No.

Yes.

The attorney party.

Oh what I wasn't there for.

Mr.

Lost.

Um but yeah, she doesn't start.

I like that.

It's okay.

And I had a bunch of record.

Yeah, yeah.

I guess that's correct.

Yeah.

Quite a slow.

But now we have two days.

We're just gonna give everybody a couple more minutes to finish signing in.

I know.

So I mean what the what's the spoiler change?

I know.

Is he got a cool stuff to be ever talked about?

No.

So he used to be one like that.

And so I didn't pass.

It's fine.

I'm perfectly regular.

Okay, good evening.

Welcome to the historic landmarks commission meeting.

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

I'm gonna do roll call now.

Commissioner Cohen.

Present.

Commissioner Camuso.

Present.

Commissioner Bainwalk present.

Commissioner Arnold.

Present.

Um Vice Chair Galandari.

Present.

And Breyer, I'm present as well.

We have full commission tonight.

The procedure for this hearing is as follows.

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

I'll be a stickler on time as we have several but we have one item on the one item on the agenda, but we have a lot of comment cards, so we're gonna be very strict about the two minutes tonight.

If you wish to speak on an item, complete a card.

They're in the back, um, we're near where you signed in, and you can bring it up here and hand it to one of the staff members.

When I receive your speaker card, I'll call you forward when it's time for public comment.

Each speaker will be given 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 change 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.

Historic landmarks commissioners may ask questions of the speakers.

Response to the 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 in advance of the commission meeting.

All public records relating to an open session item on this agenda, which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the public California Public Records Act that are distributed to a majority of the legislative body will be available for public by emailing planning support staff at San Jose CA.gov at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the legislative body.

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 conversation with commissioners or staff.

All members of the Historic Landmarks Commission, staff, and the 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.

Item number one is deferrals.

We have no items.

Item number two, the consent calendar.

Also no items.

And the downtown strategy 2040 final EIR SCH number 2003042127, which is continued from our October 1st, 2025 meeting.

Project manager is Dana Peak Edwards.

Staff recommends that the Historic Landmarks Commission recommend that the City Council take all of the following actions.

Number one, adopt a resolution approving the addendum to the adopted and adopted the final environmental impact reports for the downtown strategy 2040 and envisioned San Jose 2040 general plan.

Number two, approve an ordinance to amend Section 13.48.020 by adding definitions for detrimental historic integrity and substantial alteration and clarifying definitions for historic district and landmark, and to amend Section 13.48.240 by revising B and C to clarify the applications of historic preservation permit findings and by adding D to allow the city council to make certain overriding findings when work is detrimental to a landmark or property in a historic district.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair Royer.

So we're just going to start with a recap since this is a continuation from the last historic landmarks commission meeting on October 1st, 2025, where the commission considered amendments to chapter 13.48, which is the historic preservation ordinance.

What was and is proposed is to clarify the definition of historic district and landmark, to add three definitions, detrimental historic integrity, and substantial alteration.

And to add an override finding where City Council can make specific overriding considerations for economic, legal, social, technical, and other benefits.

At the October 1st HLC meeting, the commission voted to continue the item to tonight to allow for additional input and time for staff to bring back modifications that were recommended at the commission meeting.

The commission asked for modified language to clarify the meaning of impair in the definition of substantial alteration.

Clarify any project complying with the Secretary of the Interior Standards is not a substantial alteration, and to limit the broad application of the proposed override findings by providing clear boundaries, decoupling the finding from CEQA, and providing separate demolition findings.

So what I'll do is just go through the language that staff has come up with in response to the commission's request.

So following on, there was a request to define what impair means, which was part of the proposed definition for detriment.

So the proposed language is the term impair shall mean 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 historic districts ignore historical significance or integrity such that its ability of the resource to convey that significance is materially reduced.

So that's underlined in red.

Another option would be to use a definition for substantial alteration that doesn't include the word impair.

So the one possible definition could be the term substantial alteration shall mean any change to a landmark or property in historic district that changes the form, scale, massing materials, or architectural style in a way that undermines the property's historic integrity, and historic integrity is already proposed to be defined.

The commission also requested some alternate language with regard to the findings that provided a few more parameters.

One is a little more expanded option with regard to parameters around public projects, and the other option is sort of a hybrid of the two.

And alternatives that avoid substantial alteration are infeasible.

Project significantly improves transportation, safety efficiency or accessibility.

Or the project involves the creation, improvement, or expansion of public parks, open spaces, cultural community, or recreational facilities that would benefit the public.

And the project produces measurable environmental or climate resiliency, including renewable energy or climate adaptation projects like solar.

Option one also includes a separate finding for private projects.

And there are several parameters around that.

Uh one has number one has to do with um advancing general plan strategies.

The second about incorporating changes, which substantially lessen the detriment, um, that the design of the project um be compatible in things like massing character design materials, um, and that the project incorporate um interpretive educational uh features that recognize the property that's significantly altered.

The second option is very similar, particularly in the private project findings, but sort of condenses the public project findings, um, and doesn't go through the list of each type of public project.

And the private project findings are I think they're essentially um the same, um, kind of reflecting what would be in an environmental analysis.

Um, so the schedule has changed slightly for proceeding uh with the proposed ordinance changes.

Uh it will go to the planning commission in two weeks on Wednesday, November 19th, to the city council on December 2nd with a potential second reading on December 16th.

And the staff recommendation um remains the same as uh commissioner um Royer Red to uh recommend adoption of an addendum and to recommend approval of uh the ordinance amending the definition section and the permit findings section.

Um I did want to acknowledge before we start public comment that we have received written correspondence from the following um uh entities and individuals, which were distributed electronically to commissioners as they were received.

A letter from Preservation Action Council San Jose, Mary Ann Salas, Andre Luthard, Julie Riera, Matt Matsushima, and Michael Brio.

So just acknowledging that we did receive that public comment.

Thank you.

Um, and I'll hand it back to you, Chair Wire.

Okay, um, we'll open up public comment again.

We're gonna have to limit it to two minutes because we do have a lot of comment cards.

So Danielle will put the timer up on the screen.

Um, I will call people forward, you're gonna have a seat at one of the mics at the table here.

And when you before you do start speaking, please just say your name into the microphone for the record.

I'm sorry, can I ask a question before we do this?

Can we get for some reason there is no hard copy?

We're looking at wording, a lot of wording, but we were never given any copies of the wording.

It's not in the agenda, or am I missing it?

Um, it's in the packet that's distributed electronically.

We don't make copies anymore of anything.

Right, but we're also told that we don't have to bring our computers because it's on a screen, but this is like two pages of wording.

So would it be possible while we're doing public comment to have somebody, I don't have access to it?

You don't have access to it.

Who else doesn't have access to it?

You don't have access to it.

Well, I can put it up on the screen, we'll pack it in the front.

Is it in the packet in front?

There's one packet that everyone they make so all the commissioners have it in front of them while we're going through this.

Can somebody go make a couple copies?

Um I mean, three of us have no access to it.

Rachel, do you have your computer?

Yeah, we I have a printed copy.

You have a printed copy.

If it's easier, so three of us do not.

So our our staff will go do that.

That would be possible.

It's gonna be a while to take some public comments, so she'll she'll bring them back.

Thank you, Irene.

Great, thank you.

Did Irene, do you know what to print?

Okay, thank you.

Maybe just do 10.

Okay.

Great.

It looks like um our timer is getting set up there on the screen.

Um I will start with Phil Moresca.

Thanks.

Good evening, commissioners and staff.

Thanks for this time.

I'm here to urge you to accept the recommended changes to the language of the historic preservation ordinance as proposed by city staff.

My name's Phil Moresca.

I live and work within two blocks of St.

James Park.

My company's worked on scores of events and activations in the park over the years, and I am also the current board chair for the local nonprofit Friends of Levitt Pavilion.

When I first got here 40 years ago, I opened a business right on St.

James Park, and that area was a war zone with endless light rail construction.

But I could still see opportunities that well executed modern changes can bring to an historic park.

Throughout the decades since, I've seen numerous master plans, big ideas, lots and lots of language.

Try and make this park into something for everyone to enjoy.

But plans rarely took hold, and this beautiful park continue to diminish in community activity and reputation.

We're here tonight because the city has invested millions in a beautiful new plan that not only respects the heritage and history of the park, but creates something new that will bring the vibrancy and activations needed to transform it.

We're here tonight to correct language that a higher court requested in order for this beautiful new plan to move forward and to bring my neighborhood the safe, vibrant public benefit that it deserves.

This small change in language should not be feared or rejected based on stories or terrible things that could happen that's too short-sighted for the vision we've invested in this historic park.

A clear vision of proven joy we can bring to the community.

As chair of the nonprofit Friends of Levitt Pavilion and future steward of this grand park, we can commit to being good neighbors to all my neighbors.

And that includes everyone in this room, in good faith or otherwise, who may not want change and may not understand what good can happen when change is executed intentionally, respectfully.

My history of St.

James Park says that if we don't make the right changes this time to the language and otherwise, we may never ever change this park.

Thank you.

Thank you, Phil.

Um, I'm gonna call a couple of names so people can start cueing so we can keep moving through.

So Dan Orloff, Grace Pugh, and Ed Somm.

Members of the commission, staff, thank you very much.

I'm Dan Orloff of San Jose Resident, and I'm urging that you adopt the changes proposed in the ordinance.

I have been producing live music in downtown San Jose for more than 40 years, both as a member of the San Jose, excuse me, the Fountain Blues Foundation, San Jose Jazz that I represented for many years, music in the park.

I'm currently founder of San Jose Rocks, an organization, a nonprofit organization that will through the history of music in our area, uh launched the next Stevie Nix or Steve Jobs.

Downtown San Jose is home to The Grateful Dead, Duby Brothers, Hafa Jefferson Airplane, uh, Smashmouth, and many others.

And if we don't provide a venue uh and a place to uh just discover tomorrow's rock stars, we're missing an opportunity.

This ordinance is well crafted and agreements have been made, uh, and it's time to move forward.

Thank you for your attention.

I'm Grace Pugh.

I've been attending the free concerts at St.

James Park for a couple of years now.

And that time I've been impressed by the caliber of the bands and musicians who performed for the temporary Levitt venue.

I've been heartened by the immaculate community vibe that congregates at each concert, demonstrating that a concert series is the community catalyst St.

James Park needs.

