Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-01-08 Historic Resources Board Summary Minutes City of Palo Alto Page 1 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD Regular Meeting Draft Minutes: January 8, 2026 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 January 8, 2026, in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:30 a.m. Present: Chair Rohman, Vice Chair Willis, Boardmember Ulinskas, Boardmember Eagleston- Cieslewicz, Boardmember Pease Absent: None. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Chair Rohman called the meeting to order. The clerk called roll and declared a quorum. 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 provided a slide presentation including the projected meeting dates for 2026 and an update on 1680 Bryant Street Category Downgrade. Chair Rohman will be absent at the February 12 meeting. Chair Rohman inquired if the recording of the meeting regarding the downgrade has been posted on YouTube. Mr. Switzer confirmed it is posted on the City's Meeting and Agendas website. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Vice Chair Willis commented the Board was admonished by Pat Burt. The Board did not defend their decision. The reasoning presented in the staff report was not accurate. In the future, the Board needs to support decisions to Council. Councilmember Lu joined the meeting remotely. Council had more context. The applicant and architect presented and explained challenges with the site. There were detailed photos and context of the site. Context that gave color from the consultant's and staff report was missing from the HRB record. Council was unfair in the sense of how to designate and downgrade is not objective. There are fuzzy definitions about architectural merit. Council did not find the architectural merit to be so overwhelming that it overrode some of the other considerations about the integrity of the structure. Council was unanimous in the final vote and discussion. The point about defending the HRB's decision is valid. Council did not have the benefit of hearing the HRB's perspective. Following precedent is the main point. Chair Rohman commented the purpose of the body is to the rules and make a best judgment. What was presented to the HRB was not equal to what was presented to Council. Pat Burt's admonishment was out of place. Boardmember Ulinskas queried if there was any public comment for the project from neighbors. Councilmember Lu responded there were none in person and did not recall any email public comments. Boardmember Ulinskas observed an article reported it as a rare split between City Council and the HRB but it was a split between the HRB, neighbors, and City Council. Vice Chair Willis suggested the HRB should be notified of items going on the agenda and when Staff writes a report about what an HRB member says, a member of HRB should review it before it is published. Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director, shared that effort is being made to ensure complete and accurate summaries of actions are provided to Council. Comments and feedback on the staff reports is welcomed. Board members are invited to join Council meetings and ask questions. Vice Chair Willis was surprised that Council thought there is stronger protection for a category 2 than a category 3. ACTION ITEM 2. Select Award Categories and Recipients for Historic Resources Board Awards. CEQA Status: Not a Project. Mr. Switzer provided a slide presentation including recommendations, previous meetings discussing the HRB awards, and award categories. The next steps include narrowing the project list, selection of nine (or more) properties, and setting a ceremony date/follow-up actions. Chair Rohman questioned if everyone felt like there was a chance to review the list. Boardmember Pease reviewed the list and took photographs and notes but had not yet submitted them. Boardmember Eagleston-Cieslewicz provided notes but not photographs. Narrowing the list down would be helpful and then coming back with photos. Vice Chair Willis thought more research would be helpful. Boardmember Pease could not see a lot of the things that were listed. Boardmember Eagleston-Cieslewicz also had difficulty figuring out what the scope of work was. Chair Rohman remarked if final determinations were not made that day, research work should be split up and brought to the next meeting for a solid determination. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Slides were presented with photos of the projects assigned to Chair Rohman and Boardmember Willis along with description and discussion. Boardmember Willis suggested doing a board's choice for neighborhood preservation. Slides were provided of the Excel documents outlining the board member's findings, feedback, notes, and suggestions of the assigned projects along with discussion. Chair Rohman advised a deep dive of the preliminary list is needed. Mr. Switzer bolded the items on the Excel sheet and add properties from the notes. Moving forward, items not identified will be removed from the list and properties that need to be carried over to the next year will be cited. Chair Rohman suggested splitting the shortlist between the board members to do the deep work. Vice Chair Willis wanted to consider throwing it back to the Committee. Chair Rohman volunteered to do deeper research about the Creamery. Boardmember Eagleston-Cieslewicz noted that Google Maps is not fully up to date. Assistant Director Armer indicated there is an option on Google Maps to go back and look at previous dates. Mr. Switzer shared a slide of the updated Excel document. Feedback was received from the Board and Mr. Switzer made changes accordingly. It was agreed to divide the list between Boardmembers Ulinskas and Eagleston-Cieslewicz and Chair Rohman. Boardmember Pease will send his condensed list to Mr. Switzer to be incorporated and sent to everyone. Mr. Switzer will send the reduced list to all board members with a recap of the meeting and incorporate Boardmember Pease's list. Boardmember Eagleston-Cieslewicz noted a suggestion for a mechanism for Staff to make recommendations of features to projects that the Board might be unaware of. Mr. Switzer agreed to that. MOTION: Chair Rohman moved, seconded by Boardmember Eagleston-Cieslewicz, to continue the process of review of the HRB Awards List through the next cycle and come back in February. VOTE: The motion passed 5-0-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Chair Rohman moved, seconded by Boardmember Eagleston-Cieslewicz, to approve the meeting minutes from November 13, 2025. VOTE: The motion passed 5-0-0. City of Palo Alto Page 4 ANNOUNCEMENTS Vice Chair Willis requested agendizing the inventory update for the next month, moving the Committee meetings of the Chair, Vice Chair, and Staff to before the agenda comes out, and agendizing a discussion about Staff interaction with the Board and with projects. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 9:56 a.m.