The State Historic Preservation Office says it cannot intervene in the fate of the landmark Palace Hotel because Ukiah city officials’ actions preempted a role in the contentious local issue.
The decision is a setback for preservation advocates, who eagerly anticipated a state review, a process typically initiated for historic structures like the Palace when listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
In California, no structure designated and registered as historic as the Palace can be demolished, destroyed, or significantly altered without review except for restoration to preserve or enhance its historical values.
The Ukiah City Council, however, opted in early November to declare the Palace an “imminent threat” to the public. The council’s emergency declaration blocked a review the state office would have ordinarily done.
As a result of the city’s action, “The State Historic Preservation Office has no regulatory jurisdiction over the Palace Hotel,” according to a statement issued by Julianne Polanco, head of the state agency.
City officials argued in November that the “historical significance of this building cannot impede the protection of public safety, which is of paramount importance.”
The City Council declared the Palace property a “public nuisance due to its hazardous condition,” contending immediate action was necessary.
Despite a formal 30-day compliance order, city officials have yet to take any action to enforce it upon the current owner, Jitu Ishwar, and his Twin Investments LLC. Nothing has been done to reinforce the building, nor have detailed plans been made for demolishing it to prepare the site for new development.
The only move to bolster the city’s claim of urgency is the erection of scaffolding around the portions of the Palace that front city streets.
This week, the state's announcement disappointed local preservation advocates who questioned the city’s motives in making the emergency declaration that blocked state review.
Critics note that the city acted simultaneously as a group of proposed Palace buyers sought $6.6 million in special state funding to demolish the hotel and clean up the prime downtown site in anticipation of a private development. The application filed in mid-October of last year by the Guidiville Rancheria, who would have majority control of a new partnership, and a group of local investors led by downtown restauranteur Matt Talbert, is under review after a state oversight agency nixed the notion of demolishing the Palace so ground contamination studies can be conducted.
“I think the city’s use of an emergency declaration for the Palace is questionable,” said Dennis Crean.
Crean noted that the city inspection was completed nearly six months ago (Sept. 29), but no action has been taken since the City Council acted at a special meeting in early November.
“So how is this an emergency? It seems more like a ploy to get around legal requirements for demolishing a building on the National Register of Historic Places,” said Crean.
Crean also cited past concerns issued by the State Historic Preservation Office:
“On their face, public safety exclusions appear reasonable — if a building is about to tumble down on pedestrians below, surely something must be done quickly — but in practice, they are sometimes used by a local government or owner to circumvent local review procedures … of an important historical resource.”
“Why doesn’t the city ask the state agency to assign a team to study the building and determine its safety as provided for under Public Resources Code 5028? State law gives any local government the right to enlist the state’s help, and that’s what the city should do,” said Crean.
This week, city officials dismissed questions about their motives or whether they were acting in concert with the proposed buyers to secure the demolition of an iconic landmark that has been allowed to deteriorate under two ownerships for three decades.
Current owner Ishwar has spurned offers from two potential buyers who sought to transform the Palace into a new boutique hotel/event/retail complex in favor of being made “whole” by the Guidiville group. Ishwar secured clear title to the Palace and its prime piece of downtown property in 2019 after paying $950,000 to a court-appointed receiver. Ishwar’s Twin Investments has taken no action since then to stem the Palace’s decline.
Based on a building inspection, the City Council formally declared on Nov. 3, 2023 that the Palace was “no longer stable and poses an imminent risk of damage to persons and property due to its instability.” The move was widely publicized and illustrated by a PowerPoint presentation, including photos showing the Palace’s interior’s decrepit state, taken during a Sept. 29 inspection by the city’s chief building official, the fire chief, and two assistants.
The city has done nothing since to enforce its 30-day “emergency” order.
City officials acknowledge they have suspended any enforcement action pending state action on the $6.6 million grant application submitted by the Guidiville group.
However, Deputy City Manager Shannon Riley insists there is no link between the city declaration of a Palace Hotel emergency and the Guidiville plan.
“This is simply a code enforcement matter. We inspected the building, were alarmed at its condition, and took immediate action,” said Riley.
Riley said, “There was no strategy, manipulation of process, or ‘backroom dealings’ here.”
Be First to Comment