commercial, or other qualifying development projects within one-half mile of a major public transit stop. HCD has authority to enforce AB 2097 pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (j)(12).
The sole question posed by the requestor relates to the m ethod of measurement used to determine whether a project site is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, thus becoming eligible for the benefits of AB 2097. Specifically, the requester asks whether the one-half mile distance should be measured in a straight line from parcel edge to the transit stop or based on the walking distance from parcel edge to the transit stop. This letter provides technical assistance clarifying how to measure the one-half mile distance to a major transit stop for the purposes of AB 2097.
AB 2097 Transit Distance Criteria
Under AB 2097, “A public agency shall not impose or enforce any minimum automobile parking requirement on a residential, commercial, or other development project if the project is located within one-half mile of public transit.” (Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (a).) Additionally, Government Code section 65863.2, subdivision (e)(5), defines “public transit” to mean a major transit stop as defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code.
Major Transit Stop Definition in the Public Resources Code Section 21155, subdivision (b), of the Public Resources Code states, “A major transit stop is as defined in Section 21064.3, except that, for purposes of this section, it also includes major transit stops that are included in the applicable regional transportation plan.” Section 21064.3 defines a major transit stop as a site containing any of the following:
(a) An existing rail or bus rapid transit station.
(b) A ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service. (c) The intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.
Based on the above, the San Clemente Pier Station Train Stop would qualify as a major transit stop under Public Resources Code, Section 21064.3, subdivision (a), because it is an existing rail transit station served by the Metrolink rail system.
AB 2097 Path
of Measurement
For the purposes of AB 2097, the one-half mile distance to a major transit stop should be measured in a straight, direct line from the nearest edge of the parcel containing the project site to any point on the parcel(s) that make up the property upon which a major Item 8
Attachment C - AB 2097
Transit Distance Criteria -
Letter of Technical
Assistance (HCD)
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
27 Packet Pg. 142 of 150
Adam Atamian, Community Development Director
transit stop is located. Generally, measurements are to be taken in a straight, direct line from parcel edge to parcel edge unless otherwise specified in statute. This is in keeping with the “ordinary meaning” of how required distances are typically measured in state housing laws absent specific statutory instructions to the contrary. AB 2097 does not contain any language that indicates that the one-half mile distance should be measured based on walking distance. Additionally, the definitions of a major stop in Section 21155 and Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code do not reference walking distance.
Had the Legislature intended for the one-half mile distance in AB 2097 to be based on walking distance, it could have included language to that effect as seen in other state housing laws such as ADU Law (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subds. (c) and (d)) and Senate Bill 9 (Gov. Code, § 65852.21, subd. (c)(1)(A)1).
This determination is consistent with other one-half mile distances to public transit employed elsewhere in state statutes that do not specify walking distance, such as AB 2162 (Gov.
Code, § 656542) and SB 35 (Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (e)(1)(A)3). This determination also most closely aligns with AB 2097’s intent as outlined in Government Code section, 65863.2, subdivision (i), which states that “the imposition of mandatory parking minimums can increase the cost of housing, limit the number of available units, lead to an oversupply of parking spaces, and increased greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, this section shall be interpreted in favor of the prohibition of the imposition of mandatory parking minimums as outlined in this section.”
1 “A height of 18 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed single family or multifamily dwelling unit that is within one-half of one mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code.” (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (c)(2)(D)(ii).)
“Where the accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit.” (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (d)(1)(A).) “The parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, or a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code.” (Gov. Code, § 65852.21, subd. (c)(1)(A).)
2 “If the supportive housing development is located within one-half mile of a public transit stop, the local government shall not impose any minimum parking requirements for the units occupied by supportive housing residents.” (Gov. Code § 65654.) 3 “The development is located within one-half mile of public transit.” (Gov. Code § 65913.4, subd. (e)(1)(A).)
