Janis Moore April 21, 1997
City Hall Annex, Room 400
City of San Jose
San Jose CA 95110
Dear Janis,
The Preservation Action Council is deeply disturbed by the severe impacts this project will have on the historic integrity of the entire downtown, and about how the city is breaching the mitigations adopted under the 2020 General Plan, Downtown Strategy Plan and the 1992 Downtown Strategy Plan EIR by proceeding on a project that will demolish the Jose Theater. Furthermore there have been serious irregularities with this project
The analysis used in the SEIR is not adequate. The SEIR fails to consider the many alternatives available to the Redevelopment Agency for the preservation and productive use of this building. It is missing useful analysis exploring the use of the State Historic Building Code. We are submitting our own proposal with financial details that we wish to be included in the Final EIR.
A more comprehensive project level EIR must be completed for this project. A Focused (or Supplimental) EIR as per PRC sections 21158 is not permissible given the facts of this project. A Focused EIR may only be performed in very specific situations, as described in PRC 21157 and PRC 21158. The 1992 EIR was programmatic and does not adequately address the range of impacts that will occur from this previously un-planned project.
As the SEIR has revealed, the importance of the Jose Theatre as a valuable architectural and historic resource has been underestimated by the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) in their proposal to demolish the Jose Theatre (except for the facade) and other buildings on this historic block that is a part of the National Register Historic Commercial Downtown District. As architect J. Gordon Turnbull has stated in his reply to the RDA's request for an evaluation of the historic buildings on this block, "The theater is a rather complete visual record of what happened to similar theaters across the country during the first half of this century -- a progression from live performances through silent films to the talkies." He agrees "with the finding of the SEIR that the environmentally preferred alternative is preservation and reuse of the entire Jose Theatre Building ... I would ask whether the theater site could be left out of the proposed development ... Failing the possibility of continued theater usage, I believe the site should still be held out of the proposed development and a compatible alternative use found for the entire building, not just the front wall" (Appendix E, SEIR).
According to Glory Anne Laffey, Historian, Archives and Architecture (Appendix D, SEIR): "Constructed in 1904 as San Jose's first theater designed exclusively for vaudeville entertainment, the Jose Theatre is significant ... as it relates to the development of the popular culture and entertainment during the early 20th century." The Jose "is the oldest surviving theater of any type remaining in San Jose." Designed by noted architect William Binder, "the building exhibits a distinctive architectural style that makes an important contribution to the historical fabric of San Jose." The theater is "the earliest surviving example of his work" and although presently designated a Contributing Structure to the National Register Historic Commercial District, it is individually eligible for the National Register and is also individually eligible for the California Register. The Jose Theatre is a designated City of San Jose Historic Landmark for the above reasons and the fact that it retains a "high degree of architectural integrity."
We are struck by the apparent conflict of interest in having the approval for the EIR made by the city council, acting as the redevelopment agency board, which is the same body that is proposing the project. How can there be a unbiased appraisal of the impacts and environmental review approved by the very same entity that is proposing and advocating this specific project.
It is worth noting that this project is controversial. We have collected many signatures urging the agency to reconsider its plans and save the Jose Theatre. We are submitting copies of signatures we have gathered. Almost universally San Jose natives who learn of the proposed demolition have fond memories of attending movies at this theater and are upset that this part of their past will be destroyed.
For months the citizens of San Jose were not informed of the developing plan to destroy a historic landmark building that they thought was slated for restoration. They were not asked for any ideas they might have about alternative plans and concepts that would save the Jose Theatre or integrate it into potential development projects. The current "surprise" plan was unveiled in June, 1996 to the public who only learned about it because it was included in the "inches thick" RDA budget proposal. The San Jose Mercury News headed an editorial on June 27, 1996, "City Writes a Surprise Ending for Jose Theatre" that began, "Guess what: The Jose Theatre isn't going to be a theater any more." The Historic Landmarks Commission found out about the plan about a week before the City Council rubber stamped the RDA's budget, which included this project.
CEQA requires environmental review before project approval. There are legal requirements on public review and mitigations of impacts for any discretionary land use . Though the city now appears to be going through a project approval process, including an EIR, the city council did vote on a budgetary approval for this project last June. This previous action attempted to rely improperly on the 1992 EIR. This raises serious questions about the process being followed. Have the developers and the agency already decided exactly what the project will be, and are simply going through the motions to appear to follow the letter of the law? Our conversations with the Agency and property owners leave us with the impression that they feel that the final form of this project has been proposed and that its approval is a foregone conclusion. This violates the very principle of having a public environmental review process. Will any mitigations or modifications be considered and adopted, or is the final project already set in stone?
