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
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) 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.
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. 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