Item 8
Attachment C - AB 2097
Transit Distance Criteria -
Letter of Technical
Assistance (HCD)
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
28 Packet Pg. 143 of 150
Adam Atamian, Community Development Director
Conc
lusion
For the purposes of AB 2097, the one-half mile distance to a major transit stop should be measured in a straight line from the nearest edge of the parcel containing the proposed project to any point on the parcel(s) that make up the property upon which a major transit stop is located. Using this method of measurement, the ADU conversion project proposed at 240 W. Mariposa Avenue is less than one-half mile from the San Clemente Pier Train Station and therefore meets this criterion under AB 2097. This technical assistance provides a consistent methodology for measuring distance and is more inclusive than other alternatives, thereby maximizing the housing production potential of AB 2097.
If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Deepeaka Dhaliwal, of our staff, at [email protected].
Si
ncerely,
Shan
nan West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
Item 8
Attachment C - AB 2097
Transit Distance Criteria -
Letter of Technical
Assistance (HCD)
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
29 Packet Pg. 144 of 150
Middlefield Road
Cowper Street
Waverley Street
Alma Street
El Camino Real
Louis Road
Hy 101 South
Ross Road
Hy 101 North
Webster Street
Bryant Street
Channing Avenue
East Bayshore Road
Page Mill Road
Hamilton Avenue
Oregon Expressway
Lincoln Avenue
San Antonio Road
University Avenue
Newell Road
Seale Avenue
South Court
High Street
Park Boulevard
East Meadow Drive
Stanford Avenue
West Bayshore Road
Colorado Avenue
Hanover Street
Miranda Avenue
Foothill Expressway
Fabian W
ay
Homer Avenue
Greer Road
Ramona Street
Charleston Road
Edgewood Drive
Loma Verde Avenue
Everett Avenue
Churchill Avenue
Arastradero Road
Matadero Avenue
Lowell Avenue
Center Drive
Tennyson Avenue
Los Robles Avenue
California Avenue
Barron Avenue
Hillview Avenue
Palo Alto Avenue
Kingsley Avenue
Maybell Avenue
Hansen W
ay
Wilkie Way
Coleridge Avenue
Byron Street
Ely Place
M
anuela Avenue
Oregon Avenue
Amarillo Avenue
Marion Avenue
North California Avenue
Emerson Street
Pitman Avenue
Laguna Avenue
Grove Avenue
Ferne Avenue
Nelson Drive
Porter Drive
Castilleja Avenue
Chimalus Drive
Hale Street
College Avenue
Amherst Street
Seneca Street
Lane 66
Bowdoin Street
Stockton Place
Harker Avenue
Deer Creek Road
Embarcadero Road
Ames Avenue
El Dorado Avenue
La Para Avenue
Grant Avenue
Birch Street
Hawthorne Avenue
Harriet Street
Coyote Hill Road
Columbia Street
Clara Drive
Georgia Avenue
Rhodes Drive
San Antonio Avenue
Cambridge Avenue
El Verano Avenue
Olive Avenue
La Donna Street
El Cam
ino W
ay
Parkinson Avenue
Kipling Street
Kellogg Avenue
Heather Lane
Alger Drive
Florales Drive
Oxford Avenue
Forest Avenue
101 Oregon-Embarcadero Ramp North
Greenwood Avenue
Monroe Drive
Cornell Street
Sherman Avenue
Boyce Avenue
Amaranta Avenue
Oberlin Street
West Charleston Road
Nathan W
ay
Donald Drive
Urban Lane
Harvard Street
Hopkins Avenue
Wilton Avenue
Dana Avenue
Sutherland Drive
Fife Avenue
Iris Way
Fulton Street
Lambert Avenue
