City Hall Diary
Early Saturday morning, October 6, I hosted a community meeting titled “Preserving Our Historic Neighborhoods: How to make your Neighborhood a Conservation Area.”
Many residents have been vocal about preserving not just their individual homes, but their entire neighborhoods as historic structures and/or areas. Therefore, the purpose of the forum was to empower and inform residents by giving them options for maintaining their neighborhoods’ character and ambiance.
Approximately 30 people attended my historic forum from nine different District 6 neighborhoods: Buena Vista, College Park, Garden Alameda, Palm Haven, Rose Garden, North Willow Glen, Shasta-Hanchett, Sherman Oaks and Willow Glen. I was impressed with the turnout. In addition, I received many e-mails and phone calls from residents who could not attend but were in support of preserving historic neighborhoods.
Sally Zarnowitz, Senior Planner and San Jose’s Historic Preservation Officer, attended to explain the process for making a neighborhood a conservation area. In addition, she discussed the process which allows an individual homeowner to have their home listed as a historic house. These processes can be cumbersome and very costly; however, the City of San Jose does have success stories where residents and the city worked together to create historic areas so that the homes in the neighborhoods stay intact.
Much effort must be applied to have a neighborhood approved as a historic district or a conservation area. Residents must be dedicated because the work will take a lot of time and money.
The process first includes determining what area will be historic; this could be one street or several streets, etc. The historic area is determined by the residents. From there, each resident within the defined proposed historic area must have a historic survey done which includes architecture, when the home was built, by whom and other various factors. The survey is not short; it usually looks like a booklet with several pages that can be confusing to some. Currently the work that goes into the survey must be completed by a state licensed historical consultant.
At this point in time, the city relies on consultants to do historic research. However, I would like to see the City of San Jose hire someone in-house so that we could save money on survey work. Currently, historical surveys are funded by the residents themselves, government grants or the city through Redevelopment Agency (RDA). Many of the Strong Neighborhood Initiative (SNI) areas have listed historic preservation as one of their top ten goals, therefore receiving funding through RDA to have the survey work completed. Two examples of these are Martha Gardens and the Lake House District that started the process a few years ago under former Vice Mayor Cindy Chavez’s leadership.
However, SNIs only cover a small portion of San Jose. Therefore, where does this leave the rest of the neighborhoods in San Jose that want historic districts but are not privy to the RDA dollars?
It appears under San Jose’s current policy, residents in many neighborhoods—such as an Eichler community in Cambrian or Sherman Oaks, Victorians in Northside, Mission and Colonial Revival in North Willow Glen or classic bungalow and Craftsman housing in Shasta-Hanchett and Willow Glen—do not have the resources to make their neighborhoods “distinctive” unless they can come up with thousands of dollars for consultant work.
These unique areas, among others, should have protection if the home owners wish to apply a historic area or district designation to them. Too many times we lose unique architecture to a major rebuild or a teardown. I appreciate and support private property rights; however, I think we need to do a better job allowing those who currently own their homes and want to make their homes historic to do so.
In an effort to describe the neighborhoods that I mentioned above, I have come up with the term “Neighborhoods of Distinction.” I would like to apply this title to a possibly new policy that would add, yes, another layer of bureaucratic review (but, in my opinion, worth it) to these areas—whether it is a single street or larger area—that would not allow for major remodels or teardowns to a home arbitrarily.
As I mentioned above, I support property rights. However, property rights include being a responsible home owner. If someone chooses to buy a home on University Avenue in the Rose Garden or Donner Drive in Cambrian, they must respect the existing community of homes. I am not quite sure why someone buys a home in a neighborhood that is already established with specific architecture, etc., only to tear down the 60-year-old home to build a new home, thus losing all the history of what the original home brought to the neighborhood. Most areas of San Jose allow a teardown or remodel to build bigger homes, like in Almaden Valley, Silver Creek, etc. I would say that most of the time this new construction does not match the street it sits on and starts to change the character of these neighborhoods that have older housing stock.
