Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-03-12 Historic Resources Board Summary Minutes City of Palo Alto Page 1 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD Regular Meeting Draft Minutes: March 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 March 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, 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. City Official Reports 1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer announced that upcoming meetings are included in Attachment A. Staff will update planned absences as they are made aware of them. HRB recruitment was extended until April 8 to solicit more applications. The Certified Local Government Annual Report is due April 24. The State Historic Preservation Conference takes place May 6-9 in Riverside. The May date for the Palo Alto Historic Awards is TBD and staff will coordinate with the board offline to set the date. Vice Chair Willis shared that PAST Heritage is giving their annual awards at the Historical Association Meeting on Sunday, May 3. Action Items 2. Historic Resources Board Discussion and Review of Certified Local Government (CLG) Annual Report Covering the 2024-2025 Reporting Period Mr. Switzer presented background on the CLG program, which was established by the National Historical Preservation Act of 1966 and encourages direct participation of local governments in preservation efforts. Palo Alto has been a CLG since 1992. This annual report covers October 2024 to September City of Palo Alto Page 2 2025, during which time there were 9 meetings and 5 serving members. The report in the packet is a draft and any additional trainings should be reported to staff. Mr. Switzer shared that the State changed the format from a Word document to a fillable PDF, which affects readability. Many ordinances are carried over from previous report years and most changes are member trainings and meeting dates. Vice Chair Willis expressed frustration that the HRB did not review the Julia Morgan project. Mr. Switzer reassured the Board that the standard process was followed, which was for the building permit to be reviewed by staff. Had it been a larger type of development, it would have warranted review by HRB. Vice Chair Willis responded that Julia Morgan was a significant architect in the area and stated the need for a better answer when asked why the HRB allowed the Julia Morgan building to be modified or half demolished. Vice Chair Willis requested that when a significant building is proposed to be modified in the future, that at least a courtesy notice be given to the HRB of who reviewed it, what they found, and who to contact with concerns. Mr. Switzer explained the Julia Morgan project process further. There was an inquiry regarding it and Historic Resources evaluation and documentation were provided via email to the Board, which Mr. Switzer offered to provide again. Mr. Switzer acknowledged the desire for notification of building permits or processes that are handled at the staff level. In the Historic Preservation Ordinance, some items do not get elevated to the Board level, such as the Julia Morgan, which was a building permit and not a discretionary process. The level of work was at the rear of the building and was an addition, so it was determined by Page & Turnbull and the historic preservation consultant to not need review by the HRB. Mr. Switzer offered to further discuss the Julia Morgan building process offline and/or agendize it for future discussion. Returning to the CLG, Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked whether the Section 2 and 3 responses are the same as last year's, which Mr. Switzer confirmed. Regarding a question from Board Member Ulinskas, Mr. Switzer clarified that the document's mention of the Historic Preservation Planner refers to his specific role, whether filled by him or a future person in that role. Vice Chair Willis wondered about the best way to review the unreadable sections of the report and suggested the language be sent to the Board in a readable format, perhaps sending last year's report wherever the language remains unchanged. Mr. Switzer agreed that next steps on the CLG Report draft are to send the language in a readable format to the Board for review. The Board Members asked about new HRB member qualifications. Mr. Switzer explained they are required to be a licensed historian or have a background in history or architecture. The city clerk is handling the recruitment and member requirements are listed in HRB's Administrative Code 2.27.010. The Board is no longer required to have a member who owns a historic house as of a 2024 update that reduced the board from 7 members to 5 and changed requirements due to recruitment concerns. Board Member Ulinskas asked about Item 4 and Mr. Switzer explained that there is a Seismic Advisory Group that kicked off during the reporting period. The group has been evaluating current ordinance and updating requirements or incentives to have buildings improved, such as unreinforced masonry or other City of Palo Alto Page 3 historic buildings that are at various levels of compliance to modern building codes. The City is evaluating what changes, if any, can be made to create a better-built environment. MOTION: None Approval of Minutes 3. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of February 12, 2026 Vice Chair Willis requested a few corrections to the minutes. At the second motion, Geddes was called Councilmember instead of Board Member. The line, "Board Member Pease wanted to have that conversation and take the decision," should say make, not take. MOTION: Moved by Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz, seconded by Board Member Ulinskas. VOTE: The motion passed 4-0. Chair Rohman Absent. Comments, Questions, and Announcements Board Member Pease acknowledged a public comment about the Mills Act and asked how response to that will be handled. Mr. Switzer shared that the City does not currently have a Mills Act program but 1 property, the Squire House, is under the Mills Act. The public commenter was given that information and told that if they want to participate in the Mills Act, it can be taken up with the City Council. Vice Chair Willis voiced frustration at the lack of progress on their inventory and expressed the need for a retreat where the Board can sit down and hash out a work plan they can all live with and act upon. Vice Chair Willis requested that the inventory index and what goes on it be agendized for the next meeting. The current index is a list of addresses and should be more than that to be useful. Mr. Switzer recommended that a retreat not be scheduled until the ongoing recruitment of 3 new Board Members is concluded. A recruitment is in progress for a Planning and Development Services Department intern. The intern could assist with making the historic inventory more user friendly. Vice Chair Willis agreed the retreat should be scheduled with the new members but wondered if a ballpark date could be set to help get it on the calendar and make it happen. Mr. Switzer offered that the retreat could be a special meeting or take place at a regularly scheduled meeting. A special meeting could be held in the board chambers or in a conference room. Vice Chair Willis suggested the retreat be a special meeting at a different time and stated it would be nice to have other preservationists talk to the group, such as the president of PAST Heritage or others. Vice Chair Willis agreed that a more casual environment like a conference room is important for having serious discussions about priorities. A time later in the day may work better but perhaps the morning is City of Palo Alto Page 4 easiest. Vice Chair Willis opined that last year's retreat was not functional and did not accomplish what was needed. Board Member Ulinskas recommended that Page & Turnbill be part of the retreat because they are a big part of historic evaluation and could help the Board better understand their role and that of the HRB. Mr. Switzer reiterated that topics for a future retreat are Board composition, ordinance and how historic reviews are approached, how consultant work ties into that, and the work plan for the HRB. Mr. Switzer pointed out that it may be difficult to set a date without knowing the 3 new board members' schedules. Vice Chair Willis asked about the timeline from the end of the application period to appointment of new members. Mr. Switzer explained that the city clerk handles the appointments and offered to address the question with the clerk's office and relay the answer to the Board. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz added that the timeline includes an interview as well. Board Member Pease shared that this was his last meeting with the Board and expressed thanks, appreciation, and respect to everyone present. Board Member Pease stated the commitment of the Board in the current economy and environment is impressive. He highlighted the Board's work on the inventory and incentivizing people to list their homes, hoping this continued work stops the momentum of things disappearing and preserves them because how Palo Alto looks attracts people to the area. Board Member Ulinskas expressed appreciation for Board Member Pease's creativity and thoughtfulness in collaborating on the incentives research. Board Member Ulinskas hoped something could happen with the document they created because there were some excellent ideas. Board Member Pease shared that the Fry Site data they captured has no home and suggested the museum could record and archive it because it may become important to a future restoration. Mr. Switzer thanked Board Member Pease for his service and encouraged him to continue his position until a replacement board member is appointed. Board Member Pease responded that he cannot continue his position for personal reasons. Vice Chair Willis asked for an update on the awards. Mr. Switzer explained that contacts have been acquired and staff is working to get attendance and secure a space. In the effort to choose a date, Mr. Switzer offered to send out a poll for board member availability and invite past members as well. Adjournment MOTION: Board Member Pease moved to close the meeting, seconded by Board Member Ulinskas. VOTE: Passed 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 9:20 a.m.