Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends changes to Historic Preservation Ordinance after court ruling; Levitt Pavilion cited as context
Summary
The Commission voted 9-0 to recommend amendments to San José’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 13.48) to clarify definitions and add a limited discretionary override to allow weighing public benefits against unavoidable historic harms, in response to a recent Court of Appeal decision tied to the Levitt Pavilion process.
Staff framed proposed amendments to the Historic Preservation Ordinance (San José Municipal Code Chapter 13.48) as a response to a Court of Appeal ruling that limited the city’s discretion when a project certified an environmental impact report but also produced unavoidable historic impacts. The proposed changes clarify definitions (including "substantial alteration" and "deterioration") and add a findings-based pathway for the City Council to weigh economic, legal, technical and other public benefits against unavoidable historic impacts in narrowly defined circumstances.
City Attorney staff reviewed the litigation history and explained the amendments are intended to make explicit a discretion the city believes it already uses. "...el sexto distrito declaró, cito, no consideramos correcta la interpretación de la ordenanza propuesta por la ciudad... Es más, la ciudad tiene la facultad de enmendar la ordenanza..." the attorney summarized from the opinion.
Public comment included many speakers both supporting and opposing the changes. Supporters, including arts and downtown groups and Levitt Pavilion proponents, argued the change is necessary for public projects like the Levitt Pavilion to proceed and cited potential economic and cultural benefits (staff cited an estimate of roughly $14,000,000 in annual economic activity tied to the pavilion). Opponents, including the Foundation for the Preservation of Saint Clare, warned that a broadly worded override could weaken long-standing protections and argued the amendment could require an Environmental Impact Report rather than an addendum.
Commissioners debated wording, limits on application to public versus private projects, and recommended specific clarifications suggested by the Historic Landmarks Commission. After deliberation the Commission moved and voted to recommend the ordinance amendments to the City Council (9-0); the packet will go to Council on December 2 with a potential second reading on December 16.