Marshall Drive
Josina Avenue
101 Oregon-Embarcadero Ramp South
Williams Street
David Avenue
(none)
Old Adobe Road
El Carmelo Avenue
Geng Road
Orme Street
M
ontrose Avenue
Parkside Drive
Princeton Street
Walnut D rive
Maddux Drive
Sheridan Avenue
Curtner Avenue
Jacaranda Lane
W
ildwood Lane
Elsinore Drive
Morris Drive
Mariposa Avenue
Fernando Avenue
Stanley W
ay
Miller Avenue
Leland Avenue
Moreno Avenue
Barbara Drive
Creekside Drive
Sutter Avenue
Margarita Avenue
Edlee Avenue
Ventura Avenue
Arbutus Avenue
Chaucer Street
Shopping Center Way
Embarcadero W
ay
Walter Hays Drive
Jackson Drive
Willmar Drive
Kenneth Drive
Sand Hill Road
Carolina Lane
Martin Avenue Patricia Lane
Whitclem Drive
Cereza Drive
Paul Avenue
Guinda Street
Towle Way
Old Trace Road
Tennessee Lane
Orinda Street
Ilima Way
Santa Ana Street
Encina Grande Drive
Briarwood Way
Bruce Drive
Los Palos Avenue
Com
mercial Street
Lane 21
Faber Place
Ruthven Avenue
Miramonte Avenue
Lois L ane
West M
eadow Drive
Gailen Avenue
Laguna Way
Whitsell Street
Northampton Drive
Southampton Drive
Scripps Avenue
Pomona Avenue
Janice Way
Bibbits Drive
Madrono Avenue
Warren Way
Yale Street
Mayview Avenue
Evergreen Drive
Stelling Drive
Rorke Way
El Centro Street
Ivy Lane
New M
ayfield Lane
Ashton Avenue
Military Way
McKellar Lane
Cedar Street
Robb Road
Jefferson Drive
Dake Avenue
Santa Rita Avenue
Addison Avenue
Saint Claire Drive
Rinconada Avenue
Second Street
Encina Avenue
Seminole Way
Alester Avenue
Silva AvenueKelly Way
Indian Drive
Escobita Avenue
Quarry Road
Glenbrook Drive
Manuela Court
Garland Drive
Hubbartt Drive
Christine Drive
Lane 39
Kings Lane
Bryson Avenue
Talisman Drive
Campana Drive
Oak H
ill Avenue
Fabian Street
Murdoch Drive
Deodar Street
Terman Drive
Nevada Avenue
Madison Way
Sequoia Avenue
Southwood Drive
Crescent Drive
Colonial Lane
East Meadow CircleRichardson Court
Lane 33
James Road
Vista Avenue
Lupine Avenue
Campesino Avenue
Hilbar Lane
Portola Avenue
Park Avenue
Poe Street
Suzanne Drive
La Calle
Cypress Lane (Private)
Chestnut Avenue
Roble Ridge (Private)
Kendall Avenue
Mumford Place
Sycamore Drive
Thain Way
Vernon Terrace
Celia Drive
Washington Avenue
Redwood Circle
Dennis Drive
Arboretum Road
Roosevelt CircleLa Selva Drive
Solana Drive
Manzana Lane
Ortega Court
Ash Street
De Soto Drive
Rambow Drive
Portage Avenue
Bryant Court
Ruthelma Avenue
Elwell Court
Torreya Court
Magnolia Drive
Paradise Way
Cork Oak Way
Manuela Way
Carlson Circle
Clemo Avenue
Coastland Drive
Wellsbury Way
Fairmede Avenue
Stern Avenue
Mitchell Lane
Fallen Leaf Street
Everett Court
Maclane
Pepper Avenue
Community L ane
Verdosa Drive
Thomas Drive
Abel Avenue
Wells Avenue
Fielding Drive
M
aplewood Avenue
Tulip Lane
Lane 7 East
Acacia Avenue
Ross Court
Mackay Drive
Berryessa Street
Ilima Court
Tasso Street
Mesa Avenue
Stone Lane
Lane B East
Coulombe Drive
Lytton Avenue
Lane D East
Lane 8 West
Lane 7 West
Miranda Green
Mark Twain Street
Lane A West
El Cerrito Road
M
aple Street
Whitman Court
Lane B West
Orchard Lane
Laura Lane
Dinah's Court
Lane D West
Gaspar Court
Prim
rose W
ay
Lane 15 East
Tanland Drive
Lane 59 East
Irven Court
Agnes Way
Baker Avenue
Morton Street
May Court
Murray Way
Driftwood Drive
