You know that second building the one around the corner on fourth and Julia that sold second time.

Really?

Yeah, I got it.

Notice on it.

Mike sold it a second.

Every started that.

I love that go.

It's not nearly as neat as it.

Oh, it would have been.

It had.

Did you go?

Did he go all the way up to it?

Was he the realtor of the Mike Shields?

Use a realtor.

All right, go ahead.

Here we go.

All right, good evening.

I'm gonna get going.

Welcome to the Historic Landmarks Commission meeting.

Following roll call during summary of hearing procedure, we will review how the public may provide comment during today's session.

All right, I'm gonna start with roll call.

Uh Chair Royer is absent today.

Um Vice Chair Galindarian present.

Um Arnold is absent today, uh Commissioner Bainwall.

Present.

Commissioner Camuso Present.

Commissioner Cohen Present.

Great, all right.

Uh the procedure for this hearing is as follows.

After the staff report, applicants and appellants may make a five minute presentation.

I will be a stickler on time as we have several items on the agenda.

If you wish to speak on an item, complete a card and place it in the speaker card box, or bring your card to HPO uh peek edwards.

I think we have a couple cards already.

Um each speaker will be given up to two minutes for public testimony, and speakers using a translator will have up to four minutes.

At the discretion of the chair, the time allotted to each speaker may be changed depending on the number of items on the agenda, number of speakers, and other factors.

Speakers using a translator will have double the time allotted.

After the public testimony, the applicant may make closing remarks for up to an additional five minutes.

Of the speakers, response to commissioner questions will not reduce the speaker's time allowance.

The public hearing will then be closed, and the historic landmarks commission will take action on the item.

The commission may request staff to respond to the public testimony, ask staff questions, and discuss the item.

If a commissioner would like a topic to be addressed under one of the good and welfare items, please contact planning staff staff in advance of the commission meeting.gov.

At the same time uh that the public records are distributed or made available to the legislative body.

That seems like not applicable to this hearing, but um before we begin, I want to remind the historic landmarks commission members and members of the public to follow our code of conduct at meetings.

This includes commenting on the specific agenda item only and addressing the full body.

Public speakers will not engage in a conversation with the commissioners or staff.

All members of the historic landmarks commission staff and public are expected to refrain from abusive language, repeated failure to comply with the code of conduct, which will disturb, disrupt, or impede the orderly conduct of this meeting, may result in removal from the meeting.

This meeting of the historic landmarks commission will now come to order.

All right, first item on the agenda is deferrals, which we have no items.

Um second item is consent calendar, which we also have no items.

The third item is public hearing, and the first item on the public hearing agenda is PP 2505, San Jose Municipal Code Chapter 13.48, historic preservation ordinance, text amendments, council District citywide, CEQA addendum to the certified envisioned San Jose 2040 general plan final EIR.

Um SCH 2009 072096 and the downtown strategy 2040 final EIR.

Um, I'm gonna turn it over.

Oh, I have to read what staff recommends first.

Dana.

Sure, you know, too.

Okay, I won't then.

I'll just turn it over to staff.

Good evening, everyone.

This item is regarding.

Amendments to historic preservation.

Just as a refresher, this is in chapter 13.48 of the historic preservation ordinance, which essentially defines the historic preservation framework for the city.

And just in a summary, it basically includes the historic resources inventory, how landmarks and historic districts are designated, it regulates HP permits for exterior changes, and also includes other things like incentives.

We have MILS Act property contracts that are included.

And yes, we said alterations.

So basically, historic preservation permits are currently required for exterior changes to landmarks and properties in historic districts.

That historic preservation permit process is meant to adapt old buildings for new uses, ensure that there are compatible materials and changes to buildings, and that those changes comply with the Secretary of the Interior standards.

When they don't, projects are considered detrimental to the historic character, and they are denied unless a hardship is requested and applied for the hardship allows approval of the historic preservation permit when there are technical, structural, or economic issues that make rehabilitation infeasible in a compatible manner.

And then in that point, the applicant would need to submit documentation, like engineer architect reports, property expenses, attempts that they've tried to rent or sell the property in order to establish the hardship.

On a parallel course, when we are considering a historic preservation permit or processing, we also do CEQA analysis.

And projects that have significant unavoidable impacts require an EIR or an environmental impact report.

And as part of that analysis, we look at mitigation measures and alternatives.

Then the city council may adopt a statement of overriding considerations.

Claire Historic Preservation Foundation versus the City of San Jose.

The findings of the court were that the environmental impact report was properly prepared and certified.

But the project had detrimental effects under the historic preservation ordinance.

So there was a misalignment there.

And also that the ordinance lacked clarity on addressing how projects are detrimental because there's no definition of what detrimental is.

So the court said that the city may consider amendments to provide a path for the discretion of for approval for projects that are detrimental to historic resources.

The amendments are limited to two sections.

One of them is the definitions section, and we're both clarifying and adding definitions, clarifying the definition for historic district and landmark, and adding three definitions all surrounding this, clarifying what detrimental is, providing a definition for detrimental, but also how substantial alterations, what's considered a substantial alteration, and what is historic integrity in order to make that analysis.

So the purpose of these amendments is to provide clarity for the historic preservation permit evaluation.

We also have amendments in the finding section for the historic preservation permit.

Currently, only hardship allows approval of detrimental projects.

So there's a small section added to this findings section, which proposes that the city council may override detrimental effects if the benefits of the project outweigh those impacts.

To approve a detrimental project, which would also include demolition, the city council would need to make specific findings explaining the social, economic, legal, technical, or other benefits that outweigh that detrimental impact.

Currently, projects with significant and unavoidable impacts under CEQA already require a statement of overriding considerations.

So that's done currently in our process, regardless for compliance with CEQA.

The proposed ordinance amendment with regard to the findings mirrors this process, and evaluations will still occur under the exact same criteria, even when there's an override that's being considered.

So any changes to designated landmarks or properties in a district will still require historic preservation permit.

The process still evaluates whether the project is compatible with historic features under the added definitions about alterations, integrity, and detriment.

We will still be looking at compliance with the Secretary of the Interior standards.

And the Historic Landmarks Commission will continue to review projects and provide recommendations to the decision making body.

The ordinance amendments define detrimental, to ensure that we have some clarity on what constitutes harm to a landmark or a property in a district.

Properties are initially reviewed to prevent that detriment in our application review process.

And city council would not be able to override without demonstrating why those benefits outweigh the detriment in a resolution.

And public notice and hearings are still part of the process to ensure that community input is part of the decision making process.

In the packet, there's a comparison with a number of other cities.

Pasadena has a compelling public interest uh finding that they can look at for demolition only.

And San Diego has an override for capital improvement projects.

Most cities have a hardship uh provision, but uh they're limited in terms of having an override provision.

Um the amendments, the proposed amendments do not trigger a new EIR.

Um the amendments clarify terms, like detriment and align the ordinance with secret provisions, um, making sure that we have uh greater consistency in evaluating our impacts to historical resources.

And city council may adopt findings that's also consistent with the CEQA statement of overriding considerations when a project has unavoidable impacts, which still preserves the legal framework for decision making.

The schedule for the ordinance amendments is uh tonight's hearing, then it will go to the planning commission on November 5th, and to the city council on December 2nd.

Um so the recommendation is um to city council is to adopt a resolution approving an addendum to the downtown strategy 2040 and envision San Jose 2040 EARs, and to recommend the city council approve an ordinance amending sections 13.48.20 and sections 13.48 point two forty.

That concludes staff presentation.

Okay, great.

Um, I think it's time for the members of the public.

So um I will call up uh Sean, I think Atkinson.

Hello, commissioners, um chairman.

I'm here from the St.

Clair Historic Preservation Foundation.

Um we were noted in some of your overheads.

Um it's interesting that the court of appeal, um, it was March 12, 2024, put a lot of stipulations and verbiage into their ruling and their decision.

And we kind of gloss over it at meetings like this, but to think that in listening to the preservation officer that I couldn't find any other city that was going to destroy one of their oldest historic districts.

In that ruling from the Court of Appeal, that's what it said that the St.

James Historic Um Square would no longer qualify for the National Historic Register.

That's proven the expert that you hired for your EIR said that.

And so now what we see and what concerns us is we're gonna allow the city more deference to make those decisions, um, most of which again you covered um in the overhead.

