Hearing procedure.

We will review how the public may provide comment during today's session.

Can you all hear me okay back there?

Okay.

Yeah.

Commissioner Kogura.

Present.

Commissioner Cohen.

Here.

Commissioner Camuso.

Present.

Commissioner Bainowal.

Present.

Commissioner Arnold is not present.

Commissioner Vice Chair Golandari present.

Chair Reuter and here.

The procedure for this hearing is as follows.

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

Well, make a make a five-minute presentation.

I'll be a stickler for I don't need to be a stickler for time because of the agenda, but we will try to stick to the clock.

If you wish to speak on an item, uh, we do not have speaker cards in the room right now.

So will we just collect names or raise hands or have sign in sheet?

Maybe people can just spell, say and spell their name.

Okay.

If you could um if you'd like to speak on an item, just raise your hand and we'll call on you and you can spell your name for the record.

Um, and then uh then you'll be able to speak.

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

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

Speakers using a translator will have double the time allotted.

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

Historic landmarks commissioners may ask questions of speakers.

Response to commissioner questions will not reduce the speaker's time allowance.

The public hearing will then be closed, and 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 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 California Public Records Act that are distributed to a majority of the legislative body will be available for public emailing by emailing planning support staff at San Jose CA.gov at the time, 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 their code of conduct at meetings.

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

Public speakers will not engage in a 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.

Okay, so uh JDF item number one is deferrals.

We have no items under that agenda item.

Number two is the consent calendar, again, no items.

Number three, public hearing, no items.

Number four, planning referrals, no items.

Um number five is general business 5A, historic preservation month 2026.

Recommendation is to receive verbal reporting on upcoming new story map web page and launch of a digital community storytelling project called My San Jose.

Okay, well, thank you, Chair Royer.

That pretty much sums it up, but I just wanted to give you a little heads up that um we are going to be doing something um for historic preservation month this year.

Um we will be doing a proclamation.

We're not sure exactly um who's gonna be sponsoring it right now.

Um there's a couple of possibilities, so we will be doing that.

Um, and then we'll also be doing two-fold things.

We have, as you know, we've had a bunch of story maps done over the last few years.

I think we have four or five.

They're all on different websites, and so the idea is to create one new um page that uh consolidates those story maps.

Um they're for Alviso, Martha Gardens, um, very well and additions we just had finished by a San Jose State uh University GIS class.

Um, and we have the five loans map.

So we're gonna be featuring those on a new web page, and then we're gonna be creating a new um interactive um GIS program where people can select um a point on a map, and um, there'll be some questions for them to answer um about what they think is um significant to them, and then responding to why is it an event, people that kind of thing.

And then responding to why is it an event, people, that kind of thing.

So that it'll be sort of crowdsourcing where people can input their own ideas on what they think is important in their community, upload photos.

And then it will be titled My San Jose to try to get more perspective from.

How would you determine who the NICS is?

So are you just taking historic districts that are designated or just generally general areas?

So on this map, people will be able to place a point anywhere.

Anywhere in the city.

Anywhere.

Oh.

And say this is important to me.

You know, my grandmother went here and did such and such.

And this is why it's important.

So it's really to identify new things and also maybe to find some new stories of existing places that we've already had of what it means to people.

So that's uh we may have some more information, like a sneak peek or something next month, um, but for sure it will be um rolled out in uh May for historic prescription.

Just to get a little update.

Okay.

Thank you.

Number six referrals from city council boards, commissioner commissions, or other agencies.

Uh A is the Five Wounds Trail and Coyote Creek Trestle.

Recommendation is to receive status report from the Parks Recreation and Neighborhood Services Department on the preparation of the Five Wounds Trail 2025 through 2027 master plan and environmental review process.

Where are you looking?

So I'm right here.

Jennifer's gonna be getting up the thank you, Dana.

Uh-huh.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Um thank you, everyone, for having me.

Thank you for being here.

I um I'm Liz Sewell, I'm the trail manager, and I'm here with Raymond Hostinai, our deputy director of the Capital Division.

Um, my teammate I Tongseng, uh, our who is the landscape designer for um for the Gales Group, and Yoshi Yano from Public Works.

He's a project manager for Public Works, and Jason from our engineering consultant BK.

Um, today we are here to provide an update on the status of the Five Wounds Trail and Master Plan and the future sequence and um also we'll talk a little bit about the three crossing alternatives that we studied a few years ago.

The city is still really early in the process.

Um, so the community outreach meeting will be scheduled um after the EIR has actually begun.

The EIR hasn't begun yet.

Um, so this is an informational presentation.

Um the the project schedule will be shared at the end of the meeting, so you'll see opportunities that we have for you to come and um have your voice be heard and also to write in and comment.

Next slide.

So during this presentation, I will review the history of the project.

Um, I'll review the four studies that were conducted between 2022 and 2023, um, as well as case studies that this that city staff conducted of um upon encouragement from our constituents.

Um the uh you can go to the next slide, thank you.

Uh the community conducted a concept plan in 2010.

Um I'm sure many of you know of that that concept plan, and it urged the city to build the uh the five wounds trail back uh story road up to the future BART station and beyond.

Um it encourages us to build it on the old railroad land, the old uh Union Pacific land.

Um in 2018, we did the city did acquire the land from Union Pacific.

We acquired it as part of a lawsuit.

Um, and with that corridor came the trestle.

We did conduct the city did conduct a feasibility study in 2022.

Um and the trestle studies were conducted as a part of a separate project.

Um, and in light of a major fire, and they took a couple of years to complete, so they were released separately from the feasibility study.

And that brings us to present day.

Um, the master plan began just in July of last year, July 2025.

And the sequel will, of course, be a component of that plan.

The sequel will evaluate impacts of the trail and of the crossing type.

And it will also again include a public meeting and public comment period later in 2026, we're thinking if everything goes as planned.

Next slide, please.

Thank you, Dana.

The city has, along with our engineering and historic architecture consultants, we conducted four studies of the trestle.

So you can see those studies listed here.

All of the studies were conducted to ensure that any decisions about the future of the trestle are based on the best available science and prioritize public safety, both for people who use the trail and for the neighboring communities.

So starting at the top, the historic evaluation did show that the trestle appeared does appear to be eligible for historic listing.

And the SQL will determine that, and I'm sure it will.

Sorry, I forgot to say next slide.

This just shows some of the timber deterioration you can see if you can see that photo, the fire damage, uh the trespassing and vandalization, people had been kind of chopping away at the timbers.

And we did install a kind of like a gate to prevent people from crossing it.

And then the localized damage.

Next slide, please.

So even though the data, this brings me to my next point, which is that even though the data does point toward removing the trestle, given the strong support from our advocates, we uh the city did want to learn more about how other cities retrofit their trestles.

Um not only retrofit but maintained it in order to streamline our own implementation and maintenance should we decide to move forward with the retrofit of the trestle.

So what we did is we contacted several owners of examples of retrofitted trestles in the US, mainly along the West Coast in Canada, um, Washington, Texas, and then I went and like basically in our backyard to Alameda, um, the iron, the iron horse trail.

Um, so that's the that's the final image you see there of the cement one.

But we we contacted all of those retrofits.

And in many cases, we found, so I talked to directors and heads of those municipality of the departments of those municipalities that decided to retrofit these trestles.

And in many cases, I found, well, in all the cases, except for the one in Canada, these structures did experience major fire damage after they were retrofit.

So even after being converted for trail use, they continued to be set on fire.

And that really results in extended trail closures.