And lastly, I've been excited by the knowledge of the future state plan to build a beautiful permanent concert venue for community use at the park.

I am disheartened that in our city a project like this, one that should be a no-brainer, still has to fight for its life against an overly restrictive historic permit ordinance.

I'm an advocate of historic preservation, but the goal of preservation must be balanced by the ability of the city to develop and progress in ways that will most benefit the community.

In my view, a city that blends old and new with a focus on community spaces is the best kind of city.

I recommend we adopt a new ordinance language so that a project like the Levitt Pavilion can move forward.

Thank you.

And while Ed comes up to the mic, I'll call Dan Bato and Sally Schroeder.

All right, good evening, everybody.

Chair Royer, Vice Chair Galendari, members of the HLC and city staff.

My name is Edward Saum.

I've been an architect specializing in historic preservation for 25 years.

For 13 years, I've been the planning and land use consultant for the Chefs de Hanship Park Neighborhood Association.

And for eight years, I was on that side of the dais as a member of the historic landmarks commission, serving six consecutive terms as chair.

In recent months, the city's historic preservation ordinance has been the subject of very specific rulings and unwarranted criticism.

The proposed draft amendment, specifically the boilerplate overriding consideration provision opens the Pandora's box.

It creates procedural confusion, which directly contradicts the judge's ruling for additional clarification, while ensuring that the city's development standards and regulations are applied inconsistently, the very thing that the HPO has been criticized for previously.

It undermines the letter and intent of the historic preservation ordinance, marginalizes the historic landmarks commission, and allows arbitrary policies and rulings by city council without citing specific findings.

Specific and reasonable findings requirements must be an essential part of any historic preservation ruling.

To allow broad overriding considerations without clear parameters to guide decisions is little more than allowing the council to say, because we said so, so just don't worry about it.

Giving the city council the ability to prove work detrimental to a historic resource with no tangible parameters tells the owners of historic resources that any money or time they might invest can now be arbitrarily wiped away.

As an architect by training and a planning geek by choice, I can say that this is disturbing precedent that will have direct substantive negative impact.

In the some of the previous correspondence, there were the two options pointed out to potentially revise this, the option one and option two.

I therefore wholeheartedly request that you approve option two, which provides some additional parameters so that this doesn't become an open letter that can be used for massive unintended consequences.

I don't have any notes.

My name's Dan Botto.

I run a place called the Art Boutique in San Jose in the midtown area.

We're an all ages venue.

I want to, I was this was put on my radar uh to come and speak about your ordinance, and I'm I've been reading about Levitt Pavilion forever, and uh I want to urge with the like as strenuously as I can that this be passed because my venue is an all-ages venue, which means that anybody can come in.

We can put high school bands on stage, we can put college kids on stage, we can mix people together.

We're closing at the end of this year because there is no real money in live music that supports all ages.

And the Levit Pavilion can be that thing.

Uh someone just spoke about where you're gonna find the next people, the next grateful dead.

Where are kids gonna play?

Where are kids gonna listen to music?

This is important.

I mean, if this is gonna be a city that's vibrant, that's real, that's a place that people want to live, you're gonna need something like Levitt Pavilion.

So whatever needs to be done, it should get done because this is going on for I don't know, like a decade.

It shouldn't be that hard.

So thank you for uh for your time.

Sally and can Susan Brant Hawley and Tara Branham.

Hello, I'm Sally Schroeder.

I'm a downtown resident for over 20 years, and I'm on the board of the Friends of Levitt Pavilion.

And one thing I want to um emphasize is that the historical nature of St.

James Park is one of its absolute charms and reasons why Levitt Pavilion would thrive so well there and bring people down to actually experience the historical history of St.

James Park.

The proposed ordinance updates, the proposed ordinance provides the right balance between preserving San Jose's rich historical heritage and enabling adaptive forward-looking projects that bring new life to historic places.

By recommending these changes, the commission can help unlock the full potential of St.

James Park while ensuring the Levitt Pavilion continues electronic pride and cultural inclusion that defines our community.

And I also want to mention one of our neighbors in Negley Park had mentioned that preservation without activation is not preservation.

And I think we need to remember that we should hopefully encourage the use of St.

James Park and appreciates its historical nature by activating it with projects like Levitt Pavilion.

Thank you.

And I'm the lawyer that handled litigation that uh brings this before you today.

Although this is only about an ordinance amendment, as you know, it springs from the St.

James Park litigation because when the city approved it, it found that there were many significant impacts to historic resources.

And because this ordinance did not allow the project to go forward because it clearly had a detriment to those resources, the court has sent it back.

The case is still pending, uh, and this ordinance needs to be amended.

Um that's true.

The problem is it can't be amended with an addendum, and it's it's not appropriate for this body to uh even consider the the addendum.

The proposal before you is that they were admitted significant impacts, and you could just adopt a statement of overriding considerations now, so that in the future, not just this project, but citywide, there will uh not be a problem with the city finding detriment.

The way that the uh this is going forward was specifically the city's position in court was that well we'll just uh this will be parallel to CEQA, that we find overriding considerations, and the court pointed out this is not a process to do that, and now the city is doing it again, which is quite surprising.

The uh the opinion notes that the city has objected that the ordinance offers more protection to historical resources than CEQA affords, and the court said there's nothing absurd or unreasonable about that.

What you're doing now is reducing protections to historic resources that were there.

You can't reduce protections with significant impacts based on an addendum, which is a minor technical change to clarify.

These are a lot of changes, as I'm sure you've seen.

It needs a supplemental EIR process.

Thank you.

And while Tara comes to the microphone, couldn't Atkinson and Laura Wilford come forward as well.

Uh good evening.

My name is Tara Branham, and I am the director of patron experience for Opera San Jose.

Uh, thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I want to voice my strong support for the proposed amendments.

These changes would give the city more flexibility to approve projects that enhance the sharing of the arts through our community.

Our public spaces and historic landmarks are what makes San Jose beautiful, but beyond beauty, our city exists to serve its people.

And so that means creating spaces where everyone can gather, connect, and be inspired.

The performing arts like the news are a cornerstone of a thriving democracy.

They give people a voice, foster empathy, and remind us of our shared humanity.

The proposed amendments would allow San Jose to cultivate a more inclusive public space and expand access to the arts for all residents and visitors.

Opera San Jose has had a remarkable success with our summer opera in the Rose Garden, a free concert welcoming more than a thousand attendees.

We would love to expand that offering in more public spaces and continue growing our economic impact downtown.

When the arts thrive, our entire city thrives.

Thank you for considering these amendments and for your continued support of creativity, culture, and community in San Jose.

Thank you, commissioners and staff.

Um, gotta say this first is that um, you just state your new I'm Sean Atkins and I represent the St.

Clair Historic Preservation Foundation.

Um if you read if you go back and read um several of the documents in the lawsuit, we've never been against a pavilion of the adequate size.

We've never been against a pavilion that follows the historic requirements of the Secretary of Interior.

We've never been against that.

And as a matter of fact, I live and work right on the park.

So I live part-time in an apartment there, and I have an office that's 75 feet from the proposed pavilion.

But we're here today because the city broke the law.

That was the ruling of the Court of Appeal in March 2024.

In issuing a historic permit for the St.

James Levitt Pavilion Project, the city broke the law.

While the ordinance amendment will affect citywide resources, the impetus for the amendment is the St.

James Park Levitt Project.

That was on the board last time we were here.

It wasn't today, but it was the lawsuit that created this willingness, this want for the city to reduce standards to protect historic resources.

There is still an outstanding writ of mandemus on the city will have to return to court to show it as complied with the appellate ruling and that the writ before the project can be considered and that the case be completed.

Um that's, you know, the one of the justices on the Court of Appeals said he ended it by saying, You can change your ordinance.

You can change some of your rules, but he's not telling you that it's gonna work, and that's what the justice said, and he's also not gonna, he's not telling you that there's not gonna be a challenge.

And I can tell you right now, if this is the way that it goes, then there will be a challenge.

This you can't do what you want to do without taking the law into consideration, and you broke the law, the city broke the law, and now you want to skirt the law.

Um thank you.

Laura Wolford, Michelle Drayband.

Hi, Laura Wolford.

I'm a downtown resident for like 35 years.

I'm also on the board of Love It.

Um, and I'm really just gonna talk about the fact that, you know, I want I want to urge this commission to recommend this proposed ordinance change uh to be adopted that the directed that the court of appeals directed the staff to do to create this new language, and they did that.

Um I just feel like it's completely unjust that the public park is being held hostage uh through this trivial and expensive lawsuit.

Love it.

The city of San Jose has had to pay millions of dollars really in order to get us to a point, and we're gonna have to pay more just because um some organization doesn't want that pavilion to be built.

Um, so um this is a public park, and I respectfully ask that the commission allows uh this uh benefit project to go forward and that this um language be accepted.

Thank you.

I'm Michelle Drayband.

Um I also live about a block from the park, and I'm on the board for um Friends of Levitt Pavilion San Jose.

Um and I'd like to urge you to please adopt this ordinance, um, and this language because I believe activation and development in his in this historic park is essential to preserving its spirit, and it should be able to move forward without delay and without further dispute.

Um, because as Laura mentioned, so much money has been spent on this dispute, and so many years have been lost.

Um, and we're ready to be good partners.

We're ready to be contributors to the arts and culture and the whole ecosystem of San Jose.

And there's also currently significant momentum right now for our fundraising efforts to make this a reality.

So I don't want to stop that.

I want to keep that going.

And I'm pretty tired of the costly delays, um, and really want to encourage you to please do what you need to do, whatever it is that needs to be done to you know, do what the Court of Appeals instructed you to do, and to please adopt this language.

Thank you.

Uh Suzanne St.

John Crane and Ben Leach.

Getting in commissioners and staff.

I'm here tonight to urge you to recommend the historic preservation language ordinance change as proposed by the city staff at last historic landmarks commission meeting.

Uh, as has been referenced, the legal action that brought us to this moment resulted in the Court of Appeals telling the city to make the change in order to give council the authority to make exceptions for public benefit projects that clearly outweigh potential detriments.

The city has done exactly that.

So let's not get distracted by manufactured concerns or wild misinformation about our project the Levitt Pavilion Project.

Um after a decade, uh, this contract with the City of San Jose, the Levitt Foundation, and the Friends of Levit Pavilion was signed in late August.

We are moving forward.

This is a done deal.