I just, you know, we've find it very interesting.

I mean, I I was here for the first part um years ago, but this we didn't study phasing.

Phasing was never studied in the EIR.

You say you just said on your overhead that you don't have to go back and open sequa.

Oh, that's just for this project.

It's for the amendment.

Okay.

That's interesting.

Uh, on the amendment, too.

Um, since you you're using certain terminology that there's a debate whether you need to study open up sequa just on the ordinance change, but on that particular project that this was all about, and we and we know that because you've made notes to it.

Um, we're just concerned you now want to phase it.

I've met with John Cicerelli with the parks department.

You're no longer going to do the complete project, you're just gonna do half the park for about 22 million dollars.

Remove most, you know, playgrounds, dog parks, put in a commercial amphitheater, but you're not gonna study what impact that's gonna have by not doing the entire park.

So I just bring that, I've just note that to you.

I know that you have a tough job.

I've been I've I've come to many of these meetings, I've asked for your help.

I know that doesn't normally happen, but I'm asking you to take another look at this change that you want to make.

I think you're you're lessening the value of who you are, who this commission is, and your abilities to control historical assets that are really in the they're put in trust to you to take care of the general public, and I believe you're letting us all down.

And it might sound harsh, but it's truly coming from the heart to see these things destroyed and to just move forward for what?

Another commercial concert facility when there's arenas, soccer fields, places where all this could be Discovery Park, but we're going to take a downtown historic district and blow it up.

So I just want you to reconsider and I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Anybody?

Thank you.

I just want to note that what's before us today is the ordinance, not the park.

So just to be clear, um, okay.

Next is um, I think it says Susan Brantalley.

Good evening.

Um, well, as you know, I'm Susan Brandhawley, and I'm the attorney for the St.

Clair uh Historic Preservation Foundation who handled the litigation that was the impetus for this today.

I did request a deferral.

I don't know if you received that.

That there was you didn't rule on it, you said there was no request.

So I don't want to use up my time, but it seems that should be considered first.

I think that would be part of action, whether they oh the rule, the uh the ordinance I read said it would be done at the beginning of the hearing.

But it's fine with me to go ahead, but I would like not to use my time for that.

I think there's been inadequate public notice.

While there has been public notice that an amendment to the ordinance was was going to be considered, um no one has seen it or heard what it was going to be until a few days ago.

It's a very complicated and important change to your code, and uh you can see how few people are here.

People didn't know about it, people haven't had time to review, and and it's such an important recommendation that you're being asked to make that we uh think this should hearing should be continued.

I appreciate you want to hear from those of us that are here today.

The key here I think is that what the court of appeal said, and even your staff report uh admits.

This is change, this will be a change.

The this ordinance amendment is not just a quote-unquote clarification, it changes the import and definitions in the ordinance.

Those changes will reduce protections to historic resources.

It will no longer consider a national register property, harder to get listed on the national registry than the local, right?

But even national register and California registered properties will no longer receive the ordinance protections.

Because as the Court of Appeal said and as which is uh a binding uh um decision, as the Court of Appeal said, and even the staff report understands, this these amendments that you're being asked to make on the basis of an addendum will reduce protections that the current ordinance provides.

The Court of Appeal found that the St.

James Park plan, even though it complied with CEQA, did not comply with the ordinance.

Under the amended ordinance, um, that would no longer be a uh an impediment, and you want to amend the ordinance, but it's not exempt from CEQA because your amendment to the ordinance that will apply citywide, not just to one project, although it was the impetus for it, but citywide to hundreds of city landmarks and districts that the city has found important.

Uh, it reduces protections.

Some uh historic resources may be lost.

There's a fair argument, including their decision of the Court of Appeal that acknowledges that, that uh that will reduce protections to historic resources, and therefore you need to do environmental review of the amendments.

Of course, they don't directly affect uh any particular project yet, but CEQA clearly applies to uh general plan amendments, any kind of plan or code amendments that lead the way for future project problems.

So it's irrelevant that it's an amendment to an ordinance, an amendment to an ordinance is subject to CEQA.

So you need to do environmental review of what the scope of these amendments are citywide.

Uh there, is it really necessary to make this ordinance apply citywide to reduce protections in the way that is proposed to be done here?

Are there other ways you could amend the ordinance?

Should it should it be amended only for certain types of projects?

There are a lot of questions.

And to say that an addendum, which is only allowed an addendum to an EIR, which is it not even part of the CEQA statute, uh it's just a name for some additional uh revision, can only be done for minor technical uh changes.

This is not a minor technical change to say that to define what all these things mean, including historic resource, which does not include national or California register under the proposed uh little time I've had to review it.

I know that was one thing that stuck out.

Uh, but there are many other things that the uh the these amendments would reduce protections to citywide historic resources um that are uh evaluated and found historic by the city.

And so you need to do environmental review.

It is not exempt from CEQA and the court's direction that the city should could amend its ordinance.

That's true, but there's a process, and this is not a uh meaningless change.

This is a significant change to a lot of resources.

Your municipal code says that, and cut me off if I'm going too long, but there's not many people here.

Okay.

Um the municipal court code still says that it's in the city's interest and the citizens of this city's interest to protect historic resources.

Mrs.

Brant Hawley, I just want to give you a timing notice.

I think you're past your two minutes.

So I'll let you just 20 seconds to finish up.

Okay.

If I again I think the lack of notice should give everyone more time, but beyond that, um, it's important to look at how this ordinance would be amended in a way that reduces environmental impacts to the extent feasible, and you haven't had a way to consider that an addendum doesn't even require a public hearing or public notice itself.

Thank you.

We appreciate it.

Thank you.

I'm glad to answer if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Uh yeah, one question.

You were speaking about the change of certain definitions within the ordinance itself.

Uh, uh, so I want to ask uh historic district and landmark, what changes to that definition is it that uh I guess are going to possibly cause issues.

Uh I'm not sure where it is in the ordinance, but it's related to that question that a historic um landmark or district is one that's locally listed, not one that's on the national register or the state register.

So you eliminate from that review anything that was decided to be historic by the federal complex process or the California State Resources Commission.

It's only city uh designated historic resources and districts that are covered.

And the city, if these are city properties, if the city wants to demolish or change it, it can just take it off its register.

What the city argued in our case was that well, this will not cause St.

James Park to be uh taken off our local register because we'll choose to keep it on.

So it doesn't have an impact, but it's taking it off the federal and state register.

So that's one of the changes that's of great import that the city has control of just if they want to demolish something, they'll just say it's not historic.

Well, if I may, um we can't delist something that's on the national register because we're not keepers of the national register.

But hold on, please.

Um I mean it's not subject to the ordinance, is my point.

Well, that's right.

So if if you go to the historic preservation permit section, we have never regulated national register properties or California registered properties because it's not required under the HP permit section.

So changing the definition in that respect is is moot.

It because it it's not required for any other type of property, except a city landmark or property in a city landmark district.

Well, if it um respectfully, if it wasn't needed to be changed, uh if it didn't have an impact, they wouldn't need to change it.

They're changing it to specifically say because in the legal action, which is all I know really about at this point, uh, the city argued that it didn't matter that this would actually, and I know it's kind of a combination of this project and this uh ordinance, and I I appreciate the difference, but they do interrelate.

One of the impacts of the project that the EIR found was that it was going to loot the park would lose its eligibility for the national register.

Right, but that's CEQA, and that doesn't that doesn't apply to the ordinance because we don't regulate national register properties.

Uh the court disagreed with that interpretation.

Well, that's what our ordinance says.

Okay, I think we're we'll we'll move on to the next uh.

Actually, I had one other follow-up.

Can we just hold our questions for the end?

Yeah, we get the comments for all.

Yeah, then we can do go to the commission questions.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Mike Sodogren.

Oh, yeah, that's fine.

You can sit down or don't be afraid, Mike.

We don't bite.

I'll get over.

Hi, Lisa.

Thank you.

Uh Ben Leech.

Uh preservation action council.

Um, I apologize for the uh late delivery of this letter.

Um, as you might know, I usually speak extemporaneously.

I did really want to memorialize some major concerns about this in the letter, but I'll paraphrase uh here.

Um I think um Dana actually did a very good job of summarizing um the types of changes that are being proposed here.

Um the changes to the definition, um we are still reviewing, but are far less concerned about than the change to um uh 1348240 action by director, planning commissioner city council.

