HomeMy WebLinkAbout5C
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 24, 2022 NEW BUSINESS
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF HISTORIC SITE PRESERVATION BOARD ACTION
APPROVING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR
ALTERATIONS TO THE PALM SPRINGS CITY HALL, A CLASS 1
(LANDMARK) HISTORIC SITE LOCATED AT 3200 EAST TAHQUITZ
CANYON WAY – REMOVAL OF FRANK BOGERT STATUE, (HSPB #33D/
CASE 3.3377).
FROM: Justin Clifton, City Manager
BY: Jeffrey S. Ballinger, City Attorney
Flinn Fagg, Deputy City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Approve a Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding the Decision of the
Historic Site Preservation Board, Approving a Certificate of Appropriateness for
Alterations to the Palm Springs City Hall, A Class 1 (Landmark) Historic Site
Located at 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way – Removal of Frank Bogert Statue
(HSBP #33D / Case 3.3377).
SUMMARY:
On September 29, 2021, the City Council voted 5-0 to begin the process to remove the
statue of Frank Bogert that is in front of City Hall. City Hall is a Class 1 (Landmark) historic
resource.
On November 2, 2021, the City’s Historic Site Preservation Board (“HSPB”) considered a
Certificate of Appropriateness application to determine whether removal of the statue
would materially impair the historic significance of City Hall. At that meeting the HSPB
considered the application and continued it to a date certain, requesting more information
about the defining historic characteristics of City Hall.
A historic resources report dated January 20, 2022 (the “ARG Report”), was prepared by
the firm Architectural Resources Group (“ARG”) which evaluated City Hall and identified,
among other things, the defining historic characteristics of the historic resource, the
elements on the site that contribute to its historic significance, the criteria from the City’s
Historic Preservation Ordinance (Palm Springs Municipal Code (“PSMC”), Chapter 8.05)
under which the site qualifies as a historic resource and its period of significance.
Item 5C - 1
City Council Staff Report
February 24, 2022 -- Page 2
Appeal of HSPB Certificate of Appropriateness – Frank Bogert Statue
The ARG Report concluded that the Bogert statue does not contribute to the historic
significance of City Hall and its removal would not materially impair the characteristics
that contribute to City Hall’s historic significance.
On February 1, 2022, the HSPB voted (4-2 (with 1 abstention)) to approve the certificate
of appropriateness for the removal of the statue, with the strong recommendation that the
City Council ensure relocation of the statue to a suitable, publicly-accessible site in
perpetuity.
On Thursday, February 10, 2022, Rod Pacheco, on behalf of his client, Friends of Mayor
Frank Bogert (“Appellant”), filed an appeal of the HSPB’s action. The action before the
City Council is the consideration of that appeal.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK:
Pursuant to the PSMC Section 8.05.110(A), prior to alteration of a Class 1 historic
resource a Certificate of Appropriateness must be processed. The removal of the statue
is a “Minor Alteration” as defined in PSMC Section 8.05.020 (“Definitions”)1.
The HSPB’s authority, like that of the City Council in this appeal, is limited to evaluating
the Certificate of Appropriateness application and making findings relative to the
proposed alteration of the historic resource that is City Hall. The Board was not authorized
by law, nor requested by the City Council, to evaluate the legacy of Frank Bogert, nor to
opine about the artistic status or value of the statue itself – only whether its removal would
materially impair the character-defining features that contribute to the historic significance
of City Hall. That is the statutory authority of the HSPB, and on appeal, that of the City
Council.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
The Palm Springs City Hall was designed in the Modernist architectural style by a
collaborative effort of local architects including Albert Frey, John Porter Clark, and
Robson Chambers. According to the ARG Report, construction of the original building
began in 1956 and was completed in 1957. Subsequent additions were completed in
1965, 1972, and 1985. The ARG Report states that the elements that contribute to the
significance of the site are the original building, the 1965 addition, and the overall open
layout of the site including planted areas, parking lots and the drive aisle fronting the 1957
portion of the building.
1 PSMC 8.06.110 (C)(2) notes that a Certificate of Appropriateness for “minor” alterations may be issued
by the Historic Preservation Officer or may be referred to the HSPB for review and action. The HSPB is the
reviewing body for Certificates of Appropriateness for demolitions and “major” alterations. However, the
criteria used to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness is the same, regardless of whether the alteration is
“minor” or “major”. (PSMC 8.05.110(E).) In this case, staff referred the proposed statue removal to the
HSPB for consideration and action. Therefore, Appellant’s focus on the distinction between a “minor”
alteration and a “major” alteration (Appeal, pp. 8-9) appears misplaced.
Item 5C - 2
City Council Staff Report
February 24, 2022 -- Page 3
Appeal of HSPB Certificate of Appropriateness – Frank Bogert Statue
The period of significance is identified in the ARG Report as 1956 to 1965.2
The non-contributing elements on the site include the 1972 and 1985 additions, the rear
(north) parking lot and landscaping from 1985, all plant materials, the flagpole and the
Bogert statue.
In 2015, City Hall was listed on the National Register of Historic Places and was
determined eligible for listing “because it embodies the distinctive characteristics of civic
architecture associated with Albert Frey and is the work of a master architect.”
On page 13, the ARG Report states, “The flagpole and Frank Bogert statue located in the
lawn area in front of the building are alterations that occurred well after the period of
significance and do not contribute to the property’s significance in terms of architecture
or association with/embodiment of historic patterns of development – the flagpole was
moved here from the main entrance in 1981 and the statue was added in 1990.”
On page 14, the ARG Report lists the character-defining features of the site as follows:
Site:
• General open configuration and layout of the landscape and hardscape
fronting the building, excluding planting materials, the flagpole, and the
Bogert statue.
Building:
• Irregular plan.
• Low-slung, horizontal massing.
• Mid-Century Modern architectural style.
• Flat roofs.
• Low concrete plinth with curving concrete plaza and shallow steps.
• Textured concrete masonry unit cladding, with “offset squares” appearance.
• Asymmetrical composition of the primary façade, with office wing at the west
and Council Chambers at the east.
• Original aluminum doors and windows.
• Projecting canopies over walkways at office wing primary façade, with light
blue corrugated metal soffits and angled, cylindrical, metal brise soleils
painted sage green.
• Deep eaves/metal canopy at office wing primary façade.
2 Appellant states, in its appeal, that “ ‘Period of significance’ does not appear in any part of the PSMC
relating to historic resources or sites, nor does it direct that after historic designations are made this
imagined phrase can be used as a basis for redefining the historic resource designated by City boards and
the City Council. In fact, “period of significance” is defined in the PSMC, at section 8.05.020, as “a discrete
chronological period demarcated by year for which a historic resource is associated. The period of
significance is the time period that a historic resource reflects.” The period of significance is a criterion to
be used in determining whether a site, structure, building or object exhibits exceptional historical
significance. (PSMC 8.05.070(C)(1)(a)(iii) & (iv)).)
Item 5C - 3
City Council Staff Report
February 24, 2022 -- Page 4
Appeal of HSPB Certificate of Appropriateness – Frank Bogert Statue
• Differentiated Council Chamber massing / shape / details, with
“telescopically stepped” walls with fixed windows oriented toward the north;
diagonal corner treatment; and round concrete entry porch.
• Freestanding “mirror opposite” entrance canopies with original signage at
primary façade: at office wing, a flat-roofed square with angled steel I-beam
supports, light blue corrugated metal soffits, corrugated metal fascia, and
open circle in roof; at Council Chamber, a concrete circular disk with simple
columns.
• Flush-mounted sans serif aluminum signage, including “PALM SPRINGS
CITY HALL, “THE PEOPLE ARE THE CITY,” and “COUNCIL CHAMBER”.
• Corrugated metal entry canopy at west façade with “spider leg” supports,
over recessed entry approach.
Related Relevant City Actions by Planning, Fire, Building, etc.
1956 & 1965 Original portions of the building constructed.
1990 Frank Bogert statue placed in the front yard of City Hall.
1996 City Council designated City Hall as a Class 1 Historic Site.
2012 City Council expanded the Class 1 designation to include the entire
parcel on which the building is located.
2015 City Hall listed in the National Register of Historic Places as part of the
Architecture of Albert Frey Multiple Property Submission.
2018 The HSPB approved alterations to the Council chamber, specifically the
dais.
Neighborhood Meeting/Notification
1-28-22
Electronic notice sent to neighborhood organizations within a mile of the
subject property.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
Accompanying this staff report is the written appeal. The appeal can be broken down into
three (3) categories:
• Appellant’s assertion that the City did not follow the PSMC in approving the
Certificate of Appropriateness;
• Appellant’s assertion that the issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness
violates the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); and
• Appellant’s assertion that federal and state laws regarding visual art on public
display bars the proposed City action.
Each of these allegations are addressed, in turn, below.
I. The Certificate of Appropriateness was Properly Issued, in Accordance with the
PSMC
Item 5C - 4
City Council Staff Report
February 24, 2022 -- Page 5
Appeal of HSPB Certificate of Appropriateness – Frank Bogert Statue
The essence of Appellant’s argument appears to be that Appellant disagrees with the
findings recommended by City staff and adopted by the HSPB, relative to altering the City
Hall, which is a historic resource.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 8.05.110 (E), (“Alteration of Class 1 and Class 2
Historic Resources – Certificate of Appropriateness”), in considering a Certificate of
Appropriateness request, the HSPB must evaluate the application and make findings for
conformance based on the following criteria:
1. That the proposed alteration does not significantly impact or materially
impair the character-defining features of the historic resource as listed in
the resolution for historic designation, or, where a character-defining feature
may be impacted, the proposed alteration minimizes that impact as much
as possible;
Appellant argues that “removal/relocation of the Bogert statue would definitely impact the
historic resource as it is part and parcel of that resource”. However, this argument, if
followed to its logical extreme would mean that no historic resource could ever be altered,
nor any object located on a historic site could be removed, even if that object’s removal
does not significantly affect the character-defining features of that historic site. Taken to
its logical conclusion, Appellant’s argument would mean that the City could not remove a
sprinkler head from the landscaped area in front of City Hall. The question is not whether
a historic resource is being altered; the question is whether the proposed alteration
significantly impacts or materially impairs the character-defining features of the historic
resource.
As noted in the ARG Report, City Hall’s historic significance is recognized for its Mid-
Century Modernist architectural style and its association with master architect Albert Frey.
The character-defining features of the historic resource, as listed on page 14 of the ARG
Report, include the general open configuration and layout of the landscape and
hardscape fronting the building but does not include the planting materials, the flagpole
or the Bogert statue. The statue is located in the open space in front of City Hall. Its
removal would not significantly impact or materially impair the character-defining features
because it does not alter the general configuration and layout of the open space fronting
the building or any other character-defining feature that contributes to the historic
significance of City Hall. As such, this finding can be affirmatively met.
Appellant also asserts that the Bogert statue itself is a “historic resource”. The City’s
Historic Preservation Ordinance defines a historic resource as “…any site, structure,
building or object… which has been designated Class 1 or Class 2 status, or any identified
contributing resource within a City Council-designated historic district.” In this case, the
Bogert statue, while potentially capable of being designated as a historic resource, has
not been granted Class 1 or Class 2 designation and has not been identified as a
contributing resource in a Council-designated historic site or district. Nor is the statue from
the period of significance for the City Hall. The statue itself is not a historic resource and
thus is not subject to further evaluation as such.
Item 5C - 5
City Council Staff Report
February 24, 2022 -- Page 6
Appeal of HSPB Certificate of Appropriateness – Frank Bogert Statue
2. That the proposed alteration will assist in restoring the historic resource
to its original appearance where applicable, or will substantially aid its
preservation or enhancement as a historic resource;
Appellant argues that the removal of the statute would not assist in restoring the historic
resource because, according to the Appellant, the statue was part of the historic resource
defined in the City Council’s 2012 resolution. However, this analysis does not focus on
the required finding, namely whether “the proposed alteration will assist in restoring the
historic resource to its original appearance” or “will substantially aid its preservation or
enhancement as a historic resource”.
Upon completion of the original 1956 building and the 1965 addition, the character-
defining open space in front of the City Hall building was comprised of two parking lots
located at the southeast and southwest corners of the parcel, with a drive aisle connecting
them across a broad expanse of landscape. There were no statues or other objects in the
open space fronting City Hall during its period of significance. The Bogert statue was
installed in 1990, well after the period of significance (1956-1965).
Further, Appellants have not demonstrated that the statue was part of the historic
resource as designated by the City Council. The statue was not mentioned in the City
Council resolutions that designated City Hall as a Class 1 historic site in 1996, nor in the
subsequent resolution of 2012. It was also not mentioned in the materials submitted for
consideration of adding City Hall to the National Register of Historic Places in 2015. It is
not a character-defining feature; thus, its removal will not adversely affect the historic
resource and will assist in restoring it to its original appearance. This finding can be
affirmatively met.
3. That any additions to the historic resource are consistent with the
massing, proportions, materials, and finishes of the existing historic
resource, and: (i) can be distinguished from the existing historic resource
as may be appropriate; or (ii) are indistinguishable from the historic resource
as may be appropriate, and where such alterations are clearly documented
in the City’s archival file for the historic resource as being non-original to the
historic resource;
Appellant argues that the City Council’s 2012 resolution identified the Bogert statue as a
historic resource, and therefore this finding cannot be met. As noted above, the 2012
resolution does not identify the statute as a historic resource. Moreover, again, the
question is not whether the statue is a historic resource or not. This finding is focused on
whether any proposed “additions to the historic resources are consistent with the
massing, proportions, materials, and finishes of the existing historic resource”. Here, the
removal of the statue does not involve any “additions”. Therefore, regardless of whether
or not the statue is a historic resource, removal of the statue is not an “addition”, and thus
this finding can be affirmatively met.
Item 5C - 6
City Council Staff Report
February 24, 2022 -- Page 7
Appeal of HSPB Certificate of Appropriateness – Frank Bogert Statue
4. That, in cases where Federal funds are to be utilized in financing the
proposed alterations, the alterations are consistent with the Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties, as put forth by the U.S. Secretary of
the Interior.
No federal funds are involved in the proposed project.
Appellant also appears to argue that, because the City is not proposing to remove all non-
contributing elements, the City is therefore precluded from removing this one non-
contributing element. However, the City’s motive for proposing the removal of the statue
is not legally relevant to the findings that are called for under the PSMC. Instead, the
findings that were provided by City staff, analyzed by City staff and the HSPB, and
ultimately adopted by the HSPB are what are legally relevant.
II. The Issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness is Lawful under CEQA
With regard to Appellant’s CEQA argument, Appellant asserts that removal would violate
CEQA because Appellant believes that the removal of the Bogert statue will cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
However, as discussed above, based on the findings that are supported by the facts, the
removal of the Bogert statue will not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource. The Bogert statue itself is not designated as a
historical resource. Further, as explained above, removing the statue would restore the
character-defining features of City Hall, which is the historical resource at issue. As such,
removing the statue would improve the significance of City Hall and would not cause any
adverse change, much less substantial adverse change, in City Hall’s significance. As
such, the categorical exemption relied upon by City staff and the HSPB is appropriate for
the proposed removal of the Bogert statue.
III. Federal and state laws do not apply to the removal of art, as proposed by this
action
Appellant cites to a California statue that prohibits anyone, except the artist, from
intentionally committing, or authorizing “the intentional commission of, any physical
defacement, mutilation, alteration, or destruction of a work of fine art.” (California Art
Preservation Act (“CAPA”), Civ. Code § 987(c)(1).)
However, even assuming the Bogert statue would be considered “fine art” under CAPA,
the City is not proposing to deface, mutilate, alter, or destroy it. Instead, the City is
proposing to remove the statue. Simply removing a statue from its current location and
placing it in storage alone was not enough to violate CAPA, as found in the very recent
case of Schmid v. City and County of San Francisco, (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 470, 488.
As such, the cited statute does not prohibit the City from removing the Bogert statue.
Item 5C - 7
City Council Staff Report
February 24, 2022 -- Page 8
Appeal of HSPB Certificate of Appropriateness – Frank Bogert Statue
CEQA DETERMINATION.
The proposed project is categorically exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under CEQA Guidelines section 15331 and section
15061(b)(3).
Under section 15331, also known as class 31, projects that are for the “maintenance,
repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or
reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties” (“the Standards”) are
exempt from CEQA.
The proposed removal of the statue would restore the City Hall to conditions consistent
with its period of historic significance and this restoration is consistent with the Standards
for restoration. The Standards, beginning on page 118, state that restoration can include
removal of features that were introduced onto a site from outside the period of
significance. As outlined in the ARG Report, the period of significance for City Hall was
1956–1965. The statue was installed in 1990, well outside the period of significance.
Page 121 of the Standards further states that in restoring a site, it is recommended that
“work is included to remove… existing features that do not represent the restoration
period.” (emphasis added.) (Restoration period in this context is understood to mean the
period of historic significance.) The Bogert statue was installed around 1990 and thus is
not from the period of significance and removal is consistent with the Standards.
The Standards also denote on page 153 that retaining and preserving features that are
important from the period of significance is recommended and that “retaining non-
restoration period (i.e., period of significance) landscape features is not recommended.”
(emphasis added.) Thus, in considering the findings for a Certificate of Appropriateness,
removal of the statue is consistent with the Standards because it will contribute to
restoring the City Hall site closer to the original appearance as seen in the vintage photos
taken during the period of significance. As stated in the ARG Report, the statue is not
recognized as a historic character-defining feature of the City Hall site and does not meet
the definition of a historic resource as outlined in the City’s Historic Preservation
Ordinance (PSMC 8.05.020); thus, its removal is consistent with the Standards. As such,
removal is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines section 15331.
Under section 15061(b)(3), an activity is not subject to CEQA if “it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant
effect on the environment.”
Removal of the statue will not have a significant effect on the environment. Removal of
the statue can be accomplished with a standard truck-mounted articulating or
“knuckleboom” hydraulic crane loading it onto a conventional flatbed truck. The stones
around the concrete base can be disassembled and the concrete hauled away for
recycling. The lifting of a statue of this relatively small size onto a truck can be
accomplished in a matter of hours and thus any noise or vehicle emissions while the
Item 5C - 8
City Council Staff Report
February 24, 2022 -- Page 9
Appeal of HSPB Certificate of Appropriateness – Frank Bogert Statue
trucks are on site are brief, periodic and insignificant. Furthermore, removal of the statue
is not anticipated to have any impact on vehicular trips to or from City Hall and thus other
than the temporary parking of the crane and truck to lift the statue off the site, no impact
on transportation is expected.
Under CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2, a categorical exemption (such as in Guidelines
section 15331) may not be used if specified exceptions circumstances exist with respect
to the proposed project. None of the exceptions apply here, as explained below.
1. Location exception (CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(a)): This exception only
applies to Class 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11 exemptions, none of which are being utilized
here.
2. Cumulative impact exception (CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(b)): This
exception only applies if there are successive projects of the same type in the
same place over time that have a significant cumulative impact. Here, there are no
other similar restoration projects proposed for City Hall and thus no successive
projects of the same type in the same place.
3. Unusual circumstances exception (CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(c): This
exception only applies if there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have
a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. This
exception does not apply because as explained above, there is no possibility that
the proposed activity will have a significant effect on the environment and because
there are no unusual circumstances related to the removal of the statute.
4. Scenic highway exception (CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(d)): The scenic
highway exception only applies if the project may result in damage to scenic
resources within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This
exception does not apply because the statue is not located within a highway that
is officially designated as a state scenic highway. Tahquitz Canyon Way is
identified in the City’s General Plan as an “enhanced transportation corridor”
because it provides views of the San Jacinto Mountains and is developed with
landscaped medians and street trees, however it is not a designated state scenic
highway.
5. Hazardous waste site exception (CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(e): This
exception only applies to projects located on sites that are identified on the Cortese
List of hazardous waste sites. This section does not apply because the Project site
is not included on any list of hazardous waste sites.
6. Historical resources exception (CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(f)): The
historical resources exception states that a categorical exemption may not be used
if it would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource. This exception does not apply because, as explained above, the statue
is not itself a historic resource, and because as also explained above, removal of
the statue is a restoration of the City Hall site consistent with the Standards.
Removing the statue will bring the City Hall closer to its original appearance during
its period of significance.
Item 5C - 9
City Council Staff Report
February 24, 2022 -- Page 10
Appeal of HSPB Certificate of Appropriateness – Frank Bogert Statue
CONCLUSION:
The statue of Frank Bogert was placed in the front yard of City Hall in 1990. The statue
is not a character-defining feature of the building or site. It does not reflect the period of
significance when the City Hall was designed and built. The statue itself is not a
designated historic resource. Its removal will assist in returning the appearance of the
City Hall site to the way it appeared during the period of significance shortly after its
completion in 1965.
