Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2406-3114CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Monday, August 19, 2024 Council Chambers & Hybrid 5:30 PM     Agenda Item     6.CONSENT: Addition of Five Properties to the City’s Historic Resources Inventory Based on Owner Interest. CEQA Status: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, the Historic Designation of Properties is not a Project Subject to Environmental Review. Consent Questions City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 19, 2024 Report #:2406-3114 TITLE CONSENT: Addition of Five Properties to the City’s Historic Resources Inventory Based on Owner Interest. CEQA Status: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, the Historic Designation of Properties is not a Project Subject to Environmental Review. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached record of land use action (Attachment A) to add five properties meeting specified criteria to the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, based on expressed owner interest. BACKGROUND In early 2022, the Council had directed staff to review properties previously identified as being eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The HRB’s recommendation supported listing 63 properties whose owners had not objected to listing on the local inventory and staff forwarded to Council only the 16 properties for which the owners had affirmatively expressed interest in being listed on the inventory prior to publication of the April 22, 2024 packet. Until a week before that Council packet, there were many owners who hadn’t responded; some owners did not respond because the reports to the Historic Resources Board stated over many months that if the owner didn’t object, their properties would be forwarded to the City Council for listing on the local inventory. On April 22, 2024, Council: •Placed 16 properties, whose owners expressed interest, on the City’s Historic Resource Inventory; the parcel reports now reflect these addresses as historic inventory properties. •Directed staff to: o Continue outreach to eligible property owners among the properties discussed in this report and to place future additions to the Historic Resources Inventory with expressed owner interest on the Consent Calendar, and o Study the possibility of a process for removing the properties shown as potentially eligible in the parcel reports and return to Council with evaluations on any alternatives. The week of July 22, 2024, staff again sent certified letters to owners of the remaining 32 properties the HRB had recommended for placement but for which staff had not received affirmation for inventory placement. A total of 17 certified cards were returned signed, four letters were returned to the City unsigned; the remaining 11 certified cards were unsigned/unreturned. Owners of two properties had expressed confirmation of listing after publication of the staff report for Council’s April 22 meeting. The properties, at 211 Quarry Road (Hoover Pavilion) and 825 Kipling Street, are noted in Discussion below, and included in the attached Draft Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) for inventory placement. Three additional property owners, prompted by another round of certified letters, recently expressed affirmative interest in listing their properties. The addresses are 1215 Emerson Street, 904 Bryant, and 751 Channing Avenue. These properties with expressed owner interest in listing are discussed below and included in the Draft RLUA. DISCUSSION The following is a summary of the properties proposed for nomination, the address, the local criterion met for designation, and a brief description supporting the recommendation: 1. 211 Quarry Road1 built in 1931, is recommended for placement on the local Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) as a Category 1 resource under local criteria 1, 2 and 52. The building is one in a series of Palo Alto municipal hospitals and is a late and rare surviving example of a hospital based on the pavilion plan and is significant as an Art Deco-style hospital designed by the important Oakland-based architecture firm Reed & Corbett. It is significant as a late and rare surviving example of a hospital based on the pavilion plan and was designed in the Art Deco style by the important Oakland firm of Reed and Corbett. It is also significant as an example of one of several Palo Alto municipal hospitals. 1 Link to nomination form and evaluation for 211 Quarry Road: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/historic- preservation/historic-inventory/quarryrd_211.pdf 2 Criterion 1 (The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in the city, state or nation); Criterion 2 (The structure is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the city, state or nation); Criterion 5 (The architect or building was important). 2. 825 Kipling Street3 built in 1898, is recommended for placement on the local HRI as a Category 2 resource under local criteria 2 and 6.4 The building is significant as one of the most elaborate early square cottages in Palo Alto that uses Queen Anne style detailing and is reminiscent of several typical pattern book designs of the late nineteenth century that used the diagonal projecting wing plan. The building illustrates the familiarity of local builders with the popular pattern book designs of the day. 3. 1215 Emerson Street5 built in 1917 and with a period of significance 1917 to 1936, is recommended for placement on the local HRI as a Category 2 resource under local criterion 1, for its association with Arthur Martin Cathcart, who was a local city council member and a Stanford University professor during his years of residence at the subject building. 1215 Emerson Street was his personal residence while he was known as a leader in the civic affairs of Palo Alto. Therefore, the building is sufficiently associated with the life and achievements of Arthur Cathcart as a civic leader. The building has a high level of integrity. 4. 904 Bryant Street6 built in 1904, is recommended for placement on the local HRI as a Category 2 under criteria 2 and 37, with a revised style description as a Colonial Revival style Foursquare, significant as an early and excellent example of the Colonial Revival style Foursquare constructed in Palo Alto in the early years of the twentieth century. Despite its relocation, the building retains a high level of historic integrity. 