San Diego Planning Commission Nov. 6th Meeting: Progress and Preservation Package A
By South OB Girl
San Diegans from throughout San Diego gathered in the meeting room for the Thursday November 6th meeting of the San Diego Planning Commission. The meeting began at 9 am and after approximately 2 and half hours of staff report, public comments and questions and deliberation by the Commissioners, the Planning Commission voted unanimously in support of Progress and Preservation Package A.
As the opposition to Package A gathered outside the meeting room afterwards, Rag editor Frank Gormlie tried to boost morale when he said, “Two more rounds to go!” This was just the first round. San Diegans had seven days including Saturday and Sunday to prepare for public comment at this meeting amending existing municipal code.
[The meeting began with non-agenda public comment. David Moty spoke and informed everyone that a drinking fountain or water cooler would be made available in the future.]
Attention shifted to the City Planning Department. The City Planning Department stated that it concluded its public hearings on the annual report on homes with an “informational presentation” to the City Council this past Tuesday 11/4. The City Planning Department then gave a presentation about Package A which would be voted on by the Commission. The goals of Preservation and Progress Package A are:
- Advance equity in preservation.
- Evaluate the Mills Act program.
- Identify and protect historical properties and districts that are important to the City’s history and culture, with a focus on historic districts..
- Reform permit processes, adopt design standards, and remove certain regulations.
Those in support of Package A gave public comment first. Speaking time was reduced from 3 minutes to 1 minute by the Chair so all parties were adjusting the ceding of minutes. This included a speaker from the Historical Resources Board, Chair Kristi Byers, who gave a report about what had occurred at the recent meeting that focused on this Package A. Her comments indicated that to some degree the board ran out of time to address everything at their recent meeting. She stated that they were indecisive in October.
Tyler Martin from the OB Planning Board spoke next for himself. Martin is well known by most locals to be pro-development in his decisions and comments (and was the lone vote at a recent OBPB hearing in support of the package). Jennifer Ayala with 28 years of experience as an architect voiced her support for the plans. She is Co-Founder of Nexus Planning & Research.
Sharon Gehl shared some concerns about the public’s lack of interest in its historical resources and museums, such as the Marston House in Balboa Park. Wesley Morgan, a YIMBY Dem, advocated approval in order to promote development. Benjamin Nichols, Executive Director of the Hillcrest Business Association, spoke representing the association’s 1800 small business and property owners and expressing support of Package A as striking “the right balance between protecting the character that makes Hillcrest unique while allowing thoughtful growth that keeps our community thriving.” Stefanie Benvenuto spoke on behalf of the Building Industry Association of San Diego in support of package A.
Attention was next directed towards those in Opposition to Package A. Bruce Coons and Alana Coons with SOHO opened up public comment for the opposition. Bruce reminded the Commissioners of what a unique city San Diego is, “making it one of the most desirable places to live on Earth.” Alana Coons reminded the Commissioners that under CEQA, “environmental review applies to all discretionary projects approved by the City that may result in adverse impacts.” This includes any activity undertaken by a public agency that may result in a physical change to the environment. Alana stated that the plans are in violation of CEQA and that a EIR needs to done and adequately studied. She reminded the audience that SOHO has stated repeatedly that “the proposed changes would weaken and reduce existing historic protections and increase impacts and that more historical properties and cultural resources would be lost or degraded as a direct result.” These are precisely the types of impacts that CEQA is supposed to mitigate.
Life-long OBcean Lynne Miller, spoke next. The audio-video equipment in the meeting room was not working, and she was not able to show a 2 minute video she had planned to show. (Should the Planning Commission have waited until functional equipment could be brought in and speakers could have been given the ability to present various mediums?) Mrs. Miller reminded the Planning Commission of the long history of OB for her family, and other families, and the unique and special atmosphere making our beach town community special. She pointed out that the code change is specific for OB and one other district. OB seems as an intentional target and her video which was produced by developers would have showed that scheme visually, if Mrs. Miller had been able to share the video with the audience and the Commission. Mrs. Miller also raised a point raised by others, that this is not just about the historic cottages but is about the entire historic district. She also relayed some of the prices she has heard for the process of obtaining historical designation on a property, and those numbers, she has heard, range from $2,700 to $50,000.