Therefore, City staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the
HSPB’s approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the removal of the Bogert statue.
REVIEWED BY:
City Attorney: Jeffrey S. Ballinger
Deputy City Manager: Flinn Fagg
City Manager: Justin Clifton
ATTACHMENTS:
1. ARG Report, January 24, 2022.
2. Friends of Mayor Frank Bogert Appeal, February 10, 2022.
3. Resolution.
Item 5C - 10
Palm Springs City Hall (HSPB-33D)
Limited Historic Resources Report
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA
Prepared for:
City of Palm Springs
Department of Planning Services
Prepared by:
January 24, 2022
Item 5C - 11
Architectural
Resources Group
Item 5C - 12
Palm Springs City Hall, Limited Historic Resources Report January 24, 2022
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP i
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................1
1.1 Frank Bogert Statue ......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Summary of Findings ....................................................................................................... 2
2. Administrative Background .............................................................................................3
3. Historical Background Summary ......................................................................................4
4. Summary Architectural Description .................................................................................6
4.1 Site ................................................................................................................................... 6
4.2 Building ............................................................................................................................ 6
5. Alterations and Chronology of Development ...................................................................8
6. Period of Significance ................................................................................................... 12
7. Character-Defining Features ......................................................................................... 14
7.1 Site ................................................................................................................................. 14
7.2 Building .......................................................................................................................... 14
8. Bibliography ................................................................................................................. 15
Appendix A. Existing Conditions Photos
Item 5C - 13
Item 5C - 14
Palm Springs City Hall, Limited Historic Resources Report January 24, 2022
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 1
1. Introduction
Group (ARG) has prepared this limited Historic Resources Report (HRR) for Palm Springs City Hall at 3200
East Tahquitz Canyon Way. Completed in 1957 and added on to several times since then, the Mid-
Century Modern institutional building was designed by Clark, Frey & Chambers in collaboration with
Williams, Williams & Williams. The City Hall landscape was originally designed by Eckbo, Royston &
Williams.
In 1990, a statue of former mayor Frank Bogert was placed in the landscaped lawn area fronting City
Hall, along Tahquitz Canyon Way. On October 2, 1996, Palm Springs City Hall was designated a Class 1
(Landmark) historic site through Council Resolution No. 18907, along with five other buildings designed
by master architect Albert Frey.1 This designation did not list the character-defining features that
; this was partially, but not fully, clarified in 2012 (see Section
2, Administrative Background) when a second City Council Resolution was issued.
On November 2, 2021, the Palm Springs Historic Site Preservation Board (HSPB) considered the
proposed removal of the Bogert statue. Because City Hall is a Class 1 histori
constitutes an alteration to a Class 1 site, and thus requires a Certificate of Appropriateness from the
HSPB in order to proceed. Planning Department staff recommended the Certificate of Appropriateness
be granted, on the grounds that the statue is not an original or character-defining feature of the
designated site and its removal would not materially impair the historic character-defining features of
the site nor diminish its historic significance.
In the November hearing, HSPB Commissioners requested additional study of the site, in order to
determine the period of significance and its character-defining features. This limited Historic
Resources Report is the result of that request. Because the property is already designated and therefore
does not require evaluation for significance/eligibility, the HRR does not include a full architectural
description, a historic context statement, or evaluation of eligibility or integrity.
1.1 Frank Bogert Statue
The bronze statue depicting former mayor Frank Bogert astride a horse was placed and dedicated in
March 1990.2 Designed and cast by Mexico City artist Raymundo Cobo, it was privately funded by the
50s Committee for Art in Public Places, a local non-profit group founded in 1988 to fund and promote
public art.3 As of January 2022, the statue has not been evaluated for eligibility as a historic resource
1 This and all other designation information is derived from the Department of Planning Services, HSPB Staff Report
November 2, 2021; the Department of Planning Services, City Council Staff Report March 7, 2012; the Department of
Planning Services, City Council Staff Report February 15, 2012; and all attachments (including resolutions). The other Frey
buildings designated under Resolution No. 18907 are the Frey House II, the Valley Station of the Palm Springs Aerial
Tramway, the Loewy House, and the Carey House.
2 The Desert Sun April 2, 1990.
3 Palm Springs Desert Sun
The Desert Sun October 20, The Desert Sun
October 24, The Desert Sun March 22,
Item 5C - 15
At the request of the City of Palm Springs' Department of Planning Services, Architectural Resources
contribute to the sites' historic significance
c site, the statue's removal
resource's
"Statue Honoring Palm Springs Pioneer Unveiled at City Hall,"
"Bogert Statue Drive Nearing the Finish Line," 3 October 1989; "Bogert Statue Will Stand Tall in
Palm Springs," 1989; "Group Fights to Put Knight Back Out into the Daylight,"
1989; "Bogert Statue To Be Unveiled on March 31," 1990; "Statue Honoring Palm
Springs Pioneer."
Palm Springs City Hall, Limited Historic Resources Report January 24, 2022
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 2
and the historical significance of the art and its creator has not been determined. This study does not
evaluate the Bogert statue under any eligibility criteria.
1.2 Methodology
Completion of this study involved a site visit and visual inspection of the property on December 28,
2021; compilation and review of historic drawings and project documents obtained from the Palm
Springs Department of Planning Services; primary and secondary source research conducted through
various online repositories, including the Palm Springs Historical Society Research Library, the Getty
Research Institute, and the National Register of Historic Places database; and creation of a detailed
development chronology. This report was prepared by Katie E. Horak, Principal and Mary Ringhoff,
Senior Associate, both of whom meet the
for Architectural History.4 ARG architectural historian Rosa Fry and intern Luke Leuschner provided
research assistance and additional project support.
1.3 Summary of Findings
In summary, ARG recommends that the period of significance for Palm Springs City Hall be 1956-1965.
Contributing elements of the property as currently designated/defined include:
The original building (started 1956, completed 1957)
The open space at the front of the building including the parking lots, landscape areas and drive
aisles. (1957)
The northwest addition (1965)
Specific character-defining features are listed in Section 7, Character-Defining Features.
Non-contributing elements including those that have been substantially altered or added outside the
:
The northeast addition (1972)
The north addition (1985)
The rear parking lot and landscaping (1985)
All plant materials (1957-present)5
The flagpole (1957, moved to front lawn 1981)
The Bogert statue (1990)
4 ld.
She is a graduate of the Master of Historic Preservation (now Heritage Conservation) program at the University of Southern
also
ram.
5 Council Resolution No. 23106 (attachment to November 2, 2021 HSPB staff report) specifies that landscape plant materials
This is presumed to apply to any surviving original
vegetation namely, the olive trees directly fronting the building, and possibly other mature trees as well as replacement
vegetation.
Item 5C - 16
Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards
site's period of significance ar
Katie E. Horak is a Principal and Architectural Historian in ARG's Los Angeles office, with 18 years of experience in the fie
California. Mary Ringhoff is a Senior Associate in ARG's Los Angeles office, with 12 years of experience in the field. She is
a graduate of USC's Master of Historic Preservation prog
are excluded from the property's Class 1 historic site designation.
Palm Springs City Hall, Limited Historic Resources Report January 24, 2022
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 3
The following report provides a summary and contextual basis for analysis and a discussion of how these
findings were made.
2. Administrative Background
The 1996 designation of City Hall as a Class 1 historic site did not identify character-defining features or
. On March 7, 2012, the City Council partially
addressed this issue by adopting Council Resolution No. 23106, which specified:
The Class 1 historic designation for the Palm Springs City Hall is hereby amended to include the
structures, features, and land of that portion of APN No. 502-150-005 bounded by the north
edge of the north parking lot and the curb edges along Civic Drive, Tahquitz Canyon Way, and
6
This clarification limited the designation to include the southern part of the City Hall site, including the
building and the open space fronting it (primary frontage along Tahquitz Canyon Way), and excluded
the northern part of the site, which contains a dog park and the co-generation plant, along with
associated landscape areas. It did not specify period of significance, character-defining features, or
applicable local eligibility criteria, but based on the original 1996 designation it is assumed that the
building was landmarked for its Mid-Century Modern architectural design by master architect Albert
Frey.
In 2015, City Hall was listed in the National Register of Historic Places as part
It was determined eligible for listing under
associated with Albert 7
6 Council Resolution No. 23106, attachment to November 2, 2021 HSPB staff report.
7 Peter Moruzzi, National Register of Historic Places Registration Form: Palm Springs City Hall, 2015.
Item 5C - 17
elements that contribute to the site's historic significance
El Cielo Road, excepting the landscape plant materials therein ...
of the "Architecture of
Albert Frey" Multiple Property Documentation submission.
National Register Criterion C, "because it embodies the distinctive characteristics of civic architecture
Frey and is the work of a master architect."
Palm Springs City Hall, Limited Historic Resources Report January 24, 2022
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 4
3. Historical Background Summary
In the Palm Springs Citywide Historic Context Statement (2016), Palm Springs City Hall falls
-World War II Palm Springs (1945--World War II
Civic and Institutional Development (1945- During the post-war period, development and
population growth in Palm Springs necessitated the construction of new civic buildings, including fire
8 The HCS summarizes the history and development of the
building:9
In 1952 the firm of Clark, Frey & Chambers was selected to design a new City Hall building to
-
33). Various sites were considered, including Tamarisk Park and Torney General Hospital (El
Mirador), before the city selected a ten-acre site within the vacated Federal land, avoiding the
costs of land acquisition. On December 15, 1953 the city transferred $300,000 from the Capital
Outlay Fund to a dedicated City Hall Construction Fund to begin the process. The entire cost of
the building, which totaled $408,318, was financed through sales tax revenues, without
resorting to bond issues or increased property taxes. Final working drawings were submitted
on January 18, 1956 and the bid was awarded to Kretz and Wilson of Indio on February 21.
Construction began on March 6, and the new City Hall was dedicated on November 8, 1957. By
10
For the design of City Hall, Clark, Frey & Chambers collaborated with Williams, Williams &
Williams. The building used a Modern vocabulary to convey the symbolic role of a city hall; the
main entrance to the administrative offices was defined by a large square canopy with a circular
opening to the sky, while the city council chamber was given definition in a separate, attached
wing marked by a freestanding aedicula. The windows of the office wing were shaded by deep
eaves and a screen of deep tubular sections that allowed views out, but shut out direct sunlight.
The City Council wing was constructed of concrete block integrally tinted a rose color; the blocks
were slightly offset to create a distinctive geometric pattern on the flat walls, especially when
raked by sunlight.
Although completed in collaboration, the design of Palm Springs City Hall is firmly attributed to Albert
of materials.11 The firm of Eckbo, Royston & Williams, led by master landscape architect Garrett Eckbo,
designed the original landscape.12 Xeriscaped areas with bare earth, ocotillos, yucca, olive trees, and
8 City of Palm Springs, City of Palm Springs Citywide Historic Context Statement & Survey Findings (prepared by Historic
Resources Group for City of Palm Springs, 2016), 285.
9 Ibid., 285-286.
10
Springs Public Library).
11 Peter Moruzzi, National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form: The Architecture of Albert Frey,
2015, E-14.
12 The Desert Sun March 20, 1957; Julius Shulman, Job 2519 photographs: Palm Springs
City Hall (Palm Springs, Calif.), 1958 (Julius Shulman Photography Archive, 1936-1997, Getty Research Institute), accessed
January 2022, Job 2519: Palm Springs City Hall (Palm Springs, Calif.), 1958, 1958 - Getty Research Institute [Alma].
Item 5C - 18
("HCS")
under the context "Post 1969)" and the theme "Post
1969)."
stations, schools, churches, and City Hall. They were usually designed by local architects and "reflected
the progressive symbolism of Modernism."
accommodate the growing city's administrative needs (3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way; HSPB
that time the city's permanent population was 12,225, with a seasonal increase to 45,000.
Frey and John Porter Clark, and is noted to incorporate many of Frey's characteristic ideas and choice
"Your City Hall" commemorative brochure published for the dedication of Palm Springs City Hall, November 8, 1957 (Palm
"Council Given City Hall Landscaping,"
Palm Springs City Hall, Limited Historic Resources Report January 24, 2022
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 5
boulder clusters directly fronted the building and were also present at most of the area fronting the
parking lots and drive, including the parkways (with California fan palm trees at the southeast corner of
the parcel). Similar xeriscaping occupied most of what is now the lawn area containing the Bogert
statue, with an undulating hillock planted with low-growth, drought tolerant vegetation, and a small
patch of lawn.13
Multiple secondary sources state that the building was constructed in phases between 1952 and 1956,
but examination of primary sources found this not to be the case. Based on newspaper articles and
historic drawings on file at the City, Clark and Frey began preliminary sketches in 1952, the project was
funded in 1953, the building site was finalized in 1955, working plans by Clark, Frey & Chambers with
Williams, Williams, & Williams were approved in early 1956, City Hall was complete in 1957, and the
site was not fully cleared of older buildings to enable landscaping until months after construction of the
new building.14
As outlined in Section 5, Alterations and Chronology of Development, City Hall received multiple interior
modifications and three additions after its original completion in 1957. In 1965, a Williams, Williams &
Williams-designed addition was placed at the northwest corner; this reinforced concrete masonry unit
volume was intended to serve as both office space and as an emergency operations center in case of
disaster (including nuclear attack in this regard, it is an architectural embodiment of Cold War
concerns on the local as well as nationwide level). In 1972, a Williams, Williams & Williams-designed
conference room addition was placed at the northeast corner of the building. And in 1985, a large rear
addition was placed at the northeast portion of the building; it was designed by Williams, Clark &
Williams in collaboration with Clinton Marr & Associates, and partially obscured/incorporated the 1972
conference room addition.
13 Garrett Eckbo Collection, Environmental Design Archives, College of Environmental Design, UC Berkeley: 35mm slides of
Palm Springs City Hall landscape reproduced in letter from Palm Springs Preservation Foundation to the Palm Springs
Planning Commission, August 10, 2010, accessed January 2022, 23Aug10ltrPCpdf.pdf (pspreservationfoundation.org); Julius
Shulman photos at GRI.
14
at City of Palm Springs Department of Planning Services; The Desert Sun October
23, 1952; The Desert Sun October 26, 1953;
The Desert Sun December 17, 1953; The Desert Sun June 23, 1955;
The Desert Sun January 19, 1956
The Desert Sun March 5, 1957.
Item 5C - 19
Williams, Williams, Williams & Clark, Frey, Chambers, "Palm Springs City Hall," drawings (as built), January 16, 1956, on file
"Council Hires Architect for New City Hall,"
"Planners Call Meeting on Civic Center," "Earmark $300,000 for Proposed New
City Hall," "Council Favors Airport Site for New City Hall,"
"City Hall Working Plans Approved; Total $380,800," ; "New City Hall To Be Ready By Next
Friday,"
Palm Springs City Hall, Limited Historic Resources Report January 24, 2022
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 6
4. Summary Architectural Description
4.1 Site
The designated portion of the Palm Springs City Hall property occupies a large parcel bounded by East
Tahquitz Canyon Way on the south, North Civic Drive on the west, the north edge of a surface parking
lot on the north (abutting the dog park and cogeneration plant to the north), and East Cielo Road on
the east. The building itself fronts south, facing Tahquitz Canyon Way, and sits on a low concrete plinth
with concrete plaza and curving, shallow steps. Lawn, a low hedge, and mature trees are present directly
adjacent to the building, including olive trees original to the 1957 landscape, and several Mexican fan
palms in a circular planter at the main entrance. The palms occupy what was originally the location of
the flagpole (moved in 1981), and projected up through the circular hole in the entrance canopy.
The flagpole, along with the bronze Frank Bogert statue, now sit in a larger, irregularly shaped, flat lawn
area with mature Mexican fan palms, California fan palms, and a pine tree bordering Tahquitz Canyon
Way. The parkway in the southeast portion of the parcel is xeriscaped with bare earth, yucca, California
fan palms, and boulders; in the southwest portion of the parcel, the parkway contains lawn, palo verde
trees, and a crape myrtle tree. Concrete-paved surface parking lots are present at the southeast,
southwest, and north sides of the parcel, with the north lot being U-shaped and extending
symmetrically southward on either side of the building. The lots in the south portion of the parcel are
connected via a concrete-paved front drive that curves to follow the edge of the concrete plinth.
Concrete-curbed, linear planters containing palo verde trees and yucca are present in both parking lots.
4.2 Building
The National Register nomination for Palm Springs City Hall and other Albert Frey buildings provides the
following architectural description of the primary (south) façade of the original 1957 building, which
ARG confirmed is accurate through the December 28, 2021 site visit:15
The one-story flat-roofed building is divided into two distinct sections, a symmetrical office
portion with a wing extending from the rear of the main entrance, and a large council chamber
that projects outward toward Tahquitz Canyon Way. The primary construction material is
sandblasted terra-cotta-colored concrete block, but in this case every two rows are aligned so
that the appearance from a distance is of offset squares.
The office portion exhibits a low horizontal profile with the flat roof extending southward to
form deep eaves. The portion connecting the offices to the council chamber becomes a covered
walkway sheltered by a series of distinctive angled cylindrical metal brise soleil painted sage
green. Each brise soleil shelters floor-to-ceiling glazing of the offices. Flat metal fasciae contrast
with corrugated metal exterior ceilings colored light blue.
The projecting council chamber is taller than the office portion, differing substantially in its
design. The flared walls of the concrete block chamber appear telescopically stepped toward
the north. As such, the chamber seems windowless when viewed from the west, south or east.
15 Moruzzi, MPDF, E-14 to E-15.
Item 5C - 20
Palm Springs City Hall, Limited Historic Resources Report January 24, 2022
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 7
However, each flared elevation actually contains a north-facing window that provides light for
the interior. An unusual detail of the council chamber is its corner treatment consisting of
projecting concrete blocks cut at a diagonal at every other paired row. This element
catches light and shadow, giving dynamism to the composition. It is a distinguishing detail that
What makes the composition so extraordinary, however, is the design of the freestanding
entrance canopies of the office portion and council chamber. The office canopy is a flat-roofed
square of corrugated metal supported by posts; an open circle punctures the center. The words
scia. The council chamber canopy consists of a
concrete circular disk supported by posts with a diameter equal to the void of the office
mirror
opposite.
est (side) façade, comprising the west wall of the 1957 office wing and the west wall of the
1965 addition, is a windowless expanse clad in textured concrete masonry units. A recessed entrance is
accessed by a concrete walkway sheltered by a canopy with me
corrugated metal roof with light blue underside, matching the canopy at the primary elevation.
is entirely that of the 1965 and 1985 addition, and
rear surface parking lot. It is clad in textured concrete masonry units matching that on the rest of the
building, and has floor-to-ceiling, anodized aluminum fixed windows with dark glazing. It is fronted by
multiple flat-roofed projecting colonnades with simple square column supports of concrete masonry
units painted white, and textured stucco soffits. The eastern portion of the north façade is comprised
of a glass and aluminum curtainwall set at an angle.
comprises three distinct sections. The southmost section is the
clad in textured concrete masonry units and
abutted directly to the north by the 1972 conference room addition; this portion appears windowless
when viewed straight on, but north-
as described above. The final section of the east façade, to the north, is that of the 1985 addition, and
features fenestration, cladding, and colonnades like those at the rear (north) façade.
Item 5C - 21
would appear in more elaborate form in the firm's Tramway Gas Station of 1965.
"Palm Springs City Hall" are written across the fa
canopy. On its fascia are the words "The People Are The City." Each canopy is its
City Hall's w
tal "spider leg" supports and a
City Hall's rear (north) fa~ade faces the property's
City Hall's east (side) fa~ade
"telescoped" original fa~ade of the Council Chambers,
facing windows are actually present at each "telescoping" element
Palm Springs City Hall, Limited Historic Resources Report January 24, 2022
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 8
5. Alterations and Chronology of Development
Upon review of secondary sources, historical building drawings, newspaper sources, and photographs,
ARG created the following chronology of development for the Palm Springs City Hall historic site.16 This
chronology provides a summary of the development and all documented and observed
alterations.
Chronology of Development and Use
1952 City Council commission the architectural firm of Clark and Frey to prepare preliminary
sketches for a new City Hall, despite a site not yet having been selected.17
1953 City Planning Commission holds a public hearing to determine the location of the new
City Hall. Preliminary sketches by Clark and Frey have been completed at this time.18
1955 Site
airport is selected for new City Hall. New architectural plans commence.19
1956 On January 19, 1956, working plans for the new city hall are approved.20
On March 9, 1956, construction begins. Kretz and Wilson are the builders and H.C.
