San Jose Historic Landmarks Commission Meeting - March 6, 2026
San Jose Historic Landmarks Commission Meeting - March 6, 2026
The Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) of San Jose convened on March 6, 2026. The meeting included a report on Historic Preservation Month 2026, an extensive informational presentation and public discussion on the Five Wounds Trail and Coyote Creek Trestle, and an Open Forum addressing the potential impacts of state housing legislation (SB 79) on historic resources. Commissioners and the public expressed strong sentiment for exploring the preservation of the historic Coyote Creek Trestle. The Commission approved the action minutes from the previous meeting.
Public Comments & Testimony
-
Five Wounds Trail and Coyote Creek Trestle (Item 6A):
- Keith Ball (Save Our Trails): Strongly urged the Commission to save the trestle and designate it as a city landmark, arguing it is both viable and desirable. He stated that a consultant report showed preserving the historic trestle while building a modern steel bridge nearby has significantly lower construction costs and takes 10 months less than the city’s preferred option.
- Bruce Victorine (D7 Leadership Group / Save Our Trails VP): Read a letter from the D7 Leadership Group stating their vote to support preservation. They advocated for Option 3, which preserves the trestle as a landmark (closed to public use) while building an adjacent modern bridge for the trail, emphasizing the trestle's connection to the history of railroads and canneries in the Valley of Heart's Delight.
- Ben Leach (Preservation Action Council of San Jose): Expressed full support for the preservation coalition. He argued that preservation is an opportunity, not an impediment, and that activating the trail would inherently reduce vandalism and fire risks, changing the reality on the ground.
- Bill Rankin (Save Our Trails President): Expressed support for preserving the trestle for its historical role in developing the fruit cocktail industry, while acknowledging that a new, safe bridge is needed for the trail.
- Additional Speaker (trestle advocate): Discussed the failed Willow Glen Trestle preservation effort. He proposed building a new bridge 50 feet to the east of the existing trestle, arguing it would be a shorter span, cheaper, and would leave the historic structure untouched and visible for safety monitoring.
-
Open Forum (Item 7):
- Mike (Preservation Action Council): Urged the Commission to support the Planning Director and Councilmember liaison in their efforts to include an historic preservation exemption in the city’s implementation of SB 79. He emphasized that the city should not leave the historic exemption on the table. He also requested the Commission consider having a formal representative speak at City Council or Planning Commission meetings on items where the HLC holds a unanimous position.
Discussion Items
-
Historic Preservation Month 2026 (Item 5A):
- Staff presented plans for Historic Preservation Month in May 2026. Activities will include a City Council proclamation and the launch of a new consolidated web page for existing story maps (Alviso, Martha Gardens, Evergreen, and additions). The centerpiece will be a digital community storytelling project called "My San Jose," an interactive GIS program that allows residents to place a point anywhere on a map of the city and upload photos and stories about what they find significant, aiming to crowdsource community memories and identify new historic perspectives.
-
Five Wounds Trail and Coyote Creek Trestle (Item 6A):
- Project Update (Liz Sewell, Trail Manager): Staff provided a status report on the master plan (begun July 2025) and environmental review process. Four studies of the trestle were conducted between 2022 and 2023 (historic evaluation, structural, fire/security, floodplain/hydrology). The historic evaluation showed the trestle appears eligible for listing.
- Challenges Identified: The trestle faces ongoing deterioration, arson (approximately two fires per month), and vandalism. The creosote preservative is highly flammable and releases dense smoke. Annual maintenance and emergency response costs are approximately $125,000.
- Comparative Analysis: Staff contacted owners of several retrofitted trestles (MKT Trail in Texas, Tommy Thompson Trail in Washington, Iron Horse Trail in Alameda) and reported that these structures continued to experience major fires and high maintenance costs after retrofit, informing the city’s analysis.
- Cost Estimates: Retrofit/rehabilitation is estimated at ~$11.28 million with ~$125,000 per year in maintenance. Building a new bridge is estimated at ~$11.69 million with ~$10,000 per year in maintenance. Preserving the old trestle while building a new bridge has unknown additional costs, and siting a bridge further east faces complications related to landfill abutments and environmental impacts.
- Status and Next Steps: Staff emphasized that no final decision has been made and the EIR has not yet begun. A community scoping meeting for the EIR is anticipated for Summer 2026. Staff stated the data is currently pointing toward removing and replacing the trestle (Option B/C), but the EIR will evaluate alternatives.
- Commissioner Deliberation:
- Commissioner Camuso expressed strong skepticism of the city’s cost projections and motives, drawing parallels to the historic neglect and eventual demolition of the Montgomery Hotel and Willow Glen Trestle. She questioned the listed maintenance costs, the risk of creosote, and the lack of proactive mitigation efforts (e.g., sprinklers, fences). She urged the EIR to formally consider the tourism and economic benefits of preserving the structure.
- Commissioner Golandari noted the trestle is eligible for three levels of historic nomination (National Register, California Register, San Jose Landmark). He asked detailed questions regarding the EIR process and confirmed with staff that the Draft EIR will ideally be brought back to the HLC for formal comment and a potential vote.
- Commissioners generally agreed that the overwhelming community support for preservation should be a significant factor in the upcoming environmental analysis. They requested the city provide a more detailed breakdown of cost estimates and explore the feasibility of preservation grants to supplement the VTA Measure B trail funding.
Key Outcomes
- Action Minutes Approved: The Commission unanimously approved the action minutes from the December 3, 2025 meeting.
- Five Wounds Trail / Trestle: No formal action was taken; the item was informational. Staff assured the Commission that public comments from the meeting will be incorporated into the EIR process documentation. The HLC requests the Draft EIR be agendized for commission review and formal comment when completed.
- SB 79 / Historic Exemptions: Staff will report back on the outcome of the March 17th City Council meeting regarding the city’s SB 79 implementation strategy, specifically whether the historic resources exemption will be pursued. The Commission expressed support for including historic resources in the city's response.
- Procedural Discussion: Commissioners expressed interest in having a formal HLC representative speak at City Council or Planning Commission meetings on critical preservation issues and in reviewing development project referrals earlier in the process (before staff reports are finalized) when possible.
Meeting Transcript
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.
openpublica.com