By Alana Coons / SOHO March-April 2026
At the City of San Diego Historical Resources Board meeting on February 26, 2026, the Newman Building project in North Park was on the consent agenda. In thanking the applicant, board member Rammy Cortez repeated a familiar refrain—that historic resources require applicants to “jump through hoops,” and that preservation reform in Package B of the preservation and progress Initiative would streamline projects like this one.
However, as this case demonstrates, the record does not support that narrative.
When Newman Building developer Nate Cadieux responded during this public meeting, he made something very clear: The historic review process was not the problem. In Cadieux’s words, the historic component to obtain a building permit was “streamlined, not scary, not complicated.” He described working with the HRB Design Assistance Subcommittee as collaborative and constructive. He credited Heritage Architecture, and preservation advocates, noting Bruce Coons of SOHO, for providing helpful, clear guidance.
His project entered the Site Development Permit process because of the presence of the historic resource. Behind the preserved historic facade, Cadieux explained, the project was otherwise a by-right Complete Communities development. And critically, he noted that the historic portion of the review had effectively been resolved two years ago. The delays occurred elsewhere— in broader discretionary requirements unrelated to preservation.
That is not a developer describing an obstructive process. Cadieux emphasized that he welcomed coming before the board to discuss substantial alterations to a historic building.
The delays Cadieux encountered occurred due to broader discretionary requirements unrelated to preservation, including traffic analysis, environmental review, and other entitlement studies.
This distinction matters. The repeated suggestion that the “historic process” is synonymous with “delay” has erroneously shaped public policy discussions and public perception. Historic review has become a false justification for weakening historic resource protections under the banner of efficiency. Yet here, the applicant himself confirmed that preservation review functioned smoothly and exactly as intended:
- Early designation (which this developer initiated)
- Clear, adopted preservation standards
- Professional historical resources staff guidance
- Collaborative design feedback
- Alternatives that preserved the historic facade rather than defaulting to demolition
The City’s own independent budget analyst has similarly concluded that historic review is not where projects stall. When projects encounter delays, the causes lie in broader entitlement frameworks, not in evaluating facade retention, the compatibility of new construction, or adaptive reuse.
Preservation review does not create density caps. It does not impose traffic thresholds. It does not trigger unrelated environmental studies. It ensures that adopted standards are applied to designated resources. That is due process.
SOHO supports smart infill development. We support new housing. We support adaptive reuse. And we support making review processes more efficient where reform is truly warranted. But reform must be grounded in evidence—not anecdote.
Before policymakers move to dilute preservation protections in the name of streamlining, they should listen carefully to what developer Nathan Cadieux said. With his comments, the record now includes yet another clear example of the truth: When permitting facts are examined, historic review is not the culprit.
Facts matter. And in this instance, the facts continue to support preservation. See the HRB discussion here at minute 27:38.
