Preservation and Progress Package A (Item 332)

Supported the package, clarifying it does not change designation criteria or reduce protections and that the new appeal ground is not an open-ended political override.

A preservation architect who helped write the current appeal process opposed the de novo appeal ground as a return to a flawed political model.

Golden Hill property owner criticized changing rules midstream on long-pending historic district work and raised project-splitting concerns.

Spoke for the Building Industry Association in support, citing certainty and predictability for housing development.

Presented data showing historic districts are growing and densifying faster than the rest of the city, and urged delaying Package A.

Public advocate opposed the de novo appeal as a political override of expert decisions and proposed amendments including parity in appeal rights and completing surveys first.

Mission Hills Heritage opposed the de novo appeal ground and the removal of non-designation appeal rights, citing the 28-0 CPC vote against the package.

SOHO executive director argued designation is a factual baseline determination, warned of legal challenges, and urged stripping the de novo ground and Ocean Beach provisions.

Spoke for a coalition of twelve preservation groups in strong opposition, citing lack of community input.

Spoke for NAIOP San Diego in support, calling it a balanced, modest package and noting most jurisdictions reserve appeals to the elected body.

Opposed the de novo appeal, recalling the pre-1997 system the council deliberately abandoned, and asked that Ocean Beach not be singled out.

Urged rejection, saying the package weakens protections and allows political override of expert decisions.

Spoke for the Atlantis Group in support of the general plan amendments, code updates, and equity-focused fund changes.