Melville Avenue
Silva Court
Pear Lane
Greenmeadow Way
Corina W
ay
Phillips Road
Palm
Street
Saint Michael Drive
Lane 30
Blair Court
Cesano Court
Gilman Street
Palom
a Drive (Private)
Wellesley Street
Thornwood Drive
Holly Oak Drive
Cerrito Way
El Cajon Way
Tioga Court
Wright Place
Vineyard Lane
Pistache Place
West Crescent Drive
Duncan Place
Moana Court
Sandra Place
San Jude Avenue
M
cGregor W
ay
Miller Court
Downing Lane
Florence Street
Peral Lane
Ben Lomond Drive Shasta Drive
Ensign Way
Dartmouth Street
Diablo Court
W
ilson Street
Bret Harte Street
Erstwild Court
Carmel Drive
Cass Way
Arcadia Place
Lane 6 East
Burnham Way
Villa Vista (Private)
Saint Francis Drive
Ramos Way (Private)
Cardinal Way
Hemlock Court
Layne Court
Flowers Lane
Timlott Lane
Drake Way
Lindero Drive
Simkins Court
Wintergreen Way
M
arlowe Street
Shauna Lane
Lane 5 East
Dixon Place
Corporation Way
Maybell Way
Altaire Walk
Sedro Lane
Midtown Court
Sierra Court
Portal Place
Lane 12 West
Cowper Court
Chabot Terrace
Ashby Drive
El Capitan Place
none
Rickeys W
ay (Private)
Keats Court
Maureen Avenue
Talisman Court
La Mata Way
Mimosa Lane
Quail Drive (Private)
Clifton Court
Staunton Court
Arrowhead Way
Scott Street
Higgins Place
Arbol Drive
101 E Oregon On Ramp South
Ellsworth Place (Private)
Lawrence Lane
Federation Way
Sharon Court
Ryan Lane (Private)
Juniper Lane (Private)
Randers Court
Centennial Walk
Paulsen Lane
Manchester Court
Rosewood Drive
Sweet Olive Way
Old Trace Court
Moffett Circle
Bautista Court
Magnolia Drive South
Cherry Oaks Place
Ynigo Way
Adobe Place
Metro Circle
Anton Court
San Carlos Court (Private)
Pratt Lane (Private)
Amherst Way
Lundy Lane
Allen Court
Louisa Court
Watson Court
Van Auken CircleEast Greenwich Place
Bellview Drive
Kent Place
Villa Vera (Private)
M
atadero Court
Saint Michael Court
Pena Court
Columbia Place
Tevis Place
Palo Road
Nelson Court
Ames Court
Rincon Circle
Island Drive
Davenport Way
Leghorn Street
Ham
ilton Court
Newell Place
Duluth Circle
Piers Court
Regent Place
Gary Court
Genevieve Court
Gailen Court
Driscoll Place (Private)
Elmdale Place
Charleston Court
Julie Court
Green Manor
Forest Court
Old Page M
ill Road
Magnolia Drive North
Camino Court
Lane 56 (Private)
Frandon Court
Carlitos Court
Victoria Place
Nogal Lane
Boronda Lane
Somerset Place
W
allis Court
Loma Verde Place
Barclay Court
Newberry Court
Laguna Oaks Place
Laguna Court
Darlington Court
Fairfield Court
David Court
Marion Place
Ferne Court
Dymond Court (Private)
Amherst Court
Alma Village Lane (Private)
Martinsen Court
Bowdoin Place
Wellsbury Court
Crosby Place
Rickeys Lane (Private)
Los Palos Circle
George Hood Lane
Byron Street
(none)
Byron Street
Wilkie Way
Ash Street
Byron Street
Lytton Avenue
Dana Avenue
Kipling Street
Moreno Avenue
Tasso Street
Byron Street
Fulton Street Fulton Street
High Street
Foothill Expressway
Kipling Street
Hy 101 North
Ramona Street
Dartmouth Street
High Street
Tasso Street
Palo Alto Avenue
Hamilton Avenue
Moreno Avenue
Wellesley Street
Park Boulevard
Dartmouth Street
Thomas Drive
Emerson Street
Ramona Street
South Court
Arastradero Road
Addison Avenue
Addison Avenue
Tasso Street
Quarry Road
Sutter Avenue
North California Avenue