And so we just want to encourage the commission to do what it has to do to get this public benefit project moving forward.

The Levitt Foundation is investing six million dollars into this project and our operations over the next 15 years.

We are going to be incredible stewards and respectful stewards of St.

James Park.

It is a proven model in six other cities that will conservatively bring in 14 million dollars of economic activity here with 50 free concerts downtown.

It's going to beautify the park and it's going to make it safer.

It's already proven to do that in the 34 concerts we've produced and kickstart the long-awaited park redesign that the city paid for 10 years ago and has been sitting on the shelf.

As the CEO of American Leadership Forum for nine years, I commit myself to dialogue across difference.

And I just want to encourage us to take do that now.

Let's talk about this.

Let's talk to each other in a spirit of cooperation and love for our city and its economic future.

If anyone in this room, anyone has questions about the project and its public benefits, its operations, the 11 bathrooms that will be included in the design, not port a potties.

Just ask.

I'm happy to answer those questions.

Thanks for your time.

Erin Fiddler.

And just a reminder for everybody to say their name when they get to the mic.

Thank you.

Uh Ben Leach, Executive Director of Preservation Action Council of San Jose.

We forwarded a letter in advance of this meeting.

I'll do my best to summarize.

I also really just feel the need to level set.

We're not talking about just one project.

If this conversation was about an ordinance change that only affected one project or one parcel, this would be a very different conversation.

This isn't an ordinance change that will affect the regulation, the protection of all city landmarks and all city landmark districts today, tomorrow, and into the future.

So as much as I think it's relevant to understand how this could impact the project that everyone is here to discuss.

I think it's more relevant to think about how this affects the next project.

And does the city have the tools and the guidance to understand what is a reasonable override and what is not?

And that's um, I really want to echo what um former chairperson Somm said is that this is creating more procedural ambiguity, not less.

And what my hope for this evening is, um, is that we can tailor um language that does accomplish what the city wants to accomplish that that protects and gives clear um guidance to this commission and future commissions and future counsel about how preservation fits into the competing priorities of the city, and right now um I think it's pretty clear that city council has intended to protect the buildings that are added to um to the um local register.

That's that's what it's for.

Now, there will be cases where that can't be accomplished.

Um, but let's really define what those are, not just say there might be something that's better than this landmark.

Um if that's all the if that that's all the guidance that we're giving council.

Um I don't think that the ordinance is going to do anything anymore, unfortunately.

So thank you.

And after Aaron, I have Adriana.

Good evening.

My name is Aaron Fiddler.

Um I'm a San Jose resident uh living downtown for 13 years.

I live just a couple blocks from the park.

Um, and I urge the commission to recommend the proposed ordinance language be adopted.

Seeing community gathering spaces like San Pedro Market is what enticed me to want to live downtown and a community space in St.

James Park would bring vibrancy and community into that park, as has been demonstrated by the concerts hosted by Levett over the past few years.

Big cities across the country have adopted similar policies to that that provide the city with the authority to move forward with a project when the public outweighs detriments to a historic space.

I asked the commission to recommend it move forward so we can realize the full potential of St.

James Park.

After Adriana, Doug King, and Julie Wiltshire.

Good evening.

This is Adriana.

I am a resident and a board member of East St.

James Street.

Uh East St.

James Community Center.

Um I'm here to I'm vehemently oppose the Levitt Park because number one, it is a public nuisance.

It is cacophonious.

I live in the building, and many of our neighbors complain about the noise.

We also don't have adequate windows.

It's a building that's 35 years old.

And we had recently done a renovation during COVID, which we blew our contingency budget, you know, it was a 1.3 million dollar project, and each unit is, you know, had an average of 30,000 special assessment.

And so that creates a hard financial hardship.

I'm not saying that this will um it will create undue burden for the community because it obviously degrades the value of our property.

It makes it difficult for investors to find renters and to even sell their units.

We currently have like several uh homeowners that we're trying to sell, and it has been very difficult in the last year or several years.

Um I have lived in the community for the last eight years and I have seen the quality of life degrade and there's just so much human excrement, geese excrement, um, our building is constantly uh being encroached, uh violated, uh windows are broken, um, you know, we just don't have the budget for it.

And as a board member, and I speak to 34 units at large and two commercial units, there's two commercial units that have not been rented for over five years since COVID, and you know, we have very limited reserves and we are very concerned with attracting the kind of, you know, every every concert may attract different kinds of vibes, the different people.

So we don't know what we're gonna get.

And it's just a nuisance for us.

We don't have that kind of budget.

So if you do decide to have this levettes, um, we would want our windows to be replaced.

Thank you.

That's that's your time.

Okay.

Yeah, so that's it.

Thank you.

Doug.

Doug King, Doug, yeah, whoever.

Please state your name when you get to the microphone.

My name is Doug King.

Um, thanks for the opportunity to speak.

Uh I live here uh in San Jose.

My son went to after school care.

I'm just gonna read from this because I'm not totally entirely at ease.

Um went to after school care, the first unitarian unitarian church, uh, where he often played in the park.

Um I think you know this, but the park has seen better days.

Um, so I'm here to speak in support of the proposal.

Um I don't know enough about kind of the legal stuff in it, but basically support the um the pol any policies that'll make the pavilion a reality and revitalization of the park a reality.

Um before coming in, I looked into some background into why St.

James had been uh designated in historic landmark, and it's probably no surprise, uh, but it was designated this way because of notable events and gatherings.

Um, seems to me like it's less of bricks and mortar and more about community and experience.

Um that seems to be to me what defines the historic good.

Uh the park is not a museum piece.

You know, it continues to have value to the community and its members.

Um I'd like to see that St.

James Park continue that tradition by being a place uh for gatherings and history making for the next 50 years.

Um, and I really think that revitalizing the park is essential.

Um, just I didn't quite understand everything that was going on, but as I heard some comments, um, I realize that part of this debate seems to be about whether if future projects are gonna be given a free pass on historic preservation.

I don't quite fully understand the language, but it seems to me like that represents kind of real mistrust of city council.

I mean, you have to really think they're out for pretty bad things if you sort of think they're gonna treat this as a blank check and take advantage of it going forward.

So that feels like a red herring to me, like a false argument.

I kind of understand it, but it really shows to me at least a lack of faith in our leadership that we think they're gonna just take advantage of some loophole in the future and gut all of our historic landmarks.

Um so anyway, thank you so much.

Uh Karen Lubin and Veronica Bernal.

Hi, I'm Julie Wilcher.

Can you hear me?

Um I live in Nagley Park, my husband and I do, and we um like to walk to St.

James Park and listen to live music and meet with our friends.

And um, I like what the gentleman for me said about uh the nature of the park and how he looked it up.

Um I feel like the development in San Jose serves to kind of bring up the value of our city.

And I I we've had many conversations, my husband and I about about how we're so excited about things being renovated and how that makes it safer and it makes it more beautiful.

Um I'm in favor of the proposed um here as a resident and a taxpayer to urge the commission to recommend the proposed ordinance language be adopted.

Um it's directed by the court of appeals.

And as a lawyer, as an attorney, we can we can use words all day.

These trivial and expensive lawsuits, people threaten lawsuits.

Um, you do have the power.

Somebody said that you don't have the ability to make this decision.

It's in front of you today.

You can bring this forth.

You can make this decision in favor of the people's benefit of the of the public benefit of a gathering place that serves to um, you know, provide free music park that will improve our city.

Thank you.

I'm a resident of 9070 St.

James.

I've been impressed by uh the comments and the consideration that this group has given to the proposed changes.

I cannot imagine that it would benefit you as a group to agree to the changes that have been proposed.

They simply denigrate your ability to express your opinions.

Not just about the pavilion, but also going forward in a number of situations.

Thank you.

And then after Veronica Walter King.

Hello everyone my name is Veronica for now.

This is my first time ever at um this type of event um you know honestly I think the Love It um pavilion idea is a wonderful idea.

I absolutely agree that we did do need more programming and venues for the arts.

I am born and raised in San Jose.

I love the city um but I am opposed I am a resident who doesn't live two blocks away a block away I live directly across the street from the proposed site and um just the programming that we have now in the park is is disruptive.

We have upgraded windows and the noise coming through it's sometimes it's it's it gets a lot.

And to think about the level of programming that Levitt is proposing um and I as I understand it um running out for um additional events feels very overwhelming on how to manage that for our lives.

Um this means we can't open our doors or our windows um uh we're worried about our property value you know if if we were to sell how difficult that would be the amount of traffic that comes through especially on our block um and again you know I am a supporter of creating space for community I think Saint James does need some type of programming so that we can have community and we all feel welcomed I just don't think that this park is the appropriate space for the Levit pavilion.

Um honestly I I don't think my voice today is gonna have much of an impact I'm sorry it makes me makes me so sad to think that but I'm talking about my quality of life and my neighbors um so thank you so much for giving me the time um hello I live in San Jose downtown and for many years I have been coming to downtown free music events like at Levin Pavilion um with my friends it's very fun to see the music to hear music and it's amazing that I can just go downtown and have free music basically whenever um and this pavilion the new pavilion will make it a lot better for to hear this to hear music and to come here it's gonna make it a better place to visit and it's gonna make it a lot nicer um I did go like I go there all the time after school sometimes and it's a very right now it's not a very it's not the best place to play and come with my friends if you revamp the park and add it'll make it won't be as it'll be a lot safer to go to go there and it'll be a lot more fun to visit.

Thank you.

Marin Peters my name is Maria.

I live right in front of the St.

James Park, like several people back here.

The reason why we oppose it is because of the decibel level of the concerts and um the ones in the past have been too loud.

Disruptive.

They're not.

These are like really loud concerts.

The other thing is if this Levit Pavilion goes through, who's gonna, are you ensuring that you're going to be able to collect all the garbage, the trash, the vermin that's going to um result the um the traffic?

Is law enforcement going to be enough to cover the um the crime that's going to be committed around that area?

You're when you have a structure there, you're going to bring in more homeless people that are going to hang out there at night and drug trafficking.

So who's going to take care of all of those issues?

Do we have enough police and uh clean up people to take care of them?

Are the taxes going to go up?

Um just so these are my thoughts, and thank you for listening.

Bye.

Okay, that looks like it's the last comment.

I do want to give you an opportunity to speak, Daniel.

I don't know if I need to comment before that.

This is an open forum.