We are very concerned that the owners of the Jose Theatre may already be engaging in demolition by neglect by allowing water to seep into structure as noted in EIR. This is a serious concern because it shows the owners' intent to not adequately maintain the building and therefore not prevent its destruction. Demolition is a discretionary land use decision that requires CEQA compliance. Undertaking demolition without permits and CEQA clearance, even through neglect, is a violation of state and city laws.
A Focused EIR as proposed in the Notice of Preparation dated 12/20/96 is not appropriate for this project under the following sections of the California Public Resources Code:
21158(a) Due to cumulative impacts from the prior demolition of Costa Hall and the significant irreversible impacts that this project will produce that were not explored in sufficient detail in the 1992 EIR.
21158(b)2 Due to insufficient detail in 1992 EIR relating to this project. This project was not even planned at that time, and the 1992 EIR was programmatic. The Century Center was to serve as a retail area; this is primarily a housing project.
21158(c) Due to new and additional information: Costa Hall loss, and changes in CEQA and other sections of the Public Resources Code, including those covering the significance of interior historic features.
21157.1 Because the city cannot make the findings required under items:
b - Demolition of this landmark was not considered in the original 1992 EIR. In fact until recently the Redevelopment Agency was proposing the rehabilitation of the Jose Theater.
c - Additional new impacts include potential loss of National Register Listing, and secondary effects from possible loss of tax credits for rehabilitation of other historic building in the area.
The 1992 EIR acknowledges (pg. 220) that new impacts which have not been studied could occur under the implementation of the Downtown Strategy Plan:
"As indicated in the Setting section, the Inventory of Historic Resources is not complete, therefore, these impact findings are not comprehensive. Subsequent research and fieldwork could prove the existence of additional impacts on historic architectural resources."
The effect of the entire project on the Jose Theatre and the adjoining listed structures needs to be addressed. As Per the 1992 EIR (pg. 222):
"Construction adjacent to a landmark that would result in significant impacts to the adjacent landmark structure would also require an Environmental Impact Report.
In order to follow the process adopted by the city in the 1992 EIR (pg. 223) it is stated that the:
"design review process for public and private development will address the architectural compatibility of [future] projects with the historic structures within the project vicinity."
Under PRC 21157.6 (a) the Master EIR is invalid because CEQA and sections of the Public Resources Code have changed to include interior features of historic buildings. This and previous projects have not been evaluated for significant interior impacts. Additionally Pages 6 and 7 of 1992 EIR did not propose housing at this site. This project is outside of the scope of the original EIR.
The 1992 EIR is an old document which is becoming stale. Many things have changed since its adoption including the Agency's project priorities and project plans, CEQA law, the environment through intentional actions and unplanned events, and new information about resources within the program area. Relying on it for present projects is inapropriate and very likely illegal.
The EIR process for this project has not adequately addressed the following:
As a City Landmark and a Contributing Structure any work performed on this building is required to adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. This building contains murals which are original and in good shape, along with numerous original interior features. The Secretary's Standards state:
(1) A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site environment.
(2) 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.
...
(5) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be retained and preserved.
...
(10) New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
This project will most certainly fail to follow all of these standards, which will lead to serious and significant impacts.
The co-owners/developers (who will receive almost a 50% subsidy, or $9.8 million from the RDA for their proposed project) closed the building in 1991, stating they did not wish to invest $1 million necessary for seismic retrofitting of the building to comply with earthquake safety codes. Cherilyn Widell, State Historic Preservation Officer, states in her letter to the Planning Department of January 16th that "The NOP asserts that demolition is in part driven by state URM requirements that the buildings be retrofitted to meet code requirements. It is the purpose of the URM program as mandated by the state to identify and mitigate seismic hazards in unreinforced masonry buildings. It does not require or encourage the demolition of historic buildings. The proposed demolition also appears to run counter to the Downtown Strategy Plan's adopted mitigation program to assist in the retrofitting of URM buildings of historic significance."
The original EIR for the Downtown Strategy Plan states that: "The most critical protections for designated landmarks and other officially recognized historical resources are the mitigation measures and procedures incorporated into the project ... What they do is to preclude arbitrary demolition ... of the structures; guarantee that interested members of the community are allowed input into the decisions affecting the historic resource; and require that all feasible alternatives are considered."
Yet the Century Center Redevelopment Plan cited in the SEIR states that the project area at mid block between South Second and Third Streets contains "a higher potential for redevelopment versus rehabilitation." This overlooks the potential of rehabilitation to accomplish the same goals of "economic revitalization" that redevelopment supposes. A redevelopment, or replacement concept that takes precedence over rehabilitation and reuse of buildings in a National Register Historic District is not utilizing the City's historic preservation policies that are mitigations and protections for historic landmarks and districts
The city is violating these adopted mitigations in the Downtown Strategy Plan Environmental Impact Report, which require that for historic structures "preservation should be a key consideration in the development review process." The city is bound by the 1992 EIR to "foster the rehabilitation of individual buildings and districts of historic significance," especially when it will "preserve the historic fabric of the area."