5. 751 Channing Avenue8 built in 1906, is recommended for placement on the local HRI as a Category 2 under criterion 2, significant as an early and well-built American Foursquare style building in Palo Alto, with notable Colonial Revival and Prairie influences. The building appears to retain a high level of integrity. 3 Link to nomination form and evaluation for 825 Kipling Street: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/historic- preservation/historic-inventory/kiplingst_825.pdf 4 Local criterion 6: The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship. 5 Link to nomination form and evaluation for 1215 Emerson Street https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/historic- preservation/historic-inventory/emersonstreet_1215.pdf 6 Link to nomination form and evaluation for 904 Bryant Street: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/historic- preservation/historic-inventory/bryantstreet_904-former-802-804.pdf 7 Criterion 3: The structure or site is an example of a type of building which was once common, but is now rare 8 Link to nomination form and evaluation for 751 Channing Avenue: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/historic- preservation/historic-inventory/channingave_751.pdf Further Outreach Since April 22, staff has held conversations with several of the remaining 32 property owners who had not responded during the HRB process nor prior to the April 22 Council meeting. Staff sent final certified letters to these owners the week of July 22, to notify them of the August 19 Council consent calendar opportunity. The letter noted that if additional owners request placement of their property on the inventory prior to the publication of the packet, their property could be added to this second round of placements. Parcel Report Notes After the Council meeting on April 22, staff met with realtors who described their concern with the City’s parcel data (GIST Parcel Report) note showing properties as ’potentially eligible’ for California Register. At its retreat on August 8, 2024, the HRB will have the opportunity to discuss the issue of Parcel Report notes. Staff provided a brief presentation during the Historic Resources Board meeting of July 11, 2024, reflecting an exploration into removing the potentially eligible label from parcel reports. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT There is no resource impact related to adding the five additional properties to the local historic inventory. Regarding the parcel report relabeling this would not require Council action and staff could receive additional inquiries, but this is not estimated to impact resources. Planning staff can answer these questions during normal business hours. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Certified letters were sent in July to the property owners who had not responded to the prior certified letters, to alert them to the August Council consent calendar item. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Historic designation of properties is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines per Section 21065. Notably, historic resources do not need to be on a register to be protected under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when a discretionary permit or approval is required. CEQA may, therefore, require reviewing a project for potential historic status even if it is not on the local historic inventory. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Record of Land Use Action with Exhibit for August 19, 2024 Inventory Update APPROVED BY: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Page 1 of 5 4 1 0 0 ATTACHMENT A ACTION NO. ------2024 RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO’S LAND USE ACTION (1) RECEIVING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD AND (2) PLACING FIVE ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES ON THE LOCAL HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY WHOSE OWNERS POSITIVELY AFFIRMED INVENTORY PLACEMENT On August 19, 2024, the Council reviewed the recommendations of the Historic Resources Board and staff regarding the placement of properties previously deemed eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources, and approved the placement of the properties, for which no objections were received from the property owners, on City’s Historic Resources Inventory, making the following findings, determination, and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. In 2022, the City Council directed the City to obtain consultant assistance (ID # 14189) and the City’s consultant, Page and Turnbull, conducted the 2023 Historic Reconnaissance Survey, finding 147 properties still extant with integrity and eligible for listing on the local historic resources inventory. B. The Historic Resources Board (HRB) conducted four public hearings to consider the eligible properties identified in the survey, on November 9 and December 14, 2023, and January 11 and January 25, 2024; the HRB received the staff reports and conducted public hearings where public comments were provided, and staff and the HRB received many property owners’ written and oral objections regarding the recommendations. C. Staff held many conversations with property owners, but most owners objected without having conversations or attending the hearings. During and after the HRB hearings, staff tallied the properties for which no objections had been received. D. On April 22, 2024 Council placed 16 properties on the local Historic Resources Inventory properties, as the owners positively affirmed the listing previously, and directed staff to return after the Council break on Consent Calendar with any additional properties whose owners affirmed listing. E. The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Program L7.1.1 states: “Update and maintain the City’s Historic Resource Inventory to include historic resources that are eligible for local, State, or federal listing. Historic resources may consist of a single building or structure or a district.” Page 2 of 5 4 1 0 0 F. The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Program L-7.2 