Many people choose to live in an older distinctive neighborhood because they appreciate the ambiance and history. These current home owners should have the right to have their homes placed in a historic registry if they choose. Now, one might say that by having a home and/or neighborhood called a historic area or district would limit who would buy your home at a later date. However, it could and most probably would have the opposite effect too: that is, by making a home or neighborhood historic, you will attract buyers—ones who might pay more—because of an established historic district.
In an effort to organize, mobilize and empower residents with the tools necessary to preserve historic homes and neighborhoods, I have formed a District 6 Historical Committee. The committee will be chaired by me and everyone is invited and included. The purpose of the committee is to have a gathering place for like minds—those who want to preserve history starting with their homes and neighborhoods.
Sir after reading your blogs over the past few weeks, I am not sure what you are doing here ? One would think that you have many more pressing issues to talk about and a lot more things to do. why don’t you talk about the downtown mess ? or better yet the Mexican heritage mess that your group just keeps pouring money into ?
I for one have never seen you talk about any of this? can you please tell us why ?
I think we all would like to know how you feel about these things, their are many more things to talk about but these are just a few that come to mind as I wonder why you are here?????
I support private property rights. Except when I don’t.
Four legs are better than two legs.
How about the basics, PO? Driving on Alma between First St. & where it becomes Minnesota is like driving over small railroad ties. The road is coming apart. I’m sure every blogger from every neighborhood can cite examples of infrastructure literally falling apart. Fix it, please; and leave the foo-foo stuff until we have ALL our BASIC services restored.
Preserving the character of neighborhoods is admirable, however, you can created remodeling problems. I’ve often felt that people think it’s neat to live in a historic house. Just living in a historic neighborhood will raise a flag at the permit department. This happened to me when applying for a roof permit a few years ago. The roofing company told me that I was living in a historic house; well, that was news to me because my family was not likely to want to deem the house historic. Actually, it was the designation of historic neighborhood that raised the flag. I always strive to preserve the house as it was originally built, but just trying to put a new roof on the house was not as easy as it could have been. The house is not designated as a historic structure, and hopefully never will be in my lifetime. However, it is in a designated historic neighborhood. This comment is just meant to bring up a point of view that may not have been explored by new residents in older San Jose neighborhoods; it is not meant to discourage, more to warn what could be ahead when living in a historic house. Not sure how the designation would affect resale, would prospective buyers be awed that they could be living in a historic house, or could the designation put off buyers not wanting to abide by the restrictons they would face?
Waiting for elected officials to fix our downtown club problems is for fools Have you filed your downtown complaint today? If not , Why not ?
Stop talking – Do something about downtown club problems by Filing Complaints with CA ABC , Code enforcement and Police Department and making phone calls
SEE # 63 about How to file Complaints
http://sanjoseinside.com/sji/blog/entries/the_downtown_association_the_response/#comments
Hope you educate yourself on the importance of historic buildings in general. Your voting record in support of demolishing historic buildings is not something to be proud of.
It is commendable that you are trying to educate yourself and others about the historic neighborhoods and their importance to the character of San Jose. As has been shown many times on SJI before, there are a lot of folks who need a lot of education about historic preservation. Glad you are trying to help.
Pierluigi,
Here is a much more pressing problem; midnight police staffing.
According to the San Jose Police Department website, our city has 16 police districts broken down into a total of 83 individual police beats.
The beats are filled at a one per one ratio during dayshift and swingshift.
The midnight patrol shift, on a routine and nightly basis, goes out on patrol at least 20 officers short of what is necessary to fill each police beat. This is a huge disservice to the citizens who may need the police in the event of a violent or life threatening event, and is life threatening to the officers themselves.
Please look into this first, or at least before, investigating a historical house that has out of compliance wainscoting and setting up an undercover sting.