It results in more requested and required funding and environmental impacts.

So discussions with these staff and executives in Texas and Washington really did highlight the challenges that we had already found, such as timber deterioration, higher than expected repair costs, destruction from upstream debris, and ongoing fire vulnerability.

So these experiences that they had really did inform the city's decision making, including consideration of more durable materials like like uh steel and concrete for long-term safety.

Um it also is worth mentioning that both of those bridges on the left side.

So the MKT trail and the Tommy Thompson Trail, both of those agencies are looking to reconstruct those using concrete and steel.

Um next slide, please.

So here are some key factors that our data is showing.

Um with regard to creek conveyance.

Uh the coordination with Valley Water has really highlighted floodplain constraints and the need to maintain or improve stormwater conveyance while minimizing encroachments.

Um alternatives that retain and retrofit the existing existing trestle would introduce additional structural elements within the creek corridor and are anticipated to increase flood weight constraints compared to removal and replacement.

Removing the damaged trestle is expected to reduce potential flow obstructions and support improved conveyance.

So the oil that you see in the middle photo that is from the Tommy Thompson Trail, that's creosote.

And the fire in the last photo, that is of the trestle in question.

Um, that is of the 2023 fire.

Um the like we have been mentioning, the trestle does continue to deteriorate.

It attracts arson, it attracts vandalism, it requires heavy maintenance and heavy repairs.

Um, the preservative, which is creosote, is highly flammable and does release very thick smoke into the neighborhoods.

Um the conclusion that we are coming to that the city is coming to is that the data is pointing toward removing and replacing the existing trestle.

However, no decision has been made yet.

This is just an informational meeting.

Um, the EIR has not been begun yet.

Um, the ongoing cost of fire damage and other unpredictable maintenance is approximately 125,000 per year.

That is data that we collected from our fire department and our own maintenance team and the just the impacts that my team has faced over the past couple of years and past few months.

So this puts the department in a challenging financial situation when our resources are already pretty scarce and our funding is stretched thin.

Um it's not only capital, it's also our maintenance.

We're all operating from different funding pots, and this is putting stress on all of them.

So replacing the trestle could also reduce the likelihood of future trail closures.

And that's not only future trail closures of the five wounds trail, but future trail closures of the Coyote Creek Trail, which runs under this trestle, which I haven't really focused on.

Um, so if this trestle requires a closure, the Coyote Creek Trail could also require closure because this conveys the Coyote Creek.

Um community feedback will guide how we honor the trestle's history.

Um, but and also we had not made the made a decision yet, but the data is pointing in a certain way.

It's pointing towards option B.

Um next slide.

This is the final slide.

So there will be multiple opportunities, as I've kind of already said, for the public to provide comments and input.

At the moment, we don't have any dates yet.

We're hoping it will be by the summer.

Um, that the EIR is open and the NLP has been published, and we're able to get in front of the community and allow um community outreach to begin.

But the future updates will be posted on social and um we will also continue to email um our advocates, um, and anyone who wants to be added to that distribution list can reach out to me.

And that was all I have.

Again, just raise your hand if you else on that.

I guess we'll just start here.

Go around.

Key fall, Kate E IP A L.

Is that good enough?

Just as a reminder, public comment.

There's two minutes.

Yeah, thank you.

My name is Keith Ball.

I'm a board member of Save Our Trails, the trail organization.

We did submit a letter to the commission, and I'm here to in support of our advocacy of saving the old Western Pacific Trail Trestle that crosses Coyote Creek at the terminus of the Five Moons Trail, called the Coyote Creek Trestle.

We had Save Our Trails, believe saving the last historic railroad trestle in the city to be viable as well as desirable and completing the five wounds trail.

The city's own consultant report indicates that keeping the trestle after stabilization and then building a modern steel bridge nearby has significantly lower construction costs and takes 10 months less.

The city staffing estimate report is more, about 1.4 million, but we weren't able to find any description or explanation of what that additional money was, or actually what any of the city staffing costs were a breakdown.

So we'd like to get a city staffing breakdown if we could.

It'd be useful if the community, well, if the commissioner maybe Liz could provide a detailed breakdown of the city staffing requirements.

The trestle is undoubtedly a historic landmark of our city.

It represents a major change to the agricultural and commercial transportation in the city of San Jose in the early 20th century.

The Western Pacific Railroad completed extension into San Jose in 1922, including this trestle.

This railroad broke the Southern Pacific Railroad monopoly, enabling growers in Canada and San Jose to get in fair shape and moving their produce and products to market.

It enabled the city to force Southern Pacific to move its rail line outside the center of San Jose.

Strongly urge the commission to make the Coyote Creek Trestle a city landmark and save the trestle for future generations.

We couldn't get the timer work, so you're good.

Oh well.

Good evening, Commissioner.

My name is Bruce Victorine.

I'm the vice president of Savoy Trails, but tonight I'm here representing the D7 leadership group.

As you know, Trestle is in D7.

I'd like to read a letter from the D7 leadership group.

The D7 leadership group is composed of the active neighborhood associations and community leaders in San Jose City Council District 7.

We advocate for our district, our neighborhoods, and our city.

But we are concerned about the fate of the historic trestle that spans Coyote Creek and Trail at Coyote Meadows.

And lies at the endpoint of the future Five Moons Trail and eastern portion of the Three Creeks Trail.

At our February 5th general meeting, we voted to support the preservation of the historic trestle.

We feel the city's proposed option three, or possibly C, which preserves the trestle as a landmark closing it off to public use.

Well, building a very important adjacent modern bridge for the five moons trail endpoint is the best choice.

The trestle is a citywide historic landmark that adds beauty to the Coyote Creek Trail and affords the opportunity for the public to learn about the influence railroads had on the development of our city.

Preserving the trestle connects not only trails, but also connects the nearby history park, the Ashworth railroad house on the east and the canneries to the south.

This is a huge part of the history of the Valley of Hearts delight.

And we would like to see the history promoted rather than torn down.

This is an opportunity to build on the history in this area with educational signage, but science alone cannot impart the significance of the railroads.

It is the trestle itself that reminds us of our history and inspires residents to ask questions and make connections.

As one of our members so aptly said, if we tear it down, the trust we can never get the trestle back.

Please help us predict the trestle while continuing the work on the five wounds trail that is an important transportation corridor for D7 and DC residents.

Thank you for your consideration on this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ben Leach uh Preservation Council of San Jose.

Um, we're proud to support the Sayar Trails Coalition, the D7 leadership group, and everybody else who's come out to advocate for the preservation of what is unquestionably a historic resource.

Um we are encouraged by the what we see going into an EIR process is that there are two viable preservation alternatives.

Um we understand that there are trade-offs, there are always um, and we would just encourage the stateholders to um recognize preservation here as an opportunity and not as um an impediment to a successful project.

There's a long track record of uh public parks and public spaces being opportunities to conserve natural resources and to conserve historic resources and to interpret those resources.

Um and it's something that uh I think would really enhance the project to be able to incorporate what is um a historic landscape element, a historic engineering monument, um, and could be functional.

I I uh appreciate the concerns about maintenance and fires.

Um, I would say that you know the the whole um the whole hope of activating this trail is to change the reality on the ground and that some of the conditions that are leading to vandalism and fires, um, aren't inherently always going to be there if the trail is successful.

And I think we need to sort of reframe what um you know when we see liability, there's liability everywhere and have a much stronger sense of the true trade-offs.

Um, I do appreciate the effort to look at comparables.

Um, I would hope that the IR uh had publicly available information that dug into that a little bit more.