Um, this is the all-purpose ill-defined exemption um that we feel does substantially um undermine the intent of the ordinance and the protections that it currently provides.

Um, as we know, there is a established hardship exemption that has established criteria and an established process by which projects can be judged.

Um an all-purpose uh exemption would completely undermine that.

Um, there would be absolutely no reason to pursue a hardship case when as I read it, uh you could just get to city council and claim public benefit, uh, or not even public benefit, just overriding overriding benefit.

So that raises a number of questions, right?

Um, what exactly constitutes an overriding economic benefit?

Um is that um a public benefit, or is that just maximum profit for private development?

Um, which has not historically been um protected by uh hardship exemptions.

Um what exactly constitutes an overriding legal benefit or a social benefit or an other benefit?

I mean, I think that's so broad.

Um that it does call a question of what exactly are we talking about?

And if we don't know, how can we expect city council to know?

Um, would demolishing a city landmark uh for a surface parking lot, a private hotel, or a data center or a server farm uh meet this definition, right?

We don't know.

Um, and at what point in the application process would an applicant even invoke this overriding benefit argument?

Could it go through HLC and planning with you not knowing that that was um a possible outcome, or is there a clear process that at each step each body should be able to weigh that claim?

And that's not clear as this is written here.

Um we do acknowledge that in many cases um questions of feasibility, preservation alternatives, and overriding considerations have been adjudicated in parallel SQL review processes, uh, but I think it's worth realizing that the SEQA landscape is changing significantly, and we can't always assume that that process is going to stay in parallel.

Um there could very well be cases where what is currently a SQL review project would not be.

And this review would be really the city's only mechanism for judging alternatives, feasibility, potential mitigation.

And it's worth noting that as written, none of those things are required in the city council's determination, that they even weigh alternatives or weigh feasibility.

So for those reasons, your time is coming up.

Just give me two seconds.

Okay, I will.

Thank you.

So for those reasons, uh, in addition to the noted lack of um true community um outreach or public engagement.

Um this is a process, uh, this is a result that most of us saw for the first time last week.

Um, I think that is a very substantial change to um the current ordinance, which we feel you know works well, and we're really worried about the unintended consequences of this type of change.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Mr.

Soderman.

Hi, Mike Sidrin, Preservation Action Council.

This is going to be a bunch of non-sequitors.

I apologize.

Um, when I looked at the changes proposed for 13.48.240, there was a glaring addition.

And it um I don't know what it really means, quite frankly.

If you look at the old language, it said it's that in taking any action on application for HP permit, the director um or the city council, um, as applicable shall consider comments, you know, appeals, that kind of stuff.

So the planning commission has been inserted every place where this language occurs.

And it it seems like, and I'm not just trying to appeal to the people I'm speaking to, but it seems like HLC's role in communicating what is considered um historic, what is considered detrimental, has been transferred to the planning commission, which I would argue is not tooled to address those questions.

So I'm just I'm just curious.

I would like to get feedback on that, you know, outside of my time here.

Um the other thing that I noticed is um, and this has just been my experience, you know, sitting in front of council arguing to protect a historic property when it's gone to council.

I have never ever seen the council turn down a recommendation from staff of a statement of overwriting consideration.

So I think the point that Ben made a point a minute is that I don't think we can count on them not being able to come up with a reason.

And and this council really, really loves this project.

And I have to say, I like the concept of activating historic places.

So it's not it's not like uh us versus them.

It's a do we really expect that there's ever gonna be a case where a statement of overriding consideration is not gonna be approved by planning commission or council.

And then the other comment I wanted to make, and I know I'm out of time, is um not doing a uh updated EIR, assuming that there's no physical changes or environmental impact to me seems very presumptive.

I would argue that the cumulative impact is gonna be massive.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Um, Jeffrey, I cannot read the last name.

Okay.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

I'll be very brief.

Thank you very much for the time here today to this commission.

Um, in the spirit of full disclosure, I'm the president of the St.

Clair Club.

But let me give you a different perspective because I have one.

I'm a sixth generation San Josean.

My family came here when San Jose was the capital of California.

I'm a fourth-generation lawyer in the city.

My office has always been right around St.

James Park.

I've been going to the old courthouse for 40 years.

And what I have to say to this commission is you are the check and balance.

It's in your name.

You are to preserve the history of San Jose.

And by changing this ordinance, you are giving carte blanche to the city council to do whatever they want.

As the gentleman spoke before, there are no restrictions.

They can find anything they want and override whatever they want.

And that will destroy this city even further than it already has been.

I've had an office across the park.

I go to the court, I'm a member of the St.

Clair Club.

I cover every single side of that park.

I walk through it nearly every day.

It is a beautiful place, and this ordinance will allow that park to be destroyed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Jeff.

Karen Lubin.

I'm not an attorney.

I'm I'm a local resident.

I live at 97 East St.

James across the street from the park.

If you notice the t-shirt I'm wearing this was given out by one of the planners that proposed a use of the park that would allow an ADA walkway that go around and visit each of the historical points around the park.

Um seems to me to be in keeping with honoring the worth and the integrity of a historical landmark, building a commercial performance space does not.

My husband died two weeks ago.

He would be here with me if he hadn't.

But don't worry, we're going to pay for windows for you guys.

We'll get triple windows.

Then he came back later and said, Oh, sorry, that money's set aside for nonprofit situations.

We can't actually give you good windows, but thanks for your support.

The point I'm trying to make here is that the city will profit by sharing the rental on the space.

And that's very attractive to a number of people on the council.

Yes, there will be there will be a series of more than 30 performances, all of which will be put on during the summer months, which means that every single weekend we'll hear for at least one day of our weekend.

It's not attractive, and it's not in keeping with the historical park.

Thanks for your attention.

Thank you, and sorry for your loss.

I live in the same building as Karen, and I support uh Karen and Claire people.

Um we plan to retire there, and uh, but with the level of the sound level that's going to come from the Levitt Pavilion, it's going to be unbearable.

Um I was witness to that when I was in a corner unit the other day when there was a some kind of event in the park, and it was very loud and very disturbing, and it was like all day.

So my so I don't see why this doesn't bother you guys.

I mean, just because you don't live there, it I guess it doesn't bother you, but it bothers bothers us.

And my other question is, and my question is does the change to the wording, the ordinance to amend section 13.

etc.

That gives livid that allows the construction of the pavilion, right?

That's just gonna allow it to go forward, right?

Well, just to clarify, this hearing is about ordinance amendments and not about ordinance, but change allows the pavilion to be constructed.

That will be a separate hearing on the historic preservation permit for that project.

But that's but it just gives carte blanche to the city council to do whatever they want.

It's just not the subject of this meeting.

Well, that's just a way of passing the buck to the next commission instead of answering the question now.

So in any case, just know that we all are against this pavilion and the change of the ordinance.

If that's what's going to stop it, then don't change the ordinance and leave it as is.

Thanks for your comment.

Any other public comments?

Okay, public comment is closed.

So I guess I'll turn it over to questions from the commissioners.

Nope, you already had a question.

Oh, okay.

Uh, yes, so I the provision for overriding uh findings, it does seem like it would kind of uh take the power or just kind of the purpose of the purpose of this commission and almost make it uh redundant and irrelevant uh to the point where it does seem like anything that uh the city council itself kind of finds uh is sort of beneficial in some sort of vague way, uh, should be passed.

I mean, I I kind of looking at it, it doesn't seem very concrete on if there's any sort of material or you know, certain uh circumstances where it is you know clearly supposed to be allowed or not, uh it does seem like this change would just give a blank check to the city council uh to do whatever it wants, especially with any sort of historical building.

Oh, that was uh to the attorney.

Um, yeah, uh for the the litigation.

If I could just respond, um the historic landmarks commission is a recommending body to the city council, so um when Mr.

Sodergren was talking about the Planning Commission, um there we we amended the ordinance a couple years ago to include uh concurrent review for all our permits.

So we bundle our projects that include tree permits and you know sometimes there's a site development permit that goes with historic preservation permit, and depending on what the level of environmental review is, the decision-making body could be the city council or the planning commission.

So it's not inserting the planning commission, it just depends on who the decision-making body is for that level of of project.

Um so the historic landmarks commission has always been and no changes proposed to the the recommendations that are part of the the landmarks commission purview.

Okay.