Also, what is your position on releasing full copies of all police reports to anyone who requests such, including victim and witness information, as the “Sunshine Task Force” is proposing. Pierluigi, I really hope you are against this scary proposal. Before you or the rest of the council vote in favor of this, look at who comprises this task force. There are those representing the media, but no one representing the Victim/Witness programs.
In light of all the pressing problems that us ordinary folks in San Jose worry about, your current blog comes off as rather pollyannish .
When you buy property in a condo-coop-townhouse and you are in a legal association that *upfront *says other property owners have legal right to control your property- fine.
But to retroactively TAKE property rights from existing homeowners is WRONG. Being told that you can’t alter or tear down your house is not right. One person’s historic dream may be another person’s white elephant. Look how expensive and messy the Steve Job’s Jackling house in Woodside was for the town and property owner(see Almanac newspaper). Or the Juana Briones house in Palo Alto.
If people are interested in historic homes- let them pool their money and buy the house. Not bother the person who did pony up.
I am totally opposed to adding to the city payroll another person for an optional issue when roads are not repaired (does any repaving get done? I mean ANY? ) etc.
And why is this ONE person (what an idea- like that one person won’t morph into an entire department with travel costs to fly around the country doing research- with councilmembers in tow) going to be the style guru for everybody.
Please let’s solve a problem we have NOW- not create a socialist legal mess.
Also,
I am
About time that someone address this topic. On my street we have 2 new houses going up where they completely knocked down the World War 2 era homes. Another house is combining 2 lots to make one giant home. Earlier this year we lost 2 other houses side by side that look like they belong in a another neighborhood…at least match the style of the existing houses on the street.
The idea is a good one and doesn’t stop remodels but assists the developer and homeowner in making sure the architecture is compatible with the historic area. Nothing wrong with that, provided they know up front. There are a dozen or so neighborhoods in San Jose which have this distinction already.
Many other cities celebrate the older neighborhoods, and their character. San Jose should as well.
Yes there are many pressing issues in San Jose, which are being addressed, and this D6 councilmember has consistently voted in a fiscally responsible way to improve our budget picture such that services can be addressed.
I’m pleased Mr. Oliverio works not only on the long term problems but works on some other issues which have significant impact on our neighborhoods, without a big budget impact. These are serious issues that are being brought up by everyday people on the streets of our neighborhoods. I’m glad someone is listening.
The main purpose of any government is the safety of their citizens. You should address this issue. I read lots of entries here concerning safety but it is never addressed by you.
“RESULTS NOT EXCUSES”
I enjoy walking through the neighborhoods around Willow Glen and The Alameda. It’s nice to see the older houses, people have a lot of pride in them.
I do a lot of walking on the Los Gatos Creek Trail between Meridian and Campbell Ave, too. There is graffiti everywhere and trash in the creek. Why don’t you take care of THAT problem before you worry about what kind of houses people should have?
Thanks.
What? It would be cheaper to hire someone ‘in-house’ than to contract with a private company? Has the council paid a consultant hundreds of thousands to study this issue?
Maybe you could oraganize a group of volunteers to do the survey/resaerch…
Didn’t San Jose pass a law years ago that limits the size of a home that can be built on a lot? If I remember correctly, this was specifically in response to people building oversize homes in existing neighborhoods.
#13 – Norm
I can assure you this article was not about your family, nor your house which was recently on the St. Martin’s home tour, and fits well in the University N’Hood.
I also toured the house you ultimately purchased, which sat on the market forever because its layout was unlivable.
Do me this favor: Take a look at the recent houses built on Randol and Fremont between Park and Alameda where they tore down existing structures and built new homes This is an example of what Mr. Oliverio is talking about. You can imagine the neighbors are a little upset. This is happening in areas of College Park and Willow Glen.
His proposal is that existing neighborhood design features would be incorporated into remodels, which you seem to agree and have done exquisitely. You can remodel and even demolish an existing structure, just follow the guidelines of the neighborhood architecture in the rebuild or remodel to fit in.