Whittlesey is the structural engineer.21 According to original drawings the architects are
Williams, Williams, Williams & Clark, Frey, Chambers.
1957 Palm Springs City Hall dedicated on November 8, 1957.22
City Hall landscape design by Eckbo, Royston & Williams approved by City Council and
executed 23
1965 A 9,300 sq. ft. addition to the northwest corner of City Hall is constructed. The addition is
intended to be an emergency operating center with convertible accommodations for
office space. Designed by Williams and Williams Architects to provide fortified
earthquake and disaster resistance, the addition is constructed of steel reinforced
concrete block with a reinforced concrete roof Interioralterations to the original building
16 As building permits were not available for Palm Springs City Hall, findings are based primarily on drawings, photos, and
newspapers; all development information in secondary sources (e.g., the National Register nomination, previous staff
reports, Joseph Ro Albert Frey, Architect) was checked against primary sources.
17 The Desert Sun, October 23, 1952.
18 The Desert Sun, October 26, 1953.
19 The Desert Sun, June 23, 1955.
20 The Desert Sun, January 19, 1956.
21 The Desert Sun, March 9, 1956; Williams, Williams, Williams & Clark, Frey, Chambers,
ces.
22 Historic Context Statement, 285.
23 The Desert Sun
The Desert Sun August 1, 1957 The Desert Sun August 8, 1957.
Item 5C - 22
property's
immediately north of city government buildings and adjacent to Palm Springs'
by local contractors William A. Foster {hardscape) and Neel's Nursery.
sa's
"Council Hires Architect for New City Hall,"
"Planners Call Meeting on Civic Center,"
"Council Favors Airport Site for New City Hall,"
"City Hall Working Plans Approved; Total 380,800,"
"Ground is Broken for New City Hall,"
"Palm Springs City Hall," drawings (as built), January 16, 1956, on file at City of Palm Springs Department of Planning Servi
"Your City Hall;"
"New City Hall Landscaping Plans Approved," July 11, 1957; "Council Approves Contract Bids, Plans at
$211,088 Cost," ; Photo caption "Although the foundations ... "
Palm Springs City Hall, Limited Historic Resources Report January 24, 2022
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 9
at this time include the enlargement of two customer service counters, council chamber
improvements, and the replacement of deteriorated asphalt tile with vinyl tile.24
1972 Rear conference room addition at the northeastern corner of the building and interior
renovations by Williams and Williams.25
Concrete access ramp (sloping concrete walkway) with metal handrails added at east
end of office wing, near junction with Council Chamber.26
1981 Exterior and interior (lobby and hallway) renovations by Daniel Brisset Inc.27 One set of
fully glazed aluminum double doors at main entrance replaced with fully glazed sliding
metal doors in original opening; other set of original doors replaced with fixed floor-to-
ceiling aluminum windows (compatible with original assembly configuration).
Flagpole removed from canopy opening (replaced with palm trees) and relocated to the
front lawn.28
1984 Work begins on substantial addition to the northeastern corner of the building and
remodeling. Rear parking added. Addition designed by Williams, Clark, and Williams with
associate architects Clinton Marr & Associates, and structural engineers Johnson &
Nielson Associates.29
1985 Rear addition and remodeling completed.
Co-generation plant north of City Hall building completed.30
1987 Minor renovations to finance department, mailroom, and office additions as designed by
E. Alonso.31
1990 Frank Bogert statue dedicated in July 1990 with landscape designed by David Hamilton.32
24 The Desert Sun
The Desert Sun
1965, on file at City of Palm Springs Department of Planning Services.
25 at
City of Palm Springs Department of Planning Services.
26 Ibid.
27
Palm Springs Department of Planning Services.
28 The Desert Sun, October 23, 1981.
29 Williams, Clar
of Planning Services.
30 The Desert Sun,
Operational The Desert Sun, May 15, 1985.
31
Department of Planning Services.
32 Palm Springs Desert Sun 2 April 1990; David Hamilton
Landscape Design, untitled preliminary plans for Bogert Statue, preliminary drawings, undated, on file at City of Palm Springs
Department of Planning Services.
Item 5C - 23
"City Hall Addition Under Way," , May 11, 1965; "City Hall Addition Scheduled for Completion in December,"
, November 8, 1965; Williams & Williams and John Porter Clark, "Alterations to City Hall," drawings, August 9,
Williams & Williams A.I.A. Architects, "Additions and Alterations City Hall," drawings (as built), February 24, 1972, on file
Daniel Brisset lnc./Designer, "Palm Springs City Hall Lobby/Hallway Remodeling," drawings, June 2, 1981, on file at City of
"Raising the Flag(pole),"
k, & Williams, "Expansion of City Hall," drawings, January 15, 1984, on file at City of Palm Springs Department
"Palm Springs Breaks Ground for New Cogeneration Project," May 2, 1984; "Cogeneration Plants
E. Alonso, "Finance Department, New Offices & Mailroom," drawings, May 7, 1987, on file at City of Palm Springs
"Statue Honoring Palm Springs Pioneer Unveiled at City Hall,"
Palm Springs City Hall, Limited Historic Resources Report January 24, 2022
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 10
1996 Interior renovations including recarpeting, painting, reupholstering, and other basic
restoration work is planned to be completed by the interior design firm of Jeffrey
Juraski.33
City Council designates City Hall a Class 1 historic site (HPSB-33, Resolution No. 18907).34
1997 Interior renovations by Interactive Design Group.35
1999 Dog park north of City Hall building completed.36
2004 37
2012 City Council amends the historic designation of the Palm Springs City Hall (Resolution No.
23106) excluding the sit area north of the north parking lot.38
2015 City Hall listed in the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Architecture of
Albert Frey Multiple Property Submission.39
During the December 28, 2021 site visit, ARG observed the following alterations which occurred at
unknown dates:
Fully glazed metal door and sidelights added (or replaced original) at east end of office wing,
near junction with Council Chamber
Alterations to original landscape: hillock in front lawn area flattened out, xeriscape of bare
earth, ocotillos, yucca, and boulders directly adjacent to building replaced with lawn and
hedge (olive trees retained), freestanding parking lot light standards replaced.
33 The Desert Sun, February 9, 1996.
34 Palm
Springs Department of Planning Services Historic Site Preservation Board, revised August 2, 2021, accessed 2022,
https://www.palmspringsca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/71976/637677386962370000.
35 Intera
Springs Department of Planning Services.
36 The Desert Sun January 31, 1999;
The Desert Sun March 29, 1999.
37 The Desert Sun, February 23, 2004.
38 Palm
Springs Department of Planning Services Historic Site Preservation Board, revised August 2, 2021, accessed 2022,
https://www.palmspringsca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/71976/637677386962370000.
39 Ibid; Peter Moruzzi, National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form: The Architecture of Albert
Frey, 2015.
Item 5C - 24
Interior renovations remaking the mayor's office into cubicle space.
"Panel aims to Restore City Hall,"
"Class 1 and Class 2 Historic Sites, Historic Districts, and Properties Listed on the National Register of Historic Places,"
ctive Design Corporation, "Palm Springs City Hall Renovation," drawings, March 5, 1987, on file at City of Palm
"Fence Around Dog Park Going Up as 'Release the Hounds' Day Nears,"
Dog Park Ready for Use April 3,"
"City Hall Renovation Nears Completion,"
"Palm Springs
"Class 1 and Class 2 Historic Sites, Historic Districts, and Properties Listed on the National Register of Historic Places,"
Palm Springs City Hall, Limited Historic Resources Report January 24, 2022
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 11
Areas of the site as discussed in this study. Base image: Google Maps, 2021.
Item 5C - 25
Palm Springs City Hall, Limited Historic Resources Report January 24, 2022
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 12
6. Period of Significance
ARG recommends 1956-1965 as the period of significance for Palm Springs City Hall.
The period of significance begins with approval of the final design and beginning of construction in 1956,
and ends with the addition of the emergency operations center at the northwest corner of the building
in 1965. Although the 1965 addition was not an original part of the building, it is compatible with the
original massing, configuration, and Mid-Century Modern style, and is clad in textured concrete
masonry units identical to that of the original building. It is slightly separated/differentiated from the
original volume via a recessed west entrance approach sheltered by a canopy with
supports and a corrugated metal roof with light blue underside matching the canopies at the primary
elevation. As the addition is sited behind the original building and is not visible from the primary
viewshed at Tahquitz Canyon Way, its placement did not negatively affect
character. Its most visible façade, at the west, matches the west façade of the original volume, which is
also windowless and devoid of ornamentation. For these reasons, the 1965 addition appears to be a
as addressed in City of Palm Springs
Class 1 Eligibility Criteria 4 and 5.40
While a full significance evaluation is outside the scope of this study, ARG recommends that City Hall,
comprising the original 1956-1957 volume and the 1965 northwest addition, also be considered eligible
under local Class 1 Criterion 3 for its association with, and embodiment of, of post-World War II civic
development in Palm Springs.41 The original building was funded and constructed in response to
population growth and increased development in the once-sleepy Village during the post-war period.
The 1965 addition was designed for use as an emergency operations center for civil defense as well as
expanded office space, embodying the Cold War concerns preoccupying the nation in the years
following the Bay of Pigs crisis. It was partially funded by the federal government and housed emergency
equipment and supplies including a generator, separate water well, and a two-week supply of food for
90 people.42 For these reasons, the 1956-
eligibility under local Criteria 3 (period), 4 (construction on the 1965 part), and 5 (architect).
The original landscape design by Eckbo, Royston & Williams has been significantly altered since 1957:
most of the original plantings have changed; all low relief elements, notably an undulating hillock in the
lawn area, have been flattened out; most boulders have been removed; and parking light standards
have been replaced.). The general site plan configuration and layout of hardscape and landscape
appears as it was during the period of significance, however the parking lot light fixtures and the specific
plant materials that exist today in the landscape do not reflect the Ekbo design as seen in historic photos
and a 1957 rendering.43 The 2012 designation amendment
are not included in the designation, and this is presumed to cover any remaining original as well as
current vegetation. The flagpole and Frank Bogert statue located in the lawn area in front of the building
40 City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, 8.05.070.
41 See applicable eligibility criteria, integrity considerations, and registration requirements in the Citywide Historic Context
Statement, 289-291.
42 The Desert Sun May 11, 1965.
43 The Desert Sun March 20, 1957.
Item 5C - 26
metal "spider leg"
the building's architectural
contributing element to the building's architectural significance
"City Hall Addition Under Way,"
"Council Given City Hall Landscaping,"
1965 period of significance is also appropriate for City Hall's
specified that "landscape plant materials"
Palm Springs City Hall, Limited Historic Resources Report January 24, 2022
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 13
are alterations that occurred well after the period of significance
significance in terms of architecture or association with/embodiment of historic patterns of
development the flagpole was moved here from the main entrance in 1981, and the statue was added
in 1990. In summary, the open space at the front of the building is a contributing element, while the
actual vegetation, flagpole, and statue are not contributing elements.
The 1972 conference room at the northeast corner of the building was partially subsumed by the
subsequent, much larger, addition constructed at the rear of the original volume in 1985. As a result, it
does not contribute to the significance of City Hall. The 1985 addition is relatively young in age and is
not associated with patterns of postwar development in Palm Springs. In keeping with its construction
date, its architectural style is more Late Modern than Mid-Century Modern in appearance, featuring
flat-roofed projecting colonnades, anodized aluminum windows with dark glazing, and a dramatically
angled glazed bay, all of which are unlike anything seen on the parts of the building constructed in 1957
or 1965. This addition is also taller than the rest of the building, rising above even the Council chambers
at the southeast corner of the original City Hall. In summary, the 1972 and 1985 additions do not
contribute to the significance of City Hall and fall outside the 1956-1965 period of significance.
Item 5C - 27
and do not contribute to the property's
Palm Springs City Hall, Limited Historic Resources Report January 24, 2022
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 14
7. Character-Defining Features
ARG recommends the following as character-defining features of the Palm Springs City Hall:
7.1 Site
General open configuration and layout of the landscape and hardscape fronting the
building, excluding planting materials, the flagpole, and the Bogert statue
7.2 Building
Irregular plan.
Low-slung, horizontal massing.
Mid-Century Modern architectural style.
Flat roofs.
Low concrete plinth with curving concrete plaza and shallow steps.
.
Asymmetrical composition of the primary façade, with office wing at west and Council
Chambers at east.
Original aluminum doors and windows.
Projecting canopies over walkways at office wing primary façade, with light blue
corrugated metal soffits and angled, cylindrical, metal brise soleils painted sage green
Deep eaves/metal canopy at office wing primary façade.
Differen
walls with fixed windows toward the north; diagonal corner treatment; and round
concrete entry porch.
Freestanding entrance canopies with original signage at primary
façade: at office wing, a flat-roofed square with angled steel I-beam supports, light
blue corrugated metal soffits, corrugated metal fascia, and open circle in roof; at
Council Chamber, a concrete circular disk with simple columns
Flush-mounted s PALM SPRINGS CITY HALL,
THE PEOPLE ARE THE CITY
recessed entry approach.
Item 5C - 28
Textured concrete masonry unit cladding, with "offset squares" appearance
II
tiated Council Chamber massing/shape/details, with "telescopically stepped"
"mirror opposite"
ans serif aluminum signage, including "
," and "COUNCIL CHAMBER"
Corrugated metal entry canopy at west fa~ade with "spider leg" supports, over
Palm Springs City Hall, Limited Historic Resources Report January 24, 2022
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 15
8. Bibliography
On file at City of
Palm Springs Department of Planning Services.
City of Palm Springs. City of Palm Springs Citywide Historic Context Statement & Survey Findings.
Prepared by Historic Resources Group for the City of Palm Springs: Department of Planning
Services, 2016.
City of Palm Springs Department of Planning Services. HSPB Staff Report, November 2, 2021.
City of Palm Springs Department of Planning Services. City Council Staff Report, March 7, 2012.
City of Palm Springs Department of Planning Services. City Council Staff Report February 15, 2012.
City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, 8.05 Historic Preservation.
Palm Springs Department of Planning Services Historic Site Preservation
Board. Revised August 2, 2021. Accessed January 2022,
https://www.palmspringsca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/71976/63767738696237000
0.
1981. On file at City of Palm Springs Department of Planning Services.
David Hamilton Landscape Design. Untitled preliminary plans for Bogert Statue. Preliminary drawings.
Undated. On file at City of Palm Springs Department of Planning Services.
The Desert Sun, various dates.
Garrett Eckbo Collection, Environmental Design Archives, College of Environmental Design, UC Berkeley.
35mm slides of Palm Springs City Hall landscape reproduced in letter from Palm Springs
Preservation Foundation to the Palm Springs Planning Commission, August 10, 2010. Accessed
January 2022, 23Aug10ltrPCpdf.pdf (pspreservationfoundation.org).
On file
at City of Palm Springs Department of Planning Services.
Moruzzi, Peter. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form: Palm Springs City Hall, 2015.
Moruzzi, Peter. National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form: The
Architecture of Albert Frey, 2015.
Item 5C - 29
Alonso, E. "Finance Department, New Offices & Mailroom ." Drawings . May 7, 1987.
"Class 1 and Class 2 Historic Sites, Historic Districts, and Properties Listed on the National Register of
Historic Places ."
Daniel Brisset lnc./Designer. "Palm Springs City Hall Lobby/Hallway Remodeling." Drawings. June 2,
Interactive Design Corporation . "Palm Springs City Hall Renovation ." Drawings. March 5, 1987.
Palm Springs City Hall, Limited Historic Resources Report January 24, 2022
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 16
National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for
Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
Interagency Resources Division, 1990, rev. 1991.
Palm Springs Historical Society. Various collections.
Rosa, Joseph. The Architecture of Albert Frey. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999. Originally
published: New York, NY: Rizzoli International, 1990.
Shulman, Julius. Job 2519 photographs: Palm Springs City Hall (Palm Springs, Calif.), 1958. Julius
Shulman Photography Archive, 1936-1997, Getty Research Institute. Accessed January 2022,
Job 2519: Palm Springs City Hall (Palm Springs, Calif.), 1958, 1958 - Getty Research Institute
[Alma].
On file at City of Palm
Springs Department of Planning Services.
24, 1972. On file at City of Palm Springs Department of Planning Services.
at City of Palm Springs Department of Planning Services.
January 16, 1956. On file at City of Palm Springs Department of Planning Services.
Item 5C - 30
Williams, Clark, & Williams . "Expansion of City Hall." Drawings. January 15, 1984.
Williams & Williams A.I.A. Architects . "Additions and Alterations City Hall." Drawings (as built). February
Williams & Williams and John Porter Clark. "Alterations to City Hall." Drawings. August 9, 1965 . On file
Williams, Williams, Williams & Clark, Frey, Chambers. "Palm Springs City Hall." Drawings (as built).
Palm Springs City Hall, Limited Historic Resources Report January 24, 2022
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 17
Appendix A. Existing Conditions Photographs
View north of Bogert statue, lawn, and primary (south) façade. (ARG, 2021).
Detail view of Bogert statue (ARG, 2021).
Item 5C - 31
Palm Springs City Hall, Limited Historic Resources Report January 24, 2022
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 18
View northwest of the primary (south) façade with front driveway, off-center parking, and landscaping (ARG, 2021).
View north of the primary entrance. The palm trees at the center of the circular opening in the canopy were added in 1981
when the original flagpole was relocated to the front lawn (ARG, 2021).
Item 5C - 32
Palm Springs City Hall, Limited Historic Resources Report January 24, 2022
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 19
View northwest of the primary entrance canopy, concrete plinth, and steps (ARG, 2021).
Canopy and brise soleils along the covered walkway at the primary facade (ARG, 2021).
Item 5C - 33
Palm Springs City Hall, Limited Historic Resources Report January 24, 2022
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 20
View northwest of the Council Chamber entrance at the east corner of the primary (south) facade (ARG, 2021).
View northwest of the east façade with 1972 conference room addition (center-left volume) and 1985 addition (at colonnade)
(ARG, 2021).
Item 5C - 34
Palm Springs City Hall, Limited Historic Resources Report January 24, 2022
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 21
View southwest of the east and north façade at the 1985 addition (ARG, 2021).
View east of the north façade of the 1985 addition (ARG, 2021).
Item 5C - 35
Palm Springs City Hall, Limited Historic Resources Report January 24, 2022
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 22
View southeast of the north façade with 1985 addition (left) and 1965 addition (right) (ARG, 2021).
View northeast of the west façade with 1965 addition and canopy (left) and original volume (right) (ARG, 2021).
Item 5C - 36
Palm Springs City Hall, Limited Historic Resources Report January 24, 2022
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 23
View northeast of the west and portion of south facades (ARG 2021).
View southeast from primary entrance canopy with the Bogert statue and E Tahquitz Canyon Way in the background
(ARG 2021).
Item 5C - 37
Item 5C - 38
RESOLUTION NO. 23106
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE CLASS 1
HISTORIC DESIGNATION OF THE PALM SPRINGS CITY
HALL TO INCLUDE THE STRUCTURES, FEATURES AND
LAND OF THAT PORTION OF APN NO. 502-150-005
BOUNDED BY THE NORTH EDGE OF THE NORTH
PARKING LOT AND THE CURB EDGES ALONG CIVIC
DRIVE, TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY AND EL CIELO ROAD,
EXCEPTING THE LANDSCAPE PLANT MATERIALS
THEREIN.
The City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California finds:
A. Chapter 8.05 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code allows for the
designation of historic sites.
B. On October 2, 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 18907
adopting a historic designation, Class 1 for the Palm Springs City Hall building, including
express restrictions on the City Hall building, but did not include express restrictions or
limitations on the surrounding grounds and ancillary facilities or improvements.
C. On May 11, 2010, the Historic Site Preservation Board conducted a public
hearing in accordance with applicable law and voted to recommend amending the
existing Class 1 historic designation of the Palm Springs City Hall to expressly include
the entire site in the historic designation.
D. The designation of the entire site or portions of the Palm Springs City Hall
site would further the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.05 of the Palm Springs Municipal
Code.
E. The designation of specific portions of the entire site of the Palm Springs
City Hall shall promote the sensitive preservation of the Palm Springs City Hall site.
F. The City Council has reviewed and considered all of the evidence in
connection with the designation, including but not limited to the staff report, application,
and historical research, all written and oral testimony presented, and notes and
reaffirms the following:
1. The lands and features surrounding the Palm Springs City Hall embody
the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction,
because the steps and plaza, as a base or "plinth," reconcile the distinctive
characteristics of the mid-century modern style with the traditional design of a
public building.
