HomeMy WebLinkAboutPresentation - Item 5C - Bogert Statue Appeal 2022-02-24Appeal – Bogert StatueAgenda Item #5CCase #HSPB 33DFebruary 24, 2022DEVELOPMENTSERVICESDEPARTMENT
Certificate of Appropriateness•Required pursuant to PSMC Chapter 8.05 for alterations to a Class 1/Class 2 historic resource•City Hall designated Class 1 historic resource in 1996; designation expanded to entire site in 2012•While the statue is not a contributing element of the City Hall site, its removal must be assessed for the impact to the character-defining featuresDEVELOPMENTSERVICESDEPARTMENT
Appeal of HSPB DecisionAppellant asserts the following:1. City did not follow PSMC in approving the Certificate of Appropriateness2. Issuance of Certificate of Appropriateness violates CEQA3. Federal and state laws (CAPA) prohibit removal of the statueDEVELOPMENTSERVICESDEPARTMENT
1. Certificate of AppropriatenessAppellant: City did not make required findingsRequired findings:A. That the proposed alteration does not materially impair the character-defining featuresB. That the proposed alteration will assist in restorationC. That any additions are consistentD. Federally-funded projects must be consistent with Secretary of the Interior’s StandardsDEVELOPMENTSERVICESDEPARTMENT
1. Certificate of AppropriatenessFindings: •The historic resource report by ARG identifies the character-defining features and period of significance•The statue is not a character-defining feature and is not individually designated•Removal of the statue would not impact the character-defining features and would return the site closer to its original appearance/configurationDEVELOPMENTSERVICESDEPARTMENT
2. CEQA ViolationAppellant: Removal of the statue would cause a substantial adverse change to the historic resourceFindings:•The statue is not individually designated•Removal of the statue would assist in restoring the character-defining features, and would not cause any adverse changeDEVELOPMENTSERVICESDEPARTMENT
3. CAPA ViolationAppellant: Removal of the statue is a violation of California Art Preservation Act (CAPA)Findings:•City is not proposing to “deface, mutilate, alter, or destroy” the artwork•Even if statue were removed from the site and stored, it would be consistent with Schmid vs. City & County of San FranciscojudgmentDEVELOPMENTSERVICESDEPARTMENT
Conclusion•Appropriate findings were made for issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness•The action does not violate CEQA•The action does not violate CAPA•Based on those factors, uphold the action of the HSPB and deny the appealDEVELOPMENTSERVICESDEPARTMENT