Just if if there's anyone else who wishes to speak, you can come forward now and just state your name and provide your public comment.

And Mike Sadegrin.

Hi.

Is this on?

Um, Sally Zarnowitz.

Um, I want to reiterate and support PACSJ's position and uh what uh our executive director, Ben Leach spoke about.

Um, I think also to note a couple of things that um there's been discussion about CEQA and the fact that also the LAM the historic preservation ordinance can go beyond CEQA in terms of protecting um actually protecting landmarks and historic districts.

And so um, you know, not just disclosing the impact, but actually coming up with solutions that meet the standards.

So the first um I I think the first ordinance that came before you again was quite broad, and I think this commission did a great job in making comments on that and saying there should be more specific findings, there should be more guardrails on this, there should be a difference between public and private, and um I think that obviously, well, I think that staff um did a great job in bringing back language to you tonight, and that um you know we would support option two because we feel it's more workable, and that it's gonna be uh something that council can accept as well uh in order to make the amendments in order to make any decision that doesn't clearly meet all the Secretary of the Interior standards.

So for that reason, we also wanted to note um that other the table that was in your staff report last uh meeting illustrates that only a couple of cities have findings like this, but some do have findings like the ones that came back to you in option two.

Um as broad as it was when it first came back to you, we don't really think any cities had that broad of a finding.

So we think, you know, there's been a great correction, and in order to again um kind of move that forward, we recommend you adopt option two or make the recommendation for option two this evening.

Thank you.

We find ourselves in a very interesting spot because we sort of look at this triangle of the city that we love trying to do things for the benefit of the people.

We look at um St.

the St.

Clair organization who is standing in the gap investing heavily in the preservation of something that makes that district interesting.

And then we find Levitt Pavilion, which definitely echoes everything we preach about preservation.

We don't want mothballed, you know, facilities.

We want activated facilities.

So try to take a site is really foolish in my mind.

What we should be doing is figuring out how we fix this, and the city has made an attempt to fix it by drafting some some legal language.

It's been my experience at legal length, which usually doesn't get you there.

You have to get the parties together and you have to figure out what the issues are.

Um unfortunately it falls to you.

I think this is a momentous time for the historic landmarks commission because you're considering a very significant change to the historic preservation ordinance.

You're considering a change that is broadly inconsistent across the state with what other cities have done.

They all have historic properties, they all have an interest in preserving those to have a unique sense of place, but that's where we are.

Um our concern is that this change is being done.

Whether you say it's the direction of the court or because of the push from the community, it's being done, it's changing an ordinance that, if we're honest, is specific to one project, and what we should be doing is looking at the ordinance and saying is there a way to accommodate that project and still make sure that we're protecting the other 200 assets that could become vulnerable.

Thank you.

Are there any other speakers from the public?

So before we get started, just to ask the commissioners uh whether or not you've had any ex parte discussions or contact with any members of the public, any organizations, anything like that that you want to disclose now.

Otherwise, I just leave it up to you to discuss.

Okay, um, I'll close public comment then um and open it up to commissioner comments.

Did you?

No comment at this time.

I guess maybe I have questions about the proposed changes to the court.

Um, I'm going to 240.

So we have B and C.

Uh, so B says if it's not detrimental, then it can be approved.

Uh C says with little carve out for hardships.

Uh what specifically would be the language for section B.

Well, I so maybe just clarify a little bit.

What do you mean what should be the language for D?

So I I guess you know, uh, right now there's the small little carve out for hardships.

Uh, and then this would be, you know, for overriding consideration.

Uh, and then we got, I guess, are the two options.

What we would have, uh, the overriding considerations.

Uh, because the uh the packet kind of says that there would be an addition of a section D into the ordinance.

I'm just kind of curious what the section.

So it's um it should be in the packet that you have or had last time.

I don't know if this current packet has the language of D, subdivision D in it.

Does it have that?

The attachments prefer to the attachments from the October, I think.

So just to summarize the overriding provision is um that was subdivision D that should have been in the materials that you have in the staff report.

Um, the override basically is that the the last bit of that subdivision, which uh states that the council may find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the detrimental effects on the landmark or property historic district.

So that's the override.

Those are the findings that need to be made to provide for an override of a detrimental, a finding of detriment.

And would the I guess maybe the council, the director, I guess.

Can you speak into the mic?

I don't know if everybody can hear you.

Yeah.

Is there any sort of like objective standard or checklist that would be applied to kind of make those overriding findings?

Just so because, you know, since this is a new addition into the ordinance, whether there's sort of some sort of precedent in other cities where it has been applied, um, because uh, you know, I I guess a definition for detrimental is also being included in the definitions portion up in, I guess, uh section 20.

Uh so uh I guess the definition of detrimental was put up there a little bit earlier, but you know, in section C, it says that you know, if something is detrimental, it cannot be allowed, unless there's hardship.

Uh and then this is kind of if there is something detrimental, uh, then if there's an overriding consideration, it can be allowed.

Uh my only concern is is there going to be some sort of objective standard uh that'll be in place, or will this kind of uh hopefully not, you know, devolve into some sort of subjective and so that's kind of what we're discussing tonight, right?

So last last time in October, I think there was some concern among the commission that said, hey, this is too broad.

This overriding statement is too broad.

It's based off of the language from the public resources code from CEQA.

Um, and it's broad on purpose, right?

Um, I think the idea that we're gonna discuss among others tonight was that instead of having the council provide findings that have specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the project, those are the findings, right?

So that's what the council would have to do had were this to be uh adopted.

They would have to make findings that there are specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits.

Um the conversation that we had last time was that we want to provide more parameters, right?

So if there are more parameters put on that discretion, that means that it allows more subjectivity to be part of the process, right?

So if you have, I think some of I don't know if we can pull it up, but some of the proposed language of is this the so this is this is the proposed language from last time.

I don't know if we want to put up what you put on option one or option two, but there are additional findings, and it's completely up to this body to decide what they want to advise on, right?

So this is totally up to you.

We're here to figure out what is the historic landmarks commission want to advise city council on this ordinance, right?

You can say anything you want.

Come up with whatever findings you want.

We're here to discuss that and figure it out.

Um, do you want more findings?

What are those findings?

Are they more are they gonna subject um the city to more challenges because they're subjective?

Right?

If we're talking about more feasible alternatives, well, what does that mean, right?

So we can pick apart this language, you have it in front of you, and that's what we're here to discuss.

We can be here all night.

I don't know if everybody here wants to stay all night, but I'm happy to stay all night and figure this out with you all.

Um, but that's so just to kind of answer your initial question, which is if there's you know, B is talking about there's no finding of detriment, right?

There's no detrimental impact.

C talks about if there is a detriment, and regardless of the conditions that are imposed, there's still going to be a detriment, then it suggests that we can look to 13.48260, which is the hardship provision, right?

Well, the city decided back in 2019 when this when uh the Levitt Pavilion Project, and that's not what we're discussing, but is intimately involved with this change, um, decided that no, they're not going to do a hardship finding, right?

And it's it's actually really difficult to do a hardship finding for public projects because it's almost a limitless resource.

How do we have how is there a hardship on the city?

Um when there isn't really, I mean it if we if we want to read the hardship provision, I can show you that it's it's tough for the city to make a hardship case.

Not as hard for maybe a private developer, right?

Is saying, hey, economically we can't do this.

Well, the city's got more money than who knows, right?

Um, we certainly could make the hardship, they decided not to.

And in deciding not to, the decision was made that the historic preservation permit allows the discretion of the city council to find detriment or to not find detriment.

And in that particular project, they did not find that it was a detriment to the historic resource to the historic district.

That's their discretion to make, right?

The city council can decide that.

You advise the city council whether or not it's a detriment or not, this body actually advised the city council that it was not a detriment.

Um I hear some sighing.

If you want to chime in there, Steve, Commissioner.

Are you satisfied?

I'm gonna have a lot of questions.

Yeah, yeah, we're here all day.

Let's talk.

All right.

You know, um, Jesus Christ.

Sorry, give me a break.

The hardship ordinance has absolutely no parameters on it.

No parameters.

We have discussed this so many times, and we've we've, you know, that has been used so many times by the city.

Anybody can scream hardship.

The last one we had was core development, right?

They scream hardship when they had a four million dollar year.

You know, so so let's not go there.

This is what if my understanding is correct, the court said they want specific language that can be applied to understand what the project is and how it's going to affect, right?

The historic resource, the area, whatever it may be.

That's what the court asked for.

I mean, I'll tell you what the court said, but that's not okay.

Go ahead.

No, then please tell me what the court said.

So the court basically had so there was a challenge by the St.

Clair Foundation.

They're here tonight, um, that they challenged the CEQA findings, they lost on that.

Because the city, I'm sorry, just out of detriment of time.

What did the court say?

The court was asking for.

Let's get rid of that.

But there's no particular provision in this historic preservation ordinance that points to an override provision.

There's nothing that says the city has that discretion to override detriment.

It needs that, right?

So basically the court of appeal decided on its own that a significant and unavoidable impact under CEQA equals detriment.

That is not what the city found.

Hold on.

So the court says that the city didn't have the right to find detriment.

Is that what you said?

That's not correct.

What do you say?

So the the city, so there's two separate processes, right?

We have CEQA and we have the historic preservation ordinance.

Right.

Under CEQA, there were findings that there was an un significant unavoidable impact to historic resources, right?

That required a statement of overriding considerations, because there was no mitigation measures that could lessen that significant unavoidable impact.

On the historic preservation side, totally different, not CEQA.

There are findings.

Is this a detriment or not?

And the city council decided, and this body decided that it was not a detriment.

They have a the discretion to decide whether or not it can be significant and unavoidable under CEQA and not a detriment.

That's the two can exist.

However, the court of appeal fell for the arguments from the St.

Clair Foundation that said, no, no, no, there has to be a detriment because there's a significant unavoidable impact and it muddied the waters, right?

So they didn't, and I mean, under maybe a common sense reading of that, you have a significant unavoidable impact.

That should mean that you have a detriment.

So we said, you know what?

Let's just amend the ordinance to say if there's a finding of a detriment or if there's a significant unavoidable impact that creates this detriment, that the city council has the discretion, which it already has to override that detriment.

So the city council already has the discretion to decide whether something's a detriment or not.

But thanks to the St.

Clair Foundation lawsuit, now we have to put this into our ordinance that says if there's a detriment, the city council can invoke this override provision.