Santa Rita Avenue
Page Mill Road
South Court
Oregon Expressway
Nevada Avenue
Bryant Street
Kipling Street
Kendall Avenue
San Jude Avenue
Maclane
Guinda Street
Santa Rita Avenue
Ash Street
Ramona Street
Page Mill Road
Washington Avenue
Tasso Street
Emerson Street
Lytton Avenue
Oregon Avenue
Ramona Street
Lane 15 East
Oregon Avenue
Hawthorne Avenue
Kendall Avenue
Kingsley Avenue
San Antonio Road
Colorado Avenue
Kellogg Avenue
Webster Street
College Avenue
Georgia Avenue
Tasso Street
W
est Bayshore Road
Miranda Avenue
Byron Street
Emerson Street
Fulton Street
Ash Street
Matadero Avenue
Sheridan Avenue
Oregon Avenue
Birch Street
Sycamore Drive
Park Boulevard
Melville Avenue
Los Altos
Los Altos Hills
Stanford University
Menlo Park
Mountain View
East Palo Alto
Atherton
This map is a product of
City of Palo Alto GIS
[
0 0.35 0.70.175
Miles
AB2097 Transit Platforms
& Associated Parcels
Legend
AB2097 Transit Platform
AB2097 Transit Platform Parcels
City Limit
Schools
Parks
£¤101
§¨¦
280
Rev: October 31, 2024
Palo Alto Caltrain Station
California Ave. Caltrain Station
San Antonio Caltrain Station
Palo Alto Transit Center
Item 8
Attachment D - Caltrain
Platforms and Associated
Parcels
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
30 Packet Pg. 145 of 150
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: INFORMATION REPORTS
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: November 12, 2024
Report #:2409-3431
TITLE
Report on Staff Determination to Remove "Potentially Eligible" Historic Status From Parcel Reports.
RECOMMENDATION
This is an informational report, no action is required.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report documents an administrative change staff will implement to remove the “potentially eligible” label from the City’s parcel reports. Parcel reports detail property information, such as lot area, special setbacks, zoning, floodplain designation, etc., and references to historic status. Inclusion of “potentially eligible” properties adds confusion to realtors in terms of their fiduciary responsibilities to provide accurate information for transactions and is confusing to home buyers and sellers. Its inclusion is problematic because this label is not applied equally to all properties that may be potentially eligible, for instance, every structure over 50 years old. Moreover, the information supporting the “potentially eligible” status is decades old and when re-evaluated on an ad hoc basis, is found to be no longer supported an estimated 90% of the time. Structures and properties that are designated historic resources or districts will retain appropriate identification in the parcel reports to inform staff and the public that an historic analysis may be required for certain projects.
BACKGROUND
On April 22, 2024, the City Council directed staff to study the possibility of a process for removing the “potentially eligible” label from properties listed in the self-service parcel reports and return to Council with evaluations on any alternatives.
On May 9, 2024, the Historic Resources Board (HRB) briefly discussed Council’s directive and were advised that staff were investigating alternatives.
