|
Package A Advances—Now So Does the Fight
March/April 2026
 Shown testifying before City Council in opposition to Package A on February 24 is Mandy Havlik; in the background, SOHO board member David Swarens prepares to speak next. |
San Diego’s historic districts and individually designated resources are not abstract planning concepts. They are neighborhoods, cultural landscapes, and places that tell the story of our region and its people. Once protections are weakened or removed, the impacts are often permanent. That is why careful environmental review and adherence to adopted community plans are essential.
On February 24, 2026, the San Diego City Council voted to approve the so-called “Preservation and Progress Package A,” following extensive public testimony in opposition, and repeated warnings regarding the measure’s violations of law. Environmental review and preservation safeguards exist to prevent irreversible harm to historic neighborhoods. The Council chose to ignore those safeguards.
Many San Diegans left City Hall that day disheartened, not because preservation lost a political fight, but because the Council chose to advance destructive changes to our historic preservation ordinance without the environmental review and public accountability the law requires.
Citywide opposition was overwhelming. Since the City released the Preservation and Progress initiative, over 600 written comments were submitted, with roughly 12 to 1 opposed. Twenty-eight community planning groups voted no, along with 12 city wide historic organizations. The City’s own Historical Resources Board rejected it twice, in two separate votes. Preservation organizations representing thousands of residents across San Diego urged caution, transparency, and lawful process.
Yet Package A passed. Council President Joe LaCava acknowledged the breadth of public concern and voted against the measure. The remaining members present, who numbered only 5, as a third of the council was missing in action, voted in favor.
For decades, SOHO has approached advocacy before the City of San Diego with consistency and care. We participate fully in the public process, present factual and legal analysis, work collaboratively with community groups, and encourage decision-makers to uphold the laws and policies that protect our historic resources.
Let’s repeat: The designation of a historic resource is not a political act. It is a factual determination—no different from identifying a wetland or a vernal pool, as our executive director Bruce Coons has explained publicly many times in this clear, simple way. A property either meets the adopted criteria for historic significance, or it does not. That baseline determination has, for more than two decades, been entrusted to subject-matter experts and the citizen commissioners of the City’s Historical Resources Board.
Designation does not stop development. It does not freeze a property in time. It does not prevent adaptive reuse, relocation, or even, when a case is made for it, demolition.
Designation simply ensures that when land-use decisions are being made, historic resources are fairly identified and considered alongside other environmental and community factors.
Recent analysis shows that less than one percent of San Diego’s built environment could ever qualify for designation—even if every eligible property were processed. Think about that!
Conflicts between preservation and development are rare, typically fewer than one incident per year. The City’s own analyses have acknowledged that historic review does not delay permitting in any meaningful way. Its Independent budget analyst undertook this study at the behest of Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera. When the results showed that his anti-preservation views were completely wrong, he canceled the City Council hearing where the findings would have contradicted him and set the record straight.
When the City properly recognizes a site’s historic status at the outset, projects move more smoothly. The redevelopment of the Midway area, the San Diego Sports Arena site, demonstrated this process clearly. When a resource is documented, evaluated, and then balanced transparently against project goals, outcomes can be achieved efficiently and lawfully.
Delays arise when the city attempts to deny that something historic is historic.
At the February 26 HRB hearing, just two days after the City Council hearing—and almost as if on cue—a local housing developer working with a historic resource explained what happens when a designated building is incorporated into a new housing development. You can read about that here. The developer made it clear: The historic process was not the problem.
This is precisely what SOHO and the City’s own independent budget analyst have documented. Historic review is not where projects stall. Preservation processing is not the bottleneck. It is not the barrier to new development.
A big problem with Package A is that it introduces a de novo appeal process that allows the City Council to substitute their judgment for expert findings on historic designation. This proposal has surfaced periodically for more than 20 years. In that time, no Historical Resources Board, no Planning Commission, and no City Council has endorsed it. In fact, it was a citizens committee made up of both staunch preservationists and die-hard anti-preservationists who created this policy.
There is a very important reason not to throw out this policy. Turning a fact-based determination into a political rehearing invites uncertainty, delay, and litigation. Anyone with an axe to grind can appeal. Projects may be set back months. In some cases, delays could jeopardize historic tax credits that are essential to financing adaptive reuse projects. Ironically, the changes Package A promotes in the name of “efficiency” create the opposite.
Package A illegally segments ordinance revisions from the comprehensive environmental analysis required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The courts have been clear: When ordinance changes may result in indirect physical impacts, including the demolition or degradation of historic resources, environmental review is required.
Weakening protections increases the likelihood of loss. That is a physical environmental impact.
The City cannot lawfully proceed on major structural changes to preservation policy without analyzing the whole of the action and its cumulative consequences. We were reminded of this recently when the Court of Appeal ruled against the City, in Save Our Access v. City of San Diego, for failing to conduct sufficient environmental review of the Midway Rising project. That lesson should not need repeating for the City.
Another concerning provision affects the Ocean Beach Cottage Emerging District, an area of modest, pre–World War II homes that exemplify what planners now call Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH). Small-scale, walkable neighborhoods like OB already advance the City’s climate and housing goals without subsidy.
Rather than completing Ocean Beach’s long-overdue historic survey and formal district designation, which are required of the City and supported by the community, Package A strips existing safeguards and subjects the neighborhood to incompatible regulations. That approach does not advance the housing and economic equity that the city’s proposal says is its goal. Instead, it erodes it.
Across San Diego, historic neighborhoods provide environmental sustainability, cultural continuity, and economic vitality. They are part of the City’s precious environmental fabric—as surely as air, water, and trees.
Once they are gone, they are gone forever.
BACK to table of contents
|
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
|