states: Policy L-7.2 states “If a proposed project would substantially affect the exterior of a potential historic resource that has not been evaluated for inclusion into the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, City staff shall consider whether it is eligible for inclusion in State or federal registers prior to the issuance of a demolition or alterations permit. Minor exterior improvements that do not affect the architectural integrity of potentially historic buildings shall be exempt from consideration. Examples of minor improvements may include repair or replacement of features in kind, or other changes that do not alter character-defining features of the building.” G. The City of Palo Alto is a Certified Local Government with the obligation to maintain a system for the survey and inventory of local historic resources; the City of Palo Alto has conducted three surveys and also prepares individual historic resource evaluations on a case-by-case basis (when demolition is proposed or in response to property owner request) to determine whether these are historic resources subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. Maintenance of the historic designation of properties or reclassification of a historic designation of a property is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines per Section 21065. SECTION 3. Designation Findings. A. The following criteria, as specified in Municipal Code Section 16.49.040 (b), have been used as criteria for designating historic structures/sites to the historic inventory: (1) The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in the city, state or nation; (2) The structure or site is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the city, state or nation; (3) The structure or site is an example of a type of building which was once common, but is now rare; (4) The structure or site is connected with a business or use which was once common, but is now rare; (5) The architect or building was important; (6) The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship. B. Municipal Code Section 16.49.020 (b) provides definitions for the local historic resources inventory categories: Category 1: "Exceptional building" means any building or group of buildings of preeminent national or state importance, meritorious work of the best architects or an outstanding example of the stylistic development of architecture in the United States. An exceptional Page 3 of 5 4 1 0 0 building has had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the overall appearance of the building is in its original character. Category 2: "Major building" means any building or group of buildings of major regional importance, meritorious works of the best architects or an outstanding example of an architectural style or the stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained. Category 3 or 4: "Contributing building" means any building or group of buildings which are good local examples of architectural styles and which relate to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details, or wooden facades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco. C.Designation of historic structures/sites is covered under section 16.49.040 of Chapter 16.49: Procedure for Designation of Historic Structures/Sites or Districts. Any individual or group may propose designation as a historic structure/site or district. Such proposals shall be reviewed by the historic resources board, which will make its recommendation to the council. Designation of a historic structure/site or district must be approved by the city council. The procedure for such designation is as follows: (a) The historic resources board shall recommend to the city council approval, disapproval or modification of an application for designation. (b) The city council may approve, disapprove or modify a recommendation for designation and, in any case where an application for a planning or building permit is pending concurrently with the proposal for designation, such decision shall be made within thirty days of the recommendation, if any, of the historic resources board. (c) After approval of the designation of a structure/site or district, the city clerk shall send to the owners of the property so designated, by mail, a letter outlining the basis for such designation and the regulations which result from such designation. Notice of this designation shall also be filed in the building department and the department of planning and development services files. SECTION 5. Placement on Local Historic Resources Inventory Approved. The City Council approves the placement of the following properties whose owners have affirmed acceptance with placement on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory: 1. 211 Quarry Road as a Category 1 resource, under local Criteria 1, 2 and 5 2. 825 Kipling Street as a Category 2 resource, under local Criteria 2 and 6 3. 1215 Emerson Street as a Category 2 resource, under local Criterion 1 4. 904 Bryant Street as a Category 2 resource, under local Criteria 2 and 3 5. 751 Channing Avenue as a Category 2 resource, under local Criterion 2 PASSED: Page 4 of 5 4 1 0 0 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Development Services APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney Page 5 of 5 4 1 0 0 Dear Mayor and Council Members, On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please see staff responses below for questions from Mayor Stone, Vice Mayor Lauing, and Council Member Tanaka on the Monday, August 19 Council Meeting. Item 6: Addition of Five Properties to the City’s Historic Resources Inventory Based on Owner Interest. CEQA Status: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, the Historic Designation of Properties is not a Project Subject to Environmental Review – Mayor Stone 1. Regarding item #6, I wanted to clarify a procedural issue. Is this item solely to approve 5 homes where the owners proactively requested the city to add them to the historic registry? Staff response: Yes, the owners of the 5 listed properties responded to city outreach efforts and requested to be placed on the historic inventory. 