Item 5C - 39
Resolution No . 23016
Page 2
2. The building, lands, and features surrounding the Palm Springs City Hall
include the work of a master builder, designer, artist, or architect whose
individual genius influenced his age; because the development of the Palm
Springs City Hall is part of Albert Frey's design plan for the property; the life and
work of Albert Frey has been well-documented; and his work is recognized world-
wide as significant toward the development of the modern movements of
architecture, especially as he adapted such styles and movements to the local
environment.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS RESOLVE:
SECTION 1. The Class 1 historic designation for the Palm Springs City Hall is
hereby amended to include the structures, features, and land of that portion of
APN No. 502-150-005 bounded by the north edge of the north parking lot and the
curb edges along Civic Drive, Tahquitz Canyon Way, and El Cielo Road,
excepting the landscape plant materials therein, subject to the following
conditions:
1 . All future exterior modifications including but not limited to building, site,
landscaping, lighting, walls, and fences shall require Architectural Approval
pursuant to Section 94.04.00 of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance.
2. No permit for the alteration of the interior or exterior of any building, or the
steps or entry plaza fronting the main (south) building entries, or the hardscape
of the parking lot areas, including any and all of the properties elements and
characteristics within the designated area described above shall be issued
without prior approval by the Historic Site Preservation Board (HSPB) as
provided in Chapter 8.05 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code. Modifications to
landscape plant materials are exempted from HSPB review.
3. All existing or previously approved or installed alterations or improvements
shall be considered acceptable and consistent with the requirements of Chapter
8.05 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code.
ADOPTED THIS 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2012.
ATTEST:
ames Thompson, City Clerk
Item 5C - 40
Resolution No. 23016
Page3
CERTIFICATION
STA TE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS)
I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that
Resolution No. 23106 is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on March 7, 2012, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Councilmember Hutcheson, Councilmember Lewin, Mayor Pro Tern Foat,
and Mayor Pougnet.
Councilmember Mills .
None.
None.
ames Thompson, City Clerk
City of Palm Springs, California
Item 5C - 41
RESOLUTION NO. 18907
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF nm CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING THE FREY HOUSE II, THE
VALLEY STATION OF THE PALM SPRINGS AERIAL
TRAMWAY, THE LOEWY HOUSE, PALM SPRINGS CITY
HALL, AND THE CAREY-PIROZZI HOUSE AS CLASS 1
HISTORlC SITES.
* * * * *
WHEREAS the Frey House II, the Valley Station of the Palm Spriugs Aerial Tramway, the
Loewy House, Palm Springs City Hall, ancl the Carey House have c:ontributed sttbstantially
lo the historic architectural diversity of the City of Palm Springs; and
WHEREAS the Frey House II, tl1e Valley Station of the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway, tl1e
Loewy House, Palm Springs City Hall, and the Carey-Pirozzi House have long been
landmarks of the City of Palm Springs for residents, architectural students and visitors; and
WHEREAS the Frey House II, the Valley Station of the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway, the
Loewy House, Palm Springs City Hall, and the Carey-Pirozzi House together constitute a
significant portion of a body of work designed by the architect Albert Frey, FAIA, along
with various pmtners; and
WHEREAS the life and work of Albert Frey, FAIA, has been well--documented, and his
I
work is recognized world-wide as significant toward the development of the International I
style and other modern movements of archilecmre, especially as he adapted such styles and
movements to the local environment; and
WHEREAS the Palm Springs General Plan provides for the long-term preservation of
significant architectural and historic buildings; and
WIIEREAS Chapter 8.05 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code provides for the designation
of sites with architectural and historic significm1ce; and
WHEREAS on September 10, 1996, the Historic Site Preservation Board held a public
hearing to recommend .the designation of the Frey House II, the Va,lley Station of the Palm
Sptings Aerial Tramway, the Loewy House, Palm Spriugs City Hall, and the Carey-Pirozzi
House as historic sltes and unanimously recommends to the City Council designation of said
properties as Class 1 Historic Siles; and
WHEREAS the City Council concurs in the reconnnendation of the: Historic Site Preservation
Board regarding the arcl1.itectural and historic value of the Frey House II, the Valley Station
of the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway, the Loewy House, Palm Springs City Hall, and the
Carey-Pirozzi House; and
WHEREAS the designation of the Frey House II, the Valley Station of the Palm Springs
Aerial Tramway, the Loewy House, Palm Springs City Hall, and the Carey-Pirozzi House I
shall fi111her t11e pmposes and intent of the General Plan a11d Chapter 8. 05 of the Palm
Springs Municipal Code; aud
WHEREAS the designation of l11e Frey House II, the Valley Station of the Palm Springs
Aerial Tramway, the Loewy House, Palm Springs City Hall, mid the Carey-Pirozzi House
shall promote the sensitive preservation and restoration of said sites.
Item 5C - 42
I i
I
! ' M
I I ' I
I I i
I
I
I
Rl8907
Page 2
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Springs,
California, as follows:
Section 1.
Section 2.
Section 3.
Section 4.
Section 5.
Section 6.
The Frey House 11, the Valley Station of the Pahn Springs Aerial Tramway,
the Loewy House, Palm Springs City HaU, and the Carey House were
constructed during the period 1946-1965 and have since contributed to lite
historic architectural diversity of the City. of Palm Springs.
The Frey House II, the Valley Station of the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway,
the Loewy House, Palm Springs City Hall, and the Carey House are excellent
examples of the Modem architectural movement in the City of Palm Springs as
designed and adapted by Lhe renowned architect Albert Frey, FAIA.
a. TI1e Frey House II, owned by Albert Frey ("Owner"), and localed at 686
Palisades Dr., shall be designated as a Class l Historic Site pursuant to
Chapter 8.05 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code. The site is located on Lot
10, and a portion of Lot 8, of Palm Springs Palisades, M/B 19/23, Riverside
County, California; APN 513-110-020.
b.The Vailey Station of the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway, owned by Mount
San Jacinto Winter Park ("Owner"), and located at the westerly terminus of
Tram Way, shall be designated as a Class I Historic Site pursuant to Chapter
8.05 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code. The site is located on a portion of
Sec, '/, T.4S,, R.4.E., Riverside County, California; APN 505-020-012.
c.The Loewy House, owned by James Gaudineer ("Owner"), and located at
600 Panorama Rd., shall be designated as a Class 1 Historic Site pursuant to
Chapter 8.05 of the Palm Sp1ings Municipal Code. The site is located on a
po1'tion of the SWl/4 SEl/4 of Section 3, TAS., R.4E., Riverside County,
California; APN 504-292-014.
ct.Palm Springs City Hall, owned by U1e City of Pahn Springs ("Owner"), and
located at 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, shall be designated as a Class 1
Historic Site pursuant to Chapter 8.05 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code.
The site is located on Lot 16 of Palm Valley Colony Lands, MB 14/652, San
Diego County, California; APN 502-150-005.
e. The Carey-Pirozzi House, owned hy Vincent & Karen Pirozzi ("Owners"),
and located at 651 W. Via Escuela, shall be designated as a Class 1 Historic
Site pursuant to Chapter 8.05 of tile Palm Springs Municipal Code. The site is
located on Parcel 1, R/S 27/75, Riverside County, California; APN
504-193-002.
No permits for the exterior alteration to the Frey Honse II, the Valley Station
of the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway, the Loewy House, Palm Springs City
Hall, and tJ1e Carey-Pirozzi House shall be granted without the prior approval
of lhe Historic Site Preservation Board and/or the City Council, pursuant to
Chapter 8.05 of tl1e Palm Springs Municipal Code; approved alterations shall
maintain the historic architectural integrity of the building.
Tl1e Owners shall permit the City to demark the Frey House II, the Valley
Station of the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway, the Loewy House, Palm Sp1ings
City Hall, and the Carey-Pirozzi House as historic sites with a plaque of the
City's choosing.
This resolution, and the historic designation put in place by it, shall not affect
title to the subject properties.
Item 5C - 43
i ij
r ' I
I I ! I ' I I ' I
R18907
Page 3
Section 7. The City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to submit this resolution to the
county recorder for recordation within 90 days of the effective date of this
resolntion.
ADOPTED this ---1lliL-day of October, 1996.
AYES: Members
None
None
Barnes, Hodges, Oden, Spurgin and Mayor Kleindienst
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: CITY OF PAV
B~D~-L-4---c/---..
€'.i!y Clerk
REVIEWED & APPROVED:
I
I
I
Item 5C - 44
Council Meeting Date:
Councilmembers Present:
Council members Absent:
Agenda Item No.
City of Palin Springs
Office of the City Clerk
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way • Palm Springs, California 92262
Tel : 760.323.8204 • Fax : 760.322.8332 • TDD 760.864.9527 • www.palmspringsca.gov
ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
February 15, 2012
Councilmembers Hutcheson, Lewin, Mills, Mayor Pro Tern Foat, and
Mayor Pougnet.
None .
Public Hearing, Item No. lA
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING CLASS 1 HISTORIC DESIGNATION FOR PALM SPRINGS CITY
HALL TO DENY THE HISTORIC SITE PRESERVATION BOARD'S REQUEST TO INCLUDE SITE PARKING AND
LANDSCAPE AREAS, AND AMENDING THE DESIGNATION TO INCLUDE THE CONCRETE PLAZA, LOCATED
AT 3200 EASTTAHQUITZ CANYON WAY, AS A CLASS 1 HISTORIC SITE (HSPB 33}
Craig Ewing, Director of Planning Services, provided background information as outlined in the staff report
dated February 15, 2012 .
Mayor Pro Tern Foat requested staff clarify the process of the staff recommendation as it differs from the
Commission.
Council member Lewin noted previous actions of the City Council infer the Historic Designation included
the entire site .
Mayor Pougnet opened the public hearing, and the following speakers addressed the City Council.
BARBARA MARSHALL, noted the concerns of the Historic Site Preservation Board, noted her frustration
with City staff, and requested the City Council return the proposed resolution to the Historic Site
Preservation Board for further discussion .
GARY JOHNS, Palm Springs, commented on the background and process to bring this item to the City
Council, and requested the City Council support the Planning Commission's recommendation that
protects the City Hall site.
RON MARSHALL, referred to a letter submitted by the Palm Springs Preservation Board dated
January 13, 2012, and requested the City Council re-affirm the stated intent of the previous City Council
designation of the City Hall site.
Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743
Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743
CHRIS MENRAD, commented on the definition of a Historic Designation and noted recent examples, and
requested the City Council clearly define all designations as to the site.
ROBERT STONE, commented on the staff report and noted the report to the Historic Site Preservation
Board was omitted from the City Council documents, and stated the current designation includes the
entire site.
No further speakers coming forward, the public hearing was closed.
Councilmember Mills commented on the process of developing the ordinance and noted the building and
the site were intended to be separate, the City Council indicated to staff that only the City Hall building
was included in the designation, and stated the parking lot does not warrant the historic designation.
Mayor Pro Tern Foat requested the City Council re-affirm Resolution No. 18907, and confirm for all the
properties addressed in Resolution No.·18907 the Class 1 designation include the entire site.
Councilmember Hutcheson stated the City Council and community would benefit from the Historic Site
Preservation Board review, discussion, and recommendations on any modifications to City Hall, and stated
the entire site should be considered a Class 1 designation.
Councilmember Lewin stated the current language is not ambiguous, the Ordinance allows both the
structure and site, and Resolution No. 18907 includes an APN which includes the entire site.
Councilmember Mills stated all the properties in the Resolution were with support of the property owners,
and each property owner should be contacted.
Councilmember Hutcheson stated the City Council resolution was not perfect, and recommended the City
Council clean-up the designation to support the entire site.
Mayor Pro Tem Foat recommended the City Council consider the declaring the entire site of Palm Springs
City Hall as a Class 1 designation and request staff complete research on the other properties in Resolution
No. 18907.
Councilmember Mills requested the City Council define site and if such definition of site includes
landscaping and lighting.
Councilmember Lewin stated plantings should not be included in an historic designation.
ACTION: 1) Direct staff to prepare a resolution to designate the entire site of City Hall as a Class 1
designation; 2) Direct staff to prepare an amendment to Resolution No. 18907 for the properties
designated Class 1 by Resolution No. 18907; and 3) Direct staff to notice all current property owners for
all properties in Resolution No. 18907. Motion Mayor Pro Tem Foat, seconded by Councilmember Lewin
and carried 4-1 on a roll call vote.
AYES: Councilmember Hutcheson, Councilmember Lewin, Mayor Pro Tem Foat, and Mayor Pougnet.
NOES: Councilmember Mills.
Councilmember Mills stated his no vote was not against the structure nor the hard-scape, but feels the
parking lot was never considered historic nor should it be for the future.
Item 5C - 45
Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) SS.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )
I, ANTHONY J. MEJIA, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify the
foregoing to be the official action taken by the City Council at the above meeting.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 28th day of October 2021.
Anthony J. Mejia, City Clerk
City of Palm Springs, California
Item 5C - 46
Item 5C - 47
NPS Form 10-900
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
0MB No. 1024 -001 8
Nat\ona\ Register of Historic P\aces Registration Form
This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinatio ns for individual properties and di stricts . See ins truction s in Natio nal Regis ter
Bulletin, How to Comp lete the Na tional Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If a ny item does no t apply 10 the prop erty be ing
docume nted , e nte r "NIA''. for "not applicab~e." For func tio ns , arc hite ctural classifi catio n, ma terials, and areas "'°'~_A,E1JV<E0".228Q
ca(egon es ana' s uoca(egoncs fro m n,e mstrucnons. n Cv
1. Name of Property AUG 1 4 2015
Historic name: Palm Springs City Hall
Other names/site nwnber: Mat Register of Historic. Places
National Park Service ------------------N ame of related multiple property listing:
The Architecture of Albert Frey
(Enter "NI A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing
2. Location
Street & nwnber: 3200 East Tahguitz Canyon Way
City or to~n: Palm Springs State: __ C~A'----County: Riverside
Not For Publication: D Vicinity: D
3 . State/Federal Agency Certification
As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended,
I hereby certify that this _x_ nominat ion _ request for determination of eligibility meets
the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic
Places and m eets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60 .
In my opinion, the property _K_ meets _ does not meet the National Regis ter Criteria. I
recommend that this property be considered s ignificant at the following
level(s) of s ignificance:
_national _statewide _K_local
Applicable National Register Criteria:
_A _B _x_c _D
Jul" one Polanco/State Historic Preservation Officer
fomia State Office of Historic Preservation
State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government
In my opinion, the property _meets _ does not meet the National Register criteria.
Signature of commenting official:
Title:
Date
State o r Federal agency/bureau
or Tribal Government
Item 5C - 48
National Park Service I National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Palm Springs Cit¥ Hall
Name of Property
4. National Park Service Certification
I he~by certify that this property is:
_✓_ P: erntered in the National Register
_ determined eligible for the National Register
_ determined not eligible for the National Register
_ removed from the National R egister
_ other (explain:)
Si
5. Classification
Ownership of Property
(Check as many boxes as apply.)
Private: D
Public -Local [ii
Public -State •
Public -Federal •
Category of Property
(Check only one box.)
Building(s)
District
S ite
Structure
Object
[ii
• • • •
Sections 1-6 page 2
Riverside, California
County and State
Date of Action
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018
Palm Springs City Hall Riverside, California
Name of Property County and State
Number of Resources within Property
(Do not include previously listed resources in the count)
Contributing Noncontributing
______1_______ ______1_______ buildings
______0_______ ______0_______ sites
______0_______ ______0_______ structures
______0_______ ______0_______ objects
______1_______ ______1________ Total
Number of contributing resources previously listed in the National Register ___0______
____________________________________________________________________________
6.Function or Use
Historic Functions
(Enter categories from instructions.)
GOVERNMENT/city hall
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
Current Functions
(Enter categories from instructions.)
GOVERNMENT/city hall
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
Sections 1-6 page 3 Item 5C - 49
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018
Palm Springs City Hall Riverside, California
Name of Property County and State
_____________________________________________________________________________
7.Description
Architectural Classification
(Enter categories from instructions.)
MODERN MOVEMENT
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
Materials: (enter categories from instructions.)
Principal exterior materials of the property: __METAL: steel, aluminum, CONCRETE
BLOCK, GLASS
Narrative Description
(Describe the historic and current physical appearance and condition of the property. Describe
contributing and noncontributing resources if applicable.Begin with a summary paragraph that
briefly describes the general characteristics of the property, such as its location, type, style,
method of construction, setting, size, and significant features. Indicate whether the property has
historic integrity.)
______________________________________________________________________________
Summary Paragraph
Palm Springs City Hall is located just west of the Palm Springs Airport in the civic center
portion of East Tahquitz Canyon Way. The initial phase was completed between 1952 and 1956.
Between 1956 and 1965 there were two large additions to the rear of the building, and, in 1984, a
new building was constructed behind City Hall. The original one-story edifice facing Tahquitz
Canyon Way strongly reflects Albert Frey’s philosophy of desert modern design with its
terracotta-colored double-stacked concrete block construction, flat roof, deep overhangs of
corrugated metal, and large windows. Distinctive angled cylindrical metal brise soleils shield the
south facing office fenestration from the sun.1 The tall, projecting council chamber features
telescopically flared concrete block walls fronted by a concrete circular disk supported by posts.
In contrast, the freestanding City Hall entrance canopy is of corrugated metal with an open center
that matches the diameter of the council chamber disk. Palm Springs City Hall is in excellent
condition and, as viewed from Tahquitz Canyon Way towards its primary elevation, retains a
high level of historic integrity.
1 Brise-soleil: “A screen, usually of louvers, placed on the outside of a building to shield the windows from direct
sunlight.” Francis D. K. Ching, A Visual Dictionary of Architecture (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1995),
227.
Section 7 page 4 Item 5C - 50
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018
Palm Springs City Hall Riverside, California
Name of Property County and State
_____________________________________________________________________________
Narrative Description
Palm Springs City Hall (1952-1956) was one of Clark, Frey and Chambers’ most important
public buildings. Although the architectural firm of Williams, Clark & Williams later designed
the large building at the rear, the initial phase was primarily the design work of Albert Frey,
according to historian Joseph Rosa.
The one-story flat-roofed building is divided into two distinct sections, a symmetrical office
portion with a wing extending from the rear of the main entrance, and a large council chamber
that projects outward toward Tahquitz Canyon Way (Figure 2). The primary construction
material is sandblasted terracotta-colored concrete block, and in this case every two rows are
aligned—or double-stacked—so that the appearance from a distance is of offset squares.
The office portion exhibits a low horizontal profile with the flat roof extending southward to
form deep eaves. The portion connecting the offices to the council chamber becomes a covered
walkway sheltered by a series of distinctive angled cylindrical metal brise soleils painted sage
green (Figure 3). Each brise soleils shades floor-to-ceiling glazing of the offices (Figure 4).
Their cylindrical design appeared the following year in 1953 at Frey House I where they shaded
the round windows of the architect’s second story bedroom. Corrugated metal exterior ceilings
that are light blue in color—a typical Frey design characteristic—distinguish the walkways and
entrance canopy.
The projecting council chamber is taller than the office portion, differing substantially in its
design (Figure 5). The flared walls of the concrete block chamber appear telescopically stepped
toward the north (Figure 6). As such, the chamber seems windowless when viewed from the
west, south, or east. Each flared elevation actually contains a north-facing window that provides
light for the interior. An unusual detail of the council chamber is its exterior corner treatment
consisting of projecting concrete blocks cut at a diagonal at every other paired row. This element
catches light and shadow, giving dynamism to the composition. It is a distinguishing detail that
would appear in more elaborate form at the firm’s Tramway Gas Station of 1965.
What makes the composition so extraordinary is the design of the freestanding entrance canopies
of City Hall and the council chamber. The former is a flat-roofed square of corrugated metal
supported by posts; an open circle punctures the center (Figure 7). The words “Palm Springs
City Hall” are written across the fascia. The single flagpole that originally centered the opening
has been replaced by landscaping beneath the oculus. In contrast, the council chamber canopy
consists of a circular concrete disk supported by posts with a diameter equal to the void of City
Hall’s entrance canopy (Figure 8). Classical tholos buildings of ancient Greece inspired the
freestanding disk.2 On its fascia are the words “The People Are The City.”
2 Tholos, also known as a beehive tomb: “a stone-built subterranean tomb of the Mycenaean civilization consisting
of a circular chamber covered by a corbeled dome and entered by a walled passage through a hillside.” Francis D. K.