At the recent meeting Mr. Oliverio mentioned, it was the examples of houses like you see on Randol and Fremont that is moving this. I can assure you, University Way never entered the discussion. You did a good job with your home and it blends with University Way quite nicely. Welcome to the neighborhood.
Some really thoughtful comments on this blog.
Norman Kline ought to be on some citizens commttee advising Planning. His suggestions for making a rebuild in an older neighborhood go way past what even Los Gatos Planners have cooked up. (And he uses his real name!!) Crisis Watch, #8, makes great sense, and Bob T is so civil. Nice. Not mentioned in all this is the fact that the Planners have hired SF firms to inventory the old houses and evaluate them. MUCH money has been spent on this. It’s not necessary to hire someone to find out if one’s house is historic, and how important it is/was—until you get right down to making a move to rehab it. I’m curious why PO doesn’t know this.
PO also overlooks the FACT that the neighbor-
hood associations have a first and a last look at any project submitted to Planning. They control the development process, and in D3 property rights do not matter. Planning’s process does not matter. PO’s suggestion to make a historic preservation czar for “Neigh-borhoods of Distinction” certainly can’t hurt his chances for being reelected. In the last election the neighborhoods had more influence than the unions. So downtown is still not an issue for the Council, beholden to the neighborhoods. Went to Bella Mia yesterday at 2 for lunch; we were the only customers for 10 minutes. 3 more later arrived. Outside, not a soul on the sidewalk. Terrific food too. Lots of fuss about downtown being a disaster at nite, but the bigger disaster is during the day. Lite rail went by—two cars holding 4 people. Bldg. low rise housing downtown will have NO impact on making downtown SJ a destination—for anyone in any of the “Neighborhoods of Distinction”, or for anyone else. George Green
Historic Preservation is not an amenity, it is the law. The various federal and state statutes protecting our past were put into place in the early 1970’s along with other enviromental laws on clean air and clean water.
Laws protecting our historical and cultural assets were enacted by citizens who were outraged by the systematic destruction of the original fabric of their community by developers and redevelopment groups. The late Jackie Kennedy Onassis walked a picket line but failed to save Pennsylvania Station, a loss that is still mourned. Strong preservation laws came from those losses.
The City of San Jose does not have a good record when it comes to protecting its past or respecting the existing preservation statutes. It lags far behind other local communities on all facets of preservation. In recent years, the City of San Jose thoughtlessly decided to demolish one of its few National Register structures, the Jose Theatre. Local citizens had to sue their government in order to ensure that the laws were respected.
The City still has trouble understanding and implementing the various preservation laws so it should come as no surprise that our local neighbohoods are finally demanding some clarity on these issues. But not every old neighborhood is “historic”, a distinction that needs to be clearly made.
For those who are not familiar with preservation law, I must note that it IS possible to legally demolish a registered landmark buidling. Property rights of the owner are NOT taken away. But there is a hearing process that has to be respected, a process our City has frequently tried to bypass or subvert when there is a hot development deal pending.
We are a city with a tremendous identity problem. We want to be a Green City, a Smart Growth City, a sustainable city. But we are so ignorant of our heritage that we find it impossible to promote our community with a clear voice. We desperately need to know who we are; the answer to oursearch is in our heritage.
Pierluigi is making a giant leap toward respecting our community heritage. But we need an understanding of our history, and the City has been reluctant to make any serious investment in historic research. Most of the basic neighborhood work to date has been done by volunteers, with mixed result.
As an aside, I have to note that the City abandoned its Museum more than a decade ago, forcing it to become a nonprofit with an inadequate subsidy to maintain its park. Once again it was the private sector and volunteers who struggled to maintain community history.
I strongly suggest that the City look for a serious partnership with the community groups that have already proven themselves as preservation leaders; the Preservation Action Council, the Victorian Preservation Association, History San Jose and the many neighborhood groups that have already been preserving neighbohoods. The wheel of neighborhood preservation has already been invented; it’s time to move.
