PRESERVATION ACTION COUNCIL OF SAN JOSE

Dedicated to Preservi11g San jose's Architectural Heritage

June 9, 2015

Mayor Sam Liccardo Members of the City Council 200 E Santa Clara Street San Jose CA 95113

Re: Appeal of Historic Preservation Permit 14-002/ Park View Towers

Dear Mayor Liccardo and Members of the City Council,

The proposed Park View Towers (Park View) project is detrimental to the historic character and fabric of the St. James Square National Register Historic District. For that reason, the Preservation Action Council of San Jose (P AC-SJ) requests that Historic Permit 14-002 be substantially modified to conform to the St. James Square Historic District Guidelines. If that modification does not occur, Section 13.48.240 of the San Jose Municipal Code requires that the Council deny the permit.

Section 13.48.240 is part of Historic Preservation Ordinance 13.48. The purpose of Ordinance 13.48 is to bring "a general harmony as to style, form, color, proportion, texture and material between buildings of historic design and those of a more modem design." The Code further requires that guidelines be prepared for historic districts to govern rehabilitation and new construction. In 1989, The City Council adopted the formal Guidelines for the St. James Square Historic District. These Guidelines are an extension of the United States Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Preservation. Section 13.48.250 states that a "HP permit shall be reviewed in accordance with the approved standards or guidelines." It also requires that new construction enhance a district, and not be detrimental to the feeling that a historic district is intended to evoke.

The Park View project is detrimental because it towers over the surrounding landmark buildings, diminishes the First Church of Christ Scientist, and generally overwhelms the Historic District and St. James Park. It dominates the view from the park and stomps on the ambiance of a tum-of-the­Century civic square. It proposes to permanently move the First Church partially out of the district boundaries and change its historic exterior. If this project were built as designed, permanent negative impacts to the Historic District would be inevitable.

Granting HP Permit 14-002 not only violates the St. James Square Guidelines adopted in 1989 by the City Council, it also violates a section of the San Jose Downtown Zoning Ordinance, major portions of the San Jose Envision 2040 General Plan, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation.

Zoning Ordinance 20.70.110 states that Downtown development that is "adjacent to or within historic landmarks or districts ... shall conform to applicable guidelines adopted, and as amended by the city council." The St. James Square District Guidelines state that they apply to the St. James Square Historic District, "and its immediate vicinity. " (Page 2) They also state "New development directly adjacent to an existing historic structure should be designed so as to respect the historic structure. Historic structures should not be crowded by new development." (Page 22) And, "Where new buildings are to be constructed adjacent to historic buildings, the mass of the new buildings should be sensitive to, and harmonious with, the scale of the older buildings." (Page 23)

The SEIR and Staff reports claim that the Guidelines do not apply to areas outside the boundary lines of the District itself, but the language quoted above comes directly from the Ordinances, so that premise is in error. And using that premise makes many of the conclusions of the SEIR erroneous.

Preservation Action Council of San Jose (PAC.SJ) PAC'SJ Is a 501 (c) 3 noo-profrt organllaliln

History Park, 1650 Senter Road, San Jose, CA 95112 408-998-8105 info@preservation.org www.preservation.org

Not all of the District Guidelines have specific formulas nor are they of the same level of importance. The Guidelines are intentionally general in some areas but prescriptive in others. For example, the matter of fenestration, windows, materials, colors, landscaping, and detailing are general, while setbacks and allowable building heights are highly specific.

The St. James Historic District boundary lines run with the actual property lines in a zigzag pattern around the park. As a result, the district boundary line is made up of lot-line depths that vary greatly. To achieve some uniformity for application of the height guideline, a lot depth of 137 feet was adopted as an average.

The height guideline states: "Allowable building heights for a one lot depth (137 feet) on blocks fronting directly on St. James Park and on diagonal comers defined by St. James and First, St. James and Third, St. John and First, and St. John and Third should not deviate by more than one story from the heights of immediately adjacent historic buildings and in no case should exceed 70 feet." The Park View project proposes construction within and outside the Historic District boundary, however the entire site is in the "immediate vicinity" of the District and "adjacent to a historic structure". The First Church is a designated historic structure.

The height of the First Church is slightly below 60 feet. Park View Tower 2 on First Street steps up to 150 feet within the 137 feet limitation. Tower 1, on Devine Street is not within the 137-foot limitation, but it is "adjacent" to the church. At 201 feet, it is more than tri Je the height of the First Church.