Next up was Craig Klein, with the ceded minutes of multiple OBceans, totaling 11 minutes of speaking time. There must have been nearly 2 dozen OBceans at the hearing. Mr. Klein, a property owner in OB, attorney, and former OB Planning Board member for 14 years, reminded the Commission of their decision in August 2024 regarding the proposed plans for 4705 Point Loma Ave. and the Commission’s unanimous support against Complete Communities in Ocean Beach at that time.
He reminded the board of 3 affordable units proposed in that 20 unit building and the FAR reduction so drastically smaller than the existing required FAR. The FAR for Complete Communities is 2.5 and the zoning for most of OB has the FAR of 0.7. Mr. Klein discussed the potential impact of Complete Communities in OB and the contingency for these new plans which is on increased transit in OB, which may or may not happen. He pointed out that with the approval of Package A, “on either side of your designated historical beach cottage a 2.5 FAR box with no parking, on a street that already has next to no off street parking, get built. And that changes the entire character of that street.”
The picture was painted further, describing the beach cottages which are scattered throughout OB, and encouraging us to envision the monstrosities of Complete Communities towering alongside these historical beach cottages. Mr. Klein spoke of the recent court ruling and TRO issued by Judge Joel Wohlfeil regarding plans in Golden Hill, as a result of the speculative plans regarding transit. Judge Wohlfeil ruled that irreparable harm was going to occur to the community if the transit, which was speculative, never occurred. Many OBceans and residents in Golden Hill are immensely grateful for Judge Wohlfeil’s ruling.
Eric Duvall spoke next, representing the OB Historical Society of which he is chair. He described our unique community as a “small town within the boundaries of a major metropolitan area. [And] a classic California beach town, something that is very rare any more. Something that is very desirable and worth preserving.” Mr. Duvall relayed the news of a recent pedestrian fatality, which might be more frequent with more cars and more Complete Communities. Mr. Duvall discussed plans from back in 1926 by John Nolan, who had proposed a plan that “would take full advantage of the sight lines and vistas that our topography affords.” Mr. Duvall urged that a complete Historical Survey be completed.
Jennifer Machian spoke next, for Mission Hills Heritage, and she had several others from Mission Hills who had ceded time to her. As many OBceans had discussed, she stated that Package A would result in a setback for historic preservation. She echoed SOHO’s concern regarding environment impact and loss of more historical resources going forward. And echoed the concern that the environmental impact had not been sufficiently analyzed. She also stated the new grounds for de novo appeal should be rejected and that this new ground would potentially allow City Council to overturn designation decisions based on political preferences and would replace the objective process, making it a political one, which as a result the Historical Resources Board itself has never affirmatively recommended.
David Goldberg, speaking for the La Jolla Historical Society (he’s also president of SOHO) went next, asking that the plans not be forwarded as they currently stand. And next, Ron Buckley spoke. He had been on the body that was a predecessor of the Historical Resources Board and he had drafted policy being discussed. He said determining historical significance is an empirical exercise and was disheartened to see the changes being voted on by the Commission and reminded the audience that City Council and other boards and committees notoriously make bad decisions. He noted two de novo outcomes that were particularly egregious, which were the failure to uphold the Board’s designation of the Crystal Pier and of the Mission San Diego. He expressed that the loss of a paragraph from previously written and approved policy shows an intent not discussed at all in the staff report. An ulterior motive that is not being said outright.
Laura Henson of the Talmadge Historical Society spoke next and she reminded the audience that the mayor had been asked to support the building industry by modifying policy in historical areas. She recounted a story that the preservationists were supposed to be given a meeting to discuss their concerns, but that the meeting never happened. She felt the Preservation Community had been ignored in the consideration of Preservation and Progress Package A, which she described as rushed and one sided. She also stated that “San Diego could reach its state mandated RHNA numbers many times over and never encounter a historical resource or historical district.”
A report will be ready later this year reflecting the third part assessment of San Diego’s historical resources and historical preservation, prepared by Place Economics. The preservation community stepped up and hired Place Economics for this study. This information seemed to go in one ear and out the other for the Commissioners.
