City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEM
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: December 15, 2025
Report #:2510-5334
TITLE
PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 1680 Bryant Street [25PLN-00204]. Approval of a Record of Land Use Action to Reclassify the Historic Building Located at 1680 Bryant Street From a Category 2 Resource on the Local Historic Inventory to a Category 3 Resource.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council approve the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B) reclassifying the building at 1680 Bryant Street from a Category 2 resource to a Category 3 resource on the Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory.
Note: This recommendation differs from the Historic Resource Board’s recommendation to retain the Category 2 listing by a 3-1-1 vote.
BACKGROUND
The residence at 1680 Bryant Street was originally the northern half of a larger two-story home constructed in 1914 for the Haehl family, as detailed in Attachment C. The original structure featured an H-shaped configuration with a one-story connecting wing and included a detached garage on the site. Designed by Berkeley-based architect John Hudson Thomas, the residence exemplified the Prairie architectural style with Secessionist detailing. The unified structure was oriented toward Lowell Avenue and originally carried the address 275 Lowell Avenue. In 1946, the property was subdivided into two parcels, and the one-story connector between the two two-story volumes was demolished, resulting in two separate residences.
Despite this demolition, the subject property was added to the local historic register in 1979, in association with 275 Lowell Avenue, as a Category 2 historic resource based on its architectural significance. The historic resource inventory form described the paired residences at 1680 Bryant Street and 275 Lowell Avenue as “a superb example, even in its mutilated state, of Thomas’ ability to fuse Prairie Style, Secessionist, Craftsman, and Pueblo Revival architectural expressions,” further noting the design as “a milestone…in the career of an important Bay Area designer, John Hudson Thomas.”
In the decades following subdivision—and eighteen years after the property’s inclusion in the historic resources inventory—the associated structure at 275 Lowell Avenue was demolished and replaced with the current building on that site. As a result, the residence at 1680 Bryant Street is no longer contextually linked to the structure with which it was originally designed and evaluated.
Historic Resources Board Review
On October 9, 2025, the HRB reviewed this application. A copy of the HRB staff report is available online.1 At the hearing, a majority of the HRB cited concerns that a downgrade would exempt the property from historic review and demolition delay requirements per Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 16.49. Some members noted that approving such a request would reduce protections for the property since only Categories 1 and 2, or structures within a historic district, are subject to review procedures in PAMC Chapter 16.49. One HRB member suggested that, while there are no project plans submitted for the property, once the owner comes forward with a proposal, the City should help find a solution that fits what they want while still maintaining the historic structure. It was further noted that offering more incentives to historic properties such as the Mills Act could help with local preservation efforts. The HRB voted 3-1-1 (Board member Eagleston-Cieslewicz dissenting and board member Pease absent) to recommend that the existing Category 2 designation remain. Eagleston-Cieslewicz noted that while not enthusiastic about the downgrade, it was technically necessary since the current structure is fragmented and has strayed too far from the original design.
ANALYSIS
Although the HRB voted to retain the property’s Category 2 designation, its rationale was based on concerns that the property would otherwise lose historic preservation protections, such as demolition delay requirements, and on a belief that incentives for historic properties are currently insufficient. However, this perspective and recommendation overlook the actual criteria required for a Category 2 designation. Category 2 resources must retain their original character, with only limited exterior modifications permitted. While this category allows certain exterior alterations, such as removal of the one-story connector between the subject property and 275 Lowell Avenue, it nonetheless requires that the property’s original character remain largely intact. When 275 Lowell Avenue was demolished in 1997, half of the original architectural composition that supported the property’s Category 2 status was removed, rendering the subject property no longer eligible for a Category 2 designation.2 1 Link to October 9, 2025 HRB staff report with consultant assessment and inventory form:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16687 2 Definitions for various historic resource categories is available online:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-74426 By contrast, staff’s recommended Category 3 designation more accurately reflects the current condition and historical context of the property. Category 3 is intended for buildings that serve as good local examples of an architectural style and that contribute to the character of a neighborhood through scale, materials, proportion, or related factors. This category also encompasses contributing buildings that have experienced extensive or permanent changes to their original design, such as inappropriate additions, removal of architectural details, or resurfacing of façades. These criteria align more closely with the property’s history and ensure that it remains listed on the City’s inventory.
This conclusion is further supported by the City-retained historic consultant. Page & Turnbull’s analysis finds that although cumulative changes since the 1978 evaluation have altered the original design, the residence continues to exhibit significant local value as a rare and high- quality example of Prairie-style architecture with Secessionist elements. Moreover, a Category 3 designation would appropriately acknowledge its continued architectural significance while recognizing the reduced integrity resulting from the loss of its original other half. As a listed historic resource, the property would remain subject to CEQA for applicable projects. Page & Turnbull’s full analysis is provided as Attachment D.
Attachment B includes the Record of Land Use Action (RLUA), which documents staff’s recommendation to list the subject property as a Category 3 resource. Notwithstanding this recommendation, the City Council, upon its review, may determine that the structure is consistent with the Category 2 criteria set forth in PAMC Section 16.49.020 and may direct staff to revise the RLUA accordingly.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Communities that preserve historic resources foster a strong sense of place, shared identity, and civic pride. Robust preservation efforts also contribute to economic development and environmental sustainability by encouraging rehabilitation and reducing construction waste.
Although designated historic resources receive certain zoning and building code incentives, these benefits may be less meaningful to homeowners who have already made substantial improvements or who simply intend to maintain their properties. If the City wishes to strengthen protections or expand incentives for historic resources, the City Council may direct staff to explore such options. However, maintaining a resource in a designation category that does not align with the plain meaning of the City’s historic resource criteria is not a recommended approach to effective preservation policy.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
There is no significant fiscal or resource impact associated with this application. The City’s consultant costs and staff time to process this application were paid for by the property owner.
PUBLIC COMMENT
During the HRB hearing, one public speaker opined that the subject property should be preserved and expressed concerns with the City’s remodeling and demolition processes. As of the writing of this report, no other project-related, public comments were received.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Maintenance of historic designation of a property or reclassification of historic designation of a property 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.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Location Map
Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action
Attachment C: Building Footprints
Attachment D: Historic Evaluation by Page & Turnbull
APPROVED BY:
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director