On December 2, 2025, San Jose City Council will consider changes to the Historic Preservation Ordinance that could dangerously weaken historic protections for 200+ City Landmarks and City Landmark Districts.  PAC*SJ is urging City Council to adopt revised ordinance amendments that would narrow the impact of these changes, and we need your support! If you agree that historic preservation is an important public good and that San Jose deserves a strong historic preservation ordinance, please write to City Council and the Planning Director with our easy online tool here!

​

Why is the City Proposing Changes to San José’s Historic Preservation Ordinance?

​

In the recent Sainte Claire Historic Preservation Foundation v. City of San José, the Sixth District Court of Appeals found that the City exceeded the letter of its existing Historic Preservation Ordinance when it approved the long-planned Levitt Music Pavilion project for St. James Park in 2020. The Court directed the City to clarify certain definitions and, if it so chose, to amend its Ordinance to grant itself greater discretion when weighing a project’s competing public interests. In spirit, PAC*SJ supports changes that would give City Council limited new discretion when approving projects impacting City Landmarks and City Landmark Districts, but only when these projects demonstrate a compelling public interest. 

​

What is at Stake?

​

The Historic Preservation Ordinance currently protects more than 200 City Council-designated City Landmarks and City Landmark Districts from unnecessary demolition and other harmful actions. The Jose Theater, Hayes Mansion, Hotel De Anza, and the Century 21 Dome are just a few of these beloved landmarks that might have been lost forever without the protections currently written into the Ordinance. But amendments as currently proposed would significantly weaken these demolition protections, undermining the spirit of the Ordinance and exposing our historic and architectural heritage to increased speculative development pressures. 

​

What Needs Fixing?

​

The proposed amendments go far beyond what is required to address the Sainte Claire Historic Preservation Foundation v. City of San José decision. The Court itself suggested that the City could adopt a different standard for public projects, a common practice in preservation ordinances nationwide. But instead, the current proposal creates a broad new override clause allowing City Council to waive preservation protections for any project-- public or private-- that meets any in a long list of vaguely-defined “overriding considerations.” By narrowing this override provision to projects demonstrating a compelling public interest, City Council can avoid unintended confusion, procedural uncertainty, and inconsistent decision-making when reviewing proposed impacts to City Landmarks. 

​

How Would This Affect the Levitt Pavilion Project?

​

In PAC*SJ’s view, the Levitt Pavilion Project is an important civic initiative that does not threaten the historic significance or integrity of the St. James Park Historic District, and its approval would advance a compelling public interest by reactivating this public space as a public arts venue. PAC*SJ therefore supports reasonable Ordinance amendments that would allow the project to proceed. But we do not support using the Levitt Pavilion as a pretext for changes that could fundamentally undermine the spirit and purpose of San Jose’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.

​

So We Call on the City Council to:

1. Adopt the reasonable definitions identified in the draft ordinance (adding or clarifying definitions of “detrimental,” “historic integrity,” “substantial alteration,” “historic district,” “landmark," and

2. Limit the override provision in 13.48.240.D to projects demonstrating a compelling public interest by incorporating the suggested text in red:
    

13.48.240 (D) For projects demonstrating a compelling public interest: If the Director or the Planning Commission or the City Council, as applicable, finds that the work will be detrimental to a landmark or property in a historic district, or is inconsistent with the purposes of this Chapter, despite any conditions that the Director or the Planning Commission or the City Council, as applicable, may impose, the City Council, through a resolution, may find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other public benefits of the project outweigh the detrimental effects on the landmark or property in a historic district.  

 

This will ensure the Levitt Pavilion project can proceed while maintaining meaningful protections for City Landmarks and Landmark Districts impacted by private development. Support the Arts AND Protect Our Landmarks!