Norman:
San Jose has no design review process in place for single family residential unless the maximum allowed FAR is exceeded in the proposed project, or the property is listed on the Historic Resources Inventory or in a conservation area. Single family house demotions are also except from environmental review if a replacement house is proposed – the permit is handled at the counter at the Building Division with no Planning review – unless the property is on the Inventory.
The other local communities such as Los Gatos, Santa Clara, and Saratoga operate with a different set of rules.
Bob,
Thanks, I appreciate the comment.
I have fought to preserve the Santa Clara Old Quad, did the same in the Saratoga Historic district and will help, as much as a ‘new-comer’ can.
Will take you up on looking at Randol and Fremont. I know how disrruptive poorly designed larger ‘pink monster’ homes can have on a neighborhoods. Seen that many times. Yet, and there are ways to design ordinances to mitigage such monsters without picking on specific home-owners. Many of the smaller (hate to call them), upscale communities have been fighting this on and off for years. There are some great ideas that came out of those battles. Perhaps I can share them. Mostly it comes down to mass, scale and privacy. As long as the homes is compatible with the general houses around it in mass and scale and privacy is respected by commonly placed window arrangements (i.e. side windows are head high and don’t look down on neighbors, mose people don’t mind about the actual design (i.e. colonial, french, tudor, etc..)…
The problem comes when someone tries to completely max out the sq. footage with a ‘square’ block house that has no relationship to the surrounding homes. In other words the mass and scale are not compatible with the neighborhood. That is a reasonable ‘finding’ and plans can be rejected on those grounds.
It gets more complex however. Once one pink palace is built, it sets the stage for others.
Someone once told me it all depends on the design. I don’t fully agree with that. Proper ordiances and their enforcmeent upfront with limited if any chance of exceptions (i.e. variances to the oridnance), sets the tone.
A good set of oridinances that respects a traditional neighborhood environment that allows only limited if any variances tells property owners upfront what they are getting into. No surprises. There are few instances in my experience where someone tries for a variance after living in a neighborhood for many years. Its mostly new comers or speculators. They also have rights, which we must respect, but we keep them to the letter, no more no less.
The letter simply needs to be clear and clearly enforced.
Norm
Norman Kline #13 wrote:“Government tends to be a very poor property owner, even of historic structures.” Look no further than the Fallon House to validate that statement. To obtain a c. $1million state grant, they spent over $2million extra due to the requirements of the grant. What kindof fiscal stupidity is that? Spend $2 mil to get $1 mil???!!!Oh, but it wasn’t “their” money, so it’s OK? Just taxpayer money.
The several hundred thousand dollar paint job, which was no great shakes, but probably cost three times what bit should have , since it was a publicly financed project, has been deteriorated for years. For many months the structure was covered with a netting that suggested a repainting. That was taken down recently, without the repaint job having been started. $5 million+++ down the bloody rathole for a structure of little historical or architectural significance.
How much health care for kids could that money have purchased? Instead, it gave Judy Stabile a job, and gave us taxpayers a big bill…to what end?
So, Norman, Tina, Bob…, taking your position to it’s logical extension, a thousand years from now these “historic” neighborhoods will be trapped in the same architecture as when they were originally built. Change and modernization and new architectural styles will not be tolerated!!!!! The Groundhog Day of building requirements.
John,
I don’t know Tina or Bob, but I think you missed at least my point. Investments in historic districts are necessary to keep them fresh revitalized. Some properties, even in historic areas, can be readily remodeled or even demolished without damaging their surroundings. Lots of examples of this out there.
Trapped in the same architecture is not necessary at all.
Many historic areas have a wide mix of architectural styles, runing from colonial to craftsman and even modern designs. With the right set of materials, even post-modern designs can work well in traditional neighborhoods. Think of the Frank Lloyd Wright Glass house on the Carmel point. With carmel stone and copper roof, it blends into the more traditional cottages and ocean cliffs extremely well. Yes, there are more modest examples too!