Um, it's um, you know, it it sounds a little bit like hearsay that some people you know wish they hadn't done that, but you know, it would be nice to actually have um a baseline that we could all all see what these projects were.

In fact, are they the universe of uh trestle rehab projects uh to be able to sort of make um more public main photos it is?

So thank you.

Okay.

Anyone along the back wall there?

I agree.

Um I spent several years trying to save the Will of Glenn Trestle, which is the other one in the area here.

That area had just a narrow right-of-ways of the city now on the land on either side.

So the only time choices were to rebuild the trestle or to replace the trestle.

Here you have land on the side, so you can build a new trestle on the side and keep those other bridges.

I mean, build a new bridge on the side and keep the trestle alone, untouched.

The city studies putting the new bridge right next to it, but you have a lot of space.

You could have it 50 feet away.

If it's 50 feet away, then you're on the new bridge, you can look underneath the trestle, you can see if anybody's building anything there, you can see any damage there.

If the trestle caught fire if it's got a fire right next to the new bridges, so it'd be less impact to it.

So it's I think it's important to be 50 feet away.

Also, the shambles are shorter there, so the bridge would be cheaper to put it there.

Um, the thing about these other bridges.

The one in Texas, yes, it did get damaged.

It's next to a 12-lane freeway, two blocks away from a 12-lane freeway.

They're doing construction on it with some heavy rainstorm, construction to bridge washed downstream through a concrete channel and bumped into it.

So that's not a situation here.

We don't have any 12-lane freeways right next to this thing.

The one in Washington, it's across the big long flat lake.

You're not gonna fire truck next to it to put out the fire.

So that's why it burned.

They do catch fire on occasion.

There's some pictures here on share of the bridge along the Los Cottas.

I mean, the Guadalupe River Union Pacific Bridge at Widow Street in 87.

Um that's an active railroad.

Union Pacific came out and inspected it that afternoon and had freight trains running over it that evening.

If you put out the fire in an hour or two, it doesn't hurt the thing.

I mean, it's they're designed to withstand the fire.

And so long as you can get to it to put out the power, it's okay.

And this bridge here, it's one mile from a fire station that can come out to put out the fire quickly.

And like I say, to keep the people from building underneath it, you produce the fire from that.

Stormwater blockage.

Um have a picture of this of the trestle 2017 flood.

The water flowed right up to it, but it's got very high, but it could not block the thing, just flow slowly through the place.

Yes, there's some damage to the some of the beams.

Um you can see some of these cross prices are cracked at the bottom, so it doesn't need to be patched for that thing.

So it's not strong right now, but there was a very quick ship sideways, so staggered prices a little loose.

They are easily replaced.

They're just four by eight four is held in with about six volts or something like that.

So it's straightforward to replace those things.

Um checking with public, we've had meetings talking to district seven group, talk to the Spartan Keys Navy Association, talk to different groups, and they're all supporting trying to save us.

And I've got a petition signed by 50 different people here, share that with you.

And um I think it's it's oh, and also I got a lot of from the brand's children of the engineer that built the first truss in the first place.

And so he has a story for that thing.

So he's a rather famous person.

He had a 30-year career working with trains after this.

I mean, worked during World War World World One building restoring bridges and ranks after after World War One.

So it's history, so it's a lot of history.

This is the only one left in the city.

There's actually the only one left in the area.

So it's it's a lot of history.

I'd hate to see just tear it down because you want to get rid of things.

It can be saved, and uh if it does fall down eventually, then we lose it at that point, but you don't have to tear it down in that time now.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Bill Rankin, R-An Kn.

I'm president of Saber Trails.

We're primarily a trail advocacy group, but we feel the history of this trestle is worth saving.

We've um fully recognized the trestle is inadequate for use for the trail.

Um, also the last thing we want is to slow down any progress for building the trail.

Um, and uh recognize that a new bridge needs needs to be installed.

But if that bridge is built 50 feet or so to the east, um, it's a shorter span.

We're figuring it's probably a um less costly bridge than at the at the longer span.

Um we we just we feel that um the new bridge could be installed, you know, whether the trestle is there or not, and we just advocate to save it just for the history of it all.

Um it really helped uh the valley of hearts delight and put uh San Jose on the map as the fruit cocktail.

Um in fact, every fruit cocktail, any of us Del Mani fruit cave uh that we had uh came over that bridge in the 60s.

So anyway, I I don't want to take too much more time, but um I think this is worth saving, and the the history of it of it all is uh worth it for our our city.

Thank you.

I'm just here as a supporter for keeping the trestle.

Hi, Mike Scotteground Preservation Action Council today.

Uh thank you for the presentation.

Um that trestle was built to hand handle massive trains, to the best of my knowledge.

That's no train ever failed to cross that crossing.

Um was built to withstand river flows that are you know, 100 year floods.

It was built to withstand fires.

It was built to withstand um, and the proof of that is it's still there.

And so um we don't want to be unreasonable in saying that you know we should go spend massive amounts of money to preserve something that has been weathered, has been neglected for some time, has been subject to vandalism.

But I do think as has been pointed out, um, with activation, the vandalism should reduce.

Um with activation, there'll be more eyes on that resource.

Um, and the eyes on the resource is what gives San Jose a unique sense of place.

It's the backdrop for telling our story.

Our story is magnificent, right?

The railroads enabled the orchard industry to be successful here and to become the valley of the hearts of the lake.

Um, it broke, it broke a um train barren, you know, impact that uh that enabled economic development.

So um, I would just say um we all should as a community come together, figure out you know how we preserve that asset.

You know, a lot of times with buildings, we try to we hate it, but we try to preserve a facade, some piece of material that we can affix attribution to that history on.

But if we get rid of the bridge, I don't know where we'll put that, you know, if we put it on a steel girder underneath a new bridge.

I don't think it would have the impact.

And we have a lot of people coming to this to this location from all over the world, and it is a way for us to tell our story.

So I would say let's work real hard at saving this, trust me.

Thank you.

Um with that, there are no more public comments.

We'll close public comments and then have to commissioner comments, questions.

I'll go last.

No, no comments commissioner.

You got any comments.

Yeah, so thank you everyone for coming hearing everybody.

It sounds like it's obviously uh pretty well, it's interesting, like discussion of what's what to preserve and what to do going forward.

Um, I guess it's just like basically my mind's going, all right.

So logically, we just need to build a bridge.

San Jose is running out of money.

Why are we even gonna if it's gonna cost less money, just build a new bridge that's gonna be a little bit further down, it's gonna be uh what's it called, shorter build.

Why would we even destroy one thing that has a lot of history to it when it would just be another added cost to the overall thing?

So that's one thing.

Um and just yeah, as we quickly move move forward in like this age of technology.

I think like for me, just hearing all of this, knowing how important the railroads were like in America and how much it established like what we are today.

Um that's something that we're losing.

And without that like actual object here, it's gonna be hard to like notice, like, oh, okay, like San Jose did have like this cool like piece of history a part of it.

So having that tangible object, I think is uh is important.

Um then also adding the added element of having our like the grandchildren of the architect to know like this person who created this um is make had a lasting impact not only on their family, but like the greater part of San Jose.

Um so that was another thing uh that I was thinking of.

Then just like yeah, I guess like hearing a few of the comments, it would be nice to hear the the cost breakdown of everything.

Um and just to get a better understanding of how much everything truly is gonna cost, but it was good to hear how much the estimate is to maintain it.

So it would be great to like know like going forward how can we prevent those things from happening.

