Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout24991RESOLUTION NO. 24991 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 OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY FIND 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 Resolution No. 24991 Page 2 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 (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 DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 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 DECIS 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: Resolution No. 24991 Page 3 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 maybe 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 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. Resolution No. 24991 Page 4 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. 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 Resolution No. 24991 Page 5 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 repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, reconstruction of historical resources class 31, projects that are for the "maintenance, restoration, preservation, conservation or in a manner consistent with Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties" ("th e 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." Resolution No. 24991 Page 6 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. 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 Resolution No. 24991 Page 7 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. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE PALM SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL THIS 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 JUSTI CLIFTON CITY MANAGER ATTEST: MONIQUE IMAOMELI, CMC INTERIM CITY CLERK Resolution No. 24991 Page 8 CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS) I, MONIQUE LOMELI, Interim City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Resolution No. 24991 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: Councilmembers Holstege, Kors, Woods, Mayor Pro Tern Garner, and Mayor Middleton NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Palm Springs, California, this 24th day of February 2022. Monique Lo li, Interim City Clerk City of Palm Springs, California