The key is not the architectural design, that is generally a matter of someone’s taste. Its has to do with the mass and scale of a house. In Carmel they use some complex formulas for mass of the house, but on scale they tend to fall back on common sense. If you place a drawing of all houses to the left and right of the the new home and that new home looks huge from the street, most likely the scale is too large. Simple, but effective.
Many times, you can keep a larger sq. foot size of a home, simply by reducing the scale of the design. Some architectural styles are better at doing this. Craftsman homes are excellent. You can place a second story within the roof-structure and hardly know its there. Colonial homes are a bit more difficult because of the boxy shape (think White House). But even this is possible with setbacks to specific elements.
I’m surprised that San Jose doesn’t have a more robust design review process.
In Santa Clara, a design review committee of several city council members and planning commissioners provide feedback for second story homes that are within a percentage of their max. allowed numbers, or for those that get appealed from an over the counter process. In Saratoga, all second story rebuilds go through a design review process.
In any case, there are lots of way to do this. If this is a hole in San Jose’s process, I’m glad PLO is trying to fill it.
Since I’m the only person in recent history to tear down a 50-60 year old house on University Ave., I can guess this article was about my family.
However, I have to agree with PLO about 90% of what he says. I’ve spent most of my political career protecting historic districts and homes. That said, the devil is always in the details. Historic districts are actually refreshed and flourish when investments are made to restore or sometimes demolish and rebuild specific properties. Sometimes a home, even a 60 year old home, is not historic. Occasionally, it’s just an old home; a home that is terribly designed that doesn’t translate well to modern life.
In my case, I was looking to purchase a home on University Ave. I had been looking for over 30 years!
A house came on the market that nobody wanted to buy. It was a 55-year old home with a floor plan and design that simply didn’t work. I doubt that it worked well when it was first built.
I purchased the house, tour it down and built a new one. The new home is a very traditional house that fits well in the neighborhood and is well within the sq. footage allowed.
Not one neighbor complained. On the contrary, I believe they all saw this as adding to not only their property values, but to their quality of life.
Again, PLO is right on most counts, but you need investment in historic properties and districts and nothing undermines investment than city government or city council members looking over the shoulders of those doing the investment.
Focus on good sound ordinances that encourage remodeling and protecting true historic structures, but always remember that in the long run, the private property owner knows best. Government tends to be a very poor property owner, even of historic structures.
The historic neighborhoods in San Jose are actually going through a rebirth. Having spent my childhood in many of those neighborhoods, I can attest that the changes have been very positive. Government has helped and can help, but this is primarily the effort of private owners and a national recognition that traditional neighborhood plans are superior than suburban sprawl and cookie-cuter ranch-style-homes.
Be careful of forming a committee that is outside the normal checks and balances of local government. Those doing the complaining, might find themselves under the thumb of the instrument they created.
#10, very nicely said.
Keep up the good work Pierluigi, by putting focus on immediate needs AND helping educate folks on preserving our historical structures. So many have been lost already.
Care to hear an idea? Extend the reach of this Historical Committee so that other districts may be served. (While your comment that ‘everyone is invited and included,’ the title itself may be misconstrued to be exclusive only to D6.)
Tina Morrill
Vendome neighborhood
26 – Good points. One might also ask why he has ignored other existing groups who have been dealing with this issue for many years like the Historic Landmarks Commission and the Preservation Action Council.
Makes no sense to start another group and further divide the limited resources earmarked for this subject.
Maybe we need another committee to look into why we need another committee.
I’m just wondering why Pierluigi has decided to form a completely separate group when he and his staff have attended the D6 leadership meetings (which are open to everyone) and knows that the D6 group will be working on preservation issues. Why not work with a group already established and have this conversation with them? Or, if he knows people who are interested in preservation who live in D6 why not refer them to the group that has been working to establish district wide priorities since before he was elected? And why limit his activities to D6 since there is a new neighborhood commission that might be willing to take this on since preservation is a concern across the city? And, why did his staff feel the need to direct people on the D6 email lists to this site?