One question I did have for you since you were kind of involved in the litigation, kind of stepping back from the litigation itself, you know, from that specific case, uh just generally uh speaking, since it seems like you've handled certain cases like this, uh, is there any difference?

I know everybody had a little bit of a short notice on I believe some people have short notice on this, uh, the difference between the certain added definitions and some of the definitions that were altered.

Uh was there anything that uh struck you as uh detrimental about the adding of certain new definitions, uh such as you know, detrimental historic integrity, the the addition of certain definitions, just kind of parsing through some of it, but I would think that some parts might not be entirely bad, like adding certain definitions.

So just on that.

I thank you.

I want to I just want to be careful that about our comments here because you are an attorney for a court case that we've had.

So I want to be careful about asking questions.

Susan's not our city attorney.

Just I just want to make sure that that we're clear that you're commenting as a member of the public and not as an attorney.

Um it's a little awkward about the court case.

So I I think just I would be careful about back and forth questions with an attorney that's not the city attorney.

Uh I'm here as an attorney, but I'm not giving you legal advice.

I'm commenting on the matter before you, as I do all over the state.

But our city attorney is not here.

Well, that was your choice.

Maybe the question could just be rephrased as a question about her comments as opposed to her her legal opinion.

Sure, sure.

I understood your question to be whether there's a difference between the way the ordinance is now and whether the the changes are what the problems may be, because it sounded like you thought some of them might be very positive.

That's what I thought the subject was, and I'm glad to address that.

Did I get that straight enough for you?

Okay, well, right now there isn't a definition.

The word detriment is in the ordinance, and so without a definition of exactly what it means, um, the question is it's hard to understand, and it does make sense to define it, but the way that it's proposed now would reduce the um availability of protecting resources if the city council uh finds that there's a substantial enough public benefit that it would outweigh it, it's like a weighing as opposed to the way it's written now is a negative impact.

Um, would disallow approval of a project that has a significant effect on a protected resource, and with the change to the ordinance, it would reduce the protection that the ordinance now has.

So the way detriment is defined is an important question.

And as you point out, there may well be parts of the current proposed definitions that make a lot of sense, and there may be parts that aren't.

And the problem is that right now with it undefined, it's a broader scope, and so it could reduce protections, and that triggers uh environmental review as opposed to a uh what's proposed now for the ordinance is an addendum which has no public comment, no public review, and no uh basically no oversight into or excuse me, analysis of what are the impacts of the definition that's proposed, and should should it be different?

Does it have impacts?

Those questions have not been defined or publicly vetted.

Through the chair, if I may address the comment.

Good evening, everyone.

I'm Manira Sandh here, deputy director of planning.

Uh, just want to clarify that the addendum before you is subject to public review and comment.

In fact, the whole purpose of posting the addendum and providing that opportunity for the public to comment, like we do have, you know, we do open the review of the addendum to the public.

Uh so I just wanted to correct that statement.

Um, I think uh, you know, the the conversation about the definition of detriment and the process for that override.

I think that, you know, it's very helpful to receive the comments today to understand what the concerns are from the community and and SJPAC and all the members of the public who are here, and certainly staff can look at that further.

This is the first step, first hearing for this project.

There will be other hearings and other opportunities for comment, including the public, sorry, the planning commission as well as the city council.

And of course, we encourage you know the public commenters here tonight to uh write to put in their comments in writing as well.

So our city attorney can also review those comments and provide responses.

So I just wanted to just, you know, level set somehow some of the comments that we are receiving.

I would also encourage the commissioners to direct their questions instead of the back and forth with the community to staff, so they can provide responses.

I think, you know, you have you have heard from the community what their concerns are, and I would encourage the commission to have that dialogue and discuss you know what uh recommendations they would like to provide to staff into city council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Can I ask you a question while you're up here?

And maybe this is for Dana.

Another comment that came through was regarding notice.

And could you guys comment on what notice was followed here?

I presume it was done in accordance with the law that are applicable, but I just want to get confirmation for folks on that.

Absolutely.

Dana, would you respond to that?

Thank you.

Um, it's uh newspaper um notice is required.

Um 20, I'm not sure how many days in advance.

20 business days in this advance.

So the law requires for ordinance amendments, uh at least a notice for 20 days in advance of a public hearing.

Um, and so that was provided.

And I believe a courtesy notice was also provided, Dana, to our interested parties list or um to any members of the public who may have signed up.

Yeah, we have a website and we have um blanking.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, that was not the case.

Okay, but we will make sure to include a uh notice to all the interested parties, all the people who have commented today.

You have provided your speaker cards.

So we hopefully have your name and emails so that we can make sure to provide the notice for the planning commission and the city council meetings.

You also we also shared the dates of those meetings, so you have those available.

Uh, based on the input tonight, if we you know make any changes to the draft ordinance, we'd be happy to share that in advance of the hearings as well.

Could I also get more clarification on the addendum?

Because there was a comment made that that's not a valid CEQA process.

And my understanding, in fact, my knowledge is that it is a valid CEQA process that is part of the SQL guidelines that essentially tears off of an existing EIR by providing an analysis in a written document that is then published as part of the packet for the approval process.

So, could you confirm that?

Yes, absolutely.

Being a CEQA practitioner for the last 18 years, I'm happy to confirm that yes, addendum is a valid CEQA document for actions of this type where uh it has been found that uh the ordinance amendments themselves uh do not result in additional or any new significant impacts that were not evaluated in prior EIRs that it's tiering from.

Uh it is also a public process, so it is available for public comment and review and input, and it is required that city council before they take action on the ordinance, have to confirm that the addendum is the appropriate CEQA approach in this case.

Um, I think what I'm hearing comments from the public, there is um perhaps some uh intermixing of two projects here.

You know, this ordinance, this particular project that's before you tonight is an ordinance amendment, completely focused on the process and the findings uh for granting and uh historic permit.

Is that what it's called?

HP permit?

Yes, yes, so definition.

Right.

Uh versus I think there is another project of parks project, the the Levitt Pavilion that is a completely separate environmental review process.

That's a different item.

It's not under consideration tonight, it's not on the agenda.

Therefore, the commission cannot discuss that item.

Uh the addendum was found to be adequate for the ordinance amendments by staff by our CEQA experts and by the city attorney's office, uh, because here we are creating a process that clearly sets out some definitions of terms that are not currently defined clearly in the ordinance.

And again, the findings are reflective of the existing CEQA process.

So those were the two reasons that the addendum was utilized in this instance, and why staff believes that there's no additional new environmental impact that has to be evaluated for this ordinance.

Now, if this ordinance is approved by council in future, there could be projects, you know, that that need an HP permit, and that point that project will have to do its own environmental analysis, and especially if it's you know, for a site that is deemed historic, that will need its own CEQA analysis and may not be an addendum at that point, maybe an EIR, it may be an initial study, it could be an exemption.

It really would depend on the type of projects that come through in the future.

But the addendum, I'm sorry, the amendments, the ordinance amendments themselves are not resulting in a new physical impact or uh uh need for additional mitigations.

Thank you.

So a question to staff, a follow-up question on that.

Uh, since this is an addendum, there's no EIR.

Um, I heard that the city attorneys, and I guess the city has kind of taken the position that this is sufficient.

Uh, but is there a risk that by just doing an addendum, it may kind of open up the city to possible litigation from I guess other interested parties who may disagree with that idea, and all of a sudden, you know, because we took the addendum route, or the city took the addendum route, all of a sudden now the city's wrapped up in even more litigation.

There's always a risk in every action.

Just to clarify that um there have been two prior EIRs, so um, as um Chair Galindari was saying, it's tearing off those two EIRs, uh, both for the general plan and our downtown strategy, which anticipated and um disclosed uh significant communal cumulative impacts to historic resources.

So there was fairly extensive uh historic resource analysis in those two EIRs, and that's why there's no new impacts that are being disclosed because they were already studied uh under the two prior EIRs.

Okay, so it's the city's city's interpretation that the previous EIRs are sufficient enough for this addendum.

That's right.

Okay.

May I conclude my comment on that?

Sorry, there's no public comment anymore.

Thank you so much.

Question, and I and you answered it.

We appreciate that.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

So is this on here?

Um I see this proposed addendum as detrimental.

It's the first step as being detrimental to preserving our historic resources, uh, of which the city has been very successful at doing for the past number of years.