Okay, so right now the city council, correct me if I'm wrong, has the right to say that there's a detriment.

Correct.

Right.

When I listen to everybody here and I look at this, everything is a detriment.

Explain to me, in either of the options, what scenario you would not be able to impede on a historic structure or conservation area or something like that, because what you what is listed here, everything is a detriment.

Everything is a detriment.

So the city basically there's no reason for us to be here as a commission because the city can say everything.

They can pick out anything they want and say that is a detriment.

I think I think there's a little bit of confusion there.

Um what I think what you mean to say is that there's not a detriment, even though there is one.

Right.

Right.

So that's what I'm saying.

Well, no, no, no.

Not if even though there is one.

You can it this is so subjective that you can say any you can take any different economic whatever and say that's a detriment.

And then that's that's not the the point.

We're talking about overriding the detriment.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Okay.

So any time somebody comes up forgetting just this project and they say, we want to build this, and we're gonna have to take down a landmark, right?

The city, and it comes to this commission and says absolutely not, goes to the city council and they say, Well, there's a detriment.

So we can override that.

Right.

Is that correct?

Yes or no, please.

So if there's a detriment, if there's an actual detriment to the resource, they can override it.

They can override it.

The problem that I have is that anything can be a detriment.

There's we can't say, well, the economic impact is five percent negative, that's a detriment, or maybe it should be 75% negative, that's a detriment.

There are absolutely no parameters or everything that's listed as a detriment to say that's right and that's wrong.

There's no scale, there's no nothing.

So basically, anything that goes to council, if we change the wording, can be taken down because everything can be considered a detriment, no matter what the level of impact is.

To the chair, if I can chime in a little bit, I think there are two different variables here, right?

One is the historic resource itself and what is or isn't a detriment to the historic resource.

And then the other aspect is the overriding, if there is a detriment, which is the discretion that the city council has available to them under CEQA as well as under the proposed historic ordinance.

So there are two different factors.

I think, yes, there is a lot of subjectivity, which I think is typical of historic resources, and you know, a lot of planning work that we do in terms of design guidelines and you know how much of a detriment, like something that may be really beautiful design to me, maybe something that Dana thinks is completely awful, right?

So there is always that subjectivity involved in determining how much determining how much of a detriment something is to a historic resource.

But ultimately, I think, you know, there is a process that this ordinance outlines, which is what we're here to discuss, which is that when there is a detriment that is identified to a historic resource, this body, this commission can make recommendations to council, and those recommendations would be considered by council, including all of the input provided by the public, and then the public, and then the council has the ability to decide if they would like to override any kind of detriment to that historic resource because of the criteria or because of the CEQA findings that are tied to specific, you know, technological or legal or economic benefits that a project provides.

And that is a process question.

I I understand that they can be different scales of the type of detriment.

There could be different considerations that could go into the override.

I don't think that is easily definable in this process.

Because again, we are focused here on what the process is and what the findings are.

I think each project at its own merit and at its own, you know, detriment that it's do that it's uh doing to the historic resource.

I think will determine what action the council ultimately takes.

So I don't think it's it's easy to put those kind of objective standards in a in a in an ordinance where we are trying to define the process.

What we can put in is defining them as much as feasible, like these terms, and also identifying as as much of the parameters or what the findings would be that the council would have to make with advice from this body on when to override that detriment.

Um then you basically agreeing with me is that it's very subjective and there are no parameters.

Well, I'm agreeing with you that it's very subjective, but we are proposing parameters as part of the proposed amendments.

Okay, so then for us to make this more specific to protect the historic resources, the few that are left in this city, then we should actually develop a set of parameters, and then that should go as part of this ordinance to the council.

So that's exactly what we're here to do.

Okay, so that's not something we we can do in one night.

I mean, we've you had a month to work on this.

No, we didn't have a work on this.

If I may, through the chair, the staff has proposed two options that provide those parameters that are more well defined.

Um, and those were provided to the commission and to the public for review.

I understand is last week, um, and you have them now printed before you.

So this is your opportunity to comment.

And if you have changes that you'd like to see to that or added, like you can, you know, act on that as one motion, but I think the intent is to really bring those two options before the commission as directed by the commission for last meeting.

Yeah, and just to wrap up that discussion on detriment, I'm sure we'll repeat it, but the city council already has the discretion to decide what is a detriment and what is not.

Oh, so if that's subjective, that's what the city council does.

And and I guess what I'm hearing from you is that you want to create something to take away that discretion.

Is that accurate?

I don't want to take it away, but they don't need to have guardrails.

I mean, the reason the reason that this commission is here is because the people that sit on this commission are supposed to have a strong understanding of historic preservation, historic structures, historic landmarks, and what qualifies them.

The city council is not required to have that.

That's why we are supposed to make recommendations to the council.

So if if they can just bypass anything that we say, because there are no specific parameters and do whatever they want, we got a bunch of software engineers making historic preservation decisions, and I have a problem with that.

Fair enough.

Okay, and if you're saying that the city, I'm sorry, Sergio, what's like if you're saying that the city already has the ability to right, decide what the issues are and what they think is serious enough to to protect a landmark or not protect the landmark, then why are we even here?

Why are we even talking about this?

Because you're just telling me that they can do what they want.

So who we're so everything else doesn't matter.

I love that question because that's exactly why you're here.

It's the the statute or the ordinance doesn't matter, right?

They have the discretion.

They're gonna exercise it if they want to or not.

Your job is to tell them whether or not this is important enough to protect, right?

That's your job.

That's what you're here to do.

You guys are professionals, you're supposed to say, hey, we told you this is worthy of protecting.

It doesn't matter the ordinance, right?

That's just the vehicle that allows that memorializes their discretion.

I don't think we need to change anything in this ordinance.

But apparently there's a court of appeal opinion that says, you know what, you can't move forward because you know you have a detriment because of this significant unavoidable impact, and therefore you need to, you know, basically there's no parallel override in the in the ordinance.

What do we need to do?

Basically amend the ordinance, put in the override.

Okay.

There's the override.

Right.

They already have the discretion to say this wasn't a detriment, but that didn't work.

And if I could add to that, I don't think the ordinance amendments take away the power that this commission has to advise council.

I think they are relying on you for your input and your experience in you know, um, knowledge of historic resources, and that is what this whole process is going to do.

And you know, we would take whatever recommendation you make tonight and share that with the councils.

They they uh have that under advisement as well.

Okay, yeah.

So first I want to start off by thanking staff because I think I made numerous comments at the last hearing, and I really do appreciate that they were uh thoughtfully incorporated into the revised amendments.

So um today, like as of today, without these amendments, there is subjectivity in this ordinance.

It is just the the nature of historic preservation, it is there is subjectivity to that, and that is currently in our ordinance.

The ordinance requires historic preservation permits to come to the historic preservation commission.

We're an advisory body.

We will continue to be an advisory body, even with these amendments incorporated if they do become incorporated.

My concern at the last hearing was about the fact that the proposal was too broad, it essentially just mirrored CEQA, and I actually think that that could cause more confusion because you could have projects where you there is an override under CEQA, but you don't want to do an override under the permit, and I think it would create a little bit of confusion in that context.

So I really wanted to see some specific findings put in here that differentiate it from CQA a bit, but also limit the application.

And I think that that the staff has done that successfully in option two.

My question for option two though is in option one under private projects, there was some language that said that the if the project provides a clear measurable benefit to the community and it is necessary to achieve a specific public purpose that cannot be reasonably accomplished through preservation, relocation or adaptive reuse that outweighs the detrimental effects.

I don't think that that was incorporated into option two for private projects.

And I don't, my question for staff is was that is that on purpose or was that like an oversight?

Um my read is all the other findings were incorporated, and I think that option two a little bit more.

I like the fact that the public project findings a little bit more concise there.

So I do prefer option two, but question for staff whether that specific language on the private project uh for option one should be incorporated into option two.

We can certainly add that in the commission's recommendation if you're gonna go with option two.

Yeah.

Okay.

I I I would like to see that in there because I think that it adds a little bit more uh of a higher standard for the private projects in particular.

Um, but I I would just say I think with that, I think the endless cycle of litigation that results in these projects being delayed for years and years that benefit our city, where the public, you know, our neighbors, our community members are I think harmed by this type of cycle of litigation where CEQA is used as a way to threaten and stop these projects that clearly have a public benefit.

That is a problem locally, it's a problem at the state level.

Our legislators are trying to constantly fix that problem from a state level, and I think that causes problems in our local communities.

And I think that if we do not have the mechanism to approve these types of projects through our own local ordinances, um, I think one, it's gonna be stripped away more and more at the state level, which I think nobody really wants that.

And two, I think our, you know, community members are gonna suffer because these public projects actually provide a lot of activation, a lot of benefit.

Um, they bring safety.

I think it's just a fact that when you have activation of spaces, you create safer spaces, you create more vibrant spaces, spaces where children can play, you know, people can attend events.

I did hear the comments regarding noise, and I, you know, I understand that that's an issue, but I guess I would ask staff.

Like, like it sounds like there's already activation of that park.

So that area is already, you know, an a noisy park where there are some events that are happening and this would just continue that.

We live in an urban environment, so I think that's just something that you kind of got to deal with, you know.

Um, and I guess I would think that the Levitt Plaza that would is being proposed there would have some sort of limits on the amount of uh events that could occur there.

So it's not going to be like every single day or you know, multiple times a day, there's gonna be events at this this park.

I I don't know enough about it, but I would assume that that's the case.

Um, but I just I I really do appreciate the thought that the staff has put into this revised ordinance, and I I do think that it really does address the concerns that I personally had to kind of tighten up the language and and put some more parameters around it.

And let me just kind of put a point on that where the sequel language or the public resource language was used to be broad on purpose, right?

Um there's going to be obstruction, there's gonna be folks who look at this.

If if let's say we, you know, put option one or option two, and and we give it to city council, city council says, This is great.

Let's adopt this version.

Great.

When you look at all the different findings, it's gonna be five more reasons or five more causes of action that say, hey, well, you know, is this necessary for public welfare and safety, or is this does this really prevent risks to life for property?

You know, there's gonna be digging into each one of these findings to create more litigation.

Is that make sense?

And so we decided, well, if we go with public resources code, there's 50 years of precedent from case law and from sequa litigation that says, you know, this holds up, it's held up the test of time, and it's really up to the decision makers to weigh the actual benefits, the public benefits of what is happening here rather than pigeonholing them into specific findings that may invite more subjectivity that might invite more need to define other terms.

