Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-11-13 Historic Resources Board Summary Minutes City of Palo Alto Page 1 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING MINUTES: NOVEMBER 13, 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 November 13, 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, Board Member Pease, Council Member George Lu Absent: None Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions There were no changes planned. Public Comment There were no requests to speak. City Official Reports 1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer reviewed the remaining meeting schedule for 2025, noting that the final scheduled meeting is December 11, 2025. A pending project may be deferred to January 2026. Mr. Switzer also provided an update regarding 1680 Bryant Street, noting that despite the Board’s recommendation to maintain the current historic category, staff is moving forward with a downgrade request based on the City’s preservation consultant. The item will appear on the City Council consent calendar on December 1. Vice Chair Willis questioned why the item was on the consent calendar and how that aligned with the Board’s prior determination that the category should not change. Mr. Switzer explained that designation changes typically involve upgrades, noting this request was unusual as a downgrade. Mr. Switzer stated that such items are reviewed by the HRB for recommendation and then forwarded to Council on the consent calendar, unless 3 Council Members request it be pulled for separate action. City of Palo Alto Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENT No requests to speak. Action Item 2. Historic Resources Board Awards Mr. Switzer presented proposed bylaw amendments to establish an HRB Preservation Awards program. The program would follow a 5-year cycle, with awards presented during National Preservation Month beginning in May 2026. Draft language (Attachment B) added 3 sections. One section outlined the purpose of the Preservation Awards and established criteria, with the number of awards determined by the sitting board to allow flexibility for future boards. Another section addressed how the awards would be presented. This aligns with the Architectural Review Board’s (ARB) award program and similar language added to their bylaws. Regarding evaluation criteria, the staff compiled a list of 159 projects reviewed over the past 10 years (Attachment A). Discussion for the Board at this meeting would focus on how to parse out the 159 projects or whether to pursue an alternative approach. Mr. Switzer provided case studies not included in the staff report, noting the need for flexibility and the potential inclusion of a stewardship award or categories beyond built projects. Mr. Switzer gave an example of the Governor’s Historic Preservation Awards, which are organized into 2 main categories: (1) individuals, organizations, and agencies that sponsor historic preservation efforts, and (2) projects, including building restoration or rehabilitation and programs or activities at historic sites. Mr. Switzer also cited the National Trust for Historic Preservation as an example, noting that its awards are named for individuals and generally grouped into preservation projects, organizational awards, stewardship, and federal partnership categories. Chair Rohman agreed with presenting the items separately and suggested first finalizing the language in Sections 8.0, 8.1, and 8.2 before discussing award capacity and criteria, noting that Article VIII must be approved before proceeding further. Vice Chair Willis asked whether the list of 159 projects included demolitions and, if so, the reason for their inclusion. Vice Chair Willis cited 1201 Bryant Street in Professorville as an example, noting it appeared to involve a full demolition and construction of a new 2-story, single-family residence, based on online information, though she had not visited the site. Vice Chair Willis wondered if this property was considered improved infill over the prior structure and therefore potentially award-worthy. Mr. Switzer responded that demolition references on the list likely involved non-historic or accessory structures, such as garages. Mr. Switzer stated the City would not award demolition of historic resources and offered to review the project list for clarification. Mr. Switzer stated that, to his recollection, the property was within a historic district but the structure itself was not historic, and noted staff could confirm this in the project records. Board Member Ulinskas noted that Professorville has design guidelines for elements such as massing and rooflines and suggested the project could be evaluated based on its compliance with those standards. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Chair Rohman redirected the discussion to Article VIII, emphasizing the need to approve this before proceeding further. Chair Rohman questioned the wording of "on compliance to" and suggested revising that phrase to "in compliance with." Chair Rohman also suggested editing Section 8.2 to replace “winning projects” with “awarded projects,” noting the program is not a contest. Board Member Ulinskas asked for clarification on Section 8.0, confirming that the awards program would occur every 5 years and that the project list would be reevaluated as part of that cycle. Mr. Switzer confirmed that was the intent of the language. Chair Rohman verified that projects through the end of 2025 would be eligible, with awards presented in spring 2026, aligned with the ARB awards and National Preservation Month. Chair Rohman opened the floor for discussion on award categories, criteria, etc. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz stated she had not reviewed all projects and requested additional time. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked whether projects not yet finalized on the list would be eligible this cycle and whether they were expected to be completed by year’s end. Mr. Switzer responded that eligibility criteria were for the Board to determine, noting that ARB awards require completed projects. Mr. Switzer acknowledged some project statuses may have changed and stated the list could be updated or revised based on the HRB's direction. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz cited the property at 1023 Forest Avenue as a promising project previously reviewed by the Board but noted uncertainty about whether it would be completed in time. Chair Rohman noted the need to determine whether projects must reach a certain level of completion to be eligible for awards and stated that the referenced project was not close to completion. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz suggested that incomplete projects may roll to the 2030 cycle, proposed separate residential and commercial categories, supported recognizing smaller projects, and endorsed maintaining flexible categories to allow acknowledgment of exceptional projects not predefined. Chair Rohman stated she reviewed the Excel list, reorganized it by street name for clarity, and had reviewed about half of the projects, noting uncertainty about whether her Google document could be shared. Mr. Switzer advised that, to avoid Brown Act violations, the document should be sent to staff for distribution. Chair Rohman noted that many reviewed projects involved additions and ADUs and questioned their suitability for awards. Chair Rohman suggested considering projects such as seismic retrofits and roof replacements that extend the life of historic structures, citing recent roof work at Lucie Stern Community Center and Gunn High School. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz added that sensitive window replacements could also qualify as preservation efforts. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz observed that ADUs may be considered separately and noted that some ADUs may warrant recognition if designed sensitively. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Board Member Ulinskas stated that recognizing a well-designed ADU could be appropriate and serve as a positive example. Chair Rohman supported treating ADUs as a separate category and would defer further consideration to the subcommittee. Board Member Ulinskas noted uncertainty about the scope of several 2-story addition projects and asked whether there was an easier way than reviewing permit records to determine what was added. Board Member Ulinskas cited 251 Lincoln as a major resource with what appeared to be a distinct yet compatible addition and requested confirmation of the project details. Mr. Switzer noted that Planning entitlements and plan sets can be reviewed through Palo Alto BuildingEye, while building permits require additional review. Mr. Switzer stated that as the list is narrowed, staff could provide clarification on project scopes, including relevant portions of plan sets showing additions or structural work. Mr. Switzer invited Board Members to submit questions about specific properties for staff follow-up and clarification, noting many projects predated his tenure and that staff and the Board would work collaboratively to refine the award program and evaluation process. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz cited an example of a property on the list that involved the removal of a historically inappropriate addition and observed that such improvements may require site familiarity or looking at Google maps with the history feature to fully understand. Vice Chair Willis questioned whether roles should be clarified given the size of the 159-project list and asked whether review responsibilities should be delegated. Board Member Ulinskas and Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz stated they were was open to delegating certain categories. Vice Chair Willis clarified that her concern was about the process for narrowing the list to identify viable award candidates. Mr. Switzer explained that, similar to the ARB process, the 159 projects could be divided among Board Members, resulting in approximately 30–31 projects per member for review. Chair Rohman asked whether projects should be assigned by page for review. Vice Chair Willis suggested organizing and assigning the list by street name to review in order to reduce driving back and forth between parts of the City. Chair Rohman asked for clarification on review criteria, specifically whether Board Members should identify projects to remove from consideration. Chair Rohman noted having reviewed most of the list and formed preliminary recommendations but emphasized the lack of defined categories and the importance of full Board review to avoid missing potential award types, citing ADUs as an example. Mr. Switzer suggested making the review more manageable by dividing the list among Board Members and applying defined categories as a review lens. Mr. Switzer recommended discussing and narrowing City of Palo Alto Page 5 categories, such as commercial and residential projects, potentially including an ADU category, and noted that awards could also recognize organizations in the community. Board Member Ulinskas proposed residential subcategories of exterior rehabilitation, additions or expansions, ADUs or conversions, and new builds, noting the value of highlighting exemplary new builds in historic neighborhoods. Vice Chair Willis asked whether proposed new construction awards would apply specifically to projects within historic districts and be evaluated for compatibility within the district. Board Member Ulinskas clarified his suggestion that new construction awards would not be limited to historic districts and would recognize projects that are sensitive in massing and scale. Vice Chair Willis questioned how new construction relates to preservation. Board Member Ulinskas replied that recognizing sensitive new construction can support preservation by maintaining neighborhood scale and massing, particularly in contrast to overbuilt projects. Vice Chair Willis expressed the view that evaluating new construction falls under the ARB’s purview rather than the HRB’s. Chair Rohman suggested limiting residential awards to 3 or 5 categories and emphasized the need to prioritize. Chair Rohman identified preservation and rehabilitation as top priorities and invited suggestions for additional categories. Chair Rohman stated a preference for focusing on permitted projects. Chair Rohman stated there is another award program yearly in Palo Alto that recognizes stewardship, individuals and organizations. Vice Chair Willis recommended reviewing a refined list to identify the strongest projects from the past 10 years, noting uncertainty about available candidates. Vice Chair Willis supported rehabilitation and preservation as categories but emphasized aligning selections with the Board’s mission. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz noted that categories are intended to be flexible, allowing for multiple or no awards as appropriate. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz supported using categories as a lens to evaluate rather than a constraint, encouraged bringing forward exceptional projects that may not fit neatly within those categories, and expressed a preference for focusing on permitted projects rather than stewardship awards that may duplicate other programs. Vice Chair Willis felt that acknowledging individuals who have played a foundational role in the City’s preservation program would be a great idea for these first set of awards. Mr. Switzer noted that the ARB has used “Board’s Choice” or “Honorable Mention” awards for projects that do not fit standard categories and suggested the HRB consider a similar approach. Mr. Switzer noted that he had summarized discussion points on the screen and would maintain and refine the list as discussion continues. Chair Rohman requested adding preservation and rehabilitation categories under both residential and commercial awards. Chair Rohman suggested reviewing the 159 projects through agreed-upon City of Palo Alto Page 6 residential and commercial award categories, noting that even if no strong candidates emerge in certain categories, the framework would help guide the review process. Board Member Pease agreed that residential and commercial categories with preservation and rehabilitation were appropriate, suggested grouping additions, ADUs, and exterior modifications together, and expressed interest in recognizing smaller projects to make the awards more accessible to property owners. Mr. Switzer referenced the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, which has 4 treatment categories: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. Mr. Switzer explained that additions, exterior modifications, and ADUs most often fall under rehabilitation. Mr. Switzer clarified that preservation focuses on maintenance, restoration involves removal of non-historic elements, and reconstruction is rare locally, citing 1023 Forest Avenue as an example. Chair Rohman suggested adding restoration under both residential and commercial categories and adding adaptive reuse under commercial, citing the Palo Alto Museum as a strong candidate and noting it could also fit under restoration or rehabilitation. Mr. Switzer asked whether exterior modifications, additions, and ADUs could be encompassed within the preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration categories to streamline the list. Vice Chair Willis suggested placing exterior modifications, additions, and ADUs under the rehabilitation category. Board Member Ulinskas reiterated interest in recognizing smaller projects, such as window replacements or reroofing, echoing comments about the value of acknowledging smaller-scale work. Chair Rohman noted the need to define what constitutes a small project, citing examples such as exterior repainting that contribute to preservation. Chair Rohman acknowledged potential overlap among categories but emphasized recognizing meaningful maintenance and preservation efforts. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz highlighted the value of flexibility when reviewing projects, noting that smaller efforts such as gate replacement or exterior repainting can be impactful and worthy of recognition. Board Member Ulinskas supported recognizing smaller-scale projects, noting that even modest upgrades can meaningfully respect and reinforce historic context. Board Member Pease asked how to distinguish preservation work from routine maintenance, questioning whether criteria would include factors such as historical accuracy or period appropriateness. Chair Rohman agreed that distinction warrants further discussion and proposed she could review all projects on the list to identify potential candidates, assign preliminary categories, and return with recommendations at the December meeting for further Board discussion and comparison. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz noted that once the list is narrowed, the Board can more fully evaluate project details that may not be evident from the list alone. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Board Member Pease asked how easily award categories could be modified once initially established. Chair Rohman stated that, under the newly adopted bylaws, the Board may revise award categories every 5 years. Board Member Pease suggested starting with a simpler set of categories for the initial cycle and evaluating the results afterward. Chair Rohman asked Board Member Pease to clarify what he meant by a simpler set of categories. Board Member Pease explained that a simpler approach could involve grouping similar project types, such as additions or compatible ADUs, into broader categories to streamline the process, noting that doing so would help build institutional knowledge through the initial award cycle. Chair Rohman supported a simplified approach, proposing that the Board review the 159 projects under residential and commercial categories using the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration, with adaptive reuse added for commercial projects. Chair Rohman suggested using these standards as a guiding framework for the initial cycle, with flexibility for future discussion and adjustment. Board Member Pease suggested including a catch-all category that would allow Board Members to advocate for projects that do not fit neatly within the defined categories but meet preservation-related criteria. Board Member Ulinskas was intrigued by a potential “Board’s Choice” example, citing 221 Kingsley Avenue, where a historic shingle-style house was lifted and rotated on-site rather than demolished to accommodate backyard amenities, viewing this as a noteworthy preservation-minded approach. Vice Chair Willis agreed the project warranted discussion and emphasized the importance of a site visit, noting that while the relocated house now blends with the Ramona Street block, it lost some of its original historic presence and context. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz pointed out that the project at 221 Kingsley is approximately 10 years old and had previously received an award, noting that while it falls within the review period, it is not a recent project. Chair Rohman summarized that the purpose of the discussion was to establish Article VIII and agree on award categories to guide review of the project list. Chair Rohman asked whether the Board agreed with the proposed categories and requested a commitment to return in December, led by the awards subcommittee, to discuss potential award candidates for May 2026. Mr. Switzer explained that 9 potential award categories were shown as review lenses and that staff would divide the project list by geographic proximity, assigning approximately 30 projects to each Board Member to review through those categories. Mr. Switzer noted that category applicability would vary by area and that the goal was to reduce the list prior to the December meeting, with further refinement through discussion. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked whether staff would assign the project lists and inquired about notifying staff of any potential conflicts of interest with assigned properties. Mr. Switzer stated that he would review conflict-of-interest maps and assign projects accordingly to avoid potential conflicts. Chair Rohman stated that, with categories established, she was comfortable dividing the list for individual review. Chair Rohman noted she would still review the full list and asked whether the Board was comfortable with that approach. Mr. Switzer suggested that a motion could continue the discussion to the December meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT No requests to speak. Board Member Ulinskas asked whether projects with issued permits would remain on the list at this stage. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz stated that permit-issued projects should remain on the list, noting that some have been completed. Mr. Switzer stated that staff would update the list by verifying the current permit status of each project. Chair Rohman requested that staff group the projects in a more manageable format for review, such as by street or area of the City. Board Member Ulinskas asked whether projects shown with a white status indicated they had not yet reached the permit stage. Mr. Switzer explained that the projects shown with a white status were drawn from planning entitlements in Accela and may not reflect building permit statuses. Mr. Switzer noted that some entitlements, such as 1023 Forest Avenue, had been closed following Board action but were not marked as finaled or permit issued and stated staff could update the list to clearly identify planning entitlement projects for consistency. Vice Chair Willis requested that Board Members be given more than 1 week to review their assigned projects. Chair Rohman requested that staff include a copy of the slide showing the award categories when distributing the assigned project lists to Board Members. MOTION: Vice Chair Willis moved, seconded by Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz, to adopt Article VIII as written regarding preservation awards to the ordinance. VOTE: The motion passed 5-0. MOTION: Chair Rohman moved, secondary by Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz, to direct City staff to split up the list of projects from the last 10 years as presented on the screen and assign them to City of Palo Alto Page 9 individual Board Members, who will then evaluate based on the list of criteria and return in December to discuss. VOTE: The motion passed 5-0. 3. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of September 11, 2025 MOTION: Vice Chair Willis moved, seconded by Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz, to approve the draft meeting minutes from September 11, 2025, as written. VOTE: The motion passed 5-0. 4. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of October 9, 2025 Administrative Associate Samuel Tavera noted that Board Member Pease was absent from the October 9 meeting and therefore could vote on the minutes only if he had reviewed them; otherwise, he would need to abstain. Board Member Pease chose to abstain from this vote. Vice Chair Willis requested a correction to the minutes on Page 2 (Packet Page 30), noting that the reference to “their request to upgrade the Local Inventory reclassification” was incorrect and should reflect a downgrade of the local inventory reclassification. Mr. Switzer acknowledged the correction, confirming that the applicant requested a downgrade rather than an upgrade, and stated that staff would revise the minutes accordingly, noting Packet Page 30 for the record. Vice Chair Willis asked about the process for revising and retaining corrected minutes, noting concern that the error could be misleading. Mr. Switzer explained that once approved, meeting minutes are posted to the City website for the corresponding meeting, and any Board-approved corrections are incorporated into the final version uploaded. Vice Chair Willis asked whether the corrected minutes would reflect that the request was for a downgrade when reviewed by Council, and Mr. Switzer confirmed this. Vice Chair Willis noted frequent use of the word “opined” in the October 9 minutes and suggested using alternative wording. MOTION: Chair Rohman moved, seconded by Vice Chair Willis, to approve the minutes from October 9, 2025, as amended. VOTE: The motion 4-0, with Board Member Pease abstaining. Announcements City of Palo Alto Page 10 Vice Chair Willis noted progress on the upgraded inventory list, stating that an initial, streamlined set of data fields such as construction date, location, and key characteristics would be used, with the intent to expand the information over time as the inventory is further developed. Adjournment Adjourned at 9:33 a.m.