Ching, A Visual Dictionary of Architecture (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1995), 248.
Section 7 page 5 Item 5C - 51
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018
Palm Springs City Hall Riverside, California
Name of Property County and State
The initial phase of the building’s construction was completed in 1952 by the firm of Clark, Frey
and Chambers with small additions by the firm continuing until 1956. That year, a 17,000 square
foot office addition appeared at the rear northwest portion of the building designed by the firms
of Clark, Frey & Chambers, and Williams, Williams & Williams. In 1965, a 9,700 square foot
office addition designed by Williams, Clark & Williams was completed at the rear, center
portion of the building. In 1972, the firm of Williams and Williams was responsible for a modest
1,710 square foot rear addition. A substantial remodel of City Hall was undertaken in 1984 that
included the construction of a 14,000 square foot office building at the rear, northeast half of the
original building with a covered walkway connecting the two elements. The architectural firm of
Williams, Clark & Williams was responsible for the design of the new building, a
noncontributing resource within the property boundary. Although sharing some materials with
the original City Hall such as double-stacked terracotta colored concrete block, the new building
is differentiated by its full-width east-facing covered walkway with square posts and canopy
fascia of a much larger and more prominent thickness than the 1952-1956 portion of City Hall.
Other interior rooms at City Hall have been remodeled for new uses.
While cognizant of the noted alterations to and at the rear of the original building, the primary
south-facing elevation of Palm Springs City Hall is able to convey its architectural significance
because this portion of the property retains the essential physical features associated with the
work of Albert Frey. These features include sandblasted double-stacked terracotta-colored
concrete block, a flat roof, deep overhangs with fascia of corrugated metal, corrugated blue-
colored metal ceilings for walkways and the main entrance canopy, distinctive brise soleils of
angled metal cylinders, large expanses of glazing, and projecting concrete blocks with corners
cut at a diagonal at every other paired row. The building’s only historical reference is that of a
Greek tholos. In sum, as viewed from Tahquitz Canyon Way, the integrity of design, materials,
workmanship, location, setting, feeling, and association of the original 1952-1956 exterior
portion of Palm Springs City Hall remains high.
Section 7 page 6 Item 5C - 52
Item 5C - 53
NPS Form 10-900-a
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number Additional Integrity Discussion
0MB No. 1024-0018
Palm Springs City Hall
Name of Property
Riverside County, California
County and State
Architecture of Albert Frey, The
Name of multiple listing (if applicable)
Page ---'1'--_
In response to the NPS reviewer's request for additional information regarding alterations and
integrity, the following information is added to the National Register of Historic Places
nomination September 25, 2015.
Palm Springs City Hall is able to convey its architectural significance because the primary
south-facing elevation of the property retains the essential physical features associated with
the work of Albert Frey. These features include sandblasted double-stacked terracotta-colored
concrete block, a flat roof, deep overhangs with fascia of corrugated metal, corrugated blue-
colored metal ceilings for walkways and the main entrance canopy, distinctive brise soleils of
angled metal cylinders, large expanses of glazing, and projecting concrete blocks with corners
cut at a diagonal at every other paired row. The building's only historical reference is that of a
Greek tholos. As viewed from Tahquitz Canyon Way, the integrity of design, materials,
workmanship, location, setting, feeling, and association of the original 1952-1956 exterior
portion of Palm Springs City Hall remains high.
In 1965, a 9,700 square foot office addition designed by Williams, Clark & Williams was
completed at the rear, center portion of the building. In 1972, the firm of Williams and Williams
was responsible for a modest 1, 71 0 square foot rear addition. Neither compromise the
property's integrity because both of these additions are only visible from the secondary north
elevation that faces a surface parking lot and a small public park.
The remodel of City Hall that was undertaken in 1984 included the construction of a 14,000
square foot office building at the rear, northeast half of the original building with a covered
walkway connecting the two elements. The architectural firm of Williams, Clark & Williams was
responsible for the design of the new building that, as noted on Form 10-900 in Section 5.
Classification, is a noncontributing resource within the subject property boundary. In addition,
following the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, the new building is compatible with the
historic materials given its use of double-stacked terracotta-colored concrete block. Further,
according to the Standards, the new building is differentiated from the original by its full-width
east-facing covered walkway with square posts and canopy fascia of a much larger and more
prominent thickness.
As relates to the interior of Palm Springs City Hall, the 1984 remodel altered the main entry
lobby and central hallway such that their interior walls have been resurfaced. In addition, the
lobby's information podium and hanging light fixtures have been replaced. The various offices
facing south have experienced minor alterations such as the erection of dividing walls in the
mayor's and city manager's office. None of these modifications negatively impacts the
building's integrity because the key character-defining features of Palm Springs City Hall as
discussed are visible from the exterior, especially, as noted, along its primary south-facing
elevation. It should be noted that the interior of the council chamber is relatively unaltered with
the dais remodeled and public seating replaced in 1984. The entrance lobby, interior walls,
and ceiling are unchanged.
Item 5C - 54
NPS Form 10-900-a
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
. National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number Additional Integrity Discussion
0MB No. 1024-0018
Palm Springs City Hall
Name of Property
Riverside County, California
County and State
Architecture of Albert Frey, The
Name of multiple listing (if applicable)
Page __ ....;;;;2:;....__
In terms of visibility from the public right-of-way, Tahquitz Canyon Way is the major east-west
thoroughfare in Palm Springs stretching from the airport to Albert Frey's second dwelling up
the mountain. City Hall's south elevation, which is the primary elevation facing Tahquitz
Canyon Way, is the original portion by the firm of Clark, Frey and Chambers. In contrast, the
west and east elevations face North Civic Drive and El Cielo Road, respectively, and the north
(rear) elevation faces a parking lot and a public park. These are all secondary elevations that
are not considered by the public to be representative of "City Hall" as it is known and
understood. Frequent bus tours of Palm Springs' modern architectural resources stop along
Tahquitz Canyon Way to view the property, not along peripheral streets. Similarly, newspaper
articles and televised events focus on the primary elevation with its dramatic "Palm Springs
City Hall" and ''The People Are the City'' declarations. In sum, as viewed from Tahquitz
Canyon Way, the integrity of design, materials, workmanship, location, setting, feeling, and
association of the original 1952-1956 exterior portion of Palm Springs City Hall remains high.
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018
Palm Springs City Hall Riverside, California
Name of Property County and State
______________________________________________________________________________
8. Statement of Significance
Applicable National Register Criteria
(Mark "x" in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property for National Register
listing.)
A. Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of our history.
B. Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
C. Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values,
or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack
individual distinction.
D. Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
Criteria Considerations
(Mark “x” in all the boxes that apply.)
A. Owned by a religious institution or used for religious purposes
B. Removed from its original location
C. A birthplace or grave
D. A cemetery
E. A reconstructed building, object, or structure
F. A commemorative property
G. Less than 50 years old or achieving significance within the past 50 years
X
Section 8 page 7 Item 5C - 55
•
• •
•
• • • • • • •
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018
Palm Springs City Hall Riverside, California
Name of Property County and State
Areas of Significance
(Enter categories from instructions.)
__ARCHITECTURE__
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
Period of Significance
_1952-1956_________
___________________
___________________
Significant Dates
__1952_____________
__1956_____________
___________________
Significant Person
(Complete only if Criterion B is marked above.)
___________________
___________________
___________________
Cultural Affiliation
__N/A______________
___________________
___________________
Architect/Builder
__Frey, Albert _______
__Clark, John Porter __
__Chambers, Robson__
__Williams, E. Stewart_
__Williams, Roger____
___________________
Section 8 page 8 Item 5C - 56
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018
Palm Springs City Hall Riverside, California
Name of Property County and State
Statement of Significance Summary Paragraph (Provide a summary paragraph that includes
level of significance, applicable criteria, justification for the period of significance, and any
applicable criteria considerations.)
Palm Springs City Hall is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C
at the local level of significance in the area of Architecture. The property embodies the
distinctive characteristics of civic architecture associated with the modern movement as
interpreted by Albert Frey for the desert environment of the Coachella Valley. In addition, the
property meets The Architecture of Albert Frey Multiple Property Submission registration
requirements for civic buildings in association with the historic context “Desert Modern Design
in the Coachella Valley, 1934-1965.” The period of significance corresponds with the building’s
original construction in 1952 to the completion of its first phase in 1956.
______________________________________________________________________________
Narrative Statement of Significance (Provide at least one paragraph for each area of
significance.)
Although a joint venture of Clark, Frey, and Chambers, the design of Palm Springs City Hall is
attributed primarily to Albert Frey by scholar Joseph Rosa as noted in the Multiple Property
Documentation Form. The building exemplifies the distinctive characteristics of Albert Frey’s
approach to modern design in the desert. It is constructed of double-stacked sandblasted
terracotta-colored concrete block, has a flat roof, utilizes corrugated metal for the deep eaves and
main entrance canopy, and has large windows that are—in this case—distinctively shaded by
grids of angled metal cylinders. Applied ornamentation is absent. The sole historical reference is
a tholos reinterpreted by Frey in concrete as the symbolic entrance to the council chambers. The
rear office building designed by the firm of Williams, Clark and Williams in 1984 is a
noncontributing resource.
Palm Springs City Hall exemplifies the distinctive characteristics of civic architecture associated
with architect Albert Frey. The importance of the building and its significance within the “Desert
modern design in the Coachella Valley 1934-1965” historic context are presented in the Multiple
Property Documentation Form. Palm Springs City Hall is a key example of the civic building
property type that maintains sufficient integrity to be readily identifiable as the work of master
architect Albert Frey. The property meets National Register Criterion C because it embodies the
distinctive characteristics of civic architecture associated with Albert Frey and is the work of a
master architect.
Section 8 page 9 Item 5C - 57
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018
Palm Springs City Hall Riverside, California
Name of Property County and State
______________________________________________________________________________
9.Major Bibliographical References
Bibliography (Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form.)
As indicated in The Architecture of Albert Frey Multiple Property Documentation Form.
___________________________________________________________________________
Previous documentation on file (NPS):
____ preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67) has been requested
____ previously listed in the National Register
____ previously determined eligible by the National Register
____ designated a National Historic Landmark
____ recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey #____________
____ recorded by Historic American Engineering Record # __________
____ recorded by Historic American Landscape Survey # ___________
Primary location of additional data:
____ State Historic Preservation Office
____ Other State agency
____ Federal agency
____ Local government
__X_ University of California, Santa Barbara
__X_ Other
Name of repository: _Palm Springs Art Museum__________________________
Historic Resources Survey Number (if assigned): ________________
______________________________________________________________________________
10.Geographical Data
Acreage of Property _Approximately nine acres__
Latitude/Longitude Coordinates
Datum if other than WGS84:__________
(enter coordinates to 6 decimal places)
1.Latitude: 33.823876 Longitude: -116.511383
Sections 9-end page 10 Item 5C - 58
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018
Palm Springs City Hall Riverside, California
Name of Property County and State
Verbal Boundary Description (Describe the boundaries of the property.)
The nominated property is located at 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs,
Riverside County, California northwest corner of East Tahquitz Canyon Way and El Cielo
Road. The property fronts approximately 530 feet of East Tahquitz Canyon Way. Its legal
description is 9.41 ACRES IN POR LOT 16 MB 014/652 SD P APN: 502-150-005.
Boundary Justification (Explain why the boundaries were selected.)
The nominated property includes the entire parcel historically associated with Palm Springs
City Hall, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way.
______________________________________________________________________________
11.Form Prepared By
name/title: _____Peter Moruzzi/Architectural Historian ____________________________
organization: ____________________________ ________________________________
street & number: ____2018 Griffith Park Blvd. #114____________________________
city or town: __Los Angeles__ __________ state: __CA______ zip code:__ 90039_____
e-mail___petermoruzzi@gmail.com_____________________________
telephone:___213-706-0151______________________
date:____February 9, 2015_________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Additional Documentation
Submit the following items with the completed form:
•Maps: A USGS map or equivalent (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's
location.
•Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous
resources. Key all photographs to this map.
•Additional items: (Check with the SHPO, TPO, or FPO for any additional items.)
Photographs
Submit clear and descriptive photographs. The size of each image must be 1600x1200 pixels
(minimum), 3000x2000 preferred, at 300 ppi (pixels per inch) or larger. Key all photographs
to the sketch map. Each photograph must be numbered and that number must correspond to
the photograph number on the photo log. For simplicity, the name of the photographer, photo
date, etc. may be listed once on the photograph log and doesn’t need to be labeled on every
photograph.
Sections 9-end page 11 Item 5C - 59
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018
Palm Springs City Hall Riverside, California
Name of Property County and State
Photo Log
Name of Property Palm Springs City Hall
City or Vicinity Palm Springs
County Riverside
State California
Photographer Peter Moruzzi
Date Photographed February 2015
Description of Photograph(s) and number, include description of view indicating direction of
camera:
1 of 12 CA_Riverside County_Frey MPS_Palm Springs City Hall_0001.tif
Primary (south) elevation, camera facing northwest
2 of 12 CA_Riverside County_Frey MPS_Palm Springs City Hall_0002.tif
Primary (south) elevation, camera facing northeast
3 of 12 CA_Riverside County_Frey MPS_Palm Springs City Hall_0003.tif
South elevation, camera facing northwest
4 of 12 CA_Riverside County_Frey MPS_Palm Springs City Hall_0004.tif
South elevation beneath main entrance canopy, camera facing northeast
5 of 12 CA_Riverside County_Frey MPS_Palm Springs City Hall_0005.tif
South elevation, covered walkway, camera facing west
6 of 12 CA_Riverside County_Frey MPS_Palm Springs City Hall_0006.tif
South elevation, council chambers, camera facing north
7 of 12 CA_Riverside County_Frey MPS_Palm Springs City Hall_0007.tif
East elevation, council chambers, camera facing southwest
8 of 12 CA_Riverside County_Frey MPS_Palm Springs City Hall_0008.tif
Detail, corner of council chambers, camera facing northeast
9 of 12 CA_Riverside County_Frey MPS_Palm Springs City Hall_0009.tif
East elevation, camera facing west
10 of 12 CA_Riverside County_Frey MPS_Palm Springs City Hall_0010.tif
Rear (north) elevation, camera facing southwest
11 of 12 CA_Riverside County_Frey MPS_Palm Springs City Hall_0011.tif
Rear (north) elevation, camera facing southeast
Sections 9-end page 12 Item 5C - 60
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018
Palm Springs City Hall Riverside, California
Name of Property County and State
12 of 12 CA_Riverside County_Frey MPS_Palm Springs City Hall_0012.tif
Interior view, council chambers, camera facing northwest
Index of Figures
Figure 1 Palm Springs sketch map by Albert Frey. City Hall is indicated with arrow.
Figure 2 South elevation, looking northwest, 1958.
Figure 3 South elevation, looking west, 1958.
Figure 4 South elevation, covered walkway, camera facing west, 1958.
Figure 5 South elevation, council chambers, looking north, 1958.
Figure 6 East elevation, looking west, 1958.
Figure 7 South elevation, looking northeast, 1958.
Figure 8 Detail, council chambers entrance, looking southwest, 1958.
Sections 9-end page 13 Item 5C - 61
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018
Palm Springs City Hall Riverside, California
Name of Property County and State
Location Map
Latitude: 33.823876 Longitude: -116.511383
Sections 9-end page 14 Item 5C - 62
:;-
c r:e.
iii
:0
Q_
:0
Q_
E Tahqu itz Canyon Way
Vl
r
0 i E Pso Flor ida w
:n
Q_
tell Begonia
~ g
0
3
Vl ~ g
L
QI
3 5 ·
z
)>
a;·
ii,
:, .,,
~
El
Pa lm Springs
Rental Agency, Inc
Q
ArenasRd o
·~
Goci$1e
~ US Post Office
ii,"
0
:0 0..
[IJ
I!) Pa lm Spri ngs Dog Pa rk o
<ii "
0
:0
0..
3200 E Tahquitz
Canyon Way
Pa lm Springs riii
Business Licenses -
1 m US Bo rder Patrol -Port
-ol En try Palm Springs
El
Hertz Rent A Car •
1 Y Ca lifornis
Vintages Wine Bar +-.. [IJ
0 l,
ii,"
j i, Celebrity Bistro
Coachella Valley
• Economic
Riverside _County , iii
Grv rl Court -
A Pa lm Springs
Po li ce Department
0
;JJ
Q_
!!l
("l
ii,"
0
;JJ
Q_
~ ..
+-
0 .
""
i ,l
t
II Zia'sSmor
•
+
A
A
Map d OIO @201 5 Googl e Te1ms P,r,acy Ro port a pro bl em 20 0 II .._ __ _,
Item 5C - 63
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018
Palm Springs City Hall
Name of Property
Sketch Map/Photo Key
•
3200 E Tahquitz
C;inyon Woy
1~;:-i 1·, ~>:r111J~· r;-
e1.,rr'','' LI •'P''F,,,
Riverside, California
County and State
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic
Places to nominate properties for listing or determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings . Response
to this request is required to obtain a benefit in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 U.S .C.460
et seq .).
Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 100 hours per response including
time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form . Direct comments regarding
this burden estimate or any aspect of this form to the Office of Planning and Performance Management. U.S . Dept. of the Interior,
1849 C. Street, NW , Washington, DC.
Sections 9-end page 15
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018
Palm Springs City Hall Riverside, California
Name of Property County and State
Figure 1. Palm Springs sketch map by Albert Frey. City Hall is indicated with arrow.
Sections 9-end page 16 Item 5C - 64
ALBERT FREY, ARCHITECT
680 PALISADES 0'11VE FAIA
PlllM •rnmos, CI\LIFOnHIII Q2282
T ElE PH<JII( (819) 325-2851
I~ u l L-o ! tJ c; S
-rOuR.. MAP
U= VA-1..t.t-Y1JQ_I S
l ,J'-(01--1
f;,ltJ~
----·-I
I)
4
0
d
s, 4 2 s-__ '--
-
"2
)<?
::i
~--
.··N ·.
-\-
PALI SAO l:S
p P-l 1/E.
'[ l_ I!) s .) ~
-<( I,\) /j.
V \ /).. l~ ?..~ Lt2.$T~ 0
:r:
-..J F (NCI-I I ~
1LJ 5'\·\O0L , llJ
C.11 '(
HA.L-L
3 'Z.0 0
77, I D
(t, ,.(
I-
W A '(':~.
s
~RE:G HuU5E
,_-.,130'/~. ~L C\i=LD
-?u MPl::::l I ~JICH,-
':_L..U I?, & 7 3 el~
t \C:HlivAY 1-\ I
P..\R.PO\?.T
N,
<::)
2
f
\)
{
\-
I.I)
>
D6:S.~ll...1
l-1o!>r1-rM
1-S10P.'<
AG Q 111.L IRA.
\I 1\-U-E-Y S tAT •
Rt
(
q
J
w
~ -N
e.
t--10 SC.ALE'.
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018
Palm Springs City Hall Riverside, California
Name of Property County and State
Figure 2. South elevation, looking northwest, 1958.
Sections 9-end page 17 Item 5C - 65
C c P'Jri9hl 'Iha J . P.iul Golly 'Tru$L Th111 0,qJ ty Fl as.o;;ll'C h lns1 itu1111 , Le,; Angalos.. 10 nc .: !Jri_2004_r_10_bOO ~oZ3_2619_03.. D igit.ii lm~s :wrl ria1 .11110 p!"•llidod fo, sJ udy purpc,;,iu; only. C c P'Jrighl 1.a-i:tri:;tion1 !IFPY-i:c r
c c pynghl W c rm ~lc n o, hlghar rot-.$CJ lutlon lm.ig,os Ylsil: hllp:li1d.h;:indla.ndr'"1 00,?0JrapO_panrr.
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018
Palm Springs City Hall Riverside, California
Name of Property County and State
Figure 3. South elevation, looking west, 1958.
Sections 9-end page 18 Item 5C - 66
Coppigfil The J . Po1ul Gt!lty lnn;I,. Tha Getty Research lnslitula, l.os Angciles.. 10 no,; !J(i_2'004_r_1D_b0022_!02'3_2519_05. Digital Images .an::I licts ant p!'OvHad !or study purpos:es only. Copyrighl ••~lri:tiom; ~. For
copyriffii k onn.ilion or highe r ra,solufion lm.igcts Ylsil : hll piih::l.h .:indla,nal/1002Qfrapo_p»m.
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018
Palm Springs City Hall Riverside, California
Name of Property County and State
Figure 4. South elevation, covered walkway, camera facing west, 1958.
Sections 9-end page 19 Item 5C - 67
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018
Palm Springs City Hall Riverside, California
Name of Property County and State
Figure 5. South elevation, council chambers, looking north, 1958.