28: the two groups you mentioned, HLC and PAC, are not tasked with helping Mr. Oliverio gauge D6 neighborhoods are interested in protecting historic homes.
Tightwads: He is proposing that interested residents meet to discuss with him the issue. He is not proposing that anybody be paid to do anything.
Libertarians: Regulating aesthetics is a legitimate use of the police power of the government to protect public health, safety, and welfare. See Ambler Realty v. Village of Euclid for details.
Mr. Oliverio: Why are the designations City Landmark Area and City Conservation District inadequate for your purpose? What requirements would be imposed on development in a “Neighborhood of Distinction?”
Pier,
Lets outsource the neighborhood historical research and architectural review committee to India in the interest of saving the city money as you have stressed in your past blogs.
You are such a strong advocate of outsourcing the park maintenance why stop there? I was surprised to see you write “I would like to see the City of San Jose hire someone in-house so that we could save money” after you have pushed so hard for outsourcing everything else.
You could probably find many people in Bangalore, India, willing to do the San Jose neighborhood historical research for a very low price.
Hi #23,
Let’s broaden our mindsets a bit and think about the value of having diversity in our wonderful city. Diversity of architectural structures, art, residents…even diversity of thoughts and opinions as exampled by this blog site.
Old and new can work together and be appreciated, honest.
Tina
An education in location is needed here. During the ‘80s my transportation, by choice, was a high end European bicycle. Averaging 40 miles a day, knew the Valley well.
With 20+ years collecting SJ pre-WWII postcards, I’ve never heard of a neighborhood called Sherman Oaks.
From what has been posted, this appears to be in my former neighborhood of Cambrian (Hillsdale/Meridian).
Can you enlighten with specifics? Thank you.
The boundaries of the Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Association are Bascom Avenue on the west, Los Gatos Creek on the south, Highway 280 on the north, and Meridian Avenue on the east. See map below.
http://www.sona-sj.com/map.html
30 – It may refer to the area off Bascom Ave. not too far from Valley Med Center. That is where the Sherman Oaks Bowl was until it blew up in the early 1960s.
#30 As #31 has pointed out, there is an established neighborhood association called Sherman Oaks that has been active in many, many District 6 issues. And, there is a Sherman Oaks Community Charter School (K-6) and a Sherman Oaks Community Center that is one of the satellite city centers being operated by a private group. Good to know there was also a Sherman Oaks Bowl!
PLO is working in the right direction. We need to wake up and support him in his endevors, he`s trying to do the right things.
Older homes, buildings and “towns like Willow Glen” are valued because they are intrinsically beautiful, they have among other values, an aesthetic value. San Jose a city of rapid change over recent years, its Willow Glen residential district has visable and tangible evidence of the past may also be valued for its sense of place and continuity it conveys.
WG homes display architectural diversity, while the neighborhood also exhibits enviromental diversity that both need to be preserved.
Visable evidence of the past residents of WG contribute educationally to a cultural identy of our area.
The “quality of life” of our neighborhood is also important to the preservation of our streets. Agreed that both Minnesota ave and Willow street from Lincoln Ave. east to First Street are in desperate need of repair.
The preservation of our neighborhood is largely “preventive” focusing not only on individual properties, but the overall quality of life in our surrounding neighborhood, its condition and all solutions to improving this neighborhood. This QOL also must include “Code Enforcement” of our basic values.