So I just putting that out there, and that's kind of the reason why we went with something that was more broad.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

But the historic preservation ordinance is just looking at the historic research impact on the built environment or resource, the noise associated potential noise associated with billion is really a CEQA concern.

Correct.

So I think the two need to be separate.

All right.

Oh, yeah.

So I guess now I'm kind of having maybe a little bit of a concern about some overlap between SQL and historic uh the historic ordinance, in that if some of the language is mirroring that of CEQA, uh, which I believe you discussed as well that in the litigation that maybe part of the reason why the court made the decision it did is because some of the language did mirror mirror sequa.

So I'm not a sequel expert, but um, wouldn't this possibly kind of open the door to kind of additional problems of the same type in that?

And wouldn't, you know, as you were saying, that if some of those terms, especially in the ordinance, uh, you know, each one of them can end up being another cause of action.

Uh wouldn't it just be I I think it would probably be better to just start adding in.

I mean, it might be like laborers, but a bunch more definitions in the definition section to kind of like, you know, uh explain that, right?

And yeah, that sounds more like the state legislature's um approach to solving the housing crisis, they just keep adding more language and more regulations.

Um, no, I mean, I think really what we're trying to do here is memorialize the discretion that the city council has.

So if we if we decide, you know what, and in the city council decides, no, we don't need this ordinance amendment, we're fine, we're just gonna say this is not a detriment.

And they can try again, right?

But we l we've litigated that question, and it was not successful, and so here we are to create that provision that all right, well, court of appeal said there's no override provision like that of CEQA.

You need that in your ordinance if you're going to take this type of action.

Um, we didn't read it that way, but we decided not to fight it further, paid $650,000, taken out of the park trust fund for the city, paid it to the challengers, and now we're amending our ordinance to do exactly what the Court of appeal told us to do.

And we're going to comply with the preemptory rip, and we're going to pass this ordinance, hopefully, and move along.

And I think there's some fears about whether or not this will open a Pandora's box or it's a blank check to the city council.

The city council is going to decide anyway what it wants to decide on historic resources.

And it's your job to help instruct them, help advise them as to what is worth protecting in the city.

It's not, again, it's not about taking away their discretion or limiting their discretion.

They have that discretion.

All it's doing is really kind of inviting more things to fight about, right?

We want to keep it broad.

We want to say, hey, you have the discretion, but here's why it's worth protecting.

Okay.

Just um, just as a reminder, we are here for this ordinance.

We are not here for the pavilion.

Okay, so uh, and I understand that there's a lot of you know tension here because of the ordinance, but because of the pavilion, but that's not why we're here.

We're here for this ordinance.

So this ordinance is going to decide what's going to happen, not just for this project that people are concerned about, but for every single project that comes down the pike.

I mean, so it's a big deal.

Um, and uh my concern is, and I understand what you're saying, is that it's giving the city, the council, more leverage to be more subjective without parameters, and that scares me because this city that's that's not what I'm saying.

I'm not putting words in your mouth.

This is what I'm saying.

Okay, this city does not have a real strong history on supporting historic preservation, and that's an understatement.

Because if they did, we wouldn't be here right now because they wouldn't be trying to sacrifice St.

James Park if you want to look at that project specifically.

Okay.

So the so there's two parts to this.

One is the project that people are concerned about that we're using and it is as an example for this ordinance, which is an ordinance that's going to be covering everything else from when it's approved forward.

And that's my concern, because my personal feeling, I'm going against what I said, is that this never even should have been proposed for St.

James Park, because we don't have a lot of historic here, and that park is extremely historic.

Yes, it needs help.

Yes, it needs this and that.

I know that.

I've been here for downtown for 38 years.

You know, but to take this ordinance and look at it just on this park is one way to look at it, but this commission can't.

We've got to look at it for this day forward for everything that comes through.

You know, and my concern, I'm sorry, I'll say, is that there are no parameters, and there's no controls on what the council can approve.

And when I look at this, I think it gives them more discretion and not less discretion with no parameters.

So and I thought would the the comments that Sarah made the last meeting and that were incorporated in were terrific because the last meeting was frightening what was brought forward, but I don't think it's enough.

Commissioner Bainwald, did you have more questions or comments?

No at the moment.

Commissioner Musso, Commissioner Arnold, do you have any?

I I want to echo uh Commissioner Cohen's comments 100%.

Um this addendum is so broadly written, even with the options that have been given to us here, um, to completely circumvent historic preservation the existing historic preservation ordinance.

Um, again, it undermines why we're here.

But we all know why we're here discussing this.

The city council has the abil within that lawsuit.

And now they're going to override an addendum here that will allow them to do so.

Unfortunately, there's going to be an ongoing fight.

Again, as Commissioner Cohen said, we're not here to discuss the Levitt Pavilion, but it's the reason why we're here.

Otherwise, why would we need an addendum like this?

An amendment.

Amendment.

I'm sorry.

Excuse me.

Um it undermines historic preservation.

And that's what you can.

Can you elaborate on that a little bit?

How does it undermine it with the ability to make particular decisions against historic preservation?

So what just I want to keep teasing this out.

So what exactly is the fear?

What are we talking about?

Um the Levitt pavil pavilion at the uh St.

James Park.

That's a that's a grand example of what this will provide for, and it doesn't need to be there to begin with.

So, you know, an ideal like this comes before the city council, it's challenged by local neighbors who are deathly afraid of what this pavilion will create for the neighborhood, and we all know that's going to happen here.

There's been many failed attempts at revitaling downtown San Jose.

Don't laugh.

It's true.

I agree with you.

I think it's a bit bad.

I've watched this city go downhill for decades.

And we're doing nothing about it.

Um, that's not what we're here to talk about.

What are we talking about?

Stay on topic, please.

Um, so I'm I'm completely opposed to this.

Any options, it's just uh it's just not something that I would even begin to agree to.

Fair enough.

Yeah, I'm done.

Since I wasn't here last month, and reading is different than attending in person.

Um I have a question regarding this the two options.

Yeah, okay.

I'm better.

I'm better.

Uh regarding the two options, and I understand, Sarah, that you made several recommendations that were incorporated into these two um options.

I know that with option two, I I have some difficulties with option one, but with option two, the thing that stands out for me from reading um and has to do with establishing presidents for future departures from historic preservation standards, and the city council shall state in the resolution the unique circumstances justifying that approval.

I feel like or I hear there's concern that that would not be ahered to.

Just listening to the public and listening to our conversations, yes, we would be stating that for option two, that there would be an establishment of precedent setting and um future departures.

Uh the the city council would state in their resolution the unique circumstances, but I just hear that there's a lot of concern that this may or may not happen.

So my question is, is there an opportunity?

Yes, I'm just using option two, to begin to do some more work on option two that would be favorable to this amendment.

I don't know what it looks like, so don't look at me.

I don't have any suggestions, but um that's the one I pulled out because I don't hear um a lot of faith that this'll go well in the future.

If it is in fact in our favor as historical Landmark Commission.

That's my question.

I think staff has put together the two options for the commission's consideration tonight.

And you know, we are looking for a recommendation at this point to council.

Um so through discussion, I'm hearing two commissioners seem to be completely opposed to the amendments altogether.

But if the other commissioners feel like there is a path to making a favorable recommendation, I think it'd be important for you guys to discuss what that path could look like, like with this option two.

If you prefer that, if you think there's some tweaking of language, like uh Vice Chair Um Galandari mentioned, like pulling in some language from option one on that.

Like if there are certain tweaks that you think you would want to fold into your motion, you know, I I would encourage you to think about that.

But I think ultimately it's your decision as a commission.

If you think, you know, the commission as a whole wants to recommend that the council does not move forward with the ordinance amendments, you can certainly do that tonight if you believe that these options don't go far enough, or these ordinance amendments uh are not appropriate.

That is certainly, you know, within your prerogative.

Uh or if you would like to make a favorable recommendation for the ordinance amendments with a particular option that you prefer, the tweaks to those options, that's certainly something you can fold into your motion and action.

So the question is, do we settle?

What it comes down to.

Do we settle for what's being put in front of us?

Or do we not?

The last meeting we said no.

And we got a better piece of uh of work here.

And I know Dana's put a hell of a lot of time in it.

Very much appreciated.

Um, but is it good enough?

Because once it's signed, sealed, and delivered, it's can come right back at our face, and there's nothing we can do about it.

You know, and I think um uh and I lean on Sarah because I I know she's an amazing on this stuff, you know, but if it isn't absolutely a hundred percent, then it isn't good enough.

You bought it, you own it.

You know, and um uh I would make a motion that we send this back and see if we can get it to where it should be.

You know, I know the city is pushing like crazy to race this thing through.

I don't know why.

Uh I don't know who's who's pushing so hard, but for this commission that's here for historic preservation for today in the future, if we don't get this right, it could be a real issue.

Well, I will say that you know, at least from my perspective, I looked at this very closely.

I think that staff, like I said, has done a good job.

Um, and and I guess I would ask my fellow commissioners, like if there is something that you feel is deficient in the language, I think tonight's the night for us to talk through that language.

Uh from my perspective, uh, the one suggestion that I had was to take that language from option one and put it into option two because I like the fact that it ties it to a specific public purpose.

I think, you know, that limits the application of these overrides for private purposes.

Um, but I will, you know, direct my fellow commissioners to the language that was provided that it does provide parameters uh that have to be followed, it provides specific findings that have to be made that limits the application of the ordinance uh vis-a-vis specific projects and um I think also the language that says that it doesn't establish precedent is helpful.

So I personally would feel comfortable making a motion to move forward on option two.

Um, so just a question to the vice chair.

Uh are you proposing that I guess in these overriding uh factors be okay if it's for some sort of public good only and then not for some like if somebody's building something for the public instead of let's say like a you know 30-story apartment complex uh over historic building, is that kind of what you're saying?

Well, that's the language that was proposed by staff.

So that is the language that's there.

I think the public purpose would have to be defined by the city councils.

Many public purposes.

Um, but again, I think it comes back to the first version of this that we were given mirrored the CEQA statement of overriding considerations, which is very, very broad.

We asked the staff to define certain terms and also provide some additional findings, and they did that.

Um, I I feel comfortable with this version of it.

I think that it's still gonna be a discretionary process.