Um using the money that would ultimately like uh deconstruct it.

So those are things I have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there some approximate costs to the to the three different alternatives here?

There are, yes.

And they're in um one of the reports, and I have here um the cost of construction and everything that comes with construction for the retrofit is 11.28 million.

Assuming that the timber is in good condition, we we would need to do more work on the timber to figure out exactly what is salvageable.

Um so that's an unknown cost.

And then also that's that would cost then about 125,000 per year if things continue on as they have um per however long the bridge lasts perpetuity.

Um a new bridge is 11.69 million, and the maintenance of that every year is 10,000.

Okay.

So one of the alternatives is to build one 50 feet away or so, and then you can keep the old bridge.

And then presumably everybody's happy.

At least preservationists would be, and that's what this group is all about here.

So it makes a lot of sense to maybe build a new one for safety reasons, obviously, and then preserve the old one.

And I'm sure there are some costs associated with that.

Um in perpetuity.

But then you don't lose a wonderful historic resource.

And this is very important because we lost the other one in World War, which was really bad as far as I'm concerned as a preservationist.

So it seems like the alternative or to build a new bridge and preserve the old one makes all the sense.

Even though there is some cost in maintaining the original one.

Yeah, I think one thing that hasn't come up, and we're just starting to get look into this and really compare other criteria for each of these options and one thing we looked at for building it uh further east, is the abutment that would be on the north end would likely be in the landfill area.

And so there's definitely some some complications there.

Um, as well, the uh environmental biological impact on that other alignment is a lot more challenging, right?

Because you have permanent impacts where the new bridge is going to be, where there's trees and such uh that would have to be removed instead of using that existing alignment.

Um, but just getting the construction equipment down there to put it in place probably removes a lot more as well.

So there's there's definitely some additional criteria we're looking at.

But it's something we are thank you.

Um so the three options that you guys have going.

Obviously, it sounds like there's a lot of work to be done in terms of the analysis for all those three options.

I um I really enjoyed hearing all the comments about the value of the trestle for the community.

So I think that's obviously one of the factors that's going to be taken into consideration.

Um what kind of struck me about the numbers in the report is that it actually doesn't seem like there's that much of a financial difference, and maybe I'm wrong, and you guys could correct me, but between uh between the retention and building a new bridge versus demolition.

And one of the things that I was thinking of is if you demolish it because it's historic research, you're gonna have to do an EIR.

Um, what's the cost of that and the time value?

And if you don't demolish it, what type of environmental review are you guys anticipating?

And maybe you don't know the answer to this, but you know, would think that maybe it's less than an EIR.

Um, would you have to do any work to it in in the context of building a new bridge and retaining the existing bridge?

Sounds like there are some safety concerns, so there would have to be some work done to the existing bridge.

What are you guys thinking with regard to that?

Uh, do you have no enough about it yet to answer that question?

Okay, it sounded like there were a few questions in there, right?

The first was about the cost differences.

So the initial cost differences don't appear much different, but the timber would need to again be analyzed a little bit more because we're not sure of the exact condition of the timber or what would need to be replaced or how it would need to be replaced.

But also the if we do implement a new bridge, it would not cost any, it would cost um one tenth of the maintenance and emergency services, likely in the future.

But is that is that true if you were to build a new bridge and retain the old bridge just like as a visual resource, not for people to actually use it.

I would say if the that would be for the old bridge, the maintenance and because that's the cost of it right now, and it's not being used.

Okay, yeah.

And then the EIR, so we're not our environmental consultant isn't here right now, but from what I understand, we would have to do an EIR in either case because of the CREASO.

Um the regulators and Valley Water are concerned about the CRISO, whether or not we remove it because the it will leach into the water.

Interesting.

Yeah.

Where does that water flow to?

But it's it's up to the bay.

Yeah.

Was there another question?

Am I missing something?

Um I don't think there's another question on what I asked, but I do have another question.

Okay.

So um for the alignment that's 50 feet away, could you just explain the current alignment of the trail and how that would play with the current alignment?

Like would there have to be changes done to the trail to implement a bridge that's a little bit further away, or would that only require construction of the bridge?

That is a really good question.

I think it is more well suited for the actual EIR after we've studied everything.

But the current alignment is the railroad tracks to go along the railroad tracks through the landfill and then cross Coyote Creek.

Okay.

Um all right.

Well, those are my questions, but I guess I would say I've I appreciate the city's work on this.

I know that the ER process is a thorough one.

So you guys will be doing a lot of work on that, and I really look forward to review reviewing what comes out of it because I do think that to the extent that we can preserve this and it makes financial sense, you know, with a certain delta, right?

I mean, I think what was balancing the interests of the city has a budget deficit, but also our role here is to try to preserve the things that matter over the long term.

So um I look forward to kind of seeing all of that disposed in the EIR so that everybody here can have a good sense of what are the costs of all the different options.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cone, did you have some comments as well?

Uh yeah, do you have any money on that?

Um I guess just a couple more things uh to note.

It's really cool when I was going over the report when I got the email.

It's actually like this trust is eligible for three like historic nominations.

So it's the National Register of Historic Places, California, registered historic resources.

Reserve resources in the Sensei landmark.

So I think that's cool to know over that.

Okay.

Okay.

Oh, ready?

Yes, oh, please.

Yeah, you'll schedule today.

Is it already applied or does it need to be applied still?

That's something that I'm thinking about.

Um it has been applied.

Okay.

Sorry, I'm I've used live gallon drums.

Pre-asode is a preservative that was used on railroad ties for many, many, many decades.

Yeah.

So you'd put it on actually before you built, and then as you built over time, you keep you reapply it because it's an oil.

So the oil over time dissipates.

But it's actually the best preservative there was.

We're not allowed to use it.

Right.

Yeah.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah.

And it stinks like hell when you put it on.

Yeah.

So don't breathe.

Don't make your fat borrow.

So um okay.

All right.

So you work for the city.

So okay.

Because everybody's like, I feel a little bit of aggression towards you.

So but I'm not, I know this, you're just implementing things.

Oh, yeah.

So what's gonna happen with the comments from today?

Are they gonna go into the EIR?

Are they is this gonna is recorded?

So are we going?

Is this going to be put together as minutes and then go into the BIR?

Do you mind if I just uh so the reason why we're hearing this is just because um it was brought to the commission um by Larry Ames, I believe, before Christmas.

I think it was October, November.

Um, and so we've been in contact with um Liz and the team at parks um and public works.

And so it's kind of just providing a additional forum for public comment and transparency, but in terms of comments, that would you there's going to be a community meeting that's a joint community meeting between the project and the notice of preparation.

And so um that's where you can provide comments and then you can also comment on the notice of preparation uh when it's issued, but we're not quite there yet.

Okay, so none of our comments today.

I mean, when we walk out the door, they're gone.

Well, I'm gonna leave that up to to Liz then.

Well, staff will take forward the comments as concerns that the community has.

Um as part of our notes and documentation.

Okay, so nobody's writing anything down.

So being recorded, then we go through the recording.

That's my question.

Yeah, I can forward right okay.

Great.

Okay, thank you.

Um, so what are the money sources for this project?

The funding sources for this current project are um measure B through VTA.

Oh, so that's it's grant funded.

This particular, yeah.

No, no, that's okay.

No, um, that's interesting.

So it's all grant funded, and then is that grant for trails specifically?

What are the parameters of that?

Sure.

This grant is specifically for the five wounds trail master plan and sequa.

So the previous um the previous this is also on our website too.

