Planning Groups Forced to Pay New $1,000 Fee to Appeal Projects Stifles Community Democracy

by on April 24, 2024 · 8 comments

in Ocean Beach, San Diego

OB Planning Board meets Oct. 5, 2016

by Crystal Niebla /inewsource / April 24, 2024

Nearly two years after the city of San Diego changed longstanding policy to begin requiring community planning groups to pay for appeals, the groups’ leaders say the $1,000 fee has proven to be a barrier to fight against projects they oppose.

The appeals process allows anyone to challenge approved projects if they believe there are factual errors, new information, unsupported findings or conflicts with a city plan or rule.

But while other residents paid $1,000 to appeal decisions, community planning groups were exempt.

That changed beginning in 2022, when the City Council removed their fee waiver. Joe LaCava, the District 1 councilmember who has led efforts to overhaul planning group rules, said city officials believed it was inappropriate to give “a special benefit” that was not applied to other organizations.

“If community groups felt strong enough, they still have the right to file an appeal,” LaCava told inewsource. “But to allow them to do that without cost was problematic.”

Community planning groups have provided input on projects, from housing developments to infrastructure upgrades, for more than 50 years. Made up of citizens, the groups are considered “integral components of the planning process, and are highly regarded by the City Council and by staff,” according to the city’s website.

The city provides the groups up to $500 annually in reimbursements, meaning they typically don’t have the $1,000 in their budgets to cover an appeal.

Lynn Elliott, newly elected chair of the North Park Planning Committee, said she believes they should have “more authority” to talk with developers about designing projects in neighborhoods, especially high-rise housing structures.

Elliott said she’s seeing housing developments slowly turn North Park into a more urbanized area, prompting a lack of parking without having alternatives to driving cars, such as an improved public transit system.

Paying $1,000 to file an appeal is a new hardship, Elliott said.

“(Residents are) very frustrated, and we don’t have the money to pay this fee,” she said.

Elliott said group chairs wanted at least one free appeal per year, but that “compromise” ultimately didn’t get enough support.

Since 2018, the city has received 192 appeals against projects, 30 of which have come from community planning groups. Some groups file more than others depending on the number of projects in their neighborhoods. Construction activity also slowed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The La Jolla Community Planning Association has been the most active, filing 15 appeals since 2018 — as many as the eight other groups filed throughout the years combined.

In 2019, planning groups filed 12 appeals. Last year — after the city began charging the groups — they filed just four.

A Flourish chart

A city report shows the Planning Commission denied most of the appeals it received in 2023, but one appeal for a two-story housing structure in La Jolla, for example, was accepted and led to modifications for the project.

One of last year’s appeals was filed by the Barrio Logan Community Planning Group against the New Leaf Biofuel project, which would have constructed an underground pipeline in the neighborhood — a 1,000-acre, predominantly Latino community south of downtown San Diego that includes the city’s port and a naval base. After months of protest and resistance from the planning group, environmentalists and other community stakeholders, the company canceled the project in 2023.

The Barrio Logan group did not have to pay to appeal the project, as it was temporarily exempted before the city’s changes went into effect for groups located within Coastal Commission boundaries.

All planning groups will now have to pay the filing fee for appeals moving forward, a city spokesperson said.

Barrio Logan planning group Chair Julie Corrales said she doesn’t think it’s fair for the city to charge the groups for appeals.

“I think in a way they’re trying to curb frivolous appeals, but the folks that are gonna be most impacted are the planning groups in poor Black and brown communities, because it’s harder for us to come up with a thousand-dollar appeal,” Corrales said.

LaCava said there are effective and ineffective ways to influence a city-approved project. Barrio Logan’s appeal helped stop the project because there were legitimate public health concerns and plenty of community protest, he said.

By contrast, LaCava said, simply disliking a project — even as it abides by city regulations — isn’t a good enough reason to stop it. He said planning groups have opposed a new apartment building in their neighborhood for reasons surrounding increased population density or lack of parking constructed with the building.