Sections 9-end page 20 Item 5C - 68
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018
Palm Springs City Hall Riverside, California
Name of Property County and State
Figure 6. East elevation, looking west, 1958.
Sections 9-end page 21 Item 5C - 69
Copyrighl Tho J, Paul Gotty TmsL l ho Gclly Resoivc:h lns1 itu1 0, Lo s Ang ola s. ID no ,: gri_2004_r_10_b0022_1023_2$19_19. Dijill a l im-'9os .ind Ill as a ro povidc,d lor :i tudy pu1posos only, Copyr~ht roSl rk:l io nis ;ippl y. For
c::o?Yri9hl W ormul ion or high e r IH0lution lm91 Yisil : htll)"JJbcl.h:mdlo.noll10020r'rc=po..J)Ofm ,
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018
Palm Springs City Hall Riverside, California
Name of Property County and State
Figure 7. South elevation, looking northeast, 1958.
Sections 9-end page 22 Item 5C - 70
C opyrighl l ho J . P;:,ul Gally 'JrusL Tho Gclly Ros,o..ire h ln !Jlitullo , Los Angela~ ID no.: gri_:?004_1_10_b0022_1023_2Sl9_1fl , IJiailcil lm39as and Illas ;ua pcwido-d lor sttdy pup)sas only. CopyrlghL roslrldions ;:,pp!y. For
c opyrighl lnlormidlon Of hlghor ,•solution lm:igo,s vlsil: h11 p:/Jh:l.h;mdlo.noll'10020.lrapo_pourr.
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018
Palm Springs City Hall Riverside, California
Name of Property County and State
Figure 8. Detail, council chambers entrance, looking southwest, 1958.
Sections 9-end page 23 Item 5C - 71
Item 5C - 72
Item 5C - 731~
f \. '
Item 5C - 74
Item 5C - 75
Item 5C - 76
Item 5C - 77
I
,
t
Item 5C - 78
Item 5C - 79
Item 5C - 80
Item 5C - 81
Item 5C - 82
Item 5C - 83
Item 5C - 84
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
EVALUATION/RETURN SHEET
REQUESTED ACTION: NOMINATION
PROPERTY
NAME :
MULTIPLE
NAME:
Palm Springs City Hall
Architecture of Albert Frey MPS
STATE & COUNTY: CA LIFORN IA, Riverside
DATE RECEIVED :
DATE OF 16TH DAY:
8/14/15
9/24/15
DATE OF PENDING LIST:
DATE OF 45TH DAY:
9/09/15
9/29/15
DATE OF WEEKLY LIST:
REFERENCE NUMBER : 15000641
REASONS FOR REVIEW :
APPEAL : N
OTHER: N
REQUEST: Y
DATA PROBLEM: N
PDIL: N
SAMPLE: N
COM~T WAIVER: N
LANDSCAPE: N
PERIOD: N
SLR DRAFT: N
LE SS THAN 50 YEARS :
PROGRAM UNAPPROVED:
NATIONAL:
/2.ccEPT RETURN _REJECT Cf-21 ·'to).) DATE
ABSTRACT/SUMMARY COMMENTS :
tiee5 ~'5 J.-~ ~M
RECOM./CRITERJ;~ I-C
REVIEWER ' h~~J-DISCIPLINE ---------
TELEPHONE DATE
DOCUMENTATION see attached comments Y/E7see attached SLR Y/fJ
If a nomination is returned to the nominating authority, the
nomination is no longer under consideration by the NPS .
N
N
N
Item 5C - 85
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY
OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
1725 23 rd Street, Suite 1 oo
SACRAMENTO, CA 95816-7100
(916) 445-7000 Fax: (916) 445-7053
calshpo@parks.ca.gov
www.ohp.parks.ca.gov
August 13, 2·015
J. Paul Loether, Deputy Keeper and Chief
National Register and National Historic Landmark Programs
National Register of Historic Places
1201 Eye St. NW, 8th Fl.
Washington D.C. 20005
Subject: The Architecture of Albert Frey MPS
Riverside County, California
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor
RECEIVED 2280
AUG 1 4 2015
Nat. Register of Historic Places
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Nominations
Dear Mr. Loether:
Enclosed please find The Architecture of Albert Frey Multiple Property Submission
consisting of the Multiple Property Documentation Form and ten associated individual
nominations to the National Register of Historic Places. On August 7 in Sacramento,
California, the California State Historical Resources Commission unanimously approved the
MPS and found ten individual properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
under Criterion C at the local level of significance.
The enclosed eight disks contain the true and correct copy of the nominations for THE
ARCHITECTURE OF ALBERT FREY MULTIPLE PROPERY SUBMISSION. Disk 1 includes
the Multiple Property Documentation Form, correspondence, and ten associated
individual nominations for Carey House, Fire Station #1, Frey House II, Kocher-Samson
Building, Loewy House, North Shore Yacht Club, Palm Springs City Hall, Palm Springs
Tramway Valley Station, Sieroty House, and Tramway Gas Station to the National
Register of Historic Places. Disks 2 through 8 contain photographs in this same order.
The resources are eligible under Criterion C because they embody the distinctive
characteristics of residential, commercial, civic, or religious architecture associated with
architect Albert Frey. Frey's architecture helped define desert modernism in the Coachella
Valley. Desert modernism is the adaptation of modern architectural concepts to the climatic
extremes of the Coachella Valley while embracing the area's unique natural setting of
mountains and open vistas. The geographical area of the MPS is Riverside County, California.
The first ten properties nominated under this MPS are as follows, in alphabetical order. Period
of significance is the date of construction, indicated in parentheses.
• Carey House: 651 West Via Escuela, Palm Springs (1956)
• Fire Station #1: 227 North Indian Avenue, Palm Springs (1955)
• Frey House II: 686 Palisades Drive, Palm Springs (1964)
• Kocher-Samson Building: 766 North Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs_(1934)
• Loewy House: 600 Panorama Road, Palm Springs (1946)
Item 5C - 86
• North Shore Yacht Club: 99-155 Sea View Drive, Mecca (1958)
Architecture of Albert Frey MPS
August 13, 2015
Page 2 of2
• Palm Springs City Hall: 3200 East Tahquitz Way, Palm Springs (1952-1956)
• Palm Springs Tramway Valley Station: 1 Tram Way, Palm Springs (1963)
• Sieroty House: 695 East Vereda Sur, Palm Springs (1941)
• Tramway Gas Station: 2901 North Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs (1965)
The MPS, including the MPDF and ten associated properties, is nominated on behalf of a
group of private individuals. In its role as representative of the City of Palm Springs, a Certified
Local Government, the Historic Site Preservation Board did not comment on the nomination.
Eleven letters of support were received, including a letter from the City of Palm Springs in
support of the three city-owned properties. A letter of objection is on file from Mount San
Jacinto Winter Park Authority, owner of Palm Springs Tramway Valley Station and governing
body of Palm Springs Aerial Tramway. The Authority, a public agency and public corporation of
the State of California, was created by the Mount San Jacinto Winter Park Authority Act Ch.1040 of
the Statutes of 1945, as amended by Ch.70 of the Statutes of 1947 and Ch.1004 of the Statutes of
1951, of the State of California.
If you have any questions regarding this nomination, please contact Amy Crain of my staff at
(916) 445-7009.
1ncerely,
Ju ·anne Polanco
State Historic Preservation Officer
Enclosure
EXCERPTS OF MINUTES
At the Historic Site Preservation Board meeting of the City of Palm Springs, held
November 2, 2021, the Historic Site Preservation Board took the following action:
4.A. THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS FOR ALTERATIONS TO THE PALM SPRINGS
CITY HALL, A CLASS 1 (LANDMARK) HISTORIC SITE, LOCATED AT
3200 EAST TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY, (HSPB #33D / CASE 3.3377).
(KL).
Attorney Priest acknowledged public comments on this item; noted the Board is
only deciding on the removal of the Bogert statue from City Hall and must make
certain findings before issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Staff member Lyon summarized staff report.
Chair Hough discussed the sculpture; referenced the Visual Arts Rights Act
(VARA) of 1990 and opined that if the sculpture is removed, it may change the
integrity of the artwork as it was the artist's intention to place the artwork on a
cropping of rocks. She addressed the importance of protecting artistic property and
ensure public access and noted the piece is part of the City's public art collection.
Attorney Priest reported that his office has looked into the issue of the Visual Arts
Rights Act of 1990 and believed that if the statue is carefully removed and stored,
it would still meet the requirements of VARA; there would be no defacement,
alteration or mutilation of the statue.
Vice-Chair Nelson disclosed his mother knew Frank Bogert and worked with the
Palm Springs Historical Society to design a second edition of his book; expressed
concerns that the HSPB is being asked to opine on a highly politicized issue and
felt it would be logical for the Art Commission to make any determination on the
resolution or replacement of statues and declared his abstention on this matter.
Board Member Rosenow spoke about the need for more a clear CEQA
determination, did not feel this should fall under the Class 31 exemption.
Board Member Rose expressed concerns the Board may be acting on an
incomplete record; and stated a decision cannot be made without a complete
record.
Board Member Kiser stated the proposed removal of the statue might be less
controversial if the action also included clarification on its relocation or storage.
Item 5C - 87
Board Member Miller acknowledged the contributions of Mr. Bogert; and spoke
about the Board's task. He stated he sees nothing that tells him the removal of the
statue would adversely affect the historical resource of City Hall.
Staff member Lyon referenced the staff report noting the statue itself is not a
designated historical resource and reiterated the question is whether the removal
of the statue would materially impair the historic resource that is the City Hall and
its site.
Motion by Rose, seconded by Rosenow, to continue the matter to a date certain
of December 7, 2021, and direct staff to initiate a historic resources (assessment)
report to provide further information about the historic significance of the City Hall
site and the Bogert statue.
I, JOANNE BRUGGEMANS, Administrative Secretary for the City of Palm Springs,
hereby certify that the above action was taken by Historic Site Preservation Board of the
City of Palm Springs on the second day of November, 2021, by the following vote:
AYES: Rose, Rosenow, Kiser Hough.
NOES: Miller.
ABSTAIN: Nelson.
ABSENT: Hansen.
_________________________
Joanne Bruggemans
Adminstrative Secretary
Item 5C - 88
Main Office
Three Park Plaza, Suite 120
Irvine, CA 92614
Office: 714.462.1700
Fax: 714.462.1785
Riverside Office
3649 Mission Inn Avenue
Second Floor Rotunda
Riverside, CA 92501
February 10, 2022
VIA E-MAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICE
Anthony Mejia
City Clerk
Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
anthony.mejia@palmspringsca.gov
Jeff Ballinger
City Attorney
Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
jeff.ballinger@bbklaw.com
Re: Appeal to the Palm Springs City Council of the Historic Site Preservation Board
Vote, on February 1, 2022, Approving a Certificate of Appropriateness Allowing
the Removal/Relocation of the Mayor Frank Bogert Statue Located at City Hall
Dear Mr. Mejia:
I represent Friends of Mayor Frank Bogert, a collection of Palm Springs residents who are
opposed to the removal/relocation of the Mayor Bogert statue from its current location on City Hall
parcel located between El Cielo Road, Civic Drive and Tahquitz Canyon Way. One of my clients is Mrs.
Frank Bogert who has consistently opposed removal/relocation of the statue of her deceased husband,
Frank Bogert.
Item 5C - 89
P&N
PACHECO &NEACHPc
February 10, 2022
Page 2
The Palm Springs Historic Site Preservation Board (“HSPB”) approved, on February 1, 2022, the
issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for Alterations to The Palm Springs City Hall, A Class 1
(Landmark) Historic Site Located at 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way, specifically the removal/relocation of
the Mayor Bogert statue.
On behalf of Mrs. Bogert and the Palm Springs residents of the Friends of Mayor Frank Bogert, I as
their legal counsel, appeal the above-described vote and decision of the HSPB taken on February 1,
2022, to the Palm Springs City Council (“CC”). The basis for the appeal is as follows: I. Failure to
adhere to the law including but not limited to the Palm Springs Municipal Code (“PSMC”) Relating to
Historic Site Preservation; II. California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) has not been lawfully
followed as there is no exemption under law for the City’s proposed action; but instead, an exception
that bars it; and III. Federal and state law regarding visual art on public display bars the proposed City
action.
I. Failure to adhere to the law including but not limited to the Palm
Springs Municipal Code Relating to Historic Site Preservation
Code Sections
a. Introduction
The evaluation and assessment of the relocation/removal of the Bogert statue in the context of
historic resource designation can only be bound by the actions of the CC and its successful resolutions.
The PSMC dictates a certain treatment and assessment for historic sites, particularly a Class 1
designation, as here. If there was no historic designation at issue then we would not be having this
debate and there would be no need to refer the matter to various committees or the CC, the statue could
just be removed/relocated by edict. Consequently, the PSMC relating to historic site preservation
governs, and dictates. Within that code is the authority granted only to the City Council to designate a
historic site and or resource.
Therefore, the assessment of what is or what is not a historic resource is defined solely by CC
Resolutions, pursuant to the PSMC. In this instance there were only two such resolutions relating to City
Hall, one in 1996 and another superseding one in 2012. Prior to that time there were no resolutions
identifying any part of the City Hall property, or its features, or its structures, as a historic resource or
site. There was no resolution in 1957 when the first part of Mr. Frey’s modern design was constructed.
There was no resolution designating the second phase of Frey’s construction in 1965 either. When
subsequent additions occurred after 1965, they also were not identified as historic resources at the time
of their construction and placement. Only in 1996 and 2012 did the CC exercise their authority to
designate relating to City Hall, its features, structures and land.
Whether any of the features of City Hall through the decades would have so qualified as historic
resources is helpful but does not decide the path the City must take in its analysis of whether it is
Item 5C - 90
February 10, 2022
Page 3
lawfully removing/relocating the Mayor Bogert statue. The CC defined the historic resource, not City
staff in their various and unfortunate attempts to change or alter the intentions of the HSPB or the CC.
City staff continues here to materially contort both the facts and the application of the law
embodied not only in the PSMC but state and federal law as well. Staff distorts the analysis by falsely
claiming that the historic resource is actually defined by the staff. They decided that the “period of
significance”1 was in 1957 and 1965 and then directed historic experts to focus only on Frey’s work at
that time period, though his architectural firm designed and built two other additions subsequently.
Unfortunately, Frey’s work in 1957 and 1965 is not relevant nor controlling as no CC resolution has
ever defined only Frey’s design and construction in 1957 and 1965 as a historic resource.
The only historic designations were done by resolution in 1996 and 2012. The Bogert statue
creation and placement at City Hall occurred in 1990 and predates those resolutions, thus it was
obviously present at the time the CC passed its resolution designating City Hall as a historic resource on
both occasions. While it appears from a review that such resolution encompassed more than the building
itself, but also other features and structures, grounds and parking lots, subsequent discussions identified
some confusion on what features or structures were included in the 1996 Resolution. Thus, starting in
2010 the City, the HSPB and CC took up the discussion in attempt to further define the earlier
resolution.
In March of 2012 the CC finally passed the second and last resolution designating the “land,
features and structures” contained within an area defined by three streets, “El Cielo Road, Tahquitz
Canyon Way and Civic Drive”. At the time of this resolution, the Bogert statue was both a feature and
structure, by definition, and sits exactly in the middle of the defined area designated as a historic
resource/site. This is the last time the CC defined the land, features and structures therefore any
alteration of the 2012 designation is the issue, not a false description of a “period of significance” from
the 1950s disingenuously advanced by staff.
Importantly, both the CC and the HSPB have received volumes of materials and information
from my clients and from my office attesting to and proving that (1) Mayor Frank Bogert presided over
the modern transformation of Palm Springs and had a lasting legacy of incredible civic and community
progress; (2) that the statue of Mayor Bogert is of great artistic value and is a piece of fine art
constructed by one of the world’s finest sculptors and the preeminent sculptor in the country of Mexico.
What is of particular concern and exemplifies the great extent of staff machinations in this matter
is that the historic experts hired by the City were specifically instructed by staff not to evaluate the
legacy of Mayor Bogert and were further instructed not to evaluate the artistic value of the Mayor
1 “Period of significance” does not appear in any part of the PSMC relating to historic resources or sites,
nor does it direct that after historic designations are made this imagined phrase can be used as a basis for
redefining the historic resource designated by City boards and the City Council. If staff could change the
resolutions passed by the Council designating historic resources in such a way, as they attempt to do so here, there
would be no need for the Council or the HSPB, staff would decide whenever it suited them to do so. No votes
need be taken, but then democracy would not exist.
Item 5C - 91
February 10, 2022
Page 4
Bogert statue. [“As of January 2022, the statue has not been evaluated for eligibility as a historic
resource and the historical significance of the art and its creator has not been determined. This study
does not evaluate the Bogert statue under any eligibility criteria.” (Historic Resources Report dated
January 24, 2022, p.1-2, Section 1.1)]
But clamping down on the experts was not enough, staff went so far as to take the reins from the
HSPB by dictating to those appointed officials what they could discuss and evaluate and what they could
not regarding the Mayor Bogert statue. Specifically, staff falsely claimed that the HSPB could not
evaluate or review the artistic value or historical significance of Bogert statue [“The Board’s authority is
limited to evaluating the Certificate of Appropriateness application and making findings relative to the
proposed alteration of the historic resource that is City Hall. It is not authorized or requested to evaluate
the legacy of Frank Bogert, nor to opine about the artistic status or value of the statue itself…” (HSPB
Staff Report dated February 1, 2022, p. 2)]. Not only should the HSPB have evaluated the Mayor Bogert
statue as it was designated a historic resource in the 2012 Resolution, but staff knew the statue would
satisfy various criteria not only under PSMC, but also state and federal law. Consequently, in order to
skew a certain outcome, the “game” had to be fixed before it was played, much like the confidence game
“Three-card Monte”.
b. 2012 CC Resolution
We note initially that there is little mention of the 2012 Resolution passed by the CC on March 7,
2012 by staff in their HSPB Report. Obviously, the language of the controlling document, the last
resolution which identifies what is and what is not part of the historic resource designation, would be
important not only to the HSPB but also to the CC.
In its 2012 Resolution the CC referred to Chapter 8.05 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code
(“PSMC”) as the operative law. (2012 Resolution Section A.) It went on to cite the confusion regarding
the 1996 Resolution. (2012 Resolution Section B.) The CC expressed the value of a designation of the
entire site or specific portions of the site as a historic resource. (2012 Resolution Section C. and D.) The
CC also indicated in its resolution that it had reviewed all manner of information before making its
decision, including but not limited to historical research, written and oral testimony. (2012 Resolution
Section F.) The CC’s operative motion, which passed near unanimously with only one dissenting vote, is
repeated here verbatim:
“THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS RESOLVE:
SECTION 1. The Class 1 historic designation for the Palm Springs City Hall is hereby amended
to include the structures, features, and land of that portion of APN No. 502-150-005 bounded by
the north edge of the north parking lot and the curb edges along Civic Drive, Tahquitz Canyon
Way, and El Cielo Road, excepting the landscape plant materials therein, subject to the
following conditions:
Item 5C - 92
February 10, 2022
Page 5
1. All future exterior modifications including but not limited to building, site, landscaping,
walls, fences shall require Architectural Approval pursuant to Section 94.04.00 of the Palm
Springs Zoning Ordinance.
2. No permit for the alteration of the interior or exterior of any building, or the steps or entry
plaza fronting the main (south) building entries, or the hardscape of the parking lot areas,
including any and all of the properties elements and characteristics within the designated area
described above shall be issued without prior approval by the Historic Site Preservation
(HSPB) as provided in Chapter 8.05 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code. Modifications to
landscape plant materials are exempted from HSPB review.
3. All existing or previously approved or installed alterations or improvements shall be
considered acceptable and consistent with the requirements of Chapter 8.05 of the Palm
Springs Municipal Code.
ADOPTED THIS 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2012.”
(Emphasis added.)
1. The Mayor Bogert statue was included for protection as a historic resource in the 2012
Resolution in a number of ways.
The CC specifically identified that their historic designation included “features” and “structures”
found on the City Hall property bordered by Civic Drive, Tahquitz Canyon Way, and El Cielo Road. In
analyzing any legislative act, statute or resolution the law applies the rules of “Statutory Construction”,
which guide courts of law in their interpretation of those legislative acts. “Any question of statutory
interpretation begins with looking at the plain language of the statute to discover its original intent. To
discover a statute's original intent, courts first look to the words of the statute and apply their usual and
ordinary meanings… A court may also look at: the common usage of a word, case law, dictionaries…”
Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. (Emphasis added.)