Um, we all know why this proposed addendum exists.

Um as a lifelong San Jose and very passionate preservationist, I I have to completely disagree with this.

Um, and I think it really is again detrimental to the very reason why we're all here and why this commission exists.

And you know, again, we all know why this is on the table here, and um I just have to say I I vehemently disagree with this because I think that it will completely undermine um preservation, not only existing historic resources, but future historic resources, so that's my comment.

It's both.

I think we could just do both.

That's my feeling.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Bainwell, I don't know if you had any comment that you wanted to add to your question.

Um I I guess I'm maybe in the have any comments.

Uh I have questions.

Okay.

So, all right, Commissioner Kahn, please.

Is anybody else has questions?

I have questions too that are kind of intermingled with comments, but I could.

Why don't you go ahead?

Okay, all right, bear with me.

So I I have a number of questions about the way this was drafted.

I understand the reasoning for this legislation.

I understand the process that took place to get us to this point.

Um I have to admit I I am a little bit concerned with how broadly it was drafted.

I understand the sentiment around wanting to give discretion to the city in certain circumstances to override similar to CEQA.

However, CEQA is a separate process from this ordinance.

And if you look throughout different cities in California, there's a reason why these historic preservation ordinances are on the books separate from CEQA, because CEQA does always let you override.

I mean, that's the whole EIR process.

It allows you to do that.

Um, and then you have your limitations on what you can do and what the cities are able to do.

Um I did read the court case, and you know, I think part of the comments on the court case related to the fact that there was a lot of vague language in the in the historic preservation ordinance, which I don't disagree with, and I generally agree that vagueness in this type of ordinance actually is not great, because you know, I think at this point we want to provide certainty for folks in terms of you know, people that are trying to redevelop or trying to maintain a property or adaptive reuse or preserve.

So I do agree with some of the changes that were made in order to clarify things, but I think some of the language actually creates more questions.

For example, um, the definition definition of substantial alteration, um, which means demolition, destruction, relocation, new construction or alteration activities that would impair the historic integrity and significance of a landmark or property within a historic district.

So, first of all, the the word impair is not defined.

And the court of appeals case was clear that you know, different, you know, detriment means different things in different contexts.

So impair similarly mean means different things in different contexts.

So I think we should define what impair means, and I would think impair in this context means like a significant adverse impact that cannot be mitigated, which is similar to CEQA.

But I mean, essentially what we're saying is if you result in an impact to this historic building or a dis district, that is a sign that's a substantial alteration.

Um, so my suggestion there or my request would be to clarify what that means.

Um the addition of property within a historic district, I just don't think that's correct.

I don't think a property within a historic district is what is impacted.

It has to be a contributing property, or it has to be the historic district itself.

It has to have an impact on the actual historic district, and I actually think it broadens it to say that substantial alteration of any property within a historic district is deter, you know, that's a substantial alteration because there's properties that are in historic districts that aren't historic themselves, and so anyways, that's another one that I would like to have clarified.

Um then I also would my suggestion would be that for the definition of substantial alteration.

I think it should be made clear that any proposal that complies with the Secretary of Interior Standards should be deemed to be not a substantial alteration.

So that it's super clear what is a substantial alteration and what is not a substantial alteration.

Um that is for the definition of substantial alteration.

And then moving down into the subsection D of section 1348 240, which is I think the language that has caused a lot of concern for folks.

Um my question for staff is is: is there a reason why it was drafted so broadly?

And is there a way to limit it so that for example, like a demolition of a historic landmark is subject to a different standard than you know, an alteration or maybe um some sort of construction within a historic district that might, you know, that doesn't impair the overall value of the district, but has some sort of impact on one of the buildings in the district or s some more nuanced way to kind of limit the application of this, because I do not think that anybody here wants like some of our most beautiful buildings to be able to be demolished because the city council thinks that there's some sort of public benefit.

I think I would think that most people here are uncomfortable with that.

But I do think that having some sort of discretion in circumstances where public policy really really dictates that action makes sense with specific findings that have to be made and limitations.

And I think as drafted, it is too broad.

And my request and and what I would urge city staff to do is to work on language to kind of limit the application of it in a way that that would hopefully maybe work for members of the community that have spoke today and also you know would make us feel good as a commission.

Um certainly me, um, with moving this forward with a positive recommendation.

If you have a question, well, no, I think those were mostly comments.

Um, no, I think I think they were mostly comment.

I mean, if if there was if you can answer some of the questions around the reasons why it was drafted this way, that would be helpful.

If not, you know, I think we could hopefully you could just take into account the comments.

Well, in terms of that finding, I guess we'd just say that it's it's directly, you know, related to CEQA, so the wording is not really changed.

So I think it was just a desire to directly parallel those two findings.

Okay, so the the was the intent to kind of have it be similar to a statement of overriding considerations, so that isn't there a concern that then every time the city adopts a statement of overriding considerations, they'll also adopt approve the HP permit.

I mean, I I guess is that the intent.

Or is it intended to kind of work separately even though it's the same standard?

I mean, that's a procedural question that could be clarified.

And I believe either Mike or Ben mentioned, I think Ben mentioned that is, you know, would it be requested at the beginning and when is it considered?

So I guess I would that would be something that we could study in terms of sort of the process, and would it be a separate overriding statement or the same overriding statement?

We could clarify that as a procedure about how it would how it would go through the process.

Yeah, I think typically for CEQA at least, the statement of overriding considerations comes at the end once the full analysis is completed.

However, typically, like with a historic resource, you do, you know, have that knowledge up front.

This is not a technical analysis.

I mean, that there would be some technical analysis, but it's not like an air quality emissions analysis where you need to do the technical review before you can you know that there's going to be an impact.

If there's demolition of a historic building, you know immediately that that would be a potential significant and unavoidable impact.

So I think at that point staff would work with the uh the applicant or with, you know, uh or internally to figure out is there adequate, you know, um uh proposal, is the proposal adequate enough to warrant a significant over uh an override of the significant impacts uh based on the financial legal uh public benefits that the project is providing, um, and then staff can form a recommendation around it to take to council.

Um but I think in some instances, if you know, staff typically if and I have come across projects where perhaps the overriding benefits uh are not there, and then staff may, you know, say might recommend denial of this uh override consideration.

Now I know some of the public commenters said that doesn't typically happen.

That's because when staff, you know, talks to the developer and says we may not recommend approval, a lot of developers, you know, are like okay, maybe we'll withdraw the application.

So perhaps that never really makes it to hearings, those kinds of projects, but it is possible that some may, and it would be up to the you know, the HLC, the planning commission to make recommendations and for council to take that action.

I will say the process, I guess Dana defined like this is a separate finding that's in the HP permit.

Uh, but I think if there is a CEQA EIR that has a statement of overriding considerations that that finding would rely on that documentation in terms of process, that I think that process would start early uh in in that coordination with the applicant.

Um I I would also like to add that, you know, we did look at some of the other cities uh that perhaps have some additional language so staff can go back and consider like where it may be appropriate to add some more um uh clarity what the standards are for that override uh because again this is a very niche area and reservation is important to the city of San Jose I think all of us want those beautiful buildings the landmarks to be preserved in and so that additional criteria might have so we'd be happy to go back and explore that with the city attorney's office.

I really appreciate that yeah I mean I understand the process the statement of overriding considerations would happen first then the HP permit would be approved.

The only point that I'm making is I think it'll be really hard if the city is making a statement of overriding considerations on the CEQA front to then not make one on the HP front and I don't think practically we want them to be linked.

We want I think what what the intent is to give the city the discretion in certain circumstances but not in every circumstance and if you're demolishing or having an impact on a historic resource you will have an EIR um I know that today's state legislation world is you know changing things up so I don't disagree that maybe in certain circumstances that might not be true.

But I think on average in most cases a lot of cases you still will have that and so I think the outcome is a little bit awkward in that sense and so I I just I highly suggest working on the language for the findings in the context of this override and I think it needs to be separate from CEQA and I think it needs to have different findings for a complete demolition of a landmark than it does for an impact to a historic district than it does you know for an alteration or something like that.

I think it needs to be segmented okay.

Commissioner Cohen.

All right one one question before uh were there any other cities that had similar provisions in their historic in their ordinances similar to this overriding uh provision that is going to be added here.