Um, but from memory, the feasibility study was done through an OSA grant um for 80,000.

OSA's open space authority for 80,000 for the feasibility study, and the city had to supplement that with about 250,000.

So that's how we got the feasibility study.

The trestle studies were city dollars, right?

This trestle study, and that was a substantial amount of funds um for those studies.

And then this one is like I said, VTA measure B funded.

Right.

So any construction and preservation costs will come out of the VPA.

No, that's why we have limitations.

So the can we do not have funds for construction or remediation yet, and those are going to be substantial costs.

Um the the trail overall will cost about 20 million dollars, I believe was the number in the feasibility study for remediation, and then what however we decide to handle the crossing and and everything that else that goes into trail building, the EIR um design again, remediation will be about 10 million dollars.

So have you applied for the grant already?

We applied for the grant for the master plan and sequa, right?

And we have a little bit of environmental funds left from that.

The way we the way that trails are funded, they need um cost estimates before we can apply for grants.

So the cost estimate for design and uh uh kind of a rough order of magnitude for construction are going to come out of the master plan and sequa.

So we won't be able to apply for anything until the master plan and sequa are done.

Um, but we are we won't be able to apply for anything for design or construction, but we are currently looking for remediation funding that is very challenging funding to find because a lot of agencies don't like the liability that comes that is attached to remediation.

So we've been looking for that for about three years now.

So if the city says we want to build the new the new uh um pathway, right?

The whole nine yards with the bridge, and we also want to save the trestle.

Can all that be written into the grant?

Because the grants are usually very specific on what you can ask for.

So it's historic basically the historic preservation part of the trestle is is that eligible for the parameters of the grant.

I would assume depending on what grant we apply for, that could be eligible.

I don't I don't I'm not certain if there are any contingencies or hang ups based on historic elements, but I would have to get back to you on that.

No, it's I mean, I know I've written grants my so I know the parameters are very tight.

So I'm just trying to you know determine thank you for the trail grants may not have a component about preservation of the trestle.

Right, right.

And so and I find that in general for preservation of um different buildings or other kind of artifacts and parks, it's been preservation type grants were very hard to come by.

So right, that's what I'm trying to get at.

Is there is that element there?

Because it is unusual, and then my other question which you can't answer right now, but I think what we should really do is is see if there are preservation grants that can be piggybacked or leveraged with the VTA grant to work with the trestle.

So if we can't get the money from the BTA, we sure as hell aren't going to get the money from the city.

Let's not go with it.

I mean, let's just be realistic.

Well, to be honest with you, um, the city doesn't have money to preserve a lot of these uh features, and in fact, the parks department has multiple historic features that you don't have the money to preserve, so they are deteriorating.

Right.

And the additional items are lists.

Right, and they do all just say no.

Yeah, no, I'm I agree with you.

I'm all aware of that.

That's what I'm saying.

Their city's just gonna say no.

There's no way.

Um, so um there are two fires per month on the trestle, and that's a big issue, and it should be.

Why did the city take any mitigation efforts to protect the trestle aside from people not being able to cross over it?

I mean, why aren't we doing something so you know, we don't have the people going down into the river, the stream or whatever, setting them setting in fire in the first place.

I mean, if it was my property and I owned it as personal property, I would build a fence.

I would do something, but I haven't heard anything other than then making sure people can't cross over it.

I haven't heard anything about protecting it as it is.

Well, we did build a um a fence at the entrance of the bridge.

We do have a fence at the entrance of the bridge, and we have our beautified team does go out there to clean the area and to maintain it.

I'm not sure exactly how we would do any.

I think we're doing actually a pretty good job.

We have a beautiful that's maybe not a question for me to answer though.

Right, and I'm not trying to put you on the spot.

But what I'm if you're telling me there's two fires a month, obviously we're not doing something right because they can do set two fires a month.

I mean, if they can break into the bank three times, we got a security problem, right?

And and this reminds me of uh, I don't know.

Well, Dave, the Montgomery Hotel, which is now I don't know if it's five points next to the Fairmont, right?

Um well, Ben, it was before your time.

Um, what they the city wanted that hotel taken down, and what they did is they let they let it deteriorate, they left all the windows open, so the weather it would weather.

They let the amount of I got in there, I wasn't supposed to, but the amount of pigeon craft that was in there, you could barely go up the stairs, literally, and there are pictures of all this, and it was a city's effort to deteriorate it as much as possible because they wanted to wanted to take it down, but bear's fight from PAC and other organizations.

Um, the city actually was founded in their best interest legally to preserve that hotel and it stands now next to the one next to the Fairmont, um, and just FYI.

It was it broke the Guinness Booker World Record as the largest building that was ever moved.

They moved it 175 feet closer to uh um uh St.

Carl St.

Claire, St.

Carlos, right?

Or it was about five million dollars.

But I see the same scenario with this bridge.

Let's not preserve it.

Which let's not make any effort to at least preserve it the way it is, because we really want to take it down because the cis the city has a history of of taking down historic structures, so because it's easier, it's cheaper, it's easier, let's just get rid of it and move on.

Um, so I see a really big connection with that.

And the Montgomery isn't the only property, of course, that that's happened to.

It's sort of the sit where the city does business.

Um other municipalities other municipalities have gone to the effort of saving their trestles, correct?

They're looking to replace their trestles.

Well, but from your from your slides, your presentation, it showed five different municipalities that made the effort of saving the trestle.

Is that correct?

No, that's incorrect.

If you wanted to go back to that slide, Dana.

I'm actually not branding it.

Jennifer, are you able to go back to the MKT trestle?

That one was burned and they're looking to replace it with concrete.

The Tommy Thompson trestle was burned and they're looking to replace it with concrete.

And the final one was uh from Alameda County, and that was the iron horse trail, and that that um bridge had been converted.

So that's a concrete bridge that I gave as an example.

So none of them made any attempt to try to save their trestle.

They did try to save it, and it's a case study one, Jennifer.

Right.

That's my trestle.

There you go.

Thank you.

They all made an effort to try to save it.

So they all recognize the historic importance of the trestle for their community.

They weren't successful for whatever reasons.

I think Larry may point it out different scenarios.

Every case is different, but they did recognize the importance of it.

Right.

Okay.

Um the um the creosote issue.

Okay.

Um the the only time the creosote is a problem with the waterway is when the water uh is exposed to that amount of wood that's got creosote on it.

The fact that the entire trestle was creosoted many years ago, doesn't mean that the creosote is oozing and dripping out of the trestle.

Creosote doesn't do that.

So and how old is the trestle?

I missed that.

Over 100.

It is, it's over 100 years old.

So the amount of oil that's left in that trestle is not a lot.

You know, I don't know in the last time they preserved it.

I'm going to guess the 60s as a guess.

So there's not a lot of oil in there.

Um, so that's creosote scare uh does not work with me.

Um, and then if we go back to the fact that that you're claiming it's it's flammable or the city's claiming it's flammable, I want to pin you down.

Um, why don't we put sprinklers on it?

We'll just put sprinklers under it.

That's what we do for buildings.

Why don't we put sprinklers under the trestles?

So if there's a fire, the sprinklers go off and they they suppress it, right?

So there are things that can be done.

Um, you know, then you say the maintenance costs or it's claimed the maintenance costs are 125,000 a year.

Is that including the cost of putting two fires out a week?

I can get you that spreadsheet.

I mean, just you know, because if it does, that's why it's 125,000 a year.

Uh, I used to know the numbers of uh uh the fires every time they have to come out and and put the fires out at the homeless encampments, but it's it's extremely significant.