“Structure” is defined as
“Something built”. Cambridge Dictionary
“Something (such as a house, tower, bridge, etc.) that is built by putting parts together
and that usually stands on its own”. Merriam-Webster Dictionary
“Something (such as a building) that is constructed.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary
“A structure is something that has been built”. Collins Dictionary
“Feature” is defined as
Item 5C - 93
February 10, 2022
Page 6
“A prominent or conspicuous part or characteristic”. Collins Dictionary
“Something offered as a special attraction.” Collins Dictionary
“A prominent part or characteristic”. Merriam-Webster Dictionary
“A special attraction: such as
(c) something offered to the public or advertised as particularly
attractive.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary
“A prominent or distinctive part, quality, or characteristic: a feature of one’s personality;
a feature of the landscape.” The Free Dictionary by Farlex (Emphasis added.)
“A prominent or distinctive part or aspect, as of a landscape, building, book, etc.” The
Free Dictionary by Farlex (Emphasis added.)
The “plain language” of the 2012 Resolution designates all structures and features within the
border of three streets. And there is no question the CC knew of the statue’s existence at the time they
voted on the Resolution in 2012.
And by any definition the Mayor Bogert statue is both a feature of the defined City Hall area
located between Civic Drive, Tahquitz Canyon Way, and El Cielo Road, as it is a prominent and
distinctive part of the landscape. And it is also a structure, something that has been built. In this
instance, built by a world-renowned artist. Therefore, the CC in its 2012 Resolution by reference
included all features and structures within the parameters of the defined portion of land. That portion
included, prominently and distinctly, the Bogert statue.
Subsection 3. of the 2012 Resolution, approved 22 years after the Mayor Bogert statue was
added to the City Hall area, states that “[a]ll existing…improvements shall be considered acceptable
and consistent with the requirements of Chapter 8.05 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code. An
improvement is defined as
“The act of adding something to a property such that it increases the property's
value.” The Free Dictionary by Farlex
“An instance of such improvement: something that enhances value or excellence.”
Merriam-Webster
“A change or addition to land or real property, as a sewer, fence, etc., to make it more
valuable. Collins Dictionary
In this instance, the Mayor Bogert statue was built by Raymundo Cobos Reyes, an artist of
international fame. His sculptures grace the renowned Heroic Figures Paseo de la Reforma, and a
monumental sculpture, “Playa de Toros” in Mexico City, as well as a statue of Pope John Paul II in the
Item 5C - 94
February 10, 2022
Page 7
Vatican. Mr. Reyes also had one man art shows in the Museum of Art in Chicago, and at the Museum of
Man in Paris, to name a few. His statue of Mayor Frank Bogert is unquestionably a piece of fine art and
adds tremendous value and excellence to the defined City Hall area. If a “sewer” or “fence” qualifies as
an improvement, it is impossible that a work of fine art from a world-renowned artist does not.
Consequently, the statue is an “improvement” and it existed at the time of the 2012 Resolution,
therefore the Mayor Frank Bogert statue “…shall be considered acceptable and consistent with the
requirements of Chapter 8.05 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code.” That municipal code section defines
historic resource. Use of this language regarding “all existing improvements” is perfectly consistent with
the language designating all features and structures within the designated area as part of the historic
designation. Again, Statutory Construction reaffirms that the Mayor Bogert statue was protected as an
historic resource. [“Statutes should be internally consistent.” Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law
School.]
Further, we know that the 2012 CC was circumspect about what parts to include and what parts
to exclude in its designation. For example, the CC in 2012 made clear that the landscaping of City hall
was not part of the historic designation and would not need approval for alteration in the future. If the
CC wanted to exclude the Mayor Frank Bogert statue from its designation, as it did with the
landscaping, they would have done so. The rules of Statutory Construction applies here too. “The
legislature is presumed to act intentionally and purposely when it includes language in one section but
omits it in another.” Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. If the CC wanted to exclude the
Mayor Bogert statue from the designation, as they did with landscaping, they would have. Therefore,
any omission by the CC from such exclusion, of the statue, was purposeful. They did not want to
exclude the Mayor Bogert statue from its historic resource designation.
Moreover, An evaluation of the Mayor Bogert statue in comparison to the criteria under PSMC
8.05.070, Procedures and Criteria for the Designation of Class 1 and Class 2 Historic Resources, finds
that it qualifies on more than one criterion:
“(ii) The resource is associated with the lives of persons who made a meaningful
contribution to national, state or local history; or
(iii) The resource reflects or exemplifies a particular period of national, state or local
history; or…
(v) The resource presents the work of a master builder, designer, artist, or architect
whose individual genius influenced his or her age, or that possesses high artistic value;”
Therefore, it certainly did qualify for inclusion within the historic resource designation made in 2012 by
the CC.
Item 5C - 95
February 10, 2022
Page 8
2. Lawful Evaluation of the Historic Resource as defined and designated
by the 2012 CC Resolution
As previously stated, any evaluation of the lawful criteria must begin with a definition of the
historic resource. Given that only the CC can identify what is an historic resource any analysis must start
and end at a successfully passed resolution of that CC. As we know there have only been two and the
last one, the operative one, was passed in 2012. That designation was broad and inclusive of all
“features” and “structures” within the defined geographical parameters which included the Bogert
statue.
Any attempt to recast what is the historic resource found in the 2012 Resolution, in contradiction
to the CC designation in 2012, is a false premise, a rather transparent “straw man”2, designed only to
mislead the HSPB and ultimately the CC. And which creates a decayed foundation for the City in
subsequent litigation.
The Mayor Bogert statue’s removal must be evaluated in light of the lawful criteria. HSPB
approved a Certificate of Appropriateness which would lead to removal/relocation of the Mayor Bogert
statue. There is no question that removal/relocation of the stature is an “alteration” under the PSMC
definitions:
PSMC 8.05.020 Definitions.
“Alteration” means any exterior change or modification to a building, structure or object. For
the purposes of this chapter, an “alteration” shall include, but not be limited to…and the
placement or removal of any exterior objects…”
“Object” means a construction primarily artistic in nature or relatively small in scale, such as a
sign or a statue.”
[Without question the Mayor Bogert statue is an “object” within the meaning of the
PSMC.]
“Major Alteration” means any alteration that does the following:
A. Removes, encloses or modifies (i.e., new window and/or window relocation) (i)
twenty-five (25) percent or more of the lineal footage of the elevation(s) of the
building, structure or object (including site and garden walls) facing a public
street or right-of-way (or a street-facing elevation if the parcel is a through lot or
landlocked), or (ii) more than fifty (50) percent of the lineal footage of all exterior
2 Definition of “straw man”: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat
than an opponent's real argument.
Item 5C - 96
February 10, 2022
Page 9
elevation(s) of the building or structure, so that they no longer function as exterior
elevation(s) of the building or structure.
[The HSPB voted affirmatively to allow the “removal” of the Mayor Bogert
statue, which is an “object” “facing a public street.” Consequently, such act
would entail a Major Alteration.]
B. Removes fifty (50) percent or more of the cumulative area of the building,
structure or object’s footprint.
[Given that the intent and decision is to remove all of the statue that would
exceed 50% including its footprint. Consequently, such act would entail a
Major Alteration.]
“Minor Alteration” means any alteration that is not demolition or a major alteration.3
“Landmark/Class 1 historic resource” means any site, structure, building or object not located on
Tribal Trust or Allotted Trust Land designated by resolution of the City Council as having
historic, architectural, archaeological, cultural or aesthetic significance that contributes to an
understanding and awareness of the community’s history. A Class 1 historic resource may
include a structure, building or object on the site, or may include all or a portion of the site
itself. Class 1 historic resources are eligible for the execution of a Mills Act historic property
preservation agreement, as determined by the City Council.
“Historic resource” means any site, structure, building or object not located on Tribal Trust or
Allotted Trust Land which has been designated Class 1 or Class 2 status, or any identified
contributing resource within a City Council-designated historic district. (Emphasis added.)
3. Criteria for Alteration of a Class 1 Historic Resource has not been lawfully
satisfied.
The criteria for removal/relocation must all be satisfied before alteration can occur according to the
PSMC.
“PSMC 8.05.110 E Alteration of Class 1 and Class 2 Historic Resources- Certificate of
Appropriateness)
3 Staff in its report to the HSPB dated February 1, 2022, incorrectly identifies the removal/relocation of
the mayor Bogert statue as a “minor alteration”. The PSMC, state and federal law disagree. (See HSPB Staff
report, p. 2, Regulatory Framework)
Item 5C - 97
February 10, 2022
Page 10
E. Criteria and Findings for Alteration of Class 1 and Class 2 Historic Resources. In considering
a Certificate of Appropriateness application, the approval authority shall evaluate the application
and make findings for conformance to the following criteria:
1. That the proposed alteration does not significantly impact or materially impair the
character-defining features of the historic resource as listed in the resolution for historic
designation, or, where a character-defining feature may be impacted, the proposed
alteration minimizes that impact as much as possible;
[Removal/relocation of the Bogert statue would definitely impact the historic
resource as it is part and parcel of that resource. It is a feature and structure of the
2012 historic resource designation. California Public Resources Code § 5020.1(q)
clearly states that “relocation” of a historic resource is a “substantial adverse
change…such that the significance of an historical resource would be impaired.”
Therefore, this criterion is not satisfied and neither relocation or removal can
occur.]
2. That the proposed alteration will assist in restoring the historic resource to its
original appearance where applicable, or will substantially aid its preservation or
enhancement as a historic resource;
[As stated above, removal or relocation would not “assist in restoring the historic
resource” as the historic resource was defined in 2012 by the CC. The Bogert statue
was included as both a feature and structure of that historic designation. Thus,
restoration of the 2012 designated historic resource would not be restored if a
feature/structure, the Mayor Bogert statue, was removed from the site.
Therefore, this criterion is not satisfied and neither relocation or removal can
occur.]
3. That any additions to the historic resource are consistent with the massing,
proportions, materials, and finishes of the existing historic resource, and: (i) can be
distinguished from the existing historic resource as may be appropriate; or (ii) are
indistinguishable from the historic resource as may be appropriate, and where such
alterations are clearly documented in the City’s archival file for the historic resource as
being non-original to the historic resource;
[The historic resource was defined and delineated by the CC in its 2012 Resolution
and in fact resolved any misunderstanding from the 1996 Resolution which either
included the structures and features on and around City Hall or did not. The 2012
Resolution put an end to the confusion and made clear that the historic resource was
not just the 1957 and 1965 pieces of construction but included every feature and
structure within the defined area between the three streets that surrounded City
Item 5C - 98
February 10, 2022
Page 11
Hall and which area included the Bogert statue. Anything “non-original” to the
2012 designated historic resource, which would have had to postdate the Resolution,
would be subject to alteration pursuant to the language of the Resolution. The
Bogert statue did not postdate the 2012 Resolution and in fact had been on site since
1990 and was thus part of the historic site designated by the CC in 2012. Thus, the
Bogert statue is part of the “original” designation in 2012.
To artificially claim, as staff attempts to do so, that the original historic resource is
the 1957 and 1965 parts of the City Hall building is sophistry. As stated, prior, no
resolutions were passed until 1996 and 2012. To harken back to 1957 is a false
construction.
Therefore, this criterion is not satisfied and neither relocation or removal can
occur.]
4. That, in cases where Federal funds are to be utilized in financing the proposed
alterations, the alterations are consistent with the Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties, as put forth by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior.”
Not applicable.
c. Failure to remove or renovate any other “non-conforming object”
identifies the real unlawful motives to remove the Mayor Bogert
statue
1. Staff falsely indicate the Certificate of Appropriateness request is founded
on a mere desire to “…determine whether removal of the statue would
materially impair the historic significance of City Hall”.
The falsity of this request is legion. First, the intentions of the HSPB and the CC are borne out by
the very report commissioned. Ostensibly both the CC and the majority of the HSPB voted to remove
the statue because it does not comport with the original design in 1957 and follow-up addition made in
1965 by a modern art architect, Frey. That is the entire basis for the vote to remove the statue. Public
money was spent on historic experts in an effort to secure assistance in the construction of this façade,
this supposed adherence to the majesty of the original architecture.
Yet for the past year plus, if not longer, the Mayor Bogert statue has been at the center of a very
public community debate surrounding Mayor Bogert and events that occurred literally half a century or
more ago (Section 14). At each meeting when this item has been on a City agenda numerous citizens
have weighed in on the statue and Mayor Bogert’s legacy. In addition, the CC members have made
numerous public and private comments about the statue and Mayor Bogert’s legacy and not once was
there a cry to conform the existing City Hall area to the earliest buildings constructed in 1957 and 1965.
Item 5C - 99
February 10, 2022
Page 12
The political correctness attack on Mayor Bogert has been the only reason offered for the statue’s
removal, until the staff and CC were informed that political correctness and cancel culture did not
qualify for alteration of the statue under the law.
Consequently, a new rationale had to be concocted, one we have discussed herein. If that is the
basis, adherence to the early architecture, then why aren’t the additional “non-conforming” items also
being removed or corrected? The commissioned Historic Report identifies many “non-conforming”
parts of the City Hall site, all included in the 2012 Resolution. Yet all of these other nonconforming
items have been left untouched. They are:
“The general site plan configuration and layout of hardscape and landscape appears as it was
during the period of significance, however the parking lot light fixtures and the specific plant
materials that exist today in the landscape do not reflect the Ekbo design as seen in historic
photos and a 1957 rendering. The 2012 designation amendment specified that “landscape plant
materials” are not included in the designation, and this is presumed to cover any remaining
original as well as current vegetation. The flagpole and Frank Bogert statue located in the lawn
area in front of the building are alterations that occurred well after the period of significance and
do not contribute to the property’s significance in terms of architecture or association
with/embodiment of historic patterns of development – the flagpole was moved here from the
main entrance in 1981, and the statue was added in 1990. In summary, the open space at the front
of the building is a contributing element, while the actual vegetation, flagpole, and statue are not
contributing elements.” (Historic Report, p.12-13/ Sect. 6.)
The Report goes on to identify the 1972 conference room addition which was essentially altered
by another nonconforming addition in 1985. The report speaks plainly: “As a result, it does not
contribute to the significance of City Hall.” (Historic Report, p.13/ Sect. 6.)
If the HSPB vote was honestly about restoring the grandeur of the City Hall constructed in two
phases in 1957 and 1965 by a celebrated architect, then the resolution would have included not only the
removal of the Mayor Bogert statue but also:
1. The removal of the flagpole;
2. The demolition or complete reconstruction of the 1972 addition (conference room);
3. The demolition or complete reconstruction of the 1985 addition;
4. Replacement and restoration of original parking lot standards;
5. Restoration of original landscape design from 1957.
Yet none of these items were even mentioned in the HSPB review at issue, nor have they been
the subject of discussion or debate in the slightest, either by the HSPB or the CC in any of its meetings
since the issue of Mayor Bogert’s legacy arrived. The reason they were not included in any of the above
is because conformity with a 1957 architectural drawing is not the issue, political correctness/cancel
culture is the issue. But because political correctness/cancel culture is not found as a basis for altering or
removing or relocating a feature/structure/object of a designated historic site in the PSMC the appointed
Item 5C - 100
February 10, 2022
Page 13
and elected officials4 on the CC and HSPB have had to find what appears a lawful reason.
Unfortunately, the rationale here is not availing and is merely an attempt to force a “round peg into a
square hole.” It should not be surprising that some public officials use obfuscation to achieve goals the
law does not allow.
2. Staff disingenuously altered the mandate and directive from the HSPB
provided in its November 2, 2021, meeting.
Specifically at the Nov 2, 2021, meeting of the HSPB the motion that passed was simple and
direct- “…initiate a historic resources (assessment) report to provide further information about the
historic significance of the City Hall site and the Bogert statue.” (Emphasis added.) City staff changed
the motion made by HSPB and altered it to suit their purpose of removal.
By the February 1, 2021, meeting of the HSPB the Staff report had materially altered the
directive, instead to require the Board to “…determine whether removal of the statue would materially
impair the historic significance of City Hall.” And the staff added further that the HSPB requested
“…more information about the defining historic characteristics of City Hall”, again omitting any HSPB
request relating to the statue.
No mention was made of a historic significance assessment of the Bogert statue voted on and
approved by the majority of the HSPB. This part of the directive was not only concealed from the HSPB
when the matter was returned over three months later on February 1, 2022, but also from the historic
experts staff hired to complete the assessment. Instead the experts were directed contrary to the very
request by the HSPB. As noted, the Historic Report clearly states as follows:
“As of January 2022, the statue has not been evaluated for eligibility as a historic resource and
the historical significance of the art and its creator has not been determined. This study does not
evaluate the Bogert statue under any eligibility criteria.” (Historic Report, p. 1-2/ section 1.1)
In essence, the HSPB was not only deceived by staff’s material alteration the HSPB lacked all of
the information it thought it needed to evaluate the question, and that the law required. Because of these
actions by staff, and other acts with the same intent identified herein, the vote on February 1, 2022, by
the HSPB on the issue of a Certificate of Appropriateness, which allowed for the removal/relocation of
the Mayor Bogert statue, was fatally flawed.
4 We except those appointed or elected officials who have seen this charade for what it is and
have voted accordingly.
Item 5C - 101
February 10, 2022
Page 14
3. Staff inappropriately skewed the Historic Report to achieve a desired
outcome, which indicates there was no meaningful consideration of the law
or facts at the time of the HSPB vote.
Failure to fully assess the appropriateness of their action, by the HSPB, to remove an object that
was included and designated a Class 1 Historic Resource is a failure to follow the law as identified
within the PSMC. Failure to follow the law is error and no decision based on error can be upheld by the
CC.
The staff hired the historic experts. And they directed their evaluation and assessment. And staff
confined the experts work to the parameters they designed, and not those defined by the HSPB. Staff
then prepared a report for the HSPB that consumed more than two full pages referring to and citing the
Historic Report they commissioned and constructed. Again, presumably mindful their work would be
misused, the historic experts freely acknowledged that they were not requested to evaluate the artistic
value or effect of the statue or the significant local historic contributions of Mayor Frank Bogert, which
is exactly what the PSMC required. PSMC 8.05.070. Procedures and Criteria for the Designation of
Class 1 and Class 2 Historic Resources.
The 2012 Resolution was a recognition by the CC that the City Hall parcel included various
contributions to the City’s history with varying significance attached to each. Consequently, the
additions of 1972 and 1984, the flagpole, the Mayor Bogert statue and other features were all considered
part of the mosaic of the historic resource embodied in the 2012 designation. Prior to this resolution it
was arguable that only the building that was City Hall was designated a historic resource by the 1996
Resolution. The 2012 Resolution was an unmistakable effort by the CC to recognize the contributions to
historic significance of all of the features, including but not limited to the Mayor Bogert statue.
To exacerbate matters, the staff created a grossly misleading document by commanding the
historic experts to ignore the historic and artistic value of the Mayor Bogert statue. Staff then
commanded the experts to only focus on the architecture from a specific time period, and then directed
the experts to compare that architecture to other features added later to the City Hall parcel. Only in this
way, by this twisted construction, could a straw man be created. It should not be surprising that the
experts when commanded with that incongruity delivered the misleading answer commanded by staff.
The report was then used as a Trojan Horse to claim the statue had no historic significance.
Coupled with the glaring failure by staff to fully offer and analyze the 2012 resolution in its staff report
to the HSPB, and skewed Historic Report, the Staff decided the outcome before the game was played.
The HSPB was then herded down the path, some of them unwillingly.
Another example is the “Clarification” section found on page 5. Both the Chair and Vice Chair
expressed concern about effect of removal of the statue, its artistic value and the integrity of the statue
itself. Instead of evaluating those items staff indicated in its report that “…it is not within the purview or
subject matter expertise of the HSPB to be able to determine impacts on artwork associated with a
Certificate of Appropriateness.” This was done even though the HSPB had directed staff to evaluate the
Item 5C - 102
February 10, 2022
Page 15
artistic value of the statue. And this material alteration by staff violated PSMC 805.070(a)(v) which
specifically requires an evaluation by the HSPB of the artistic value of the artist and the artwork. If one
had been done the results would have been clear, both the artist and the sculpture of Mayor Bogert have
great artistic value.