With the exception of Park View, all new projects permitted since the adoption of the Guidelines (1989) have been held to the 70-foot height standard. Marshall Squares, permitted earlier this year, was required to make major changes to comply with the Guidelines, including lowering its height to 70 feet. The new State of California Family Court, still under construction, complies with the height provisions of the Ordinance even though the State is exempt. The area of the courthouse project that is within the 137-foot distance is lower than 70 feet.

The setback provisions of the Guidelines state: "The setback of new structures should match that of the surrounding historic structures. In all locations, structures should be set back to the average of the setbacks of existing historic buildings along the street frontage, not including front entry stairs which may protrude from the building." The historic buildings along the St. James Street frontage are the First Church and the Saint Claire Club. The setbacks of the new construction do not comply with the average setback of those two buildings, and will hide the historic structures from pedestrian view along St. James Street.

Exempting Park View from the height limitation and the setback standard is in violation of the HP Ordinance. The Ordinance, and the height limitation, was in effect when Park View was brought forward in 2003, and permitted in 2009. Consistently not applying the provisions of the HP Ordinance to this developer, while requiring other developers to comply, seems to be a capricious and arbitrary act.

The new Envision 2040 General Plan also sets out policies to help preserve the City's historic fabric. City staff reports say that Park View complies with those policies. Again, that claim is erroneous. Envision 2040 has a number of policies that are specific to historic preservation and historic districts that are being violated by the Park View project. For example:

"Apply the Historic Preservation Goals and Policies of this Plan to proposals that modify historic resources or include development near historic resources." (CD-1.26)

"Ensure new development is consistent with specific height limits established within the City's Zoning Ordinance and applied through zoning designation for properties throughout the City." (CD-8.1)

"Require public and private development projects to conform to the adopted City Council Policy on the Preservation of Historic Landmarks." (LU-13.4)

"Require that new development, alterations, and rehabilitation/ remodels adjacent to a designated or candidate landmark or Historic District be designed to be sensitive to its character." (LU-13.8)

-2.-

There are other Envision 2040 General Plan policies dealing with enhancing community identity, preserving a sense of place, ensuring compatibility of new development within historic districts, and conformance to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Attached to this letter is the list of over a dozen specific Envision 2040 General Plan policies that will be violated by approving this HP Permit.

The Park View project also violates the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The project proposes permanently moving a contributing structure, the First Church of Christ Scientist, to an area partially outside the Historic District boundaries. The Secretary's Standards recommend against "removing or relocating historic buildings and landscape features, thus destroying their historic relationship within the setting."

HP permit 14-002 allows the removal of the First Church's basement, which is partially above ground level. Since there was no church hall, this basement space accommodated a number of important activities and is part of the church's history. Elimination of the usable space in the basement severely limits the potential adaptive reuse of the building. Looking from the exterior, this change will eliminate ground-Level windows and outside staircases and will change the appearance of the historic building. These historic elements will not be replaced, which alters the appearance of the historic exterior. Standard 2 of the Secretary's Standards states: 'The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided." The current HP Permit only requires restoration of "the existing historically significant front fat;ade of the City Landmark".

There has been a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and an Addendum prepared for the Park View project. The SEIR was released in 2007 and at that time PAC-SJ sent a letter of comment opposing elements of the project, including the height violations. The Addendum was released earlier this year, but there is no public circulation or public comment periods for an Addendum. Both the SEIR and the Addendum are misleading, erroneous and inadequate.

Both documents contain Historical Reports done by the firm of Carey and Company. They conclude that the project "substantially conforms" to the Guidelines, the General Plan, and the Secretary's Standards against all the evidence to the contrary. They conclude that none of the standards or policies from the Ordinances, General Plan and the Secretary's Standards apply to construction outside the district boundaries, That is in direct contradiction to the language in the Ordinance, General Plan and the Secretary's Standards, which say they apply to areas next to or adjacent to historic structures.

The Carey and Company 2006 SEIR historic report concludes:

"The proposed height of the twin tawer development could have a significant adverse impact on the church and the historic district." (Page 15) It further states that "Tawer 1 wotdd somewhat compromise the historic sense of place associated with the church and historic district and would affect the abilitt; of both the church and historic district to convey the links tlzey have to the past. The tower would introduce a new feahlre that would visually intrude on the feeling of the historic district. (Page 23)

The proposed mitigation for the "significant adverse impact'' of the taller tower was "stepping up" the shorter tower. The lower tower would ''become a transitional feature between the park, the church and Tower 1." This completely ignores the fact that both of the towers are out of compliance with the height Guidelines, the General Plan and the Secretary's Standards. The report does not explain how one building out of compliance can be used as mitigation for another building out of compliance.

In the case of the Guidelines, Carey and Company admits that the project does not comply with the most important and specific ones; size, height, setback averages, view corridors, fenestration, relationship of walls to windows, symmetry, landscaping, and service functions. The only guidelines the project fully conforms with are parking and vehicle access, roof pitch, courtyards, colors and covering for the mechanical equipment on the roof.

The Parkview SEIR was certified in 2009, over the objection of the Historic Landmarks Commission. The Commission maintained that the SEIR was incomplete because it did not analyze the impacts on five additional City Landmarks that surround the Park View site.

-3-

These landmarks are:

The Saint James Hotel/ Moir Building (1892) at 227 North First Street The Beatrice Building/ Teske's (circa 1890's) at 255 North First Street The Tognassi Building/Trials Pub (circa 1890's) at 261 North First Street Germania Hall (1895) at 259 North Second Street National Guard Armory (1933) at 240 North Second Street

All of these buildings are designated City of San Jose landmarks. The Saint James Hotel and the Armory are immediately across First and Second Streets from the project site. The Beatrice Building, the Tognassi Building and Germania Hall lie directly to the north of the towers and will be in shade for the winter months. Since these five landmarks were not analyzed for impacts in the SEIR, PAC-SJ requested that they be analyzed in the Park View Addendum. That request was made in a letter to the Director of Planning dated October 28, 2014, however no analyses was included in the Addendum. To this date those five landmarks have not been analyzed for impacts as would be required by CEQA.

PAC-SJ was formed 25 years ago to preserve the architectural heritage of San Jose. One of the first projects we focused on was the restoration and reuse of the First Church building. No one has worked longer or harder to save this building and we would like nothing more than to see it restored to its former glory.

However, we should not be put in the position of having to sacrifice the integrity of the Historic District in order to save the Church. San Jose deserves better- a quality project that is sensitive to the Historic District, Sl James Park, as well as pedestrians and residents.

In closing, we respectfully request that you modify the permit so that the project is in compliance with the previously cited City policies.

Sincerely,

Brian K Grayson Executive Director

c Harry Freitas, Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Norberto Duenas, City Manager Emily Lipoma, Project Manager Martina Davis, Historic Preservation Officer Susan Brandt-Hawley, Brandt-Hawley Law Group

-~-

AITACHMENT

Even though the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Addendum, and Gty staff reports claim that the proposed Park View project complies with the applicable Envision 2040 General Plan policies, the project actually does not comply with the majority of the policies, including the ones cited in the letter and cited below:

Community Design

CD-1.1 Require the highest standards of architectural and site design, and apply strong design controls for all development projects, both public and private, for the enhancement and development of community character and for the proper transition between areas with different types of land use.

CD-1.26 Apply the Historic Preservation Goals and Policies of this Plan to proposals that modify historic resources or include development near historic resources.

CD-4.1 Maintain and update design guidelines adopted by the Gty and abide by them in the development of projects.

CD-6.7 Recognize Downtown's unique character as the oldest part, the heart of the City, and leverage historic resources to create a unique urban environment there. Respect and respond to on-site and surrounding historic character in proposals for development.

CD-8 Regulate the height of new development to avoid adverse land use incompatibility while providing maximum opportunity for the achievement of the Envision General Plan goals for economic development and the provision of new housing within the identified Growth Areas.

CD-8.1 Ensure new development is consistent with specific height limits established within the City's Zoning Ordinance and applied through zoning designation for properties throughout the Gty.

Land Use

LU-13 Preserve and enhance historic landmarks and districts in order to promote a greater sense of historic awareness and community identity and contribute toward a sense of place.

LU-13.1 Districts.

Preserve the integrity and fabric of candidate or designated Historic

LU-13.4 Require public and private development projects to conform to the adopted city Council Policy on the Preservation of Historic Landmarks.

-5-

LU-13.6 Ensure modifications to candidate or designated landmark buildings or structures conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties and/ or appropriate State of California requirements regarding historic buildings and/ or structures, including the California Historic Building Code and to applicable historic design guidelines adopted by the City of San Jose.

LU-13.7 Design new development, alterations and rehabilitation/ remodels within a designated or candidate Historic District to be compatible with the character of the Historic District and conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, appropriate State of California requirements regarding historic buildings and/ or structures (including the California Historic Building Code) and to applicable historic design guidelines adopted by the City of San Jose

LU-13.8 Require that new development, alterations, and rehabilitation/ remodels adjacent to a designated or candidate landmark or Historic District be designed to be sensitive to its character.

LU-13.15 Implement City, State and Federal historic preservation laws, regulations, and codes to ensure the adequate protection of historic resources.

LU-15.2 Foster a sense of stewardship and personal responsibility for historic and cultural resources.

-ti:.-