Um there's a lot of community input, there's a lot of people here, and no one has showed up to say they don't want the trestle, and I think that's very significant.

When Larry, you know, spent a big part of part of his life trying to save the Willow Glen Trestle, there was also opposite a large opposition group, but there's no large opposition group here, and I think that's that's rather interesting because the one in Willow Glen is was located in a residential area, businesses, people, populated area.

This one is not.

So if we're going to start screaming, oh my God, it's going to catch fire and the creosote's going to burn and everybody's going to die.

Well, there's very few people there.

You know, so I think there's a uh big difference as far as uh the location goes.

Um, you know, the the battle is with the city.

Um, and the easiest thing the city can do is say no.

You can always find an excuse not to do something and to tear it down.

This commission has seen that for many, many years because it's easy.

Um, but it's not necessarily in the best interest of the city, you know.

And at this point in time, considering that the city has all we have no conventions, and because there's nothing, no reason to come here.

There's not we're not a destination.

And we've been talking about this for 30 plus years looking at Dana.

We're not a destination.

People don't come here.

Every time we have the opportunity to have a destination, we tear it down, or we let it rot.

So this to me is just another one of those situations where that's what that is what's going to happen.

And I think when you write the EIR, you need to look at what the benefits are of the trestle, not just that people have sentimental value, but it attracts turrets.

Tourists pay tourists will spend 25% more and have 25% more activity in an area that's recognized as historic.

That's a fact.

So that needs to be in the IR in the EIR.

Not just that, it's a cost, but there's also a benefit to it.

Um, you know, the the people that are commenting here, I also find very interesting because on our last trestle fight, there were a lot of historians and preservationists.

But here we have trail people, right?

Right?

Right.

That are saying we want this.

They're not, you know, they're not just here because it's preservation.

And oh my God, something's gonna come down.

You know, they're here at for another perspective.

And I think that perspective needs to be recognized.

I'm almost done, folks.

Sorry.

Um, I also would like to, and something that we learned on the last trestle is the city tends to inflate their numbers.

So I think any numbers that come forward, especially uh when you do your official public outreach, um, should not just be a flight of like number, but I'd like to see details on it.

Because usually they hide the details because of their interest in look, the city wants to tear it down.

There's no doubt about that.

Um, you know, we've got the D7 leadership here group, which is great.

Ben is here, and Ben had a good comment.

He said, we need to change the reality on the ground.

And I think we really need to change that reality.

Because if we keep tearing this down, we don't have much left.

This is like the last straw, you know.

So we've got to be realistic that uh um we're running out of chances to do anything here at all.

You know, and it's just like Mike said, it's part of, and other people said it's part of the history of the valley, you know, and and uh I don't think we should be we should be hiding that.

I should you think we should really be uh promoting that.

Um and the basic maintenance should not impede historic preservation.

Um, and I don't understand why again, I want to look at the the numbers, but the only maintenance that's been done to that trestle has been putting out fires.

That's all you've done.

So you come up with I hear these numbers, oh my god, it's costing us so much money every year.

Well, you haven't done it, not you particularly.

The city hasn't done a damn thing for it.

They've just let it go.

So if you could if I if we're hearing really big maintenance numbers, uh um, I'd love to see what they are, you know, because to me, without any uh uh support or any evidence, it's just the cost of the fire department coming down and putting out buyers and a bunch of uh galvanized uh piping and some prior smrickless are a hell of a lot cheaper.

So um the last question I have is on the letter from the V7.

Um it says, however, this the web pages summary say that option two, which is demolish and replace, has already been selected, even though neither the city's landmarks commission or the parks and recreation committee have been briefed on the issue, nor has the council considered the matter.

And my question to the D7 is where'd you get that information?

That wasn't in my letter.

This is the letter that was circulated to us, all district leadership group district leadership or that's a different group.

Oh, that is a different that's a different group.

Yeah, so that represents all 10 districts.

Okay, so uh and uh I'm sorry, I'm not I'm not sure if I can talk to that.

Uh, what was the question one more time?

Well, they say they have here that, and they say that it's already been decided that the bridge should be demolished and replaced.

Well, we we have um have a presentation uh then we uh our same our trails meeting, and it sounded like it had already been determined that option two was the course the city was going on, and we just say we want option three if we can we would like to preserve the trestle and build a bridge that connects um five minutes trail.

Right.

So do you remember who did that presentation?

I'm just trying to find sort of their games actually uh presented to the all district leadership group the all just district leadership group voted to help preserve the trestle.

So uh Lori, do you have any yes?

If you go to the city website, it has four reports there, and then one of the summary.

The summary says on page two, we decided to take option two.

That's right, they're on the city's.

I think the materials that were circulated to us also kind of indicated that, but perhaps that's a question for the city staff that's here.

We have the action, I think that might be.

Yeah, it says the city, why did the city choose to demolish the trestle as the most responsible option?

So we chose that as the most response responsible option, but as I said, the EIR has not the gun.

That is the option that we think is the most responsible option, but that is not this the option that's been decided by council.

But will that be your project under the EIR?

And then these other ones will be your preservation alternatives.

What will be your proposed project with the EIR?

No, we have to compare other projects so that they can say there is a more this project is more desirable, right?

Typically for an EIR, you have your project that you're proposing, and then you have to analyze alternatives that are like a preservation alternative or whatever.

So are you are you going to bring forward an ER that has multiple of alternatives or you have to show that there's an alternative that's less impactful, right?

Right.

But to your to your selection.

Because I mean, I think the point of like if you're going into this with the city already kind of promoting one option, it's more difficult to get the city off that kind of pathway.

Um, because that would be the recommendation from the beginning.

And we don't have a project description yet.

We're not to that point.

Okay.

So the day we no decision has been made.

Uh no final decision has been made, but but Sarah is exact that's exactly where it's coming from.

Are you going to direct your EIR to tear down and replace and then come up with alternatives?

Or is it going to be an even playing field on all three alternatives?

We're going to provide the information from the consultants, scientific background information, so that you know the decision makers is in council to make an informed decision, right?

Their decision to make, but you know, as uh Liz kind of mentioned earlier, right now things are kind of pointing in the direction of building a new bridge.

It's more cost-effective on the capital side.

It's also more cost-effective on the maintenance side.

So yeah.

So okay.

So and that's what I expected is that the city is going to go ahead in that direction.

Uh, even though uh a lot of questions here were brought up on issues and facts that you do not yet have.

We're just starting in on those technical stuff.

Right, but but you've already made a decision on the direction.

No, no, definitely has been made.

Not inviting you down, yeah, but that bothers me.

You know, I just it just bothers me that that you're basically leaning towards that direction.

And and I uh um to Sarah's point, I already know I will make the assumption that the EIR will look at that and then alternatives to that and not be an even playing field.

Um, on that note, thank you for your time and your patience, everyone.

Um done.

Um I just have one quick question.

Because this is a candidate city landmark, this will come back before the commission during EIR process.

Um if it coincides with a commission meeting, we can agendize it for the review of the draft EIR.

Okay, I think it would just be a good opportunity to have more formal comments from this commission entered into the EIR feedback.

Obviously, everybody can give public feedback during that practice too, but I think as a as a formal response to the EIR, it should come back for the commission once the EIR has been put together.

Um, but I do appreciate you coming before us early and and taking into consideration uh these comments.

I think the overwhelming consensus in the room is that it is an important structure.

Um culturally, it's a physical representation of this culture.

