Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-02-12 Historic Resources Board Summary Minutes City of Palo Alto Page 1 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD Regular Meeting February 12, 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 February 12, 2026, in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:30 a.m. Present: Vice Chair Willis, Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz, Board Member Ulinskas, Board Member Pease, and Councilmember Keith Reckdahl Absent: Chair Rohman. Vice Chair Willis welcomed all to the meeting. The clerk called roll and declared there was a quorum. Public Comment There were no requests to speak. Vice Chair Willis requested that future written public comments be incorporated. City Official Reports 1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments Vice Chair Willis asked that Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer clarify term limits. Vice Chair Willis welcomed Council Liaison Reckdahl. Councilmember Reckdahl introduced himself and was thrilled to be on the HRB. Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer announced that upcoming meetings could be found on Attachment A. Planned absences should be directed to staff’s attention. On February 2, 2026, City Council approved the Work Plans for the HRB, ARB, and PTC. Regarding open recruitment, there were 3 positions up for reappointment and applications should be submitted to the City Clerk by February 18 and the clerk would schedule interviews with Council. Current Board Members about to term out could remain until appointments of successors. The Certified Local Government Annual Report was due on April 24 and Mr. Switzer would send out follow-up emails regarding training. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Vice Chair Willis requested that anyone who was not planning to remain past their term provide support until the appointment of new Board Members and that those who were not planning to stay past their term let Mr. Switzer know. Mr. Switzer requested that current Board Members let staff know if they planned to remain on until the appointment of successors. Action Items 2. Select Award Categories and Recipients for Historic Resources Board Awards. CEQA Status: Not a Project. Mr. Switzer noted there were 34 projects on the attached list to be decided on. Next steps could be discussed as it related to award ceremony scheduling, coordination with property owners and architects, and preparation of the awards. Mr. Switzer detailed on a slide some of the previous conversations related to creating the awards, what the buildout of a program would entail, and potential awards that could be considered. At a previous meeting, the HRB had decided on 9 award categories, which were detailed in the packet. Emails had been received from Board Members regarding their lists, and of the 34 on the list, the HRB could discuss which would be considered for the 9 awards. At the end of that discussion, thought could be given to dates to consider for the ceremony to work on securing the event space in City Hall and preparing award certificates. Mr. Switzer stated, concerning Board Member projects, an email from Chair Rohman expressed a Board Choice of the Peninsula Creamery, which was a legacy small business, family-owned, and was a community landmark. For Residential, Chair Rohman chose 215 Fulton as Preservation, built in 1908, was a Category 3, and was 1 of 3 remaining architectural styles in Palo Alto; 501 Kingsley for Rehabilitation, which was a rehabilitation and demolishing of some non-historic additions; 1143 Bryant for Restoration, a property with the majority of the work done to the interior but the owner secured permits for an extensive renovation of the structure. For Small Projects, Chair Rohman selected 952 Cowper, which was on a smaller scale but fit into an award category. For Commercial, Chair Rohman chose the Women’s Club for Preservation, 526 Waverley for Rehabilitation, and 2 nominations for the Palo Alto Museum – one for Restoration related to the murals and one for Adaptive Reuse. Vice Chair Willis’s Board Choice was the 1100 block of Ramona. Vice Chair Willis found that the Fowler Mansion complemented the block. Mr. Switzer noted that Vice Chair Willis’ desired that Residential Rehabilitation be 2510 Waverley Street. Vice Chair Willis was impressed with 2510 Waverley. Mr. Switzer commented that Vice Chair Willis had chosen the Peninsula Creamery for Commercial Preservation and 450 Bryant for Adaptive Reuse. Vice Chair Willis voiced that pushback had been received from community members related to 450 Bryant because of how long ago the project had taken place, so consideration might need to be given to City of Palo Alto Page 3 timing. When reviewing the semifinal list of awards, there should be information on when work had been done. Mr. Switzer commented that the HRB had chosen a 10-year look-back in time for projects, and 450 Bryant fell within that time – at the beginning of the 10-year period. Mr. Switzer expressed that Vice Chair Willis had chosen 165 Channing (Watercourse Way) for Rehabilitation. Mr. Switzer noted that Vice Chair Willis provided an incomplete project, which staff removed. Board Member Pease’s projects included the Peninsula Creamery for Commercial and 1230 Parkinson Avenue for Residential (which was incorrectly identified as Parkerson on the slide). Board Member Pease expressed that interesting work had been done with the building sizing at 1230 Parkinson. Mr. Switzer stated Board Member Pease’s projects included 1001 Ramona Street. Board Member Pease remarked that he had listed 1001 and 1102 Ramona Street as residential projects that were voluntary seismic retrofits and requested that the Board consider accommodating such as a benefit and recognizing it as an investment as it was an important part of preservation, although Board Member Pease did not know how to compare one retrofit to another. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz had a couple voluntary seismic retrofits on the list and had trouble distinguishing them from each other as far as what could be seen and what was available. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz suggested that all voluntary seismic retrofits be honorable mentions. Board Member Pease agreed that all voluntary seismic retrofits should be acknowledged. Mr. Switzer stated Board Member Pease’s selections included a voluntary seismic retrofit at 1102 Ramona Street. Vice Chair Willis suggested acknowledging the Kingsley District as an example of Preservation. Mr. Switzer voiced that Board Member Pease’s selections included 526 Waverley Street. Board Member Pease loved the 526 Waverley building. Mr. Switzer believed 526 Waverley came before the HRB in 2021 and 2022. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz liked the 526 Waverley project but was concerned that it was not occupied by a tenant. In addition, the Palo Alto History Museum was not yet open to the public. Vice Chair Willis had mixed feelings about 526 Waverley not being occupied. Mr. Switzer added that 959 Waverley was included in Board Member Pease’s Residential projects, which was an HIE and the owner utilized some of the bonus floor area, which was an incentive for designated historic structures. Board Member Pease thought the 959 Waverley project was nicely done and that the ADA garage matched the building. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Mr. Switzer added that Board Member Pease’s Residential choices included 2510 Waverley. Board Member Ulinskas provided drawings of 512 Coleridge Street and spoke of the seamless renovations and the garage matching the design of the home. In addition, Board Member Ulinskas recommended 345 Coleridge. Vice Chair Willis voiced that photographs of the façade would have been helpful. Board Member Ulinskas spoke of the second floor massing at 755 Hamilton being very well done and keeping the style intact. Vice Chair Willis found the addition to 755 Hamilton to be distinguishable from the original but not distracting and had mixed feelings about it. Board Member Ulinskas stated that much work had been done to 221 Kingsley and that most of the roofs and dormers were original. Vice Chair Willis added that 221 Kingsley was a significant part of the Kingsley District and a strong example of preservation and a new birth for the property. Changing its orientation was a large undertaking and it was very unified. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz liked the idea of acknowledging that block and the 221 Kingsley project in its broader context as the project just made the cutoff in terms of eligibility. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz did not want to indicate that nothing better had been seen in the last 10 years. Board Member Ulinskas found only an interior remodel on file for the 501 Kingsley project. Mr. Switzer noted that the solarium at 501 Kingsley had been demolished. Board Member Ulinskas mentioned that there were plans on file showing the removal of a porte- cochère and a new balcony addition acting as a new porte-cochère, a new parking area, and removal of a stoop along the driveway at 1143 Bryant. The plans for 165 Channing were mainly accessibility upgrades. One permit was in 1996 and one in 2000. Mr. Switzer noted that 165 Channing was Watercourse. Board Member Ulinskas stated there were many plans for the upgrading of Cogswell Plaza at 450 Bryant, which was beautiful. A lot of the plaza renovation files were from 2012. The plans for the senior center were structural upgrades and interior renovations from 1995. As for 1350 Byron Street, there was a site plan showing a specific part of the structural upgrade for the foundation and an interior remodel in 2017. The plans for 1021 Cowper Street were from 2015 and showed a new 842 square-foot cottage at the rear. Board Member Ulinskas thought there had mainly been interior work to the cottage in the rear of 1330 Cowper and a seismic upgrade in 2019. A patio was enclosed at 2240 Cowper and in 1998, areas were added at the corner of the house, the drive to the garage, and a garage door. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz remarked that 2240 Cowper was on her list. It was 1930s architecture, which was often underrepresented. The work had not altered the structure. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Board Member Ulinskas commented that no drawings were on file for 952 Cowper. Mr. Switzer noted that 952 Cowper was a stucco and repainting, which Chair Rohman noted for a Small Residential project. Board Member Ulinskas voiced that there were 2 phases to the 575 Everett project, a kitchen renovation and a rear deck and a bath renovation. In 2005, there had been demolition of the rear garage and there was a 2-story addition to the single-story structure with a garage on the first floor and the addition was evident. Mr. Switzer stated the goal was to find 9 projects to align with the award categories. Vice Chair Willis did not know if a final list could be provided at this meeting and did not want to rush the process. Vice Chair Willis did not consider the Creamery to be Adaptive Reuse. Chair Rohman (via email), Vice Chair Willis, and Board Members Pease and Board Member Eagleston- Cieslewicz believed Preservation would be a good category for the Creamery. Board Member Ulinskas and Vice Chair Willis categorized the Palo Alto Museum as Commercial Preservation. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz considered work ongoing at the Palo Alto History Museum due to the widely publicized roof leak. Vice Chair Willis and Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz considered the former firehouse project an Adaptive Reuse option. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked if the paintings in the Palo Alto Museum were under the purview of the Public Art Committee. Mr. Switzer answered that the paintings at the museum were under the purview of the Public Art Committee. A good place for the museum would be the Adaptive Reuse category. Mr. Switzer provided a list of the properties for the different categories. Vice Chair Willis and Board Member Ulinskas suggested Watercourse Way for Commercial Rehabilitation. Ms. Armer noted that 526 Waverley and 165 Channing were options for Commercial Rehabilitation. Vice Chair Willis suggested passing on Commercial Restoration as the Board might be lacking awareness in the category. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz stated that not awarding in the Restoration category might justify awarding more than one project in the Rehabilitation category. Board Member Ulinskas considered 526 Waverley for Restoration. Vice Chair Willis expressed that 526 Waverley could be in the Restoration category or the Rehabilitation category but was unsure if attention should be called to the building due to the state it was in. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Mr. Switzer inquired if there was still a desire for the 526 Waverley murals. Vice Chair Willis considered the murals public art. It would be a win if the Board provided 5 or 6 strong statements on the state of historic architecture in Palo Alto. The museum and murals should be acknowledged by others. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz agreed that Public Art could acknowledge the murals. Vice Chair Willis and Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz felt strongly about 450 Bryant for Commercial Adaptive Reuse and that, due to ongoing work, the Palo Alto History Museum could be considered next time. Mr. Switzer understood there was a general consensus for Preservation. As there were 2 projects listed for Rehab, Mr Switzer asked if there should be a straw poll of awarding those 2 in lieu of having an award category for Restoration or if there should be 1 awarded under Rehab. Vice Chair Willis advanced the conversation to Residential Preservation. Mr. Switzer furnished a slide showing 215 Fulton, which was built in 1908, was a Category 3, and 1 of 3 remaining structures of this architectural style in Palo Alto. Board Member Pease supported 215 Fulton for Residential Preservation. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz supported 215 Fulton for Residential Preservation. The 1100 block of Ramona was broadly Preservation but it could be a Board Choice situation. Vice Chair Willis agreed that the 1100 block of Ramona could be a Board Choice situation and advanced the conversation to Board Choice before deciding on Residential Preservation. Vice Chair Willis felt strongly about the 1100 block of Ramona for Board Choice as it was neighborhood preservation, had the Fowler Mansion, buildings with third stories added on, student housing, and a new structure adjacent to the Fowler Mansion. The block had evolved in a lovely way and contained a lot of history. Board Member Ulinskas felt it would be good to recognize a neighborhood, not a single residence, for Board Choice. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz supported the 1100 block of Ramona being Board Choice but wanted to acknowledge the individual projects within the block. Mr. Switzer thought the 1100 block of Ramona would be a fitting Board Choice. Ms. Armer asked if there were other projects that should be compared alongside the 1100 block of Ramona as an alternative for Board Choice. Board Member Ulinskas thought the Creamery would be Board Choice but the 1100 block of Ramona made more sense. Board Member Pease thought the Creamery would have a Preservation and a Board Choice and queried if there could be 2 Board Choice awards. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Board Member Ulinskas felt the 1100 block of Ramona should be recognized because the Creamery could be in another category. Motion MOTION: Vice Chair Willis moved that the 1100 block of Ramona, including the Fowler Mansion, be the Board Choice for the 2025 Preservation Award, which would be awarded in 2026. VOTE: Passed 4-0 by voice vote. Vice Chair Willis stated that 215 Fulton had been chosen for Residential Preservation and the Board had no comment. Vice Chair Willis advanced the conversation to Residential Rehabilitation. Mr. Switzer noted that 501 Kingsley was listed. Vice Chair Willis stated that 2510 Waverley was a classic style but very rare and was a nice representation of Rehabilitation. Mr. Switzer understood that 501 Kingsley and 2510 Waverley were being considered. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz thought 501 Kingsley and 2510 Waverley were great and she would be comfortable with 2 awards in the Residential Rehabilitation category. Each showed different things as Kinglsey removed an incongruous addition and Waverley retained its original form. Both contained an ADU. Vice Chair Willis felt narrowing it down to 2 was a win. Mr. Switzer noted that Residential Restoration included 1143 Bryant. Vice Chair Willis passed on the Residential Restoration category. Board Member Ulinskas found that the majority of the alterations were along the driveway side of the house. Mr. Switzer noted that 1143 Bryant was restoration and remodel of the home due to fire damage and was a total overhaul of the entire structure and the owners maintained the existing façade and the historic features of the structure. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz stated the owners could have made any choice and it was great that the choice was to preserve it. Board Members Pease and Ulinskas agreed that it fit the category well. Mr. Switzer noted that Small Projects included 952 Cowper. Vice Chair Willis requested that 2510 Waverley be added to Rehab. Mr. Switzer stated that 952 Cowper was a Residential Small Project, which was stucco repair and repainting. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz noted that 952 Cowper was multifamily. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Vice Chair Willis felt that 952 Cowper was more personal than commercial. Vice Chair Willis wanted to settle on the reduced Residential list and take at least a week to review them again and provide Mr. Switzer with the Board’s choices. Mr. Switzer believed there was 1 project for Preservation, 2 for Rehabilitation, and 1 for Restoration. If there was not a strong desire to highlight one small project, perhaps there could be an award for the voluntary seismic retrofit of structures. Vice Chair Willis was comfortable with a voluntary seismic retrofit category but wanted a positive response from the community, so it would be wise to take a week to look the buildings in the Residential Small Project category before deciding. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz envisioned the voluntary seismic retrofit as a separate category, which could be an award or an honorable mention. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz liked 952 Cowper as a standalone Small Project. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz recommended doing both. Mr. Switzer asked if the desire was to have a consideration between the 2 in Rehabilitation. It seemed that there was consensus for 215 Fulton as Preservation and 1143 Byrant as Restoration. Vice Chair Willis wanted to review 215 Fulton as Preservation, 501 Kingsley as Rehabilitation, and 1143 Bryant as Restoration before making choices. Vice Chair Willis was comfortable with the Small Project. Vice Chair Willis noted that she did not have to vote on the ones she did not understand but would feel better if the Board could wait and she could vote. Mr. Switzer remarked that that timeline was tight for securing the space, creating the awards, and reaching out to potential award winners. Delaying a conversation would result in a tighter timeline. There was a deadline for the Certified Local Government, so staff needed to prepare the annual report and secure training of new Board Members. MOTION: Vice Chair Willis moved, seconded by Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz, that 952 Cowper be acknowledged for a Small Project. VOTE: The motion passed 4-0 by voice vote. Vice Chair Willis did not have the familiarity to support 215 Fulton as Preservation. MOTION: Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz moved, seconded by Board Member Pease, to recommend 215 Fulton for the Residential Preservation category. VOTE: The motion passed 3-0-1 by voice vote with Vice Chair Willis abstaining. Vice Chair Willis was comfortable with 2510 Waverley as Rehabilitation but not 501 Kingsley. Board Members Ulinskas and Pease felt that removing the non-historic addition of 501 Kingsley was a strong basis for award. Vice Chair Willis stated that 2510 Waverley was a style Palo Alto did not have many of and it was outside the tight historic core, which she acknowledged was a prejudice. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz thought 2510 Waverley and 501 Kingsley were great and wanted to acknowledge both as they were excellent projects in different ways and it would make a great statement related to incorporating ADUs. Vice Chair Willis supported acknowledging 2510 Waverley and 501 Kingsley. MOTION: Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz motioned, seconded by Board Member Pease, to recommend 501 Kingsley and 2510 Waverley Street for Rehabilitation awards in the Residential category. VOTE: The motion passed 4-0 by voice vote. MOTION: Council Member Ulinskas moved, seconded by Board Member Pease, to recommend 1143 Bryant for the Restoration Award in the Residential category. VOTE: The motion passed 4-0 by voice vote. MOTION: Vice Chair Willis moved, seconded by Board Member Ulinskas, that the Peninsula Creamery be listed for Commercial Preservation. VOTE: The motion passed 4-0 by voice vote. Vice Chair Willis addressed Commercial Rehabilitation and noted that 526 Waverley (Toy and Sport) was unoccupied. Board Members Pease and Ulinskas believed 165 Channing (Watercourse Way) should be chosen. MOTION: Vice Chair Willis moved, and it was seconded, that the Rehabilitation Commercial Award go to Watercourse Way or the property owner at 165 Channing. Vice Chair Willis thought Watercourse Way had done the work. VOTE: The motion passed 4-0 by voice vote. Vice Chair Willis noted that the Board had nothing for Commercial Restoration. Adaptive Reuse included the Police and Fire Building at 450 Bryant Street. MOTION: Board Member Ulinskas motioned, seconded by Board Member Pease, to recommend 450 Bryant Street for the Adaptive Reuse Award. VOTE: The motion passed 4-0 by voice vote. Mr. Switzer voiced that staff would follow up with some of the background work of contacting the property owners and the architects or contractors who had done the work being recognized. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz inquired if a motion was needed to add the voluntary seismic retrofit honorable mention list. Board Member Pease wanted to have that conversation and take the decision but did not want to say honorable mention. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Vice Chair Willis liked the idea of a seismic award but wanted a more dramatic name, such as the Earthquake Country Award or some such. Community members should be reminded that Palo Alto was earthquake country. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz noted that it could be as simple as saying the HRB wanted to recognize, acknowledge, and thank properties for their voluntary seismic retrofits during this period. Vice Chair Willis liked the idea and suggested giving it a nickname. MOTION: Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Willis, that the HRB acknowledge and appreciate property owners who did a voluntary seismic retrofit during the last decade. Board Member Pease suggested having a compact and supportive name. Vice Chair Willis stated there was time to develop a name. It would not be an award but an acknowledgement. VOTE: Passed 4-0 by voice vote. Approval of Minutes MOTION: Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz moved, seconded by Board Member Pease, to approve the meeting minutes of January 8, 2026. VOTE: Passed 4-0 by voice vote. Comments, Questions, and Announcements Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz voiced that one of the written public comments was a student requesting assistance with a project, which Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz would be happy to be a Board resource for if needed. The student should be connected with PASCC for needed data. Vice Chair Willis wanted to help with any of the student’s needs and possibly meet with the student. Mr. Switzer stated that staff would connect the student with the HRB. Vice Chair Willis requested there be an inventory update on the agenda for the next meeting. Vice Chair Willis had questions about structure. There were a couple lists that needed to be coordinated. Vice Chair Willis suggested a list of individually listed properties and a list of districts. There were 4 districts and there was a vague relationship with the 2 in South Palo Alto, which the City had not officially adopted as Palo Alto Historic Districts. Vice Chair Willis did not know the distinction but they were on the National Register and should be integrated into the system. Mr. Switzer remarked that of the 4 on the National Register 2 were recognized at the City level. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Vice Chair Willis wanted to decide whether the other 2 should be recognized. There should be a list of properties in each of the 4 districts. The website needed to be updated as it was hard to look at a property on the inventory without going to the APN sheets. The national districts should be incorporated as Palo Alto historic districts but it needed to be discussed. Board Member Ulinskas commented that Professorville had a detailed neighborhood guideline as a result of being a special historic district. Board Member Ulinskas queried if the City would have to undertake similar neighborhood guideline studies and produce a guideline if the other national districts were recognized by the City. Mr. Switzer answered that there were Eichler design guidelines and Greenmeadow and Green Gables were Eichler tracts and recognized. Vice Chair Willis addressed the organization of the index and whether demolitions should be on the list and noted as demolitions or if there should be a separate list of demolitions. There was an inventory list with addresses and Vice Chair Willis questioned if there should be categories. Vice Chair Willis asked how much information should be on the index page. Vice Chair Willis desired that there be a link to the APN by clicking on an address. Vice Chair Willis did not want to lose the name on the detailed historic resource sheet. Vice Chair Willis requested feedback on what was important as it related to the index and that the topic be on the March agenda. Mr. Switzer suggested sending in writing what had been spoken of at this meeting and staff would address better improving the community experience with historic resources. Vice Chair Willis encouraged Board Members terming out to remain for support. Anyone not planning to re-up should let Mr. Switzer know. Vice Chair Willis requested that Board Members reach out to potential Board Members. Mr. Switzer noted that recruitment would end on February 18. Vice Chair Willis wanted to schedule a face-to-face Board Retreat for May or June 2026. Ms. Armer would look for potential retreat dates. A different location would be more conducive for that conversation. It was anticipated that it would be after the seating of new members. Adjournment MOTION: Vice Chair Willis moved to close the meeting. VOTE: Passed 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 10:16 a.m.