There were three cities um have my slides up um sort of similar but uh nothing completely exactly the same Sacramento was the closest where they were considering other general plan policies like we do for our CEQA override where we we look at all of our general plan policies and see how the project is you know meeting our general plan goals so that that was uh the route that they take Doc Reno.

Pasadena I believe had an overriding um considerations for demolition only um and then San Diego has provisions uh where they can override for public projects only all right which questions um okay I'm gonna try to be organized thank you for letting us do comments and questions because I have a big time separating myself to that okay first I'd like to comment on on uh what what Sarah said um I totally agree that um it opens to more this opens up more questions I absolutely a hundred percent agree because of missing definitions um uh even if it's there's not historic alternative alterations um you mentioned that uh um that every uh but if there's a historic district and there's a property that is not deemed historic alterations don't make a difference and I I disagree with that because what they do do is they affect the fabric of the district um uh but you had great comments um sorry can I clarify that I didn't I didn't say that it won't my comment was that the impact needs to be on the historic district.

There might be an impact on the historic district because you're modifying a property and that has an impact.

But to say that the impacts on a property in the historic district is just not technically correct because it has to result in an impact to the historic district somehow, whether it's the to the contributory building or to the district itself.

There will be circumstances where you you'll do construction on a building that has no impact on a historic district.

It might have an impact on the property, but it's not going to have an impact on the historic district unless the building is contributory or the building modifications result in an impact on the historic district.

So I think that needs to be clear in the language so that it's not expansive to any building in the historic district.

But we we do review every building in the district against the secretary of the interior standards.

The impact would be more cumulative in terms of CEQA when we're looking at that, but we still require compliance with the standards for every property in a district.

That's fine, but you're not gonna have a substantial impact in terms of historic on a non-historic building, right?

I mean, that doesn't make any sense.

But it's not a CEQA impact, it's a it's a substantial alteration to that property in a district.

But the way it's been defined in the statute is that it essentially has an impact via not complying with Secretary of Interior Standards.

Yeah, we can go back and look at that, but I I yeah, I think there may be some parting of thought there.

Um your comments are terrific, they usually are.

Um so um so you know, a lot of comments have been made here on how this should be drafted.

And um I think the first thing I'd like to talk about, uh, and I'll try to be as brief as I can, is the process.

Um gentleman's been here for many generations.

Uh uh, I've been here for many decades, and I appreciate where you're coming from.

Once again, I do not understand the process, right?

Why was this not brought to the public before it was drafted to get input?

At least bring it to the historic landmarks commission so we can look at the proposal before it's drafted, and we're saying, here, take it or leave it.

So if this is open to changes or modifications, then are we going to change the timeline which which was shown previously where it goes to council in December?

You know, and what what one thing I will bring uh forward to this council is that we should uh uh propose that when we get to that point, that this should be tabled until it gets thoroughly vetted by the community and it gets vetted by the historic landmarks commission.

If we're all saying that's why we're here, then why aren't we being used for something like this?

Um, so I do not understand the bypass.

I do understand um that there's certain processes that are delineated by the city that we need to go through the timeline, the 20 days and all that.

I've seen that movie many times.

But to me, the bottom line is that if the community comes forward and says, I didn't know, or I need more time, or I need to talk to staff to clarify what they're proposing, then there's not enough time given to the public for public process.

I don't care what an ordinance says, I don't care what the city policy says, and that's what we're hearing today, that they didn't have enough time.

I don't care if we gave them six months.

If they said there's not enough time, there's not enough time, then it takes eight months, my opinion.

Um, so um getting into the nuts and bolts of this, um, uh, without the great detail that Sarah did, because I don't think that's what we're here for.

The way I'm interpreting the reason that we're here for is take it or leave it.

Can you clarify that point, please?

Yeah, no, that's not the.

I mean, you know, the recommendation is to um to make a recommendation tonight, but there you could certainly make recommendations on changes of language or studying certain aspects of it or clarification, certain parts of it, um, and then the process will continue, and you know, it's it's possible that things will evolve.

Well, the process continues, which means that the next public process goes to where on November?

To the Planning Commission.

Then the process is ended.

It's all public hearings because the planning commission only makes recommendations the same way that the landmarks commission does.

I do respect when, and I've seen this movie hundreds of times.

Once it goes to the planning commission, they're gonna take it.

It's they're gonna make, if they make any changes, it'll be crazy minor.

I mean, they take what we what's given to them, I don't care what the project is, and maybe they'll make a little change, but basically, it's like approve or not approve, and that's it.

And from what we've heard today, and the comments from the the commissioners, um, is that this needs a lot of revisions, and it needs a lot of thought.

Uh, and that's not gonna happen when it goes to the planning commission and when it goes to city council.

They're not gonna do that, they're not designed for that.

And and I'm sorry, they also do not have the expertise, which was uh that was brought up.

We are the historic landmarks commission.

Everybody that's on this commission was brought here because of historic expertise in one level or another.

That does not true for the landmarks commission.

I'm sorry, for the planning commission.

But just to be clear, you're not making the recommendation to so it's not going you're making the recommendation to the planning commission, the planning commission's making recommendations city council.

You're making your own recommendation to city council and they're making recommendations to the council.

Right.

So there's not going to be any override or people from the public um, you know, can show up just like they did tonight and make comments.

We will talk to our attorneys about um any potential amendments to recommend.

Right.

I I understand that, but but basically, and I know what you're gonna say, sorry, we're being cut short.

That's that's my bottom line.

So I could we could we have them clarify a little bit more like the recommendations that we're making tonight, for example, some of the language changes that I suggested.

Can you just clarify like can you talk about how that might get brought forward to city council by planning staff?

Are you guys gonna consider it?

Like how do how does that work?

Yeah, happy to chime in, although this is my first ordinance amendment through the city, been here six months.

So my understanding is that the recommendation that comes from the historic landmarks commission tonight, if you are united in making a recommendation, and specifically if it's focused on providing direction or guidance to staff on like changes that you'd like to see if you were to make a favorable recommendation, like that you would like to see changes to the substantial alteration definition or changes to how the override considerations are better defined.

Like you can give a specific guidance and staff would consider that and see if we can fold those in before we go to the planning commission, and there would be a new version of the draft that would be made available for public review and comment, and even you know, shared with you all so you can you can see that as well.

I think that would be that could be one process uh that that could facilitate some of the changes that you recommend tonight.

Okay, so that's exactly what I said is that if rather than it coming back here and then moving forward, it's not this is it.

Okay, so I totally disagree with that.

Um so getting it into the ordinance itself uh or the proposal itself, the word hardship undermines the historic preservation ordinance.

I mean it's as simple as that.

We have seen this before, it's nothing new, and by by with what's being proposed, all it's doing is it's making the hardship, the detriment more of a tool for the planning commission and the city council to move forward and undermine historic properties, historic designations, historic districts.

That's what it's doing.

You know, this commission has has had conversations uh on the problem with the hardship in not being defined and being not being defined at all and being too arbitrary.

Uh we've talked about moving forward on that.

Now you want to make it even more arbitrary because, well, maybe it's a hardship.

Well, there's a detriment.

I mean, it's just it's just another tool to bypass historic preservation and and we might as well address the the elephant in the room is that this is something that the developers will absolutely love.

I mean, it's a gift for them.

Um, the hardship is a gift.

This is even more of a gift.

Um, and it's really basically going to railroad projects through the city uh and bypass the HP ordinance.

Um, you know, we already have a problem that I perceive with the planning commission and and not recognizing, and with the city council not recognizing recommendations that this committee makes.

Uh, and this just really as has been brought up by these speakers, and I listen to all of them, is I agree, it just it just dilutes any little ability that we have as a commission to make a difference, hands down.

Um the the word detriment to me, summing it up lowers the threshold of what the council and what the planning uh uh what the council and what the planning commission can do to bypass the AP HP ordinance in a nutshell, it just really lowers it.

Um let me see.

I'm almost there, I'm sorry.

Um so yeah, I think that um I think we're good.

I think we're I'm not gonna get into specifics of this because I honestly feel that uh uh I agree with Sarah's comments.

I think they were terrific, and that it this needs to come back to the historic landmarks commission before it goes anywhere else, and with that I'm done and we can okay, thank you.

So I um I think we have to make a motion on this, right?

Um yeah, I just want to circle back to the request to defer um just if you're gonna consider any of that and commissioner cohen's comments.