Next up was Janet O’Dea, followed by David Moty, Chair of the Kensington Talmage Planning Group. Then, David Swarens, owner of two designated historic properties in Golden Hill. Victoria LaBruzzo then spoke on behalf of Community Planners Committee — she is the chair– and outlined conditions which the Committee wanted to the Planning Commission to revise and to take into consideration prior to approval of Package A.
Attention moved to virtual speakers. Kristin Harms, President of the University Heights Historical Society, spoke and expressed the Society’s opposition to Package A. Notable among the virtual speakers was OB Planning Board Chair Andrea Schlageter. She emphasized the impact of City Resiliency Plans unfolding in OB, and how plans for resiliency will clash with Complete Communities and increased density. City plans are preparing for sea level rise and flooding. Flooding is already a problem in OB and adding high density housing does not seem beneficial for OB. She also asked that the City conduct a full evaluation of all of the historical cottages and asked the Commission to oppose Package A until the extent of all of the historical cottages was known. She asked that until the City did a full evaluation of the cottages, that the City should not think about changing the code. NAIOP San Diego has also joined a coalition submitting comments regarding Package A.
The attendees were from all over San Diego, even though a couple Commissioners incorrectly thought Ocean Beach dominated the comments. In addition to individual speakers who were not speaking on behalf of an organization, several organizations spoke in opposition to Package A. These organizations (including OB-based groups) were:
SOHO (Save Our Heritage Organisation)
OB Historical Society
OB Planning Board
Mission Hills Heritage
Kensington Talmage Planning Group
Community Planners Committee
University Heights Historical Society
And, the “preservation community” represented by Laura Hensen and Place Economics.
Transit, CEQA, and environmental impact concerns were not addressed by the Commission. Several speakers expressed a long list of concerns associated with the supermajority vote of the Commission and the Commission did not dive into additional issues raised by several speakers about the supermajority and ignored many other questions raised by speakers in opposition.
Will this go down in History as the Planning Commission meeting that ruined the architecture and history of the City of San Diego, and ruined OB?
As Gormlie reminded OBceans outside the hearing, there are two more key steps. Package 2 goes before a council committee on December 11 and before the full council at the end of January.
This report has got to be the most complete account of a Planning Commission hearing ever! — outside their own minutes. Thank you South OB Girl for staying up late last night and getting this done.
These exact words will be added to the Municipal Code that were not there before: “(A) Development on properties that are not designated as contributing resources to the Ocean Beach Cottage Emerging Historical District;”
These few words turn OB over to developers. It makes OB eligible for construction that is under Complete Communities. In Golden Hill, three small cottages are being replaced by 190 units; this it the City’s goal for OB as of yesterday.
The first we knew was from the OBRag, Geoff Page’s article explains what those 18 words mean.
https://obrag.org/2025/10/important-2024-victory-for-ocean-beach-against-point-loma-avenue-adus-could-be-bypassed-by-fix-proposed-by-city/
Not only do these plans intend to change the municipal code, they aim to change the process of de novo appeal.
Thanks to South OB Gal for the detailed report.
I would like to add some background, as stated on the City’s P&P website- they have been transparent in their goals to make reforms that streamline new development.
“The Preservation and Progress is a comprehensive update to the City’s Heritage Preservation Program that will streamline processes for new homes and other uses…”
And:
Create Homes for All of Us
“Updates the City’s Historic Preservation Program to provide clear pathways for permitting more new homes and other uses on properties with historic and cultural resources while more effectively preserving and adaptively reusing these resources.”
https://www.sandiego.gov/planning/work/historic-preservation-planning/preservation-and-progress
I would also like to reiterate the fact that SOHO is not anti-development. To quote a recent SOHO article” For more than five decades, SOHO has helped developers and communities find solutions that respect history while shaping the future. …SOHO believes in smart development. We believe in solutions. We believe in listening to communities rather than forcing them to accept projects that do not respect their priorities, character, or history. Our work is not about saying “no,” but about finding the “yes” that works for everyone.”
“Development,” or more what we would hope for, “Building to meet a need,” is not the same as a developer from Chicago’s idea of “Complete Communities.” To quote CedarSt LLC in Chicago, “Across San Diego, Chicago, South Florida, and Las Vegas, CEDARst is engaged in various stages of planning, development, construction, and management on QOZ projects totaling $500 million and 1,600 units.” We question that this is the solution to our problems.
We see the results around us. How well is it working?
https://obrag.org/2025/11/seeking-reliable-data-on-the-housing-crisis-from-the-city-of-san-diego/
?
Thank you, nostalgic. The development in San Diego is rampant, and has been rampant for some time. And some San Diegans are beginning to piece together the money trail. The housing data for 2025 has not been finalized and published. It will likely be in a report that is dated 2026 and is called the 2026 Housing Report. However reports more than once a year should be possible. It should not be impossible to have monthly reports regarding housing data and new permits. Here is a link with some useful websites: https://obsandiego92107.com/data%3A-permits-and-housing
Thank you very much, Alana. As I commented on another article (here: https://obrag.org/2025/11/seeking-reliable-data-on-the-housing-crisis-from-the-city-of-san-diego/), “The objectives of infill [or additional housing and new buildings] can be achieved without changing existing municipal code, introducing new policies, and approving an FAR of 2.5 (in place of an FAR of 0.7) in a designated Historical District.” OB and Mission Hills are very thankful for the leadership SOHO has always provided in San Diego, and for the lead that SOHO has taken in addressing concerns regarding Preservation and Progress Package A.
What exactly are we preserving and for who? And why do white people and white communities get to choose what we preserve? For most people of color preserving the 1920s or 1950s is complicated by the fact that we weren’t allowed – by law – to live in the same neighborhoods that today are fighting so hard to preserve themselves. And why would a person of color, intentionally excluded from these neighborhoods in the past, want to preserve them today? Preserve the memory of exclusion? Even the architecture that preservations are attempting to preserve like Spanish Colonial is tainted by the domination, destruction and murder by the European cultures from which the style gets its name. The human mind has the unique capability to imagine things it has never directly experienced. Listening to preservations advocate for the preservation of their neighborhoods without even considering how that sounds to people of color – half the population in the city and growing — is a display of arrogance that fits perfectly within the times we are living in.
Ricardo your response is a display of misleading ignorance. Building nothing but apartments en masse by the tens of thousands is Wall Street hyper-gentrification. It has only to do with the corporate monopolization of housing and NOTHING to do with exclusionary housing policies of 70 + years ago.
Tens of thousands of vacant apartments are not going to bring down the cost of buying a house. So in effect what you are advocating for are the neo-exclusionary housing policies of today. Or we can refer to it as sheltered indentured servitude where Wall Street usurps all of the once disposal income that used to keep the economy healthy.
Thank you, Mateo. As you said here, “Tens of thousands of vacant apartments are not going to bring down the cost of buying a house.” The result is that those who cannot afford those apartments and houses will be separated — geographically, economically, and socially — from those who can afford those apartments and housing. Those who cannot afford the prices will be excluded from access to that housing. These new developments, and the policies behind them, are therefore neo-exclusionary housing policies. Access to housing options for diverse populations are not promoted by these new developments and new policies. These neo-exclusionary housing policies arising in San Diego should be cause for concern for many of our politicians and for all of those trying to call San Diego home.
Saying “no apartments” is an anti-gentrification strategy doesn’t make sense to me. If we build nothing, the only new residents able to move into OB will be wealthy SFH buyers which accelerates gentrification.
Rentals, even market-rate ones, are more attainable than million-dollar homes, and apartment projects often include income-restricted affordable units. That provides some entry points for working- and middle-class residents, versus none under a no-new-housing scenario.
Many people would prefer ownership over rentals, but sadly this is not achievable for most given the cost of homes. I believe there are ways to make ownership more affordable like building condos or co-ops(defect liability law need to be fixed first) or decreasing minimum lot sizes, so I hope to see those happen. And even if we end up with more renters, that’s not a crisis — countries like Germany and Switzerland have majority-renter populations and stable, high-quality housing.
The objective of those opposed to Package A is NOT to say “no apartments.” That is not their goal at all. The objective for these activists is to say no to an FAR of 2.5, no to elimination of parking requirements, no to set back changes, no to policy changes, no to altering the process of de novo appeal, and no to Package A. Their goal is to protect areas with historical designation from the damages Package A will generate. Including environmental damages.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. My comment wasn’t in relation to the article. It was in response to Mateo saying that building apartments causes gentrification which I didn’t understand for the reasons I stated in my previous comment.
Ricardo, the times we are living in are, in fact, the year 2026. Not the 1920s and 1950s. Not the Spanish Colonial era. It’s easy to reach far back into the past to decry long-ago injustices. It’s more challenging to focus on present-day injustices, because you have to be specific about who is being hurt by which policies and programs brought about by which parties. That takes more work, but it’s the only way to bring about real redress. Performative rhetoric is no substitute for gathering and presenting cogent facts.
Excellent reply, Kate!
Thank you very much for your reply, Kate. Various injustices, and some of them new to our times, present themselves for all of us currently.
Great job by OB girl. Ive covered a million meetings but this is the most thorough reporting I have ever seen on a meeting. Not sure if everyone will read through it all but making the information available is important. And keeping your foot on the pedal keeps the pressure up. well done
Thank you, JW! Once I was “in” the recording and pulling quotes, it was just the process that made sense to me. Thank you for your praises!
I agree Frank, this article is the most detailed report of a meeting I have read. Thank you South OB Girl for all you have done to support OB. And, as Frank reminded us in the hallway of the new Development Services Department building, “This is just the first round”.
The best way to ruin a really good joke is to screwup the punchline. The punchline of my presentation was a 2-minute video that was created as a promotion to invest in Ocean Beach Property. It showed clearly the REAL reason Complete Communities exist. The video stated that San Diego is the #1 target for “building for profit” because of the Complete Community Program. Was it just convenient that the video could not be presented? That same video was presented at our victory Hearing in August, 2024. That day their technology would not play video and sound so at the last minute Craig Klein had to find a way to get his cell phone audio matched with the video. One final thought. The acting chair of the August 29, 2024 meeting closed the meeting by saying that if the city wanted to build through Complete Communities they would have to rewrite the Muncipal Code. We knew the code would be rewritte. While it is almost impossible to win when the rules are changed by your opponent, we will find a way. We are not done! How sad that the City and Council is viewed as our opponent. Remember, Kelly, the author of this code, had a full year to write this new code, a salary, and a team. The public had one week to read, process and prepare. We also know that Kelly’s job was to write code that would change the law so that Complete Communities could be built not just in OB, but in any and all historic districts. Anyone who is concerned must participate this time. Take a drive around the charming communities of San Diego and video or photo what you see. You will find the landscape has already changed. Ask yourself who can afford to live in those towers? High Density is not the same as Affordable. Here is that video the city could not show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k4qAEWtxzg. I would send this video to all of your friends, and advise them to get involved!
Great video which should be mandatory viewing for every council member (planning commission seems to be a lost cause). It’s political theater when Sean Elo-Rivera wants to ban rental parking space fees, but still support Complete Communities and bonus ADUs. He’s a well educated man with a law degree. He knows if his predatory fee package passes, these investors will recoup the lost parking fees by raising the rent. The narrator even points out the new market units will have no AB 1482 rent increase restrictions for 15 years. Can anyone on the council see the forest for the trees?
I’ll post the link again here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k4qAEWtxzg
Bravo, Lynne!! Thank you very much for your kind words. The article does question whether equipment that worked should have been brought in, and everyone made to wait until functional equipment was brought in for public comment. The video you wanted to share was very powerful when it was shared at the Planning Commission in August 2024. Some might say it was almost voter suppression of some kind that the “equipment wasn’t working” and you were pretty much told to speak your comments and not to show the video. That was also a form of censorship. Others in the room beside the Commissioners could have been persuaded by the video you wanted to show, and perhaps altered their votes on policies and politicians as a result of the video. But I’ll leave decisions about these things to attorneys who focus on civil liberties and freedom of speech.
One small correction to the last sentences in the article: Package A. There is a proposed Package B that was discussed at the Planning Commission. It was said by City Planning that Package A could exist without a Package B coming to fruition. So, Round 2 will be coming up in December regarding Package A.
Wow! Could I look any more pissed off?
It would have been very nice if a leader of the OB Planning Board had spoken at the Planning Com hearing to inform them that the OB Board had just taken a vote against Complete Communities in OB. A member of the board was there and gave her minute to Klein, a former planning board member.