism, withstand weathering, and maintain the intended design; 4. Ease of maintenance and longevity of the proposed materials; 5. Appropriateness of the proposed method of installation of the artwork with consideration given to the safety and structural factors involved in installation; 6. Location, considering the intended audience for the proposal, whether the public will be a captive audience or whether a person would need to take affirmative steps Page 392 of 406 Item 10.b. City Council Architectural Review 25-005; Public Art on Private Property; Location – 201 E. Branch St.; Applicant – Monarch Books, Taneesha Regez April 14, 2026 Page 5 to view the project. Consideration shall be given to whether the mural would be in an area typically accessed or viewable by minors; 7. A mural shall not be approved if it includes: a. Copyrighted work without permission of the holder of the copyright. b. Obscene materials. c. Defamatory content. d. Fighting words or advocates imminent lawless action. e. Content, including but not limited to, words, symbols, signs, trademarks, or references to products or services provided on the premises. Such content meets the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) definition for signage, as regulated by AGMC Chapter 16.60; 8. Public Art proposed in the D-2.4 Historic Character Overlay District is also subject to the following criteria: a. An identified relationship to the social, cultural, and historical identity of the area; b. An identified relationship to the site's existing architectural features; c. The nature of the site's surrounding neighborhood and potential impact of the public art project on residents, businesses, and existing works of art or design elements within the site's vicinity. Findings Staff is able to make the required findings that the mural is consistent with the Selection Criteria described by the Guidelines, except for finding 7 relating to products or services sold on site. Staff’s analysis of the findings is as follows: 1. The artist, Marmalade Mural Company, has completed numerous projects with similar scopes and scale and has collaborated with dozens of public and private agencies to complete similar projects throughout the country. Specifically, the artist has completed numerous examples of highly visible public wall murals painted directly on brick. Examples include work done at SLO County Airport, the SLO Ranch Market and SLODOCO. 2. The proposal to paint a wall mural, as recommended by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) is appropriate for the location in terms of form, material and scale. The proposed location being a public walkway will not endanger the public due to being oriented for pedestrian viewers and will not impact the safety of passing vehicles on Branch Street, nor will it endanger pedestrians viewing the mural. The artwork's objective, which is to serve as a "selfie spot" ensures that the scale of the mural will be an appropriate scale. 3. The proposed use of exterior-rated paint is intended to maintain the durability of the artwork over time. After completion of the artwork, a clear coat preventing vandalism will be applied to further protect the artwork. 4. The proposed use of exterior-rated paint was selected with ease of maintenance and longevity in mind and are intended for the proposed method of installation. Page 393 of 406 Item 10.b. City Council Architectural Review 25-005; Public Art on Private Property; Location – 201 E. Branch St.; Applicant – Monarch Books, Taneesha Regez April 14, 2026 Page 6 The use of a protective clear coat will further increase the longevity of the artwork and dramatically reduce maintenance needs. 5. The proposed method of painting the mural has been selected to consider safety and structural factors involved in installation. The artist will be required to provide a pedestrian detour plan if their proposal involves the closure of any public sidewalks and, therefore, will not contribute to an unsafe situation for the artist nor the public during the creation of the mural. 6. The proposed artwork, visible to the general public, has been designed to reflect the broad interests of the public and is intended to attract visitors to the Village by providing a backdrop for photographs. 7. The artwork, as proposed, contains imagery and elements that directly relate to the products and services offered by the business. Specifically, the mural contains images of books, which are the primary product offered at this retail business. The depiction of a monarch butterfly makes reference to the business’ name, Monarch Books. The City’s mural regulations allow for the creation of art in the community, but the City, with this criterion, intends to preserve its zoning authority over signs applicable to commercial businesses in the City. By referencing the name of the business with the monarch butterfly and including a book, the property owner creates signage that advertises their business name (“Monarch Books”) and the products sold on the premises (books). Signage like this must comply with the City’s regulations on commercial signage contained in Chapter 16.60 of the AGMC. (See AGMC § 16.60.020) For this reason, the proposal is not consistent with criterion 7.e of the Guidelines. 8. The proposed artwork has an identified relationship to the identity of the area and compliments the existing architecture, which includes a painted brick wall. The installation of a painted wall mural in this location will complement the character of the existing built environment and will have a positive impact on the Village as a whole by attracting new visitors and providing visual appeal to a walkway with public access. In its review of the application, City Council shall consider any material submitted by the applicant, city staff, the administrative record of the decision on the application, and evidence presented at the hearing. The applicant shall be given a reasonabl e time to present their case. Using the Selection Criteria as the basis for its decision, the City Council may: 1. Request that the applicant clarify its proposal or redesign and resubmit its proposal to ARC or City Council. If the City Council requests that the applicant resubmit the proposal to ARC, the resubmitted proposal shall be reviewed as if a new application; or 2. Approve the proposal, providing a written explanation of the basis for approval through the Selection Criteria; or 3. Deny the proposal, providing a written explanation of the basis for denial through the Selection Criteria. Page 394 of 406 Item 10.b. City Council Architectural Review 25-005; Public Art on Private Property; Location – 201 E. Branch St.; Applicant – Monarch Books, Taneesha Regez April 14, 2026 Page 7 All decisions of the City Council are final and conclusive. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt the attached Resolution denying the project; 2. Direct the applicant to redesign and resubm it the project; 3. Do not adopt the prepared Resolution; or 4. Provide other direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: Denial of the application will result in the mural being inconsistent with the adopted Public Art Guidelines and uphold the Public Art Guidelines. DISADVANTAGES: A denial will not allow for installation of public art in a highly visible location, but reinforces the selection criteria, specifically criterion 7 , which prevents murals from serving as additional signage or advertisement for businesses. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Denial of the project is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency disapproves or rejects (Pub. Resources Code §21080(b)(5); State CEQA Guidelines, §15270(a)), and the denial will not have or reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental impacts (State CEQA Guidelines, §15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3); § 15378. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution with Exhibit A - Rendering 2. Project Location Page 395 of 406 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 25-005 FOR A PROPOSED MURAL AT 201 EAST BRANCH STREET WHEREAS, the City’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) reviewed and recommended that the City Council approve the proposed painting of a mural at 201 East Branch Street (“project”) on November 3, 2025, in accordance with the City’s Public Art Guidelines and Public Art Donation Program (the “Guidelines”); and WHEREAS, the applicant for the proposed mural is “Monarch Books”, which operates a bookstore; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the ARC’s review, it was noted that the mural did not satisfy Selection Criterion 7.e. of the Guidelines regarding imagery in the mural that relates directly to the products sold by the subject business; and WHEREAS, on April 14, 2026, the City Council reviewed the project at a duly noticed public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and determined that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency does not a pprove pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15270. WHEREAS, all prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. Recitals. All recitals above are true and correct and hereby incorporated into reference. 2. CEQA. Denial of the proposed mural is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency disapproves or rejects (Pub. Resources Code §21080(b)(5); State CEQA Guidelines, §15270(a)), and the denial will not have direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental impacts (State CEQA Guidelines, §15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3) 15378). 3. Architectural Review Findings: 1. The proposal is consistent with the architectural guidelines of the city, or guidelines prepared for the area in which the project is located; The proposal to paint a wall mural on a painted brick wall, and as recommended by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC), is consistent with all applicable architectural guidelines for the project. Painted wall murals are appropriate for this location due to the historical use of painted wall signs directly onto brick buildings. The colors and the content of the mural are Page 396 of 406 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 consistent with all relevant guidelines, including the City’s Design Guidelines and Standards for the Historic Character Overlay District (D-2.4). 2. The proposal is consistent with the text and maps of the Arroyo Grande general plan and this title; The proposal, as recommended by the ARC, is consistent with the City’s General Plan, specifically the Economic Development Element, which emphasizes the implementation of public art. 3. The proposal will not be detrimen tal to the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed project; The proposal, as recommended by the ARC, will not be detrimental to the health of safety of the general public due to being designed with materials that are intended for use on outdoor walls. Further, the applicant will be required to implement appropriate safety measures for pedestrians while the work is occurring that will mitigate any potential safety issues during installation. 4. The general appearance of the proposal is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood; The appearance of the artwork, as recommended by the ARC, is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The inclusion of whimsical elements provide visual intrigue in an area frequented by members of the public and will increase the visual interest of the area, which is already intended for pedestrians and public engagement. 5. The proposal is not detrimental to the orderly and harmonious developm ent of the city; The approval of this artwork will not have any effect on the harmonious development of the City due to being consistent with the ado pted guidelines for public art. Further, the installation of public art in the Village will promote business development and improve the character of the entire corridor. 6. The proposal will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood. The proposal, as recommended by the ARC, will not impair the desirability of the neighborhood due to being consistent with the adopted guidelines for public art. Further, the installation of public art in an area designed for pedestrian activity increases the visual intrigue and creates a sense of community that will promote further investment in the neighborhood. 4. Public Art Selection Criteria Findings: Page 397 of 406 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 1. Evaluation of artistic excellence, examining: a. The artist’s qualifications, including: education, training, experience, body of work, recognition of the artist, and the consistency of the artist’s qualifications with the stated goals of the project; b. The artist’s record of previous collaboration with other agencies, organizations, artists, fabricators, or installers to achieve a successful result in implementing the proposed project; c. The artist’s experience working in the public realm; d. To the extent applicable, the artist’s previous proven successful experience in creating, producing or otherwise implementing projects similar to the one proposed; e. The original nature of the proposed concept; f. The inherent artistic quality and aesthetic merit of the work; The artist, Marmalade Mural Company, has completed numerous projects with similar scopes and scale and has collaborated with dozens of public and private agencies to complete similar projects throughout the country. Specifically, the artist has completed numerous examples of highly visible public wall murals painted directly on brick. Examples in clude work done at SLO County Airport, the SLO Ranch Market and SLODOCO. 2. Appropriateness of scale, form, material, content and design relative to the immediate neighborhood and environment; no mural shall be approved if the mural, as proposed, would create an objective risk to public health, safety, or welfare (e.g. a mural near a roadway would be rejected for the use of reflective materials, like mirrors, which co uld cause a distraction to drivers). Scale is defined as the relative size of a building ele ment in relation to other forms and the human body. Form is the shape or configuration of the artwork; The proposal to paint a wall mural, as recommended by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) is appropriate for the location in terms of form, material and scale. The proposed location being a public walkway will not endanger the public due to being oriented for pedestrian viewers and will not impact the safety of passing vehicles on Branch Street, nor will in endanger pedestrians viewing the mural. The artwork's objective, which is to serve as a "selfie spot" ensures that the scale of the mural will be an appropriate scale. 3. Appropriateness of proposed materials in regards to structural and surface integrity. Materials should be considered in the conte xt of ability to deter against vandalism, withstand weathering, and maintain the intended Page 398 of 406 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 4 design; The proposed use of exterior-rated paint is intended to maintain the durability of the artwork over time. After completion of the artwork, a clear coat preve nting vandalism will be applied to further protect the artwork. 4. Ease of maintenance and longevity of the proposed materials; The proposed use of exterior-rated paint was selected with ease of maintenance and longevity in mind and are intended for the pro posed method of installation. The use of a protective clear coat will further increase the longevity of the artwork and dramatically reduce maintenance needs. 5. Appropriateness of the proposed method of installation of the artwork with consideration given to the safety and structural factors involved in installation; The proposed method of painting the mural has been selected to consider safety and structural factors involved in installation. The artist will be required to provide a pedestrian detour plan if their proposal involves the closure of any public sidewalks and, therefore, will not contribute to an unsafe situation for the artist nor the public during the creation of the mural. 6. Location, considering the intended audience for the proposal, whether the public will be a captive audience or whether a person would need to take affirmative steps to view the project. Consideration shall be given to whether the mural would be in an area typically accessed or viewable by minors; The proposed artwork, visible to the general public, has been designed to reflect the broad interests of the public and is intended to attract visitors to the Village by providing a backdrop for photographs. 7. A mural shall not be approved if it includes: a. Copyrighted work without permission of the holder of the copyright. b. Obscene materials. c. Defamatory content. d. Fighting words or advocates imminent lawless action. e. Content, including but not limited to, words, symbols, signs, trademarks, or references to products or services provided on the premises. Such content meets the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) definition for signage, as regulated by AGMC Chapter 16.60; The artwork, as proposed, contains imagery and elements that directly relate to the products and services offered by t he business. Specifically, the mural contains images of books, which are the primary product offered at this retail Page 399 of 406 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 5 business. The depiction of a monarch butterfly makes reference to the business’ name, Monarch Books. The City’s mural regulations allow for the creation of art in the community, but the City, with this criterion, intends to preserve its zoning authority over signs applicable to commercial businesses in the City. By referencing the name of the business with the monarch butterfly and including a book, the property owner creates signage that advertises their business name (“Monarch Books”) and the products sold on the premises (books). Signage like this must comply with the City’s regulations on commercial signage contained in Chapter 16.60 of the AGMC. (See AGMC § 16.60.020) For this reason, the proposal is not consistent with criterion 7.e of the Guidelines. 8. Public Art proposed in the D-2.4 Historic Character Overlay District is also subject to the following criteria: a. An identified relationship to the social, cultural and historical identity of the area; b. An identified relationship to the site's existing architectural features; c. The nature of the site's surrounding neighborhood and potential impact of the public art project on residents, businesses, and existing works of art or design elements within the site's vicinity. The proposed artwork has an identified relationship to the identity of the area and compliments the existing architecture, which includes a painted brick wall. The installation of a painted wall mural in this location will complement the character of the existing built environment and will have a positive impact on the Village as a whole by attracting new visitors and providing visual appeal to a walkway with public access. 5. Severability. If any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution or the document in the record in support of this resolution is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, unenforceable, unconstitutional or otherwise void, that determination shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, divisions, sentences, clauses, or phrases of this resolution. 6. Effect. The Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby denies the project as described and shown in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference with the above findings, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. On a motion by Council member _________, seconded by Council member __________, and by the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 14th day of April 2026. Page 400 of 406 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 6 _______________________________________ CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________________ JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: _______________________________________ MATTHEW DOWNING, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________________ ISAAC ROSEN, CITY ATTORNEY Page 401 of 406 EXHIBIT A Page 402 of 406 Page 403 of 406 1SPKFDU-PDBUJPO "55"$).&/5 Page 404 of 406 Page 405 of 406 Page 406 of 406