Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-10-09 Historic Resources Board Summary Minutes City of Palo Alto Page 1 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 9, 2025 Council Chambers and Hybrid 8:30 A.M. Call to Order / Roll Call The Historic Resources Board (HRB) of the City of Palo Alto met on October 9, 2025, in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:30 a.m. Present: Chair Rohman, Vice Chair Willis, Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz, Board Member Ulinskas Absent: Board Member Pease 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 Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer showed a slide with the last 2 meetings of the year. Mr. Switzer anticipated a project coming before the Board at the November 13 meeting and planned to finish the efforts for the award program ahead of the meeting for the Board’s review. An in-person religious tolerance training was offered on October 14 and 15. Action Item 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 1680 Bryant Street [25PLN-00204]: Request for Historic Designation Reclassification, From a Local Historic Resource Category 2 to a Category 3. CEQA Status: Not a project per CEQA Section 21065. Zone District: R-1 (Single-Family). Mr. Switzer presented on 1680 Bryant Street, which was built in 1914 by notable architect John Hudson Thomas. A slide showed maps of the residence before and after the subdivision, which occurred in 1946. That subdivision demolished a connecting 1-story wing and created 2 separate 2-story residences. In 1997, the southern portion of the residence was demolished to construct the current residence at 275 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Lowell Avenue. An image showed the current building footprints. Since the destruction of the southern portion of the 2-story residence, 1680 Bryant Street had not been associated with the neighboring property. The property was built in the Prairie architectural style, with common elements including strong horizontal lines, low pitched hipped rooflines with wide eaves, the use of natural materials, bands of casement windows, and open interior spaces. In 1978, the property was evaluated and listed as a Category 2 “Major building,” a building of regional importance. Category 2 buildings could be modified but the original integrity and character would be retained. On July 25, 2025, Page & Turnbull prepared a HRE (historic resource evaluation) that found the property was individually eligible for listing on the Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory under criterion 2, criterion 5, and criterion 6. A more detailed analysis was provided in the staff report. The applicant requested reclassification from a Category 2 to a Category 3 resource on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. Staff concurred with the findings of the Page & Turnbull evaluation and supported the owners of 1680 Bryant Street in their request to downgrade the Local Inventory reclassification. The HRB was requested to recommend the reclassification to Council for approval. Vice Chair Willis noted a low structure in front of the original building on the plans and asked if staff knew what it was. Mr. Switzer said the historic photos of the residence and the records were limited. There were originally 2 2-story masses connected by a breezeway. Cultural Resources Planner Maggie Nicholson explained there was a projecting feature on the north façade of the building based on the original Sanborn maps and early photographs. Ms. Nicholson suggested it was a since-demolished porte-cochère used for cars to pull under. The permit history did not reveal when that portion was demolished. Project Manager Meghan Padalecki was in agreement with the findings of the HRE as prepared by Page & Turnbull. The intent of the owner in seeking the reclassification was to provide maximum flexibility in any further improvements to either all or portions of the property. PUBLIC COMMENT Marie B. opined the frontage and architecture of the house were unique and should be preserved. Marie B. was concerned about how the City handled development decisions around how homes were demolished or remodeled. Board Member Ulinskas wanted to know what changes took place on the remaining portion of the building and asked if most materials and details were original. Board Member Ulinskas questioned if the clear corrugated material on the back of the detached garage was original. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked if there was an active project application for the site. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Mr. Switzer said that based on records, the majority of the structure held its integrity and was intact, however there had been some renovations, notably in the location on the structure where the connecting 1-story wing was. There were no active project applications for the site. Ms. Nicholson said there were contemporary arbors that spanned behind the detached garage and side entry which were not historic, including the wooden structures and the clear corrugated panels on top. Vice Chair Willis opined the conclusion of the report was not strong and a strong argument could be made for upgrading the building to a Category 1. Vice Chair Willis did not support the Category 3 reassignment. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked if the category downgrade would pave the way for significant alterations. Board Member Ulinskas agreed the structure was unique and proposed it should remain as a Category 2. Chair Rohman thought the report was insightful and highlighted the importance of Mr. Thomas as an architect. In 1978, the DPR stated the structure was still important even in its “mutilated” state. Chair Rohman opined the property should remain as a Category 2 despite the loss of half of the original structure and was open to discussing an upgrade to a Category 1. Mr. Switzer explained that Category 1 or 2 buildings required a higher level of review for modifications. The downgrade would cause any development to not be subject to Board review and remove the demolition delay listed in the local ordinance. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz looked at the structure in the context of the SOI Standards and was concerned it had strayed too far from the original building. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz referenced the historical images on packet pages 52 and 53 and asked if the connecting breezeway was the original front entrance and if the current front door of the house was originally the side or auto entrance. Vice Chair Willis asked what the square footage of the house was. Vice Chair Willis opined the 1-story connection was likely part of Mr. Thomas’s original design. Vice Chair Willis mentioned the carriage houses, which were kept as historic property even though not in the original context or attached to the original property. Vice Chair Willis believed the original plans were 2 separate houses joined by a connector and that the property had been a fully separate house since 1949. Chair Rohman suggested the connector was possibly not part of the original design and stated there were no copies of the original designs. Chair Rohman asked if there were other examples of the architect designing 2 houses on a single lot. Mr. Switzer defined Category 3 and 4 “Contributing Structures” as a building or group of buildings which were good local examples of architectural styles and which related to the character of neighborhood groupings in scale, materials, proportion, or other factors; and may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design, such as additions, extensive removal of architectural features, etc. The permanent change to the original design of this structure was the removal of the 1-story connecting City of Palo Alto Page 4 wing and southern portion of the structure. Mr. Switzer opined that the records staff had, including the Sanborn maps, indicated the 1-story connection was built around the same time as construction. Ms. Nicholson opined that the early photographic evidence coupled with the Sanborn maps indicated what was built in the “H” configuration was part of the architect’s original plan. In 1 photo, a continuation of the parapet wall across the 1-story breezeway could be seen. Ms. Nicholson believed it was not designed as 2 separate houses. The family that subdivided the house built 1-story, detached bungalows on the property that appeared on the early Sanborn maps. Ms. Frost wanted to provide additional housing in Palo Alto, according to historic newspapers. Ms. Nicholson thought the remaining single-family home was a great example of the architect’s application of the Prairie style, with only 1 of his other designs listed on the local inventory. According to early City directories, the primary address was 275 Lowell Avenue. There were 2 addresses once the connecting portion was demolished, which required a complete reorientation. Ms. Nicholson opined the recessed door, which was the current primary entrance, had always been there but served as a secondary auto entrance originally. Board Member Ulinskas opined the connector was a small portion of the overall expression of the exterior and agreed with the motion. MOTION: Vice Chair Willis moved, seconded by Chair Rohman, to retain the property as a Category 2 on the current inventory. VOTE: The motion passed 3-1, Board Member Pease Absent, Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz No. 3. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of August 28, 2025 MOTION: Chair Rohman moved, seconded by Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz, to approve the meeting minutes from August 28, 2025. VOTE: The motion passed 4-0, Board Member Pease Absent. Announcements Vice Chair Willis volunteered to retype the subcommittee assignments. Vice Chair Willis will send Mr. Switzer the first page of the spreadsheet regarding inventory updates. Vice Chair Willis asked the board members to look at the columns and give feedback on what should be included. Subjects included were the street name and number, category, year constructed, district, architect, builder, California register, national register, year added to the inventory, demolished, and notes such as the historic name. Vice Chair Willis wanted to include demolished properties on the list as a record to be a reference point for those looking for historic information but asked for feedback. Vice Chair Willis suggested staff share a list of free courses twice a year. The Board was sent the California Garden and Landscape History Society conference information. Vice Chair Willis queried if anyone from the City was going and if free access was offered. Chair Rohman confirmed Vice Chair Willis was missing from Goal 3, Inventory Updates. Chair Rohman supported using a portion of education funds to support Vice Chair Willis attending the conference. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked about the awards program and would appreciate as much time as possible to look at the list. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz questioned how to sign up for the California Preservation Foundation courses. Board Member Ulinskas mentioned a website called aecKnowledge, which offered historic and preservation courses. Mr. Switzer will follow up with instructions about how to sign up for the California Preservation Foundation courses. There were limited funds available for training as required to maintain certified local government status. There was some availability to pay for some courses that had an associated fee. Mr. Switzer suggested board members sign up at the California Preservation Foundation website, which had email blasts of upcoming courses and information. Mr. Switzer did not believe anyone from the City was attending the conference and was unsure about free or discounted access. Mr. Switzer reiterated the upcoming religious tolerance training. Adjournment Adjourned at 9:29 a.m.