4. The National Register of Historic Places Registration Form is irrelevant
and serves only as a distraction from the main issues herein
Scant discussion of 2012 CC meeting, or HSPB mtg, designating the entire parcel and its
features a historic site was found in the Staff Report of February 1, 2022. One small reference and one
sentence buried in the middle of a chart at the bottom of page 3. It could not have been more obscure
unless it was removed entirely.5 By contrast staff spent significant space on the certification from the
National Register of Historic Places. While interesting it neither overrules or disputes the statue as a
historic object or artistic object within the meaning of PSMC or the Resolution passed by the CC
designating the entire parcel, including the statue as a Class 1 historic site. The National Register was
not asked to evaluate whether the 2012 CC Resolution included the Mayor Bogert statue in its historic
resource designation, nor was it asked at the time to evaluate the historic or artistic value of the statue to
the community of Palm Springs, of Mayor Bogert’s legacy for that matter.
Therefore, inclusion of the National Register application, which has nothing to do with the 2012 CC
resolution, as it antedates the resolution by three (3) years, is nothing more than a “red herring.”6
II. CEQA has not been lawfully followed as there is no exemption under
law for the City’s proposed action; but instead, an exception that bars it
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) is clear that all public projects undertaken
by a public agency are subject to CEQA. There are two types of exemptions from the strictures of
CEQA, one statutory and the others categorical. Statutory exemptions do not apply in the case before the
City, possibly the one thing we agree on with staff. The dispute in this field is a categorical exemption.
Categorical exemptions are identified and defined in the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR Section
15300-15331). Importantly under the CEQA law, categorical exemptions cannot be used for projects
that may cause a “substantial adverse change” in the significance of an historic resource. (14 CCR
Section 15300.2(f)). The lead agency, in this instance the City, has to, by law, determine that a
categorical exemption, that it may claim, “…is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in Section
15300.2.” (14 CCR Section 15061(a)(2)).
5 To their credit the historic experts included the 2012 Resolution but only as an exhibit in their report, though its
inclusion and significance did not persuade the staff to meaningfully include it in their Staff Report.
6 Definition of “red herring”: something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting.
Item 5C - 103
February 10, 2022
Page 16
An exception does however that bars the City’s action identified herein, and abrogates the action
by the HSPB:
“15300.2. EXCEPTIONS
(f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.”
(14 CCR Section 15300.2(f))
CEQA also identifies those resources that qualify as a historic resource:
15064.5. DETERMINING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS TO
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES (a) For purposes of this section,
the term “historical resources” shall include the following: (1) A resource listed in, or determined
to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register
of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.). (2) A
resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of
the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting
the requirements section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be
historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant
unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally
significant.
(Emphasis added.)
The Palm Springs CC in 2012 identified all features and structures within a defined area around
City Hall as historic resources, that included the Mayor Bogert statue, as previously discussed. That
designation was the inclusion of the features, structures and land within that defined area into the “local
register of historical resources”. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, the statue of Mayor Bogert “…shall be
presumed to be historically or culturally significant.”
And finally, a “substantial adverse change” is defined as:
“A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (1)
Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical
demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings
such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.” 14 CCR
Section15064.5(b)(1).
(Emphasis added.)
Therefore, any proposed relocation of the Mayor Bogert statue requires an elaborate CEQA
process typically involving an environmental impact report (“EIR”) and other determinations by the lead
Item 5C - 104
February 10, 2022
Page 17
agency, the City. California Public Resources Code §§ 21080(d), 21082.2(d), 21100(a), 21151(a).
Of course, a full public review of this process is part and parcel of the requirements. None of these rules
have been followed, no EIR has been done, the City has merely relied on an unqualified, and false claim
of exemption. It is important to note that such claims are subject to review in court by a judicial officer.
The City will bear the burden of proof regarding its claim of exemption.
The staff claim that all the City intends is to restore a historical resource, but this false claim fails
too. The historical resource is not only the 1957 and 1965 buildings on site, pursuant to 14 CCR Section
15331. As we know the CC defined the entire area and its features and structures of the area as a historic
site. Claiming that you are ‘restoring” the site by removing one of its protected historic
features/structures is like claiming you’re saving the village by burning it to the ground. Neither makes
sense, and in a legal courtroom both illogical claims fail, as they should here.
III. Federal and state law regarding visual art on public display bars
the proposed City action
There should be no question that the Mayor Bogert statue is an acclaimed piece of fine art created by
an internationally respected artist, Raymundo Cobos Reyes. Mr. Reyes has exhibited his sculptures and
paintings not only in his home country of Mexico, but all over the world.
State law prohibits anyone, including municipalities, of intentionally committing “...any physical
defacement, mutilation, alteration, or destruction of fine art.” California Civil Code § 987(c)(1).
(Emphasis added.) Only the artist who created the fine art may authorize any alteration of their work. Id.
The purpose of the law, embodied in California Civil Code § 987(a), embraces ideals and principles
of which the Palm Springs City Council should take note:
“The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the physical alteration or destruction of fine art,
which is an expression of the artist’s personality, is detrimental to the artist’s reputation, and
artists therefore have an interest in protecting their works of fine art against any alteration or
destruction; and that there is also a public interest in preserving the integrity of cultural and
artistic creations.”
Failure to abide by California Civil Code § 987(a) subjects the offender to litigation which can
include, injunctive relief, actual damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and punitive damages. California
Civil Code § 987(e).
The law requires notification to the artist, which we know for a fact has not been done by the City, as
we have already contacted him.
Item 5C - 105
February 10, 2022
Page 18
IV. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing points and authorities several things are clear. The HSPB was not provided
with a complete understanding of the law and information was concealed from them either intentionally
or inadvertently. As a result, the HSPB did not and could not make an informed decision. Further, the
facts and law that was provided to the HSPB was skewed to achieve a desired outcome that suited the
interests of some elected and appointed officials who wanted to remove the Mayor Bogert statue for
unlawful reasons, political correctness and cancel culture. And the basis for the HSPB vote was a a
flawed application of the law and facts. As a consequence of all of these commissions and omissions the
PSMC was not followed lawfully.
In addition to the tortured analysis offered by staff regarding the PSMC, they also offered one
regarding CEQA. Instead of following the CEQA process they proffered to the HSPB a false exemption
that could not be claimed due to an exception preventing its use. Again, the HSPB was duped, and the
law was not followed in all of its requirements.
Unfortunately, no effort was made by staff to even discuss the law regarding visual arts and the
failure to follow it. On this basis alone the HPB decision should be reversed, though there are many
bases for reversal of that decision.
We encourage the CC members to show courage to follow the law whether they like the result or
not. Law is the only thing holding our society together, and any diminution of it in any context weakens
that which holds civilization together in an orderly and safe fashion. It is the duty of all public officials
to follow the law whether it suits their opinions or interests.
Therefore, we appeal the decision made by the HSPB granting a Certificate of Appropriateness to
effectuate a removal/relocation of the Mayor Bogert statue.
Very truly yours,
Rod Pacheco
Item 5C - 106
Resolution No. _____ – Case HSPB #33D/ Case 3.3377 – Bogert Statue
Page 1 of 7
February 24, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF
HISTORIC SITE PRESERVATION BOARD ACTION
APPROVING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
FOR ALTERATIONS TO THE PALM SPRINGS CITY HALL,
A CLASS 1 (LANDMARK) HISTORIC SITE LOCATED AT
3200 EAST TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY – REMOVAL OF
FRANK BOGERT STATUE, (HSPB #33D/ CASE 3.3377)
THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS:
A. WHEREAS, Chapter 8.05 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code allows for the
designation of historic resources; and
B. WHEREAS, on November 2, 2021, the City’s Historic Site Preservation Board
(“HSPB”) considered a Certificate of Appropriateness application to determine whether
removal of the statue would materially impair the historic significance of City Hall. At that
meeting the HSPB considered the application and continued it, requesting more
information about the defining historic characteristics of City Hall; and
C. WHEREAS, staff solicited proposals for a historic resources report and the firm
Architectural Resources Group (“ARG”) was selected to prepare the report; and
D. WHEREAS, a historic resources report dated January 20, 2022 (the “ARG
Report”) was prepared by ARG, which evaluated City Hall and identified, among other
things, the defining historic characteristics of the historic resource, the elements on the
site that contribute to its historic significance, the criteria from the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance (Palm Springs Municipal Code (“PSMC”), Chapter 8.05.) under
which the site qualifies as a historic resource and its period of significance; and
E. WHEREAS, the ARG Report concluded that the Bogert statue does not contribute
to the historic significance of City Hall and its removal would not materially impair the
characteristics that contribute to City Hall’s historic significance, and
F. WHEREAS, on February 1, 2022, based on the information provided to the HSPB,
including the ARG Report, the HSPB voted (4-2 (with 1 abstention)) to approve the
certificate of appropriateness for the removal of the statue, with the strong
recommendation that the City Council ensure relocation of the statue to a suitable,
publicly-accessible site in perpetuity; and
G. WHEREAS, at the said meeting, the HSPB carefully reviewed and considered all
of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including, but not
limited to, the staff report and all written and oral testimony presented and voted 5-0-1
(Burkett absent) to recommend that the City Council designate the Palm Springs Racquet
Club a Class 2 (Historic Merit) historic site; and
H. WHEREAS, on Thursday, February 10, 2022, Rod Pacheco, on behalf of his
client, Friends of Mayor Frank Bogert (“Appellant”), filed an appeal of the HSPB’s action Item 5C - 107
Resolution No. _____ – Case HSPB #33D/ Case 3.3377 – Bogert Statue
Page 2 of 7
February 24, 2022
(the “Appeal”); and
I. WHEREAS on February 24, 2022, a duly noticed meeting of the City Council was
conducted to consider the Appeal, in accordance with applicable law, at which time all
interested parties were afforded an opportunity to be heard; and
J. WHEREAS, at the said meeting, the City Council carefully reviewed and
considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the Appeal, including, but not
limited to, the staff report, the ARG Report, and all written and oral testimony presented.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS RESOLVES:
SECTION 1: INCORPORATION OF RECITALS
The City Council hereby incorporates by reference, the recitals contained above, as
though fully set forth herein.
SECTION 2: DENIAL OF APPEAL.
Based on all of the evidence presented in connection this appeal, including, but not limited
to, the staff report, the ARG Report, and all written and oral testimony presented, and
based on the findings contained in this Resolution, the City Council hereby denies the
Appeal and upholds the HSPB’s February 1, 2022 decision.
SECTION 3: FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF DECISION
Pursuant to the PSMC Section 8.05.110(A), prior to alteration of a Class 1 historic
resource, such as the proposed removal of the Bogert Statue from the City Hall site, a
Certificate of Appropriateness must be processed.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 8.05.110 (E), (“Alteration of Class 1 and Class 2
Historic Resources – Certificate of Appropriateness”), in considering a Certificate of
Appropriateness request, the HSPB must evaluate the application and make findings for
conformance based on the following criteria:
1. That the proposed alteration does not significantly impact or materially impair
the character-defining features of the historic resource as listed in the resolution
for historic designation, or, where a character-defining feature may be impacted,
the proposed alteration minimizes that impact as much as possible;
As noted in the ARG Report, City Hall’s historic significance is recognized for its Mid-
Century Modernist architectural style and its association with master architect Albert Frey.
The character-defining features of the historic resource, as listed on page 14 of the ARG
Report, include the general open configuration and layout of the landscape and
hardscape fronting the building but does not include the planting materials, the flagpole
or the Bogert statue. The statue is located in the open space in front of City Hall. Its
removal would not significantly impact or materially impair the character-defining features
because it does not alter the general configuration and layout of the open space fronting
Item 5C - 108
Resolution No. _____ – Case HSPB #33D/ Case 3.3377 – Bogert Statue
Page 3 of 7
February 24, 2022
the building or any other character-defining feature that contributes to the historic
significance of City Hall. As such this finding can be affirmatively met.
Appellant also asserts that the Bogert statue itself is a “historic resource”. The City’s
Historic Preservation Ordinance defines a historic resource as “…any site, structure,
building or object… which has been designated Class 1 or Class 2 status, or any identified
contributing resource within a City Council-designated historic district.” In this case, the
Bogert statue, while potentially capable of being designated as a historic resource, has
not been granted Class 1 or Class 2 designation and has not been identified as a
contributing resource in a Council-designated historic site or district. Nor is the statue
from the period of significance for the City Hall. The statue itself is not a historic resource
and thus is not subject to further evaluation as such.
2. That the proposed alteration will assist in restoring the historic resource to its
original appearance where applicable, or will substantially aid its preservation or
enhancement as a historic resource;
Upon completion of the original 1956 building and the 1965 addition, the character-
defining open space in front of the City Hall building was comprised of two parking lots
located at the southeast and southwest corners of the parcel, with a drive aisle connecting
them across a broad expanse of landscape. There were no statues or other objects in
the open space fronting City Hall during its period of significance. The Bogert statue was
installed in 1990, well after the period of significance (1956-1965).
Further, Appellants have not demonstrated that the statue was part of the historic
resource as designated by the City Council. The statue was not mentioned in the City
Council resolutions that designated City Hall as a Class 1 historic site in 1996, nor in the
subsequent resolution of 2012. It was also not mentioned in the materials submitted for
consideration of adding City Hall to the National Register of Historic Places in 2015. It is
not a character-defining feature; thus its removal will not adversely affect the historic
resource and will assist in restoring it to its original appearance. This finding can be
affirmatively met.
3. That any additions to the historic resource are consistent with the massing,
proportions, materials, and finishes of the existing historic resource, and: (i) can
be distinguished from the existing historic resource as may be appropriate; or (ii)
are indistinguishable from the historic resource as may be appropriate, and where
such alterations are clearly documented in the City’s archival file for the historic
resource as being non-original to the historic resource;
As noted above, the 2012 resolution does not identify the statute as a historic resource.
Moreover, again, the question is not whether or not the statue is a historic resource or
not. This finding is focused on whether any proposed “additions to the historic resources
are consistent with the massing, proportions, materials, and finishes of the existing
historic resource”. Here, the removal of the statue does not involve any “additions”.
Therefore, regardless of whether or not the statue is a historic resource, removal of the
statue is not an “addition”, and thus this finding can be affirmatively met.
4. That, in cases where Federal funds are to be utilized in financing the proposed
alterations, the alterations are consistent with the Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties, as put forth by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior. Item 5C - 109
Resolution No. _____ – Case HSPB #33D/ Case 3.3377 – Bogert Statue
Page 4 of 7
February 24, 2022
No federal funds are involved in the proposed project. As such, this finding is not relevant
and this finding need not be met.
With regard to Appellant’s CEQA argument, Appellant asserts that removal of the statue
would violate CEQA because Appellant believes that the removal of the Bogert statue
will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
However, as discussed above, based on the findings that are supported by the facts, the
removal of the Bogert statue will not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource. The Bogert statue itself is not designated as a
historical resource. Further, as explained above, removing the statue would restore the
character-defining features of City Hall, which is the historical resource as issue. As
such, removing the statue would improve the significance of City Hall and would not
cause any adverse change, much less substantial adverse change, in City Hal’s
significance. As such, the categorical exemption relied upon by City staff and the HSPB
is appropriate for the proposed removal of the Bogert statue.
Appellant cites to a California statue that prohibits anyone, except the artist, from
intentionally committing, or authorizing “the intentional commission of, any physical
defacement, mutilation, alteration, or destruction of a work of fine art.” (California Art
Preservation Act (“CAPA”), Civ. Code § 987(c)(1).)
However, even assuming the Bogert statue would be considered “fine art” under CAPA,
the City is not proposing to deface, mutilate, alter, or destroy it. Instead, the City is
proposing to remove the statue. Simply removing a statue from its current location and
placing it in storage alone is not enough to violate CAPA, as found in the very recent case
of Schmid v. City and County of San Francisco, (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 470, 488.
As such, the cited statute does not prohibit the City from removing the Bogert statue.
City staff is authorized to remove and dispose of the Bogert statue in a manner determined
by the City Manager to be in the best interest of the City.
SECTION 4: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The proposed project is categorically exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under CEQA Guidelines section 15331 and section
15061(b)(3).
Under section 15331, also known as class 31, projects that are for the “maintenance,
repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction
of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties” (“the Standards”) are exempt from CEQA.
The proposed removal of the statue would restore the City Hall to conditions consistent
with its period of historic significance and this restoration is consistent with the Standards
for restoration. The Standards, beginning on page 118, state that restoration can include
removal of features that were introduced onto a site from outside the period of significance.
As outlined in the ARG Report, the period of significance for City Hall was 1956–1965.
The statue was installed in 1990, well outside the period of significance. Page 121 of the Item 5C - 110
Resolution No. _____ – Case HSPB #33D/ Case 3.3377 – Bogert Statue
Page 5 of 7
February 24, 2022
Standards further states that in restoring a site, it is recommended that “work is included
to remove… existing features that do not represent the restoration period.” (emphasis
added.) (Restoration period in this context is understood to mean the period of historic
significance.) The Bogert statue was installed around 1990 and thus is not from the period
of significance and removal is consistent with the Standards.
The Standards also denote on page 153 that retaining and preserving features that are
important from the period of significance is recommended and that “retaining non-
restoration period (i.e. period of significance) landscape features is not recommended.”
(emphasis added.) Thus in considering the findings for a Certificate of Appropriateness,
removal of the statue is consistent with the Standards because it will contribute to restoring
the City Hall site closer to the original appearance as seen in the vintage photos taken
during the period of significance. As stated in the ARG Report, the statue is not recognized
as a historic character-defining feature of the City Hall site and does not meet the definition
of a historic resource as outlined in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (PSMC
8.05.020), thus its removal is consistent with the Standards. As such, removal is exempt
from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines section 15331.
Under section 15061(b)(3), an activity is not subject to CEQA if “it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect
on the environment.”
Removal of the statue will not have a significant effect on the environment. Removal of
the statue can be accomplished with a standard truck-mounted articulating or
“knuckleboom” hydraulic crane loading it onto a conventional flatbed truck. The stones
around the concrete base can be disassembled and the concrete hauled away for
recycling. The lifting of a statue of this relatively small size onto a truck can be
accomplished in a matter of hours and thus any noise or vehicle emissions while the trucks
are on site are brief, periodic and insignificant. Furthermore, removal of the statue is not
anticipated to have any impact on vehicular trips to or from City Hall and thus other than
the temporary parking of the crane and truck to lift the statue off the site, no impact on
transportation is expected.
Under CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2, a categorical exemption (such as in Guidelines
section 15331) may not be used if specified exceptions circumstances exist with respect
to the proposed project. None of the exceptions apply here, as explained below.
1. Location exception (CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(a)): This exception only
applies to Class 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11 exemptions, none of which are being utilized here.
2. Cumulative impact exception (CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(b)): This
exception only applies if there are successive projects of the same type in the same
place over time that have a significant cumulative impact. Here, there are no other
similar restoration projects proposed for City Hall and thus no successive projects
of the same type in the same place
3. Unusual circumstances exception (CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(c): This
exception only applies if there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have
a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. This
exception does not apply because as explained above, there is no possibility that
the proposed activity will have a significant effect on the environment and because
there are no unusual circumstances related to the removal of the statute. Item 5C - 111
Resolution No. _____ – Case HSPB #33D/ Case 3.3377 – Bogert Statue
Page 6 of 7
February 24, 2022
4. Scenic highway exception (CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(d)): The scenic
highway exception only applies if the project may result in damage to scenic
resources within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This
exception does not apply because the statue is not located within a highway that is
officially designated as a state scenic highway. Tahquitz Canyon Way is identified
in the City’s General Plan as an “enhanced transportation corridor” because it
provides views of the San Jacinto Mountains and is developed with landscaped
medians and street trees, however it is not a designated state scenic highway.
5. Hazardous waste site exception (CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(e): This
exception only applies to projects located on sites that are identified on the Cortese
List of hazardous waste sites. This section does not apply because the Project site
is not included on any list of hazardous waste sites.
6. Historical resources exception (CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(f)): The
historical resources exception states that a categorical exemption may not be used
if it would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource. This exception does not apply because, as explained above, the statue
is not itself a historic resource, and because as also explained above, removal of
the statue is a restoration of the City Hall site consistent with the Standards.
Removing the statue will bring the City Hall closer to its original appearance during
its period of significance, and therefore will not cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical resource.
ADOPTED THIS 24th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022.
Justin Clifton, City Manager
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Mejia, MMC
City Clerk
Item 5C - 112
Resolution No. _____ – Case HSPB #33D/ Case 3.3377 – Bogert Statue
Page 7 of 7
February 24, 2022
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS )
I, ANTHONY J. MEJIA, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that
Resolution No. is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting
of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on February 24, 2022, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of
the City of Palm Springs, California, this ___ day of February, 2022.
Anthony J. Mejia, MMC
City Clerk
Item 5C - 113