LaCava cited a 2012 incident in which a developer reduced the height of a housing project after receiving feedback from Navajo Community Planners, Inc. that the building was too big. Despite the developer trying to accommodate the group’s suggestions, the group opposed the project anyway, he said.

“That sends a very negative message that if you can’t get the support, no matter how hard you try, why bother?” he said.

Removing the appeal waiver is just one piece of sweeping changes for community planning groups over the past two years. Now, the groups are required to apply for official recognition as the city attempts to make the groups more representative of their communities.

That has pitted groups against each other in the Hillcrest and La Jolla areas as they seek official recognition. In Uptown — which includes Hillcrest, University Heights and Bankers Hill —  a new group known as Vibrant Uptown has argued the existing group, Uptown Planners, has more older, white homeowners than the area’s demographics.

The City Council will hold a hearing to consider planning group recognitions this spring

{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }

Gail April 24, 2024 at 3:10 pm

I agree, these are land use issues heard at community planning meetings, by volunteers. There is a $500 stipend offered by the City for the recognized planning groups to be used primarily for the groups web page needs, and Board election needs.
Anyone can talk to a developer at any time. That’s freedom of speech, no “authority” needed. Planning Committees can invite the developers to their meetings to present their project.

Reply

T April 24, 2024 at 5:03 pm

This is great info.

Last week at the PBPB meeting their planner was talking about the new $1000 appeal charge and why the city thinks it’s important to recoup the cost of the process. So I asked the planner, what the demographics are for the appeal applicants and I clarified my question by asking, who typically is “buying” these appeals? The PCPB planner bristled and definitely didn’t care for my choice of words. But I went on to say that at $1000 only the wealthy or developers can “buy” appeals and that they were shutting down public discourse.

I think that the new fee of $1000 for appeals is hindering public comment and discourse. The government should not be throwing barriers in front of its constituents that dissuades commentary, speech, and challenges to government actions. It’s likely impossible that a single member of the public or a CPG will be able to pay for appeals if they believe the planning dept. made a mistake but a developer can just bake this fee into their services and it’ll barely be a blip on the bottom line. This appeal fee is a barrier intended to block public discourse and hinder the public in having recourse on matters that directly affect their neighborhood.

I truly appreciate seeing the stats listed in this article and glad someone looked into the number of appeals as it’s a clear indication that CPGs are not the problem and are not taking up government resources. I’m also curious what organizations made these appeals.

Reply

kh April 24, 2024 at 5:38 pm

I know one of the appeals from 2022(?) was on the Inn at Sunset cliffs, and the appeal prevailed at city council. It was not brought by the planning board but it did align with their recommendation of denial (which of course the city had disregarded.)

Reply

nostalgic April 29, 2024 at 8:01 am

Well, the city does not give a $1,000 refund if the Appeal is upheld, if that is any help to the discussion.

Reply

Geoff Page April 25, 2024 at 10:39 am

Excellent piece, very well done. I do need to correct one thing.

“But while other residents paid $1,000 to appeal decisions, community planning groups were exempt.”

The appeal fee was $100 not $1,000. Yes, individuals had to pay it but the CPGs were exempt. This huge increase is very new and only makes sense if the city wants to limit public participation. The appeals process is part of the Municipal Code, to change any part of it requires a process. I’m going to research this, anyone who has any information about it, please enlighten us all.

Reply

t April 27, 2024 at 2:35 pm

The PL planner told everyone that the fee was an effort to recoup expenses the city incurs for paperwork and staff time. I personally thought our tax dollars paid for government processes.

Reply

kh April 27, 2024 at 2:57 pm

Ironic as most of the appeals I’m familiar with are a direct result of the city breaking the rules.

I’d hope an appeal costs them far more that $1000 on their part. Thats only 5-6 hours of one person’s time.

If they really want to save money then they could start with listening to people when they catch them in violation.

Reply

Mateo April 27, 2024 at 3:19 pm

Todd Gloria’s brainchild that was AB 3243 created to eliminate public input in Community Planning Groups that paved the way for the Council to implement this abomination to subert democracy and is tantamount to overt suppression of public participation.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Older Article:

Newer Article: