Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-04-10 Historic Resources Board Summary Minutes City of Palo Alto Page 1 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING MINUTES: April 10, 2025 Council Chambers & Zoom 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Historic Resources Board (HRB) of the City of Palo Alto met on April 10, 2025 in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:31 a.m. Present: Chair Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz, Vice Chair Samantha Rohman, Boardmember Christian Pease, Boardmember Geddes Ulinskas, and Boardmember Caroline Willis, Absent: None. Public Comment There were no requests to speak. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions There were no changes planned. City Official Reports 1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner, provided a slide presentation including the 2025 meeting schedule, 2025 subcommittee assignments, chair and vice chair elections in June, May meeting canceled, speaker session: Navigating Historic Preservation Approvals on May 8 and a project update: 1023 Forest Ave. and photos. Action Item 2. Historic Resources Board Awards Discussion City of Palo Alto Page 2 Mr. Switzer provided a slide presentation about the HRB Awards including timing and frequency, evaluation criteria, HRB by-laws attachment B draft language and next steps. He offered to present an Excel file to provide context of the ARB’s award process. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no requests to speak. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz wanted to confirm that the list was closed and anything done in the additional year would go to the next cycle. Mr. Switzer confirmed it could be a static list and that was similar to how the Architectural Review Board Awards were managed. Any projects that fell in the year being awarded would be sent to the following eligible list. Boardmember Willis stated she and Boardmember Rohman felt they needed to first understand their intent with the Awards Program. Most of the projects the HRB reviews were commercial but they would like to encourage residential preservation. She did not believe the awards in their current configuration were going to do that. They both felt there was a lot more to be done before they could put a substantial logical Awards Program in place. She did not feel like that should be their priority. She felt like they needed to focus on getting some incentives for preservation and updating their inventory in a way people could look at it and understand it. It was her point of view that they needed to put this back and focus on their other projects. She believed in that process they would come up with a more logical pool of candidates. She remarked if they had an informational summary at the end of each packet about historic properties that were under construction would make the program more fluid. Boardmember Rohman mentioned she and Boardmember Willis had multiple conversations about the Awards Program. They kept coming back to other pieces of the HRB’s purview. At the most basic level, they needed a reasonable pool of candidates for awards in Palo Alto and they did not feel like they had the complete or correct information. She indicated there was also a question of defining their award criteria. She talked about how PAST and HRB looked at their pool of criteria. She thought it was a fine starting point but did not award stewardship. She said there were also properties not on the inventory that people had been wonderful stewards of for years. There were properties on the inventory they had not seen because there were no projects or permits. The properties on the inventory with projects were the ones they saw. They were interested in expanding their pool. To do that, they wanted to understand why some projects were not coming to the HRB. They did not feel like what they had was worthy of awarding or the best examples of preservation. Boardmember Willis was curious how time or money played a part in what they reviewed. Mr. Switzer explained the Historic Resources Board fell under the purview of the Historic Preservation Ordinance captured in 16.49. The ordinance detailed three review bodies: The Architectural Review Board which captures commercial or multifamily projects and often that level of review was deferred to the Historic Resources Board, The Historic Resources Board which captures projects on categories 1 and 2 on the inventory as well as structures within the Historic Districts and Staff level of review for minor alterations of projects that would not affect the integrity of a structure or capturing like for like permits. City of Palo Alto Page 3 That was the framework of what comes before the Board. A majority of those projects were captured at the building permit level. This was pulled for the inventory properties. If a property was not listed on the inventory, it did not fall under the purview of the Historic Resources Board. The intent of the Award Program came from the Comprehensive Plan Policy L.76 that is to promote award programs and other forms of public recognition for exemplary historic preservation projects. That was similar to how the Architecture Review Board aligned with their comprehensive plan policy that framed their design awards that were created in 2005. Boardmember Willis thought the root of their conflict was that they were not seeing the best preservation projects. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz stated the ones covered by permits were at least appearing on the list. Boardmember Rohman indicated they had identified at least one project they would like to look into as a test case because it was not on the initial list they received and not on this list. It was a category 2 in Professorville but it had not come to the HRB. The address was 475 Melville. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz stated she would have to recuse herself. Boardmember Willis stated a few places on the list were great restoration projects. She said the last 10 years had not been kind to them. Even though there were probably projects in Palo Alto that would be great to give awards to, she thought they should start the program strong and thought it was premature. She had concern it would be a distraction from other things they should be working on. She felt like they were losing things because they did not have strong incentives for preservation. She thought their inventory was embarrassing but it should be the best, most accessible inventory in the US. She acknowledged there were some projects people had done great jobs with but there were not a lot. She thought it was time to focus on other things. She opined if they did not update their inventory and get some incentives, it would reflect in the next 100 years. She advised they needed to help people understand there are things in Palo Alto worth preserving. She thought that should be their focus. She thought an Awards Program would be great but did not believe it would help their preservation efforts. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz reasoned the Awards Program could play a role in helping to reinforce enthusiasm and interest in preservation in the community. She thought the stewardship award would be a fantastic addition to the potential categories. She thought the categories could be flexible to allow for a distinction between residential and commercial. She mentioned there were a couple of projects on the list she was interested in acknowledging. Boardmember Rohman opined they needed to decide and draw a line if projects needed to be completed or not. She did not know if they should be awarding 1023 Forest when it was not complete. She pointed out that the permit on 475 Melville was applied for on August 2, 2022, and it was a category 2 in Professorville so in theory it should have come to the HRB because there is façade restoration listed. Chair Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz recused herself at 8:58 AM as there was brief discussion on her property. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Boardmember Rohman stated these projects were hard to find without going out in the community and looking around. She did not recall seeing 475 Melville on the list but noted it could have been before her time on the Board. Mr. Switzer said it was before his time, as well. The permit was opened on August 2, 2022. A building permit was issued on September 5, 2023. A previous permit was issued in 2019 that appeared to be reserved for interior work. He would have to look further into the remodel for exterior improvements to see what the determination was. In some instances when work is conducted on a property, perhaps on a structure that might not be listed on the inventory, the address itself would be listed but perhaps an accessory structure was completed after the fact. Boardmember Willis asserted there had been significant work on the façade. It was restoration work. She thought there was a line where they needed to be aware of these things even if there was no reason for them to advise on them. She thought it should have come to the HRB and that a lot of the reason they were having trouble with awards was because they saw the drastic ones. Mr. Switzer highlighted that the historic preservation planner position was a relatively new position. The community had been without one for upwards of 7 years which took up a majority of that 10 year cycle list. He opined they were at a great opportunity to implement some of these new programs in the community, encourage preservation and award exemplary projects. It also offered the opportunity to educate the community about what preservation would look like and what would be a good project. Focusing on moving forward, he thought they were at a great opportunity to review the list and identify some opportunities they may have missed in the past and the project should potentially have come before the Board. Boardmember Willis mentioned a couple more properties she and Boardmember Rohman would send to Mr. Switzer that she thought would be nice to include. Boardmember Ulinskas was glad to have the list because there were a lot of properties he was not familiar with. He felt it might be beneficial to recognize some additions rather than pure restorations because more people were buying the properties to do expansions. Boardmember Willis agreed. Chair Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz returned to the meeting at 9:13 AM. Boardmember Rohman discussed the differing views the board members had on what would merit award in historic preservation and deemed it beneficial. She summarized the she and Boardmember Willis were not feeling particularly compelled by what they had seen as a subcommittee for the awards. She proposed having each board member present two or three properties they saw merit in awarding and tell them why. She opined that would give them a more well-rounded pool of projects to look at and help them define their categories. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz suggested having someone be the point person for looking at properties associated with that and evaluating feasibility. They could look at the appropriate part of the list and report back with their thoughts about that particular goal. Boardmember Ulinskas thought that was a great idea. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Boardmember Willis felt strongly that this was a distraction from things they needed to work on such as ordinance and inventory and they needed to redirect. Mr. Switzer pointed out the item before them was regarding preservation awards. They could schedule further discussion at a future meeting on ordinance and inventory if needed. Regarding Chair Eagleston- Cieslewicz’s suggestion of dividing the projects between the board members, it would equate to around 88 projects per board member. This would track with the process they conducted with the Architectural Review Board. Following the meeting, Staff could divide the list either by area or number of the categories and send it out to the board members. Boardmember Pease thought stewardship and small projects and how to identify them was interested. He had been concerned about the opacity of the projects the Planning Department did independently. He had asked for a list several times and never gotten an answer. They needed to see the projects that Staff, under the rules, was allowed to agree to or turn down in order to see where they might find a small project that would sail through the planning process that fits that category. He thought it was a major problem that the Board was constrained on what they were allowed to know. He stated if someone had a category one or two house and were doing things to it that did not require coming to them, they may be the very projects they would want to highlight and reward. He recalled that he went through the early process of looking into the inventory and spent days driving around Palo Alto taking pictures of things and did not want to go through that process again. The idea of 88 homes was not a good use of time. He stated they needed something more shaped to the economic realities of residential real estate in Palo Alto if they wanted to preserve things. Mr. Switzer provided background on how the list was compiled from projects that had come before the Board and projects for every designated property in the City, categories one through four, as well as properties within the historic districts. With the help of their data team, they were able to sift through and pull through the permitting software all of the projects before them. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz thought some of the items could be removed from the list for things like alterations to commercial kitchens or installation of signage. Mr. Switzer agreed Staff could remove some of the projects with the direction of the Board. Boardmember Ulinskas mentioned it went back to the incentives they started working on and they would have to drill down and develop those ideas strongly. He suggested using the time from then to July to revisit the incentives. Mr. Switzer indicated if it was the will of the Board they could schedule a more substantive conversation about those preservation incentives for the June meeting. He noted a community outreach meeting held in 2023 for incentives and talking with community members about what would be preferred. They could have conversation offline about how they frame that discussion item. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz was fine with agendizing discussion of incentives in June. She instructed to bring the conversation back to the Awards Program. In her view, they did not have to award someone in every single category. They could be tailored about it in the early stages. There were ways of doing this City of Palo Alto Page 6 that did not require a comprehensive overhaul of everything to acknowledge a few properties that were doing an outstanding job of historic preservation. Boardmember Pease agreed and did not want to see the program delayed indefinitely. He still thought more information about what alternatives there were in that regard made sense and would keep the ball rolling. Boardmember Rohman indicated the list in front of them was not a hard list to digest. She described some of the items they might want to remove from the list by their description in order to cut the list down. She suggested it was their responsibility to look through the whole list. Boardmember Pease responded that was a great idea. Boardmember Willis agreed they each should look at all the properties. She suggested they all write down their understanding of the intent of initiating this awards program beyond promoting preservation in Palo Alto. They should next each define the criteria. She proposed that their 1234 was out of date and suggested re-evaluating the inventory. She thought the Awards Program was a good opportunity but they needed to understand their intent. In her view, it would be about promoting preservation to all community members. Mr. Switzer noted there was 12 months before the Preservation Month in May of 2026. He thought it was manageable that the Board could work through this program and have something of substance to deliver in May. Regarding next steps, there had been some draft language provided for the amendment to the bylaws in Attachment B. That language was flexible. There could be a decision made to move Attachment B forward effectively amending the bylaws solidifying this program and the work being done in the procedural roles for the Historic Resources Board. The next steps would include discussions to flesh the program out, direction on how the list would be reviewed by the Board and further expanding on the Comprehensive Plan Policy to determine categories, intent and what the Board would like to see this look like in Palo Alto. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz indicated the draft language gave them flexibility to determine how they wanted to shape this. Boardmember Willis suggested eliminating the every five years beginning in 2025 in the first section of 8.0 until they more fully understood where they were heading. She did not feel strongly one way or another on points one and two. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz explained 8.2 was how they would provide that acknowledgement. Mr. Switzer added the language in the article closely aligned with the Architectural Review Board’s article about their design award program. Keeping the teeth of this would be establishing the frequency, start date, criteria and number of the awards as well as how they would be presented. Boardmember Pease inquired if it had to have 2025 in it. Mr. Switzer replied that could be stricken. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz understood there was general consensus that the five-year cycle seemed appropriate. Boardmember Willis did not think they had enough information to make an educated decision on the five-year cycle but did not object putting it in there. Mr. Switzer observed this could be a start to solidify the procedural roles for the Historic Resources Board and future amendments could be made to the sections as they figure things out through the process of the first award program. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz confirmed they could amend the frequency if the Board found the adopted frequency inappropriate. Boardmember Pease queried how the proposal worked. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz explained these were their bylaws and they amend them for themselves. She invited the board members to take individual categories and take a pass through the list about properties that might fit that bill. Boardmember Rohman said she took notes on suggested next steps. She stated Brown Act was meant to protect the public so they could see everything getting done. She preferred to directly email the Board the next steps and have those on record. Mr. Switzer explained the process she was describing would be classified as a daisy chain. That could create a serial meeting and would be a violation of the Brown Act and would need to be a scheduled meeting. He thought following the same process they did with the Architecture Review Board of having Staff send out the directions to the Board and having any correspondence filtered back would be the preferred method of communication. He welcomed any board members to send any suggestions to Staff. Boardmember Willis clarified that she and Boardmember Rohman wanted to focus on other things they felt were more important than the Awards Program. She felt it was appropriate for someone else or Staff to take the lead. Mr. Switzer replied the subcommittee could be dissolved if that was the intent of the subcommittee members. Boardmember Willis wanted to offer it up to anyone on the Board that might be more focused on the project. Boardmember Rohman agreed and said she needed to focus on her other subcommittee. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz offered to work on it. Boardmember Ulinskas volunteered to help. Mr. Switzer announced the new subcommittee would be Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz and Boardmember Ulinskas. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz and Boardmember Ulinskas agreed to agendize an update on this for June. City of Palo Alto Page 8 MOTION: Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz moved to adopt the suggested language for Article 8, the preservation awards, striking the language at the beginning of Section 8.0 beginning in 2025 seconded by Boardmember Ulinskas. VOTE: The motion carried by voice vote 5-0. Approval of Minutes 3. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of March 13, 2025 MOTION: Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz moved to approve the minutes from the March 13, 2025, meeting seconded by Boardmember Willis. VOTE: The motion carried by voice vote 5-0. Announcements Boardmember Rohman announced the PAST Annual Awards presentation would be on May 4 at 2 PM at the Arts Center. Boardmember Willis communicated PAST was organizing tours for Preservation Month and she encouraged everyone to go. Adjournment Adjourned at 9:48 a.m.