So, the planning commission meeting is on the same night as the next landmarks commission meeting.

So I if we do defer it, uh would that push the planning commission here?

Um, I mean, I guess we and can I ask one more question?

It's been noticed already, but doesn't we could we make a motion to incorporate certain changes and bring it back to the historic landmarks commission one time before the planning commission?

Well, the planning commission's scheduled for the 5th uh November.

So I'm sorry, why is this being railroaded?

What's the emergency?

Well, it's it's been noticed already.

So, but it doesn't matter.

A notice can be can be look the items get deferred, notice is no big deal.

What's the emergency?

Why is this being railroaded through?

Because that's no offense, that's exactly how I feel.

And obviously, this is how the public feels because they haven't had they feel they haven't had proper time uh um to vet it.

And I totally agree with them.

You know, I thought I I had a grasp on it when I went through it, and then when I listened to your presentation, which was very good, and I listened to the comments from the other commissioners.

I'm like, I got more questions in my own in my own head.

So what would be the problem in okay?

Let's do this.

I would like to make a motion.

Can I make a motion?

Sure.

Sure.

Okay.

I'd like to make a motion that that this item is deferred, uh, and that it comes back to the historic landmarks commission, and that even before it comes back to the landmarks commission, uh, that a dre a new draft is distributed to the commissioners, so we have time to really look at it and vet it.

And then when we come to the commission meeting, we can have we can have our own comments and not have to make comments on the fly.

That's my motion.

To the chair, if I could ask for clarifications, uh Commissioner Cohen, you did not provide any comments on the current draft.

So your motion includes bringing back a new draft.

So could you please provide guidance and direction so the other commissioners can wait?

I think that this draft uh needs a lot of work.

Uh I don't agree with the way that it's written right now.

I believe there needs to be more definitions on terms that are in the draft, and um, and therefore I feel I make a motion that this should be deferred and come back to the commission and give the public more time so they can also review it and come back with comments.

Could I make some specific language requests?

Is that does that work?

How does that work if I want to like do a friendly amendment?

Could I do a friendly amendment to his motion to add my comment?

Could we, I guess, pause before we start making motions to discuss maybe, I mean, what would be the best type of motion?

So then instead of kind of amending a bunch of motions.

So you can make a friendly emotion on my friendly amendment to my motion.

We we would also need a second to the motion.

I would recommend to see if uh Commissioner Cohen's motion has a second before you discuss it and see if the other friendly amendments you'd like to propose.

Do are friendly amendments made after you can also.

Okay.

Um so my amendments would be to clarify to planning staff to define what it means to impair in the definition of substantial alteration, and to also clarify that modifications that are consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards are not a substantial alteration.

And then in section 13.48.240, um, to refine that language to include additional findings that are applicable, um, that are different than the CEQA findings of for a uh statement of overriding considerations that um apply to demolition of a landmark in particular.

I think that should have its own separate standards that are applicable.

Um I mean, I'm happy to make some suggestions.

I think there's different ways that it could be done besides I think the hardship language would that's existing in the ordinance.

I think that remains.

I think we want something that is in addition to the hardship, but is a little bit less than the fuzzy language of you know overriding economic, legal, social, uh technological.

And I think that might include, you know, for example, like requirements of showing of that, you know, other alternatives were looked at, um, you know, economic impacts, like I think it needs to be further defined so that it makes it it has some clear boundaries to what when the city council can actually make this determination, so that everyone's not looking at the language and saying, Well, what is economic, legal, social, or technological, which is consistent with CEQA, and as we know is made oftentimes for an EIR.

So that's sorry, that's kind of a rambling long motion, but that would be my suggestion for the motion.

I'm totally on board with that.

And then also if it could be possible to somehow allow the public to uh send in their input for the the change in the ordinance itself too.

So some sort of process where the public can either email uh the staff just on certain concerns and stuff they have, and then so that the next hearing we can actually uh hear from the staff and say, you know, we had these comments come in and this is how we address them, and this is our recommendation uh after hearing some of those comments.

I guess from tonight's hearing, and then anything that I guess maybe uh the public may email or send in.

We've had a website up for probably a month.

Um I can add the draft um text to to that, um, but it is up and you and you can't email me.

That's been up for the last month or so.

Yeah, through the chair, that is part of our process.

So we welcome public comments throughout.

Um, no, I was just saying that we can post the language on the website it's been up there for a while yeah the website is the website for a while the ordinance can be posted on that we will add that to the website was the language I've been presuming the language has been available since the agenda packet was published okay so yeah last week um so can I just get clarity if we if we approve this motion though how will that impact the schedule with the planning commission I think I think the motion is to send it back for planning reconsideration with our suggested amendments and then bring it back to the Historic Landmarks Commission for another hearing next month right and I just want to understand how that will factor in with the planning commission hearing the city council hearings.

We don't have an answer to that probably at the moment because scheduled for the 5th we could potentially ask for um deferral to a time certain at the planning commission meeting um I think we're gonna have to circle back internally and figure out how to you know amend the schedule okay so we have an um we have a motion on the table with two friendly amendments we have a second uh should we take a vote at this point okay commissioner cohen um I uh uh I agree with the amendment that is on the table okay just sorry just for my own clarity uh what is the I guess the um motion with the amendments now yeah uh motion to move this forward for hearing a second hearing of the historic landmarks commission with suggested edits that the planning department will consider and posting the language on the city's website for public review right okay uh yeah Commissioner Caruso I agree with the uh proposal um I'm thinking that we might need to do a date certain um because I'm not sure that we'll have enough time to remote renotice for the the next meeting yes I think that's advisable so uh is this I I heard the chair as part of her friendly amendment propose the next for the November I believe it's the November 5th hearing of the HLC.

Okay thank you for that clarification.

If that's enough time.

That's only four weeks the staff needs time to to do their revisions and we need time to see it.

I propose that it goes to the December meeting.

I think we have enough uh direction from the commission on the language changes they'd like to see in terms of the definitions and then the override so I'm hoping that we can make it work.

Yeah I I would like to keep it for November fifth.

I think there's it's not a long ordinance I think the city staff hopefully can handle it and get it wrong.

I don't want to speak towards Dana's workload which is my concern well they're saying that you're is does this work for you guys it sounds like it does I I think we need to stick into it yeah okay.

Okay so I'm gonna take it back around for the amended motion coming back on November 5th Commissioner Cohen.

Uh yes.

Okay Commissioner Caruso Commissioner Bainwall yes and I'm a yes all right thank you this item is closed.

Um okay moving on to the next public hearing which is um PP 24012 ICO neighborhood objective design standards for exterior changes to ICLR houses listed on the San Jose Historic Resources inventory that requires single family home permit or other planning permit that involves historic review um I'm gonna turn it over to Dana.

I think so.

Yay.

All right.

Moving on.

So this item addresses the um proposed uh ICLER neighborhood design standards.

Just as background, ICLERS are mid-century modern homes that were built by Joseph, a developer, Joseph Eichler, between 1952 and 1963.

The City of San Jose has several examples of ICLER neighborhoods.

We only have one that's listed in the National Register of Historic Places and also in the inventory, and that's the Fairglen editions.

Kind of started by residents back in 2016, who formed a preservation committee to try to recognize uh and research and designate their neighborhood.

And it was finally listed on the National Register in 2019 and added to the historic resources inventory.

They were based on other guidelines and particular the City of Orange, and were written as guidelines, but since the housing laws have uh come into fruition, um the city hired page of Turnbull to transform those guidelines into objective design standards, and that was done over the course of the last year.

So the goals would be to align with the state housing legislation and provide clear measurable standards, which will streamline the review process, but also ensure compliance with historic preservation standards.

Um to property owners and applicants and staff for their review.

Um they complement the year old house guide guidelines, which are very geared towards traditional architecture, and less so for modern uh architecture.

There's brief mentions of uh modern styles in the guidelines, but there's not a lot of guidance with regard to approaching those buildings for changes.

So these guidelines supplement the um your old house guidelines and they specifically support the mid-century modern character.

Um as I said, they'll supplement the old house guidelines.

They're aligned with the Secretary of the Interior Standards.

Um they don't impose any new permit uh requirements.

Um the neighborhoods listed on the historic resources inventory, which already requires the issuance of a single family house permit for uh any exterior changes.

So this really assists staff in making those evaluations and reviews for exterior changes.