On August 8, 2024, the HRB held a retreat to discuss the Historic Status label in parcel reports and the Historic Review Bulletin.1 The HRB expressed concerns about removing the “potentially 1 Link to the Historic Review Bulletin: https://bit.ly/HistoricReview Item 9
Item 9 Staff Report
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 146 of 150
eligible” label uncertain of the benefit to property owners. The HRB suggests aligning the City’s historic status labels in parcel reports with the California Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD) labeling system that provides county-organized information on non-archaeological resources with the Office of Historic Preservation. This approach would effectively have the City list every parcel that is over 50 years old as a “potentially eligible” historic resource resulting in a 550% increase over existing properties, or about 65% of all properties in the City.
ANALYSIS
Community feedback from the 2023 Reconnaissance Survey revealed public concerns with how historic information is conveyed in the City’s parcel reports. Namely, the label “potentially eligible” which is used for pre-1948 homes identified but not fully evaluated during the 1997- 2001 Dames & Moore Historic Survey update. Currently, this label is applied to 1,527 properties in Palo Alto. Continuing to use this label, which has not been reevaluated in over 23 years, raises concerns about the reliability of historic reviews based on incomplete and stale data from the limited scope of the 1997-2001 survey. It also introduces uncertainty in the real estate market when a property includes this label, and it has the potential to treat similarly situated properties differently.
It’s important to note that the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 16.49) does not apply to properties labeled “potentially eligible” or to properties previously found eligible for the California Register or National Register, unless they are designated as Category 1, 2, 3 or 4 on the City’s local historic inventory. The action described in this report will not impact designated properties, which will continue to have appropriate historic designations to inform staff and the public that an historic analysis may be required for certain projects.
To determine if historic analysis is required, staff reviews proposed development based on two key factors:
•Whether a given property is designated as historic or within a historic district; and •Any evidence for historic significance.
For discretionary permits2 subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) these two factors help to determine if a property is a historical resource3 and whether the proposed action would cause a substantial adverse change4 to said resource. In contrast, ministerial actions – development only requiring building permits—are not subject to CEQA and do not require this level of historic review.
2 Discretionary development applications include Architectural Review; Design Enhancement Exception; Home Improvement Exception; Neighborhood Preservation Exception; Single Family Individual Review; Site and Design Review; and Variances.
3 California Code of Regulations, TI 14, Div. 6, Ch. 3, Art. 5, Sec. 15064.5(a)(3) 4 California Code of Regulations, TI 14, Div. 6, Ch. 3, Art. 5, Sec. 15064.5(b) Item 9
Item 9 Staff Report
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 147 of 150
Alternatives staff considered:
ALTERNATIVE PROS CONS
Remove the
“potentially eligible”
label from the 1,527
properties in parcel
reports.
(Selected Approach)
•Removes incomplete data that
has not been updated in 20+
years.
•Only evaluated properties
would be labeled, utilizing
evidence backed information.
•Removes uncertainty from
historic labels in parcel reports.
•Aligns City practices with other
jurisdictions.
•Reduces buyer, seller and
realtor frustration and
confusion over what steps to
follow, eliminates cost and time
of preparing a historic analysis
(~$3,000 - $9,000 and about 4
weeks) for these properties.
•Some property owners may be
surprised to learn a structure has
historic integrity and either: 1)
may require an applicant to revise
their plans to comply with state
historic codes, or 2) require
preparation of an environmental
impact report and Council
adoption of Statement of
Overriding Considerations, or 3)
modify the project to eliminate
the discretionary review
component (i.e., build a one story
home, instead of a two story
home).
•The HRB’s consensus was that
removing the label may not
benefit owners, citing that the
label pre-emptively identifies
some owners.
Align all historic
status labels with
the BERD system's
status codes.
•Pre-emptively identifies
properties that may need
historic evaluation.