It's this is not making this like a slam dunk for historic demolitions.

It would still have to go through the full process by coming to the historic landmarks commission and going to the planning commission and going to the city council.

Um, it's all a public process, and there would it would still be subject to CEQA in addition to that.

So I think there are many safeguards in here remaining for historic preservation.

Um, and I I don't think that the city council is just gonna, you know, pick and choose historic buildings to just demolish because of this ordinance, right?

This ordinance is just um providing a procedural process that could be followed should the you know a project be brought forward that would have a detriment.

So again, I would be comfortable making a motion to recommend option two with the change that I suggested.

Can I ask for clarification?

So um there were several things that the commission asked for staff to bring back that also included um uh looking at the definitions.

Do you want to make recommendations on that part too?

Or sorry, that's a good point.

I for not I yes, I I would like the definitions to also be included in the proposal, and I I guess I just thought that that was part of option two.

Um so yes, option two, including the definitions that were proposed.

Uh, I think there are some choices in the definitions as well.

Because there was the defining impair within substantial alteration or providing the alternate definition of substantial alteration, removing the word impair.

So it does not need to be defined.

So I think we need to discuss that.

Okay, and I think I prefer the version that includes impair because I think it's clearer, and I think clarity in this to the extent we can have it, it will lead to better outcomes.

I think I'm hearing a couple of things.

Uh there the definitions.

If we were to vote on option two, there's still a couple of outstanding pieces, uh, definitions that would be inclusive that unless somehow the motion is included in that.

Uh, and the private projects that you mentioned that were from option one, placing in an option two.

So my question is are we ready to vote without those two key elements?

I think through the chair.

My understanding is those those two elements are included based on what Vice Chair Galendari said.

So the definition, it's not part of option two because we had two options on the findings, but there are proposed amendments of the definitions in the supplemental memo that were provided.

And from what I'm understanding is that Vice Chair Galindari is proposing um recommending approval of the option two, and along with recommending approval of the change in definition that incorporates impair within the definition of substantial alteration with the edits that she suggested.

Um that's the motion.

I think at this point, would it be appropriate to do a to see if there's a second to to continue the discussion?

If anybody has that discussion, we need a second before we can discuss.

I would second.

So that is just to reiterate option two.

What is the added language from option one?

Uh it's uh, well, the definitions.

Um in option one under private projects, it's the bolded language in the paragraph that says the project provides a clear measurable benefit to the community and is necessary to achieve a specific public purpose.

Did you get that?

Yeah, it's it's up here.

Can you see my cursor?

Is this part?

Okay, so it would be option two with that language added in from private projects, plus the definite the first definition of substantial alteration and the definition of impair.

Right.

Yes.

Was there a question on defining the difference between public and private purposes?

We really defined it.

Yeah.

You guys want to expand on why you want to differentiate between private and public projects?

Well, if you if you've got exemptions or whatever for a public project because it's for the good of the public or public safety or something like that.

Public project means that, and it's defined here that it's a on public land, right?

It's a city sponsored on city land or facilities, so it has to be on city land, not necessarily just up for the public good, just to clarify that.

And is that in definition in option two also?

Yeah.

It's option one, but not option two.

So basically what it's saying, option two is saying is that if there's a detriment, if it's a city project, then the city council can override.

If it's a private project, they have to re they have to meet all of these different one through seven findings.

Or sorry, three through seven findings.

If it's a public, if it's a private project, there's an override.

No, which there can be if they meet three through seven.

It would be an override for either public or private, but they just have slightly different findings.

The findings for private projects are a little more substantial.

Would that an option before uh the way things are now, I guess I should say without this here.

Is that something that could have could be done now that I just see uh I'm very skeptical, as you probably tell, but is that a new bypass that we're giving the council between approving public and private projects that they didn't have?

It actually gives more specificity around things that have to be met.

As we've discussed with the financial, but there's not specific points that a project that's claiming hardship has to meet.

If they were to utilize this option, a private project has to meet all of these three through it's and not or.

And how is it how is it now without this?

It's silent, I think.

It's hardship, it's hardship or it's the sequel override.

Okay, about now as in the existing ordinance without amendments.

Right.

It's just hardship, hardship, and that if they don't have hardship, then they can't go anywhere.

That's right.

So we're actually giving them more leeway.

Right?

Because before it was hardship, now they have all these different things that they can use to bypass.

I think Daniel talked about that pretty extensively that council has discretion anyways to determine what's detriment.

Um, so I'm not sure that it's opening anything up, which is adding to hardship.

They can choose to provide findings that show hardship, or they can meet all of these three through seven findings to get an override.

So it's broadening the hardship.

No, it's just adding a different avenue.

Which is broadening it.

Sure.

Okay, so that obviously this has been my whole point for however long we're talking about it.

It's giving the council more avenues to impact historic preservation.

Period.

You just admitted it.

That's what it is.

Well, we have a motion.

Um, it's not a vote.

That's okay.

That's what you just said.

I did not say that.

Recorded.

Great.

I think there's just some disagreement.

Right.

That's fine.

So there's a motion on the table with a second.

And vote however you wish.

Is there any other discussion on that motion?

I have a question, of course.

What happens if we do not approve this tonight?

You can make a recommendation that the council does not adopt this these amendments.

So that can be a separate and alternate motion.

So we can do that and we can expand on why we're saying no for everything that was brought up today.

Absolutely.

I think the commission, it's the commission's prerogative to explain the motion and action that they take.

So we can reject with comments.

Absolutely.

But there is a motion that you need to vote on first.

And if that motion fails, you can provide another motion or you can ask for a substitute motion, however you want to do it.

That you don't that the commission not recommend make a recommendation.

I'd like to call to hear the motion that's on the floor.

What is the motion?

Chair Royer, you want to do the vote.

Um the motion is to um approve staff recommendations utilizing option two with the addition of the language from option one.

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, um, and also to adopt the first definition of substantial alteration, which also provides a definition of impair.

And just to clarify your wording, that's not the staff recommendation that these are options that are provided to the commission, but it's not the staff's recommendation.

No, that's all right.

I think we got it.

Yeah, I just wanted to clarify.

Friendly amendment to the redo.

Okay.

Um, so we'll go um through the commissioners and vote.

Um Commer Camuso?

No, Commissioner Arnold, yes.

Commissioner Bowen.

No.

Commissionerwall, yes.

I shall go on Delhi.

Yes.

And Chair Royer, yes, so the motion passes four yes to no.

Right.

Okay.

Uh, we'll move on to the next item on the agenda.

Number four, planning referrals.

There are no items.

Number five, general business, also no items.

Number six, referrals from the city council, boards, commissions, or other agencies, no items.

Number seven, open forum.

Members of the public are invited to speak on any item that does not appear on today's agenda, and that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission.

The commission cannot engage in any substantive discussion or take any formal action in response to the public comment.

The commission can only ask for questions or response statements to the extent necessary to determine whether to one refer the matter to staff or for follow-up, to request staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting, or three direct staff to place the item on a future agenda.

Each member of the public may fill out a speaker's card and has up to two minutes to address the commission.

We do have one speaker card, Larry Ames.

Hello.

Hello, I'm Larry Ames.

I'm a longtime Creek Trail and Park Advocate.

Pointed to the Los Carlos Creek County Park Plan in 1984.

I work with a city in the county in the community to acquire, help the city acquire and preserve and adapt a nearly a hundred-year-old train bridge as part of the trail system of Olivant Trestle.

And then the city decided to demolish and replace it without even mentioning it to the historic landmarks commission or the parks commission.

And so we had no chance to get the update from no information from the thing.

So I started coming into these meetings and talking during public comment and giving input to the thing.

And Steve will remember me doing this about 12 years ago.

Anyhow, we did not start that process in time, and the bridge is torn down and it's gone.

End of story.

Last trestle remaining in the city on the same track, railroad track is the County Meadows or Coyote Creek Trestle by Story Road at Center Road.

And it is historic in the sense that it was part of the well of the Western Pacific track that looped around the city of San Jose in 1922.

And in the process of doing that, they broke a monopoly that Southern Pacific had had for decades.

And it they had new service that did uh less than car load loads and uh overnight delivery that enables farmers to survive the Great Depression.

So it's it's historic.

And the state Historic Resources Commission said that these trusts are worth listing on register.

The city has done an engineering study report on the thing, and they say it can be saved.

You just have to replace a few bolts and you just leave it there.

It costs a lot of money to fix it up to make it into a trail, but you can put the new bridge on the side and just leave this thing in place.

I just bring this up to you so that you can ask for input from the city because the city is saying that they've already done the study, they've made their decision, but they're going to they said they would talk to you before the end of this year.

And I'm just kind of wondering have they talked to you yet?

I've um I just ask you to ask the city planning to inform you about these things.

You can just put the new bridge on the side, get a beautiful view of the trestle, leave the trestle in place, leave a historic condition, just leave it alone.

So that's what I'm recommending.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for bringing that to our attention.

And could we put that on a future agenda for an update from the city?

I'd like to put it on an um, I would like to add that to an agenda.

I guess next month is last.

Is December already, so can we put that on the agenda for next month to get an update from the city?

The engineering study and what the trestle.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

And Mike Sodegren.

Sorry.

Um Anthony Rainsford, who preceded all of you.

Um, I was here.

Oh, I'm sorry.

It was here too.

I was here.

Well, obviously that was a bad start.

Um it's okay.

Yeah, the demolition by neglect uh work that he did has gone nowhere.

And we have seen places repeatedly burn down because we have no pressure on property owners to protect, maintain, um, make sure properties are activated, and we're gonna just continue to say goodbye to historic properties if we don't do something about it.

Um, I would love to make sure, you know, we spend a lot of time working on a legal issue.

Let's get out in front of this one and you know, help our property owners to know that they have a responsibility to protect those properties.

You know, some of these are just irreplaceable.

Uh you know, we lost Moxa, which, you know, didn't classically fit the definition of a historic property, but very important to community culturally.

Um, we lost the Graves House.

We lost the Foreman Arena.

You know, it just continues to go.

And unless we unless we put some ordinance in that makes sure that there's surety bonds or some sort of requirement on a property owner to protect uh property, and if it is lost that they have to rebuild it.

Um we're not going to get a change in behavior.

So Mike, I'm begging again that we agendize that and make that happen.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mike.

Um, yes, if we can put that on the agenda for next month as well.

