Almaden Resident
News
Preservation laws are strengthened to save San Jose sites and buildings
By Alicia Upano
Developers looking to tear down San Jose's historical buildings and replace them with new ones may find the city less responsive to their bottom line.
The San Jose City Council voted 10-1 on May 23 to approve an updated policy to strengthen protection for historic landmarks. Councilman Chuck Reed was the sole "no" vote.
The move amends the 1998 Preservation of Historic Landmarks policy, adding language that a landmark may only be removed if it is "not reasonably feasible for any interested party" to retain it or the "integrity of the [landmark] district." Further, the amended policy says if a developer does not believe he can profit from the existing building, this is no longer a sufficient reason to knock down a historical structure.
The old policy only addressed buildings designated as a city, state or national landmark based on historical value. The updated policy includes all structures, sites and districts, including single-family homes that have the potential to become a landmark.
Megan Buelle, executive director of the Preservation Action Council, said the strengthening of the historic preservation ordinance should be a factor in the future of the Almaden Feed & Fuel restaurant and bar that closed last month in preparation to clear the site for housing. She did not know the specifics of how the ordinance changes would affect the former stagecoach stop.
Buelle said she didn't think there would be any immediate or specific imapct to New Almaden. She said that the goal of the ordinance was to make sure that other interests, besides the developer's, would be taken into account.
"The intent behind the language is to get the council to recognize that the [economic] viability of a project should not be determined by one developer," Buelle said. Other factors, like the historic significance of a building, should be taken into consideration for development projects.
The Historic Landmarks Commission teamed up with the planning department to propose these revisions over the past year, according to a city memo. The change was timed to coincide with Preservation Month in May.
Sally Notthoff Zarnowitz, a city historic preservation planner, said the updated policy language merely bolsters and clarifies the city's efforts to preserve character.
The policy update is a result of both Counter to Council task force recommendations and a response to several development projects where historically significant buildings were torn down, Zarnowitz said.
The Counter to Council task force was charged with making recommendations to improve the city's planning process. It was comprised of business representatives and a sole community delegate, Harvey Darnell.
On the task force last year, Darnell pushed for "community standards" in the city's General Plan, which could outline historic neighborhoods as a way to preserve the look, feel and charm of older communities .
Darnell had seen first-hand how developers could sweep in and demolish significant, aging structures during the rezoning process of KB Home's development at the old Del Monte plant on Auzerais Avenue downtown. The developer will build 390 homes on the 14.67-acre industrial site, with no plans to preserve the old plant's buildings.
Despite protests by neighbors and preservationists, the council approved the rezoning. However, the KB Home project was one of several that prompted a review of the city's preservation policy.
Jim Zetterquist, a contractor, said preserving the city's historic resources is a "win-win" since it keeps the landfills empty and saves energy. He also said preservation efforts typically use more local labor. And he noted older buildings promote tourism, pointing out that cities benefit from places such as Monterey's Cannery Row and San Francisco's Ghirardelli Square.
To Bonnie Bamburg, who sat on the Historic Landmarks Commission in the 1970s when the first preservation policy was drafted, the new language will encourage both developers and the city to review alternatives to removing historic landmarks.