•HRB consensus to align status
language with state standards.
•Requires citywide survey
evaluations with fiscal and
resource impacts.
•Applies statuses to every property
50 years or older (approximately
11,660 properties built pre-1974).
•Requires survey evaluations to
change statuses.
•Over 90% of properties with the
current label are found not
eligible, this percentage is
expected to increase using the
BERD approach, requiring more
historic reports, additional time,
and costs to applicants.
Keep the
“potentially eligible”
label as is with no
change.
•Pre-emptively identifies a select
number of properties from the
1997-2001 survey.
•Is unresponsive to public
feedback and does not address
time, cost and confusion in the
real estate market associated
with this label.
•Utilizes incomplete data that has
not been updated in 20+ years.
•Takes no account of the HRB’s
discussion.
Item 9
Item 9 Staff Report
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 148 of 150
Selected Approach:
Staff has determined to only label the historic status of properties that are currently listed on the Local Inventory, California Register, National Register, or those found eligible for the California and National Registers through survey evaluation—effectively removing the “potentially eligible” label from parcel reports. This approach is informed by feedback from property owners during the 2023 Reconnaissance Survey and concerns raised by real estate professionals regarding the ambiguity of the “potentially eligible” label.
While the HRB supported aligning all historic labels with the BERD system for consistency with State regulations, the board also recognized that the “potentially eligible” label only applied to a limited number of properties. Continuing to utilize the label has implications for the inconsistent treatment of properties with this designation compared to others. Labeling all properties over 50 years old could result in an influx of property owner feedback and potentially overwhelm the review process by requiring historic evaluations for most projects under review. Choosing to remove the “potentially eligible” label avoids differentiating properties in a way that could create confusion or perceived inequity.
Further, this approach aligns with findings from outreach efforts to various Certified Local Government (CLG) 5 programs across the State regarding how historic information is displayed in their respective public Geographic Information System (GIS) systems. Removing the “potentially eligible” label from the City's public GIS system will ensure that the displayed historic labels are based on evidence-backed property evaluations, rather than incomplete data that has not been updated in over two decades.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Comprehensive Plan Policy L-7.2 provides, in part, that if a proposed project would substantially affect the exterior of a potential historic resource, City staff shall consider whether it is eligible for inclusion in State or Federal registers prior to the issuance of a demolition or alteration permit. However, projects involving minor exterior improvements such as repair or replacement of existing features in kind, as well as other alterations that do not affect the building’s architectural integrity are exempt from this review.
Removing the “Potentially Eligible” label in self-service public GIS system should not affect the current process for evaluating properties; discretionary projects subject to CEQA undergo historic review, while ministerial projects do not. Other jurisdictions across the State do not preemptively identify through their public GIS systems properties that may need evaluation.
Instead, GIS systems identify designated resources and address further historic evaluation 5 CLG is a partnership among local governments the State of California and the National Park Service which is responsible for administering the National Historic Preservation Program. Palo Alto has been a CLG since 1992.
Item 9
Item 9 Staff Report
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 149 of 150
through their respective development review procedures. Aligning the City’s approach to only identify properties on the inventory would not change staff implementation of Policy L-7.2.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
There is no significant fiscal or resource impact associated with the proposed changes to the City’s parcel reports. The anticipated workload of removing the “potentially eligible” status from 1,527 properties can be addressed with existing staff resources.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
On May 2 and June 11, 2024, staff held meetings with various realtors to discuss alternatives for removing properties with a historic status of "Potentially Eligible" from parcel reports.
On August 8, 2024, the HRB discussed the alternatives for removing properties with a historic status of "Potentially Eligible" from parcel reports.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Maintenance of the City’s Parcel Report system and its associated Historic Statuses applied to properties in Palo Alto is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines Section 21065 because it will not cause a direct change to the physical environment nor a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
APPROVED BY:
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Item 9
Item 9 Staff Report
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 150 of 150