Um it only applies to ICLER tracks that are listed on the HRI.

So right now there's only one neighborhood.

Um the national register nomination for the Fairglen editions uh neighborhood was written as a multiple properties um nomination, so it was written explicitly so that other ICLEDs could nominate their neighborhood as well to the national register.

So it's possible that there will be future neighborhoods in the future in the future, but um there will be whole separate processes that would occur with that.

Um they're not retroactive, so any other prior um if the if for applications that we currently have in, it wouldn't they wouldn't apply directly to those projects and it doesn't regulate interiors.

Um this is just kind of a general um overview of the types of categories that are included um in the standards.

Um, and it just gives you the requirement and then sort of the general general guidance.

Um we had a project website that was established in September of last year.

Um the draft was circulated um to the public um through the website uh in October and November last year.

Uh we had a community meeting uh in this room on October 24th of last year, and also uh historic landmarks commission meeting on November 6th of last year, where the uh guidelines were presented for comment both by the commission and the public.

Um let's see, we mailed hearing notices since this particular uh project affects uh those property owners that um live in the um Fairglen editions uh neighborhood.

They were all noticed and sent postcards of this hearing and the upcoming hearings also before the planning commission and the city council.

Um that there was quite a bit of a review process.

Uh all comments are also posted on our website from the public.

Uh, and then the um draft document as well as the final document is also posted there.

Um the uh CEQA is a exemption um because it meets the uh Secretary of the Interior Standards, uh which the document aligns with, so it supports historic preservation.

Um be prepared a exemption and there's no further environmental review required.

Um again, it goes to the planning commission on November 5th and to the city council on December 2nd.

Um so the recommendation is to accept the CEQA exemption and to recommend to the city council to adopt the resolution to approve the ICLER neighborhood objective design standards.

Thank you.

Um is there any public comment on this item?

Ben Leach again uh preservation action council.

Um just fun fact.

My the first time I ever heard about the Preservation Action Council, I was a newly transplanted San Josean at the Eichler uh National Register celebration in 2019 marking the successful addition of this neighborhood uh to the national register.

So I appreciate all of the work that has followed from that to get to a set of um what you know.

I think the preservation um world is really trying to wrap its head around um what objective design standards are in this sort of new climate, and this has been an extremely worthwhile exercise to go through.

Um obviously um benefiting um uh very unique collection of buildings that I'm sure you're all looking forward to getting to see firsthand.

Um uh when is that later this month?

Once Friday.

Yeah, so I'd only say uh the the presentation could be used a little bit more slides, but I think you're gonna get into get into why uh this really was a worthwhile exercise.

So um very appreciative of the support of the staff, the neighborhood, um, the consultants.

Uh it it has resulted in something I think is uh net positive for um for the city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any more?

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Public comments closed.

These are are there any comments from the commissioners?

I think we all thought this one looked great.

All right, so I will make a motion to approve the recommendation uh from staff, which is to consider an exemption in accordance with SQL guidelines, section 15060 C2.

There's a bunch of other ones we'll have to read them.

Or one 15378 15061B3 and 15331.

And then to approve an ordinance adopting the San Jose Eichler neighborhood objective design standards.

And this is a recommendation to the city council.

Um I'll second it.

Okay.

Um go Commissioner Bainwall.

Yes.

Commissioner Caruso.

Yes.

Okay, I'm a yes, and yes.

All right.

That items closed.

All right, the next items planning referral referrals.

There are no items.

The next one's general business, there are no items.

Next one's referrals from city council boards, commissions, or other agencies, no items.

The next one's open forum.

Okay.

Come on up.

60 seconds.

It looks walking time.

First of all, thank you guys for what you do.

Um, you know, when I when I was watching the interaction with the public, it's it really is a no-win thing.

The city has things it has to achieve, but at the same time, we're really that that last wall, you know, in terms of saving, you know, what's historic and gives us unique character, and it's not an easy job, but I'm glad you guys are there to do it.

Um so um I got a I got a panic email.

Was it yesterday?

Yesterday, the day before, from the city of Los Altos, saying we need you to come and speak, right?

We need you come and speak because we're just a city council's about to gut it its historic preservation ordinance.

What?

That's what's happening.

And you know, say that again.

City of Los Altos was getting ready to gut its historic preservation ordinance.

Now that was a perspective, and that that was probably a broader, you know, assertion.

But anyway, um, they reached out to us because we're active and they see us working and and they, you know, we've connected with them in the past.

The reason why I'm bringing it up is because I actually reached out to a council member.

I I said it to the entire council.

Council member writes me back, right?

You know, hey, basically it's none of your business.

You're in San Jose.

But then he came back and he said after the meeting, because he actually read what I sent him, he said I am very sorry.

I understand what you're trying to do.

And I was basically tell him, for God's sake, in this time when the state is streamlining everything and essentially taking a local control.

Don't let that happen.

Don't don't do it without at least understanding what you're doing.

And um, and I just I'm just encouraging us as a city, and what on one hand we want our council to have the discretion, you know, to do overriding consideration, but that that decision making relative to our historic properties very likely can get taken away in the future, and so you want to tread lightly about you know creating a path for you know you ceding the territory um of land use decisions to the state because of you know housing goals, right?

We already saw what the housing element, you know, they just turn the city inside out to demand, you know, basically, you know, more more than we could provide based on the land we had without taking away businesses, right?

So anyway, I just offer it not to be heavy or anything, but I do think the state, because it has very, very big goals in terms of achieving, you know, housing and other things, um, we ought to be really really careful when we're talking about modifying our local ordinance because um, you know, properties and property rights are enshrined in the constitution, and my understanding might have come to be my understanding that local does trump that one thing, which is land use decisions, but don't cede that territory, right?

Don't cede it.

So, anyway, and the only thing I wanted to say about um the fairland thing, separate from that, is it's such a great example of how mid-century is treasured, at least in those houses because those people live there and they love those houses, but so much of the commercial mid-century stuff is just own away.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm gonna move on to good and welfare report from Secretary Planning Commission and City Council.

Um the first item or the only item is historical landmarks commission annual retreat, which is October 10th, 2025, from one to five.

Just a room.

Okay.

Thank you.

Where I'm sorry, where is it gonna be?

Um it'll be in the conference room on the third floor for part of it, and then we'll go out to the field.

The agenda will be published on Friday.

Actually, Thursday, I think the staff set on Friday.

So tomorrow.

Great.

All right, the next item is report from committees, design review subcommittee, no meeting on September 18th, 2025, and the next meeting is scheduled for October 16th, 2025 at 11 a.m.

Um, the next item is appoint one commissioner to the design review subcommittee and currently uh commissioner uh chair Royer and Commissioner Caruso are serving.

So does that have to happen?

Is the item for that to happen now or um that's the recommendation, but if you don't feel like you can do that tonight, I can agenda it for next month.

Just is anyone interested in serving on the time review committee.

Yeah, I would.

Okay.

Been on it before.

Through the chair, is that a nomination or a volunteer?

Like you know how that's a volunteer, I guess.

So are any other volunteers, Dana?

Is there so a process like does somebody have to nominate someone or no?

I think it's just an appointment.

Okay, an appointment.

So there's nothing that no motion or anything we have to make.

I think so.

You can, just to button back if you'd like.

Okay.

Um motion to appoint Commissioner Cohen to the design review subcommittee.

I second uh Commissioner Crusoe.

I agree.

Yes, and I agree as well.

Commissioner Cohen, do you agree?

Hopefully he does.

It's not my first time at the rodeo.

Okay, and then the next one is to appoint a chair of the design review subcommittee.

Um I'm wondering since Chair Royer's not here, maybe we we can wait on that one if you want.

Okay, yeah, let's push that one to the next hearing.

Why don't we just I nominate Chair Royer?

She's the chair.

She might not.

That's okay.

She's not here to accept it.

Um okay, and then C is approval of action minutes and recommend recommendation to approve minutes from the hearing on September 3rd.

I make a motion that we recomm that we accept the minutes from the prior meeting September 3rd.

Great, I second that.

I agree.

Yes.

I agree, yes.

Okay, that one's passed, and then status of circulating environmental documents.

Um reports.

So okay, that takes us to the end.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The speakers will still like to discuss.

I know.

Well, and I just I just realized that I how was I supposed to be?

I thought that's a time anyways.

And it's by now.