The historic preservation battle will always be one of rights vs. responsibility. Each group looking at the other group as selfish and focused on entitlements. Before anyone draws a line in the sand, they should educate themselves on the impacts of historic preservation, both good and bad. There are benefits to owning an historic building. There is the Mills act that reduces property taxes in exchange for preserving an historic building. There is also the State Historic Building Code that makes restoring an historic building easier. Historic preservation also plays an important role in preserving our environment and adds jobs to the local economy. There are also drawbacks to living in an historic district or owning an historic building. The owner is subject to an additional layer of review before you are allowed to alter the facade of their building and they usually cost more to maintain and less energy efficient.
Pierluigi,
I am so glad that you are taking a leadership role in preserving our historic resources in our City. San Jose has lacked leadership in this area since the Mc Enery administration. I hope you will not restrict your efforts to just your district or to residential buildings. Local cities like San Francisco, Monterey, Los Gatos and Cambell all have all built on, and prospered from historic commercial building preservation. There is no point in creating new review groups or laws, if we don’t respect the ones we have. Our present Mayor and City Council recently voted to demolish the IBM 25 Building, a City, State and National Landmark. They voted to demolish this building, despite the fact that the courts, City planning Dept. the planning and landmarks commissions, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and PAC SJ advised them to do otherwise. Why waste citizens time and tax payers money, if our council refuses to listen? I hope you will share your insights and much deserved respect for our heritage with the rest of the Mayor and council.
I’m not sure if my neighborhood qualifies as “Distinct”, but some of my neighbors walk around saying “duh” and they do stink.
Thank you for the information pertaining to Sherman Oaks. Was told of the bowling alley fire but never asked, or thought of, the establishments name.
Have yet to see a linen or chrome postcard of this business. The fun is in the hunt!
Please join Council Member Oliverio and Dr. Reed of Bascom Animal Hospital for a low cost shot, chipping, and nail clipping clinic, and an animal adoption, and pet information fair.
The fair is:
When: Saturday, Oct. 20th, from 1- 4p.m.
Welcoming ceremonies begin at 1:30 p.m.
Where: Willows Senior Center 2175 Lincoln Ave. San Jose, Ca.
Please help animal shelters and rescuers find homes for displaced animals! There will be dogs, small, medium, and large, cats and kittens, bunny rabbits, mice, rats, hamsters, and Guinea Pigs looking for a new forever home!
We will have low cost spay/neuter coupons in many languages.
There will be coloring and candy for children!
Come join the fun, and help us find homes for all the wonderful animals! Bring a friend!
Hope to see you there!
Please, spay/neuter your pets, it saves lives!
=^..^=
I’m chiming in way late here as I’ve been on vacation but I want to echo Bob’s sentiments from post #16. The home Norm bought had been a white elephant for years and was difficult to sell even before the supposed “improvements” were made prior to its languishing on the market again a while back. It was simply not a workable floorplan, needed to be blown up, and except for the Blooms at the other end was the only remaining single story structure in that block. This is a case where building a two-story home actually added to the cohesiveness and character of this corner of the Rose Garden neighborhood.
Our Councilman’s ideas are good ones. The recent approval of totally inappropriate slicing and dicing of a property on Los Gatos-Almaden Road to shoehorn in as many Mc Mansions as possible in a neighborhood that is well over 90% single story large lot 50’s and 60’s ranch homes was the wrong move on the part of the Council. While “distinction” may be a stretch of a description for many bland SJ neighborhoods, it’s time to stop the “pink monster” abominations that are so blatantly distinct in their inappropriateness for the neighborhoods in which they are allowed to be built. Mr. Oliverio’s plan is a start towards reversing this ugly trend.
As a resident of D6 I appreciate your focus on helping preserver our historic neighborhood.
While there are other pressing issues downtown and other areas. I prefer a councilmember who tackles both city wide issues, yet still takes the time to focus on neighborhood issues and support neighborhood events, for which you get litte recognition. Except for this email, which probably few will real.
My hat is off to you for your efforts to bring the neighborhoods together so they can work together, which is how a democracy works best.
Excellent site, keep up the good work
Great post! You can find out more about your neighborhood at: http://www.homefacts.com/