2. Will a subsequent action item be scheduled to return to council for part 3 of the April 22 motion that requested staff to, "study the possibility of a process for removing the properties as shown as potentially eligible in the parcel reports and return to council with evaluations on any alternatives”? I just want to make sure that this consent item is not the full response to that previous council motion and that more will be returning to council. Staff response: It is the intent of staff to return to the council at a subsequent date to address part 3 of the council motion. At the most recent August 8, 2024, Historic Resources Board (HRB) meeting staff presented alternatives to the “potentially eligible” status for review and consideration. The HRB’s consensus was to closely align the City’s historic status language with the statuses found in the California Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD) for consistent messaging. Item 7: Approval of a Lease Amendment Between Palo Alto Players and the City of Palo Alto for the Premises at the Lucie Stern Community Center Located at 1305 Middlefield Road for an Approximate 36-month Term, at a starting Base Rent of $1,540.75 per Month and Increasing 3% Annually; CEQA Status – Council Member Tanaka 1. Considering that this lease could set a precedent for future agreements, what specific policies or guidelines does the City intend to implement to manage similar requests in the future? Could you provide detailed scenarios or case studies from other cities that faced comparable situations, and explain how they balanced support for cultural institutions with maintaining fair market practices? Staff response: This lease has been in place for many years, and the City’s policy on leased facilities provides guidance on leased use of City land/facilities. In addition, following a City Auditor report on non-profit relationships, the City will have an upcoming study session on prospective approaches for nonprofit relationships and risk management. 2. What stakeholder analysis was conducted to assess potential concerns from other local businesses or non-profits who might feel disadvantaged by this lease extension? Can you outline the specific outreach efforts made to these groups and how their feedback was integrated into the decision-making process? Staff response: The Palo Alto Players have been leasing this office space since 2012. Staff is unaware of any local businesses or nonprofits that have felt disadvantaged by their occupancy of this space. 3. Given that the Palo Alto Players are benefiting from a below-market lease rate, what specific measures has the City taken to ensure that other non-profits are not disadvantaged by this arrangement? Could you provide concrete examples of how the City plans to apply consistent criteria for lease agreements across different organizations to prevent potential inequities or perceptions of favoritism? Staff response: Please see the responses above. The City will have an upcoming study session on prospective approaches for nonprofit relationships and risk management. Item 9: Approval of Contract Renewal for Baylands Golf Links Management and Restaurant Operations – Council Member Tanaka 1. The staff report references the overall positive financial trajectory under OB Sports' management but omits a detailed analysis of specific areas where revenue has underperformed, such as merchandise sales falling 6% below projections. Considering the ongoing weekday traffic issues impacting utilization rates, what are the specific financial projections for these underperforming areas over the next two years, and how does the City plan to mitigate these ongoing risks to the revenue stream? Could you provide a risk assessment of these revenue shortfalls and their potential impact on the City’s broader financial obligations? Staff response: Traffic hindering access to the golf course has not been observed and has not impacted utilization. Merchandise sales are a small component with minimal impact on the overall revenue for the golf course operations. The golf course operator has shifted their merchandise sales model to include high-quality Golf Course (Baylands Logo) name- branded items to help offset the competition with online sales. 2. The staff report highlights OB Sports' current strategies but does not address the ongoing challenges of low weekday utilization due to traffic congestion. What innovative strategies, such as partnerships with local businesses or targeted marketing initiatives, are being planned to increase weekday play and improve underperforming areas like merchandise sales? How will the success of these strategies be measured and reported to ensure they contribute to the course's long-term growth and sustainability? Staff response: Traffic hindering access to the golf course has not been observed and has not impacted utilization. The weekly play has not been affected. Item 10: Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the Lease Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara (Contract No. 1557819) at 2000 Geng Road for Safe Parking to Expand the Premises of the Lease and Increase by 10 the Number of Safe Parking Spaces Permitted; CEQA – Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) – Vice Mayor Lauing 1. What is the official game plan for funding this operation, and how do community donations fit in? Staff response: Over the summer, staff worked quickly with community partners to find safe parking capacity to accommodate potential displaced vehicle dwellers from El Camino Real. With Geng Road expansion identified as the most feasible and timely solution, fundraising provides an opportunity for community members to start this operation quickly. In parallel, staff is working to identify a budget source to cover ongoing operational costs and will bring a funding proposal to Council at mid-year. Staff also applied for grant funding. Donated funds ensure the operations can begin quickly to serve displaced vehicle dwellers. The proposed safe parking expansion operations will cost $266,162 annually. For fundraising purposes, the amount being sought is approximately $130,000 to cover the 1st six months of operation and will go directly to the operator, MOVE Mountain View. The current operations contract with the operator is held and paid for by Santa Clara County, and the County has indicated it does not have budget allocated to cover expanded operations.