I think it's unique that it's um a landscape feature, it could be a great landscape feature for this trail network, and it's I mean, it's always lovely when you're hiking through the woods and you happen upon a cool old structure and you you learn about the history of a place through that structure.

Um, I think it it just adds to the physical experience as you're going through the hike.

Um, and I think it's also unique that it's a structure, an engineering structure rather than a building.

We don't have a lot of those um on the on the resource list.

So I think it would be a unique opportunity to broaden um what we're preserving in the city.

So thank you.

I just want to add that um if you're using any federal funding, um, you know, the transportation, the DOT section four of um requirements are pretty stringent.

So it's just something to consider if the demolition is proposed, um, that that can get a little bit sticky with federal funding.

If I may, I just wanted to point out that the city has announced that they're doing a major encampment cleanup in this area um with the promise that they will not let people uh move back in there again.

So once once the encampments are moved on, I think any fire issue will be lessened considerably.

Yeah.

Great.

Thank you.

We don't have to vote on that.

So we will move on to the next agenda item, which is open forum.

Members of the public are invited to speech 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 formal action in response to the public comment.

The commission can only ask questions or respond to statements to the extent necessary to term in to determine whether to one refer the matter to staff 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 card or raise your hands at tonight's meeting.

And then you have two minutes to speak to address the commission.

Are there any items?

Can I just ask a question first?

Did I sent it late and I didn't realize that HLC one and two, three, four, five, six, seven doesn't exist anymore.

So I see that our emails change.

And I don't think anybody would have got that.

Okay.

Yeah, no, it was it was late.

I brought hard copies if it helps.

Can I ask?

Yeah, sure.

Um, so this is about SP 79.

Um, this is something that was heard uh by council on uh January 27th.

Um is this the Japan town?

No, this is this is um Scott Meter's initiative uh that the governor signed upon.

I don't know.

Is it possible to speak a little bit longer than two minutes on this?

Um this was signed by the governor on October 10th.

It basically is legislation that's designed to um force cities to build uh housing in areas that are within a half a mile of transit.

And um and they're uh the um the state gave a couple of opportunities to exempt things, not exempt, but to um to um well, I guess exempt.

Um one of them was employment lands, you know, places where there's business and uh Sounds famously um sort of run out of those lands that I think it's about 14% Dana at this point.

And so um at the council meeting, and the other thing that they gave an opportunity to exempt out is historic places, right?

Extoric uh districts, historic buildings.

And so um, but the but the city has to respond actually well before uh when the the bill goes into effect, which is July 1st of this year.

And so they are scrambling, they're gonna be on March 17th, um, coming together again to basically hear back from uh Chris Burton as to um a couple of questions that they had about you know the um employment lands and about um historic places.

The mayor and uh three other council members um put a memo across that said that um that they wanted to they did they wanted to ignore the historic preservation um exemption um and focus on the um employment lands.

I think it's kind of understandable, quite frankly, but um thankfully uh the uh uh the planning director, uh Chris Burton said no, I think we can still address that as well.

Also, um your liaison, uh Michael McCahe um said that he created a memo in response to that that said, yeah, I think we should consider this.

Um unfortunately uh it will be back at council and make and that we'll be making a decision on this.

I'm hopeful.

Um I've spoken both to Chris and to Michael.

I'm hopeful that they will stay resolute and that they will continue to um consider um you know, push back a little bit with the mayor present enough data on the deployment land that they will be content that the planning department can still go and take a SRI, you know, map and the map the data that we have on the historic um you know assets and overlay those and um actually make up make a point of you know taking that uh exemption um from the state, not just leaving it on the table.

I'm hopeful that they will stay resolute and that they will continue to um consider um you know push back a little bit with the mayor present enough data on the deployment land that they will be content that the planning department can still go and take a SRE you know map and the map the data that we have on the historic um you know assets and overlay those and um actually make up make a point of you know taking that uh exemption um from the state not just leaving it on the table um but but that we will see and so at the end of this memo I basically have suggested that we uh support you know in whatever level that we can we can't officially have a discussion about this, but you know perhaps they can report in the next section about you know what's happened to council and planning, uh at least what the status is of that.

Um, but you know, uh support planning directors support um locate's um intent to make sure that historic preservation is not left on the table.

When does it go to council?

The 17th of this month, this month, the fact that we still yeah.

So what exactly goes for the council on the 17th?

So yeah, they they are gonna they're going to address you know um what they're gonna send to the state for evaluation as to whether they've met they've complied with um SB79 and the exemptions that they'll identify for employment lands.

It's an ordinance.

So their alternative TOD plan are they are they making one or are they just so um the analysis that was presented by staff was they didn't think that of the feel that they looked at that um that those T areas could qualify for um alternative lands.

Um the proposal to council um at the end of January was to draft two ordinances.

Um was for the um industrial lands, basically, the window plans now was the historic resources.

Um they decided not to direct staff to prepare an ordin for historic resources, but they did direct staff to do that for the industrial lands.

So that's going to plan in commission, I think in a week, week from tomorrow or something like that, and that's then that's going to council on the 17th.

And they also ask for more information about really the question was um can we rely on CIPA to protect our resources um because you can pair um SB79, baby 130, which can exempt out for certain things in resources.

How long has this been known that the city's working on it?

That's this has been like a crazy we just started this work probably right before Christmas.

October 10th.

Yeah, it's it's been a ridiculous uh timeline that we've really tight been mandated to comply with.

So should something like this, since it affects historic preservation come to the school.

Well, it's the council's decision.

Um, but what I did want to um let everyone know is while SB9 goes into effect on July 79 goes into effect on July 1st, you can implement an alternative plan or an ordinance exemption at any time.

Um and the ordinances, I'm not sure about the employment lands, but for historic resources are only a temporary exemption until one year after the adoption of the next um housing element.

So it doesn't exemp.

You still have to deal with them.

So the only way to deal with them is to do an alternative plan.

We don't know whether we could come up with a plan that would meet the criteria of SB 79 or not.

But um that's one thing that we'll be recommending that that they look at because it's going to take you know, financial and staff resources in the future.

Uh, but they really wanted to prioritize this one ordinance to get it done and then get it sent to um the people have to review it at the state so that it could be done before July 1st.

Right.

And an EIR is still required, you know, a CPA review is still required on a project like this.

They don't the way that the bill is written, it's still it's still required, but it's not a prophylactic to protect a building, whereas I mean it'll only be required where it would otherwise be required.

Right.

So in other words, 79 doesn't exempt you from SIQA.

So if your project is one that would otherwise trigger SQL for whatever reason, you would still have to do it unless you couple it with well, that's the thing, right?

So we think that most projects would be eligible for SB130, right?

A B130 also.

So that they'll likely be paired.

Um the analysis that we've come up with is just that you know AB 130 doesn't protect eligible resources.

So it's it's only resources that are designated.

That are you know on our inventory, basically.

So projects like Sealy Avenue and you know, some of these others have come up in the EIR process.

Um the other area is um is that it doesn't, it only regulates demolition.

So if somebody were significantly alter a building, it wouldn't cover that.

So the really, I mean, as everyone knows, CQA is it's a process, it's a rule, but it's it's the historic preservation ordinance and you know, other local mechanisms that are on the protection, it's not a protection for historic resources in terms of just you know going through the environmental view forces.

The the last thing I wanted to make sure I said is that um we truly do believe that we could come up with the data, you know, for this, even if it was after July 1st, you know, which it provides an exposure to somebody that wants to take something out, but um it it might not be immediate.

And so we think that you know, PAC and the city could figure out a way of doing an overlay map of historic places and the GIS map.