And I'm curious if the um, I know there has been some activity around lighted properties city um increased fees and maybe some increased inspections, maybe we can include that as part of an update with demolition by neglect.

Probably they go hand.

We could do that.

And Edward Salm.

Good evening again, Edward Psalm.

Uh, I will go against hype and try to be brief.

Uh first uh to second Mike's comments about demolition by neglect.

That was actually a term that I first came to know and love.

Actually, when I joined the HLC when Steve was the chair, and that was one of the things that he so passionately spoke about.

Like by letting this happen, more damage is being done to our landmarks than any wrecking ball could do.

And then as someone who was born and raised a Christian scientist, to then have the Christian Science Church, it's the St.

James Park, be an example of this too, was something that for years kind of drove my desire to be on that side of the dais and see something done about those properties.

But to keep it a little lighthearted, Larry wouldn't necessarily want to do this, so I point out that I would do it for him.

For those that are curious about the actual Willow Glenn Trestle process.

And he actually didn't say too many nasty things about me in this book because I was the chair of the Historic Radmarkets Commission when we voted to approve the trestle as a landmark.

But this is a wonderful encapsulation of kind of the the tunnels and the very kind of labyrinthine process that you're dealing with state, county, and historic preservation for things.

So I can't wholeheartedly enough endorse the book.

It is available at on a as needed printing on Amazon.

Pac SJ has copies, I have a copy.

It's an excellent example of lessons learned for lack of a better phrase.

It's both a good read for those are interested in history, but there are a lot of lessons learned in here.

So I wanted to just take a little while and do something that Larry wasn't going to be willing to do.

So with that, I'll actually finish talking before my two minutes, which might be a first.

Thank you.

Any other members of the public want to speak for open forum?

Okay.

And then uh moving on to number eight on the agenda, good and well.

Well, good and welfare commissioners.

Three items.

I'm sorry, open forum.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

Um, okay, one is um seven or eight months ago, we were we formed a subcommittee to look at the hardship, and we've never met.

I think it's time.

And actually, with this being passing, I don't know if it's gonna be beneficial or not, but that's something that we can discuss.

But I've been waiting seven months, so especially since now we're on our personal emails, maybe a lot easier to communicate back and forth so we don't have to go through all the city spam.

Um second thing I have is um um thank you very much for that the uh event we did last month, uh for um the retreat, so compliments to Dana and everybody else.

Um and one thing you mentioned when we talked about the Mills Act is that you were going to have a staff person going through the contracts and make sure everybody's in compliance.

Um my concern with that is that when you when you sign the contract, the Mills act contract, and you actually get into the property, what it needs can be very different than what's on the contract.

And unless we have somebody that's doing that, uh, and I think it should be a lot broader, it shouldn't be.

Well, you said the you'll do this in first year, this in the second year, this in the third year.

The purpose of the Mills Act is to is to have the money saved on the property taxes go back in the property for historic preservation.

And I think that should be the first priority.

Full disclosure, I'm working on a property.

I have three properties with Mills Axe.

I'm working on one now, and I found a lot of termite damage, a lot of surprises.

So where on year three, I said I'm gonna paint the place, now I'm gonna spend you know that money plus more taking care of termite damage, which is a priority.

So what I'm looking for is that whoever is going to do this should look at the broad purpose of why we have the Mills Act and make sure that money's going back into it, into the property and not being so specific on the contract, because it doesn't always work that way.

And unless somebody actually knows historic preservation hands on and understands what can come up, uh I know Larry does, um, that they're not going to understand what they're looking at and what what the property owner is going through.

So, and if if it were, I don't know if this is possible, I would be willing to be part of that process because I am obviously extremely hands-on for the last 30 years.

Um, so I'm gonna throw that out.

The last thing I have is, and I I don't know if it can go on next month's agenda or not.

401 South Third Street got a permit for doing interior restoration.

The permit specifically says the windows are not to be pulled out, they're not to be replaced.

And the contractor, of course, has gone through and pulled the windows out.

Uh uh the neighbors immediately contacted code enforcement, and code enforcement said, Oh, it's gonna take us a couple weeks to get down there.

Well, now all the original windows are gone, and they're actually I've got them.

So, uh, there's a real problem, there's a problem with that is that you contact code enforcement, and then they come out when everything's pulled apart, and we see this all the time, right?

They take out the original windows.

There were nothing wrong with them.

I've got them, no rot, no nothing, and they put in vinyl windows.

Uh, and then code enforcement says, Well, that's not right, and then the owner says, Well, they're already gone.

What am I supposed to do?

Obviously, I'm making up this scenario.

Um, but I think there's a problem with that, and I'd really like to hear from code enforcement and find out why there's such a time lapse when something like that is going on, and unless somebody gets their butt down there and says to the owner, you can't, you're violating your permit, we're wasting our time.

And 401 South Third Street is a perfect example.

Because it does that was last week.

I can address that.

Um, I mean, it's pretty simple, actually.

There's just not enough resources in the city to address all the code enforcement that we have.

So you have uh 300,000 code enforcement cases and a few staff.

What do you suggest they do?

I suggest we prioritize because a code enforcement case that I put in, because a guy's got a bunch of old furniture sitting on his front lawn, is not as important as somebody pulling apart a historic property or things that can't be replaced.

I don't, I'm sorry, maybe that may be true.

I'm not trying to just tell you, it's restored on the fire.

There's so many excuses.

Everybody's got excuses.

Through the chair, if I may add to that context, I think you know, both of you are correct, that yes, there is always a resource challenge.

Yes, code enforcement does prioritize.

I know I was just in a training today, actually, where they were talking about this, that they always prioritize the health and safety issues first, that I immediate life-threatening challenges, and then they have a secondary prioritization list, which is typically three days of inspections, and perhaps that's where we could talk to code enforcement and see if there are historic resources.

Again, sometimes if we get complaints, perhaps, you know, the code enforcement team doesn't realize that it's a historic resource, so perhaps we can look at that and convey that message.

Um, I also know that, you know, if there are contractors who are repeat offenders who know that they're not supposed to do something and do something, that our chief building official can report them and they can actually have their licenses revoked.

So I think there could be tools that we could use to perhaps get contractors to not do these kind of things for historic resources.

And I'd love for us to do more code of I would like to, I would like to hear from uh somebody at the ladder in code enforcement.

Okay, I would like them to address the commission so we can address them and talk about priorities.

That's what I'm asking for.

So historic preservation over health and safety is that I didn't say that.

Please don't put words on the I'm just thinking we're engaging in some discussion that we let's put this on.

It hasn't been agendized.

Um when do we start doing open forum for commissioners?

I don't know.

Um can we put that on the December agenda too, or is that getting too crowded in too soon?

Maybe we can get to February.

I think it might be better if I connect with the code of enforcement team and perhaps report back or Dana can report back on the process that they have versus doing a separate like detailed agenda.

Okay, um, move on to number eight, good and welfare.

A report from Secretary Planning Commission and City Council.

And um, number one there.

There was one item of correspondence um from the public that had to do with trees.

I received it.

Okay, I know what the switch is why we got it or what it was for.

I'm not sure either.

Um but it I just wanted to include it for your information.

And I know what the the change in email addresses.

If anybody's having an issue getting agenda items or not, please let Dana know.

Make sure he's making it to you.

And if I could add on the email issue, I think we are still looking into it.

My understanding is that currently you are using a personal email address.

Okay.

That's a permanent change.

Um, I think we're still working with IT and the city clerk's office to see.

Oh, I understood it was that was the final word.

Right.

We we will report back if there are any changes.

Do we have the option to keep it that way?

I don't know about everybody else, but I sort of like it.

I love it.

Keeping our own, yeah, use our own, yeah, rather than having to go.

Yeah.

Well, just remember that it doesn't look Daniel's given in the past some yeah, um, broad act advice, but just remember about the email correspondence and the daisy chains and all the other things still apply no matter whatever, whatever, no matter what address you're using.

As Doug does the PRA, the California Public Act, uh, which could mean that your email could be subject to the PRA requirements.

Well, but but if we can keep it, that would be nice.

Can you clarify?

Oh, I have a question.

Since we no longer have the city uh email, how and I've shared with you, I'm getting Chicago Planning Commission emails from my city emails, and I've unsubscribed at least four or five times.

I'm I'm thinking of just taking that app off my phone for the city, yeah.

I shouldn't be getting any questions email, cities planning commission.

Okay, I'll take the app off.

Did I hear that the switch to our personal email is going to be permanent or if the city's trying to understand at first?

It was it my understanding is at first it was gonna be temporary and they were gonna look into fixes, but now it's permanent.

Yeah, I'm not sure what that's just.

That's my understanding.

We did get an email to them.

Yeah, we'll we'll report that change.

We'll report back before the next meeting and reach out via email.

Thank you, Jacob.

Um, um 8B report from committees.

Um, there was uh for the design review committee.

There was no meeting held on October 16th.

Next meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 20th, 2025 at 11 a.m.

And item number two there is to appoint a chair of the design review committee.

Anybody like to chair the design review committee?

Who's not on the phone?

Am I the only one on it now?

No, no, but you have to point out the last time that you were so we that's not fair.

So just so you know, okay.

Um I'm I'm happy to chair that committee.

Well, you're on it, I'm on it.

Who else is on it?

I'm on it.

Oh, and you're on it, okay.

Okay, okay.

Do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion that uh uh Commissioner Royer is uh chair of the uh design review committee.

Seconded.

Um and then we'll vote on that.

Uh Commissioner Camuso.

Yes.

Commissioner Arnold?

Yes.

Commissioner Cohen?

Yes.

Commissioner Bainwalk yes, Vice Chair Galandari?

Yes.

And Chair Royer, yes.

So we I like volunteering you for things.

I'm a sucker, I always say yes.

Okay, and then item 8C, approval of action minutes.

The recommendation is to approve the action minutes for the historic landmarks commission meeting of October 1st, 2025.

Is there a motion?

I'll make a motion.

We approve the land the uh minutes from the previous landmarks commission meeting.

Commissioner Camuso?

Yes, Commissioner Arnold, yes.

Commissioner Cohen?

Yes.

Commissioner Bainwalk?

Yes, uh Vice Chair Galandari?

Yes.

Commissioner, yes.

That is approved unanimously.

And 8D, status of circulating environmental documents, uh none to report this.

Then the meeting is adjourned.

Thank you, everybody.

Yeah, I scan them.