Historic Landmarks Commission Meeting: Ordinance Amendments – November 6, 2025

The San Jose Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) held a meeting on November 6, 2025, primarily to consider amendments to Chapter 13.48 (Historic Preservation Ordinance) regarding definitions and a new override provision for the City Council. The meeting was a continuation from October 1, 2025. After public testimony and commission deliberation, the HLC voted 4-2 to recommend a modified version of the staff’s proposed amendments (Option 2) to the City Council.

Consent Calendar

• No items were presented on the consent calendar.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Phil Moresca (Friends of Levitt Pavilion board chair) urged adoption of the proposed language, stating the park needs activation and the changes are needed to move forward.
• Dan Orloff (San Jose resident, music producer) supported the amendments, emphasizing the need for venues to discover future musicians.
• Grace Pugh (downtown resident) supported the ordinance, arguing historic preservation must be balanced with community development.
• Ed Somm (former HLC chair, architect) opposed the broad override provision, calling it a “Pandora’s box” that undermines preservation and creates procedural confusion. He urged the commission to approve a more constrained version (Option 2).
• Dan Bato (Art Boutique owner) supported the amendments, citing the need for all-ages venues in San Jose.
• Sally Schroeder (Friends of Levitt Pavilion board) supported the changes, stating that activation preserves history.
• Susan Brant-Hawley (attorney for St. James Park litigants) argued the ordinance amendment cannot be adopted via an addendum and improperly reduces historic protections.
• Tara Branham (Opera San Jose) supported the amendments, saying they would enhance public access to the arts.
• Sean Atkins (St. Clair Historic Preservation Foundation) opposed, accusing the city of breaking the law and warning of future litigation.
• Laura Wolford (downtown resident, Love It board) supported the changes, calling the lawsuit trivial and expensive.
• Michelle Drayband (Friends of Levitt Pavilion board) urged adoption, citing momentum and the desire to move forward.
• Suzanne St. John-Crane (CEO, American Leadership Forum) supported the amendments, emphasizing public benefits and the Levitt Pavilion Foundation’s $6 million investment.
• Ben Leach (Preservation Action Council of San Jose) urged caution, noting the change affects all historic resources and must have clear guidance.
• Aaron Fiddler (downtown resident) supported the amendments, citing similar policies in other cities.
• Adriana (East St. James Community Center board) opposed the Levitt Pavilion itself, citing noise, property value impacts, and neighborhood quality of life.
• Doug King (San Jose resident) supported the ordinance changes, arguing the park’s history is about community gatherings.
• Julie Wiltshire (Naglee Park resident) supported the changes, calling for revitalization.
• Veronica Bernal (resident across from park) opposed the project due to noise and disruption.
• Walter King (downtown resident) supported the change, saying it will make the park safer.
• Maria (resident near park) opposed, citing decibel levels, trash, crime, and homeless issues.
• Sally Zarnowitz (PAC SJ) supported Option 2, emphasizing guardrails and feasibility.
• Mike Sadegrin (St. Clair Historic Preservation Foundation) urged caution, stating the change is inconsistent with other cities and could endanger other historic assets.

Discussion Items

• Staff Presentation: Staff reviewed the proposed amendments: adding definitions for "detrimental historic integrity" and "substantial alteration" (including defining "impair"), and adding a new subsection (D) to §13.48.240 allowing City Council to make overriding findings when work is detrimental but provides specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits. Staff presented two options for the override findings: Option 1 (more detailed public and private project criteria) and Option 2 (more concise but similar parameters). Staff noted the schedule: Planning Commission Nov. 19, City Council Dec. 2 (first reading) and Dec. 16 (second reading).
• Commissioner Discussion:
  • Commissioner Cohen expressed concern that even with options, the override remains too broad and subjective, potentially allowing the City Council to bypass historic protections. He argued that without clear objective standards, the ordinance could be used to justify any project.
  • Vice Chair Galandari appreciated the staff’s revisions and supported Option 2, with an additional provision from Option 1 requiring that private projects provide a clear measurable public benefit and show that preservation is infeasible. She also favored including the definition of “impair” in the substantial alteration definition.
  • Commissioner Arnold opposed any amendment, stating it undermines historic preservation and that the Levitt Pavilion is an example of why the change is problematic.
  • Commissioner Camuso also opposed the amendments entirely.
  • Commissioner Bainwalk asked about clarifying definitions and expressed doubt about the City Council adhering to the precedent-setting language.
  • Chair Royer noted the difficulty of defining objective parameters but acknowledged the staff’s effort.

Key Outcomes

• Vote: The commission voted 4-2 to recommend approval of the ordinance amendments with the following specifics:
  • Adopt the findings as outlined in Option 2.
  • Incorporate the language from Option 1 for private projects: “the project provides a clear measurable benefit to the community and is necessary to achieve a specific public purpose that cannot be reasonably accomplished through preservation, relocation, or adaptive reuse that outweighs the detrimental effect.”
  • Adopt the first definition of “substantial alteration” that includes the definition of “impair” (i.e., to diminish, damage, degrade, or otherwise negatively affect one or more physical characteristics, features, materials, workmanship, setting, design, or other elements that contribute to the landmark or property in a historic district such that the ability of the resource to convey its historical significance is materially reduced).
  • Yes: Commissioners Arnold, Bainwalk, Vice Chair Galandari, and Chair Royer (4).
  • No: Commissioners Camuso and Cohen (2).
• Next Steps: The recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning Commission (Nov. 19) and then to the City Council (Dec. 2 and 16).
• Agenda for Future Meetings: The commission agreed to add to a future agenda: (1) an update on the Willow Glen/Coyote Creek Trestle (historic bridge) from the city, (2) a discussion on demolition by neglect ordinance and code enforcement priorities for historic resources. The December meeting may include these items, but staff suggested reporting back via email on code enforcement processes.
• Design Review Committee Chair: Commissioner Royer was appointed as chair of the Design Review Committee (unanimous).
• Approval of Minutes: The minutes from the October 1, 2025 meeting were approved unanimously.