Well, that's been provided to the council, so that's part of the March 17th memory.

Okay, that's what you've provided.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Yeah.

So we know that there's concentrations in certain areas.

Do we have that already?

It hasn't been published.

Can when can we get that?

When it's published, I'm not sure if it's it could be Friday.

Friday.

I think Friday we should see.

Okay.

Uh I don't know for sure.

Because it's different timeouts, I think the planning commission.

So yeah.

Yeah, I don't it won't be long.

Um, but um uh district five liaison is not here tonight, right?

Is that I'm sorry, I'm just the farm actually and council member Mulkini's policy well, welcome.

Yes.

Um, I saw Karina online.

I you guys must have been thanking me.

Yeah, so you already know that there that the overlay is coming.

Yes.

Oh, fantastic.

That's good, right?

We think so, yes.

I still need to see what what comes of that memorandum, but yes.

Yeah, let us know if you need some moral support.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for addressing that.

So there's still, I guess that the point is there's still opportunity that even if council doesn't take action, you know, on the 17th, that um and things start to get squirrelly, there's always opportunities later to take a look at these things.

So can I ask a question though?

I just want to so Mike, what is your like request of or what I want to make sure that we're like oh, boil it down, right?

Um, and this is a very touchy-feely response, right?

It looks to us that council member well, Kahy.

It looks to us that planning commissioner or yeah, planning director, um Chris Burton are willing to say that we can get this work done as a secondary priority to the major priority that the mayor and the council have.

And we just want to support that.

That's that's basically the message is you know, in the collective, we don't want to be adjutants, we don't want to be carrying swords.

We want to just say, you know, let's the city the state has given us an opportunity to pursue something.

Let's not just ditch it right out right out the shoot, right?

Does that make sense?

It does, but here highlighted in yellow, you you I think have some dialogue from the 126th memo where council member Melcake said staff should return to council on February 24th with additional analysis of the potential impacts on designated historic resources and a range of policy options for council consideration.

That's what happened.

Well, that's what's been provided on the 17th.

Yeah.

Oh, okay.

So it's not on the and when they when they actually met, they decided that it was be at the March meeting.

So the March, the February 24th was what he put in there because he thought that's when we just weren't able to turn around.

So and will that be provided in like a staff report or something in advance of the hearing?

Is that going to be like a written well, you can check the city council, you know, agendas online um the 17th.

We think they're posted about a week or 10 days in a day on the yeah.

I think so the actual um agenda for March 17th is posted.

Is that going to be like a written well you can check the city council you know agendas online um the 17th we think they're posted about a week or 10 days in a day on so the actual um agenda for March 17th is posted uh but the memorandum itself usually gets published uh two Fridays before the council meeting oh I see for some does he have any co-signers you think so on on that one no because um after a certain time um you can only submit a single signer memorandum and that's when we published um that one no but I'm saying for the next one uh I'm not I'm not sure yeah okay do we need to go talk to people always okay thank you so much I appreciate I know you've got a lot going in the background on this appreciate you so it really I mean we're kind of at the will of council and and you know their direction and what they would like us to do or not do so we're we're not doing anything at the moment we've provided the memo or waiting to if they want to do anything I I did have one generic comment to part with um I think in the past we haven't brought this up before and hopefully this doesn't offend anybody but it you know can we request um that you know four council items that that you vote to send an emissary to represent the opinion of the of the commission on things like this right you know this one we maybe don't have the opportunity to that because you haven't been able to discuss it but it would be really powerful to have you know the HLC chair um you know it's not a silver bullet but it is it is good when we we have we have those opinions but they don't always get read out right you know and so sometimes you have to go to the podium and maybe even get maybe you could even get speaker privileges um you know presenter privileges but it would be it would be nice to have HLC's voice heard in the planning commission and council that's just so as someone designated rather than you all have the opportunity to go down and as individual but not as a representative right you know particularly if you vote on something unanimously you know then say you know hey we're gonna designate the come on you know to come and and speak on behalf or or the president or the chair I'm sorry or vice chair yeah and you know we I don't know why we never thought to ask this before maybe we did and I've forgotten good point.

Thank you.

Thanks Mike any other members of public civilian welfare I know exactly sorry for have two questions um one is this the GP four year review for the general plan is there anybody from the historic commission as part of this consortium a brain not to my knowledge then is there I mean shouldn't there be I don't I honestly don't know what their criteria didn't they just sort of planning commission to be that yeah I think you're right yeah so it's just the planning just the planning commission it's they they changed they voted to change the body uh last year okay okay because I saw a whole bunch of people going in that meeting probably just comments is oh that's what it is okay okay and then sorry the last thing is we get a lot all these projects come to us for comments and then when we read it uh um it's got staff recommendations and the staff recommendations are made before it comes to the commission and um I'm proposing that instead of having a design review committee that the especially since our agendas are so light at this point in time uh that projects can come to the historic landmarks commissions for comments before they move further because whenever we we get these projects and the staff report is already written I feel like well why what are we doing because the chances are that it won't get changed but um I mean oftentimes we haven't had anything much lately but we do take things to the design review committee.

But if we if we were I'm sorry we were that's the vehicle right but instead and they have to pay for the design review committee there's an extra charge for that correct it's not uh uh um well they have to pay for referral to the commission so we we can only refer to the commission when it's required right but if somebody goes wants to go to this have his projects is it they wanted to go to the design review I don't think they're we don't have a separate fee at least on the fee schedule for that okay because so it is but we do for but they're not charged referral to commission yeah okay because that was my concern is that if they're being charged for it then there may be projects that we can look at beforehand that people are well I don't want to spend the extra money and then we get it after the staff report is written.

Yeah, okay, because that was my concern is that if they're being charged for it, then there may be projects that we can look at beforehand that people are well.

I don't want to spend the extra money, and then we get it after the staff report is written.

Right.

You know, and I'm trying to get it so it comes to us before the report is written so we can have some sort of input rather than finding a final staff recommendation.

Sure.

Well, and it depends on their willingness, it's not required, so you know, um not every applicant is willing to take the design on board.

Um you know, especially if there are prominent architects involved.

Um so we haven't had a lot of referrals, you know, in recent years.

Um, but when we can, you know, we do.

Right.

Okay, yeah, I didn't it would be nice to say, hey, you have this opportunity.

Yeah, and we just haven't had a lot of we haven't had tons of development.

A lot of stuff has been modifications of projects that have already been entitled, you know, that are going from office to residential.

Uh I know this.

We haven't had a lot of a lot of new stuff.

Right.

Yeah.

Okay, great.

That's all I had.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um then moving on to agenda item number eight, good new welfare.

Um item A, report from the Secretary of Planning Commission and City Council.

No, but I I after the March 17th uh meeting, I can report back in April on the specifying.

Great, thank you.

Uh item B, report from committees, uh design review committee.

There was no meeting held in December, January, or February.

The next meeting scheduled for March 19th.

Does it look like we'll have any agenda?

Yeah, probably not.

Okay.

And then item C approval of action minutes.

Recommendation is to approve the action minutes from the historic landmarks commission meeting of December 3rd, 2025.

I make a motion to approve those minutes.

Thank you.

There's a second.

Thank you.

All in favor, no opposed.

One uh commissioner Arnold is absent.

And then D Faz of Circulating Environmental Documents.

Uh none to report.

Okay.

With that then, yeah, right.

So we'll start with I think that's okay.

Uh six three three or four or something like that.

Yeah, we're very prompt.

Yeah.