Debate Grows Over San Diego’s Preservation and Progress Initiative

Save our Heritage Organisation Executive Director Bruce Coons

By San Diego Monitor News Staff

The Save Our Heritage Organisation (SOHO) has voiced strong opposition to elements of the City of San Diego’s proposed Preservation and Progress Initiative, urging the Planning Commission to delay approval of “Package A” until further public review and documentation are provided.

In a formal letter addressed to Planning Commission Chair Kelly Modén and the commissioners, SOHO commended the City’s stated intent to make the preservation process “clearer, more equitable, and more accessible.” However, the nonprofit argued that several of the proposed revisions would instead “introduce new procedural obstacles, restrict public participation, and reinforce existing inequities.”

One of SOHO’s key objections centers on new appeal procedures outlined in Sections 123.0203(a) and (b) of the Municipal Code. The organization contends that the amendments create unequal appeal rights, allowing property owners to challenge non-designations of historic resources, but limiting others—such as community members or preservation advocates—from doing so. “This disparate treatment raises serious fairness and equal protection concerns,” the letter states, emphasizing that the change “silences community voices and undermines public participation.” SOHO recommends retaining parity in appeal rights to preserve what it calls “transparency, fairness, and consistency with the City’s stated goals.”

Another point of contention involves a proposed new ground for appeal that would allow the City Council to substitute its judgment for that of the Historic Resources Board (HRB). SOHO described this as a “politicization” of the designation process, arguing that City Council lacks the specialized expertise to evaluate historic significance. “These determinations must remain with qualified professionals and the citizen experts serving on the HRB,” the letter reads. The organization recommends rejecting the proposed change outright.

The group also expressed concern over a proposed amendment applying the Complete Communities Housing Solutions Regulations to the Ocean Beach Cottage Emerging Historical District. SOHO argues that the area’s historic cottages serve as a form of “naturally occurring affordable housing” (NOAH) and that the City should instead designate the neighborhood as a traditional historic district. According to the organization, such a designation would “provide the clarity and protection the community has long sought” while aligning with sustainability and affordability goals.

SOHO further called for the elimination of the HRB’s “supermajority” vote requirement for historic designations. Citing practices in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Long Beach, the group stated that most major California cities rely on a simple majority vote. “The supermajority rule creates a minority veto and discourages the protection of qualified resources,” SOHO said, contending that existing safeguards already ensure fairness and professional review. Beyond procedural issues, SOHO also raised concerns about compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The organization asserted that separating “Package A” from other elements of the initiative may constitute improper “segmentation” under state law, limiting the ability to assess cumulative impacts on historic and cultural resources. “San Diego’s historic resources are already being lost at an alarming rate,” the letter warns. “The proposed changes would only accelerate this irreversible trend.”

The Planning Commission is expected to vote on Package A as part of the broader Preservation and Progress Initiative on Thursday November 6,2025 at its next meeting.. City officials have stated that the goal of the reform effort is to simplify and modernize preservation regulations, while organizations like SOHO argue that more transparency and public input are needed before moving forward.