EIR concludes on Page 19 that "Overall, the project is consistent with the San Jose 2020 General Plan." However this is not possible given that the project defeats Historic policies 1a,b,c,d,e,f,g, and h. If these policies had been followed this project could not be moving forward in its present form.
The EIR must propose serious alternatives with the project modified to not demolish the historic structures. Considering that most of the space gained by the auditorium demolition will be used for a courtyard, the EIR must study different configurations of the courtyard which do not require the footprint of the theatre.
The EIR alternatives analysis is incomplete and provides no basis for comparing the merits of the proposed alternatives. There is no financial information presented on the trade-offs. No discussion has been given to alternative funding sources for this project. We are including an alternative project which has financial details. This alternative needs to be included in the EIR, because it satisfies all the project goals, and avoids any significant impacts.
Preservation Action Council advocates rehabilitating the Hong Kong Market Building for reuse as studio/rehearsal space, in conjunction with the Jose Theatre as per Alternative D. The Hong Kong Market, or John Bean and Sons Rubber Works, is a contributing structure to the Historic District and a "Structure of Merit according to San Jose's evaluation criteria." Alternative D on page 59 could be made such that it has fewest significant impacts by reducing the massing of buildings on San Fernando. The issue of losing additional significant structures cannot be eliminated by other than the "no project" alternative. Therefore this can be made the most desirable alternative, meeting all the project objectives. The EIR is deficient because it does not adequately present or analyze this option.
Additionally, the risk to the district is great because the basis of this district is that it has representatives of every phase of the development of the modern American city. Therefore removal of a single building, such as the Jose, could eliminate the continuity of the structures and thus undermine the entire basis of the district as indicated in Appendix C at the bottom of page 16: "the loss of any one building does not affect just that one building, it affects the entire streetscape. An inapropriate replacement building, or even the use of modern or inapropriate materials on a restoration, can compromise the integrity of the entire district."
If the district status is lost the city needs to consider the cost to compensate owners who lose tax credits due to projected loss of district status, a direct result of the Agency's actions.
The city's willingness to undertake this project shows that it may very well be trying to intentionally undermining the integrity of the entire district. With any safeguards for historic resources removed as per the EIR on page 67, the stage is set for radical alteration of dozens of historically significant buildings throughout downtown. This impact has not been fully analyzed both in terms of loss of existing structures and compatible design.
One of our most serious concerns is based on how badly planned and designed contemporary construction can become blighted in a short period of time. Nearby on South 1st Street it is possible to see the effect of "instant blight" at the "Dimensions Nightclub" building, created by innapropriate modern construction. Actually this project is trying to remedy blight that has been significantly aggravated by inapropriate modern development. Yet it is the historic structures that have retained their integrity and offer the greatest contribution to overcoming this blight. It is hard to understand how a project which will permanently remove historic structures and add inapropriate elements in a historic district can provide a long term solution to blight. Most cities across the country have found that preservation and rehabilitation of historic structures is the single best long term means to solve blight. This premise is supported by Cherilyn Widell's letter of January 16th which states,
"While the State Office of Historic Preservation applauds the Redevelopment Agency's initiatives to revitalize the downtown through residential and mixed commercial development, such projects have been most successful in cities that have incorporated their historic patrimony into their revitalization planning. Historic properties provide character, continuity and sense of place. We would strongly urge the Agency to reconsider demolition as a preferable alternative."
The EIR does not adequately support the assertion that this project is necessary and is the only feasible means to achieve the Agency's objectives. In fact the EIR actually supports the notion that an alternative would better achieve the goals set forth for this project, and would lead to far fewer unavoidable significant impacts. The project ultimately adopted, while being feasible, must have the fewest environmental impacts of all the projects considered. We would hope that this project would be modified to meet this requirement.
One of the critical goals of redevelopment is the maintenance and enhancement of the unique character of downtown. This can only be accomplished by making the best use of the few remaining historic buildings left after what the 1992 EIR describes as their "devastation during the period from the late 1950s into the 1970s." Unfortunatley the project as currently proposed does not serve this goal.
Sincerely,
André Luthard, President
Preservation Action Council of San Jose
202 So 14th St.
San Jose, CA 95112
cc: Susan Hammer, David Pandori, Frank Taylor, Carol Roland-OHP, Barbara Vroman
Modified 5/97