The End to San Diego’s Community Planning Groups As We Knew Them

By Geoff Page

Anyone not living in a cave these days recognizes that we – the citizens – are now in a parent-child relationship with the administration in this city of San Diego. And we are not the parent and we are to be seen and not heard.

There are stronger terms for this than parent-child, of course. But, that term seems to fit because it is how the administration sees it, and us. To that end, the city has just taken another big step toward silencing the children so it can do what is best for us all, without having to actually listen to us.

The just passed reforms of the community planning group system were done to gut the planning boards and, by doing so, muzzle one of the last places where citizens had a voice. The effect was cloaked in lofty goals of inclusion built on the lie that membership on planning boards was somehow denied to many.

The “others” being the sympathetic groups today, renters, women, people of color that all 42 planning boards have somehow clandestinely managed to exclude from seats on their boards. The sad thing is that a large group of some of these people was duped into supporting these “reforms” by a group called Circulate San Diego.

The Rag ran a story on November, 11, 2019, covering the Ocean Beach Planning Board meeting the previous week. It was in this story that the first view of what proponents of planning group reforms wanted, and who wanted them.

The OBPB’s website  has meeting documents going back several years and the results of the November 2019 meeting contain links to documents. The most telling document contains 31 recommendations for changes to the planning group system. Many of these ridiculous recommendations made it to the end.

An example of a ridiculous recommendation was:

20) Gather relevant demographic data of CPG board members in an audit immediately and require new CGP board members to complete a demographic survey at every election or time of appointment. The survey should include: Age, Business Owner or Property Owner, Ethnicity, Gender, Length of Residence, Neighborhood, Professional Background, Race, Religion, Renter or Owner, Years of Service on CPGs. (A recommendation from Democracy in Planning with major modifications by the taskforce).

Who would want to provide all that private information just o be on a volunteer board? Mat Wahlstrom, chair of the Uptown Planning Group stated it clearly, “It’s obvious the goal is to make serving on CPGs as powerless and onerous as possible to dissuade genuine community volunteers from serving.”

“Democracy in Planning” is a document created by Circulate San Diego. They made 11 of the 31 recommendations. Circulate represents the cycling community that cannot stand these advisory boards because the groups do not rubber stamp every cycling proposal that the cyclists want. They wanted the boards gutted and are delirious over what the city just passed.

So, what did pass.

The Staff Report provided the nuts and bolts. The biggest issue appeared to be the status of the planning groups. This effort is making it crystal clear that the planning groups are legally independent of the city. But, then the CPGs have to follow a whole set of rules the city is imposing. Bit of a headscratcher.

The City Attorney issued a report in 2019 warning that the structure of CPGs, as established by Council Policy 600-24, conflicted with the City Charter Section 43 that dealt with Advisory Boards and Committees.  Several options were provided for discussion about what to do that included amending and repealing long-standing Council Policy 600-24, “Standard Operating Procedures and Responsibilities of Recognized Community Planning.”

The City Attorney’s report stated:

Further, to ensure the independence of CPGs, we do not recommend that the Council expand the scope of defense and indemnification of CPGs beyond the specific claims as outlined in Ordinance O-19883. Indemnification should avoid City involvement in internal CPG disputes to preserve their independence. Although the City Attorney is available to assist City staff when legal issues arise with CPGs, providing legal advice directly to CPGs and their members on governance and operations could raise issues with the City Attorney’s obligations under the California Rules of Professional Conduct.

What is puzzling is that the city is making a great effort to ensure the CPGs are legally independent of the city yet the city will indemnify and defend CPG members under certain circumstances. It simply does not make sense if there is no legal connection.

The first step in “correcting” this recognition problem is to require all planning boards to now apply for, and seek, recognition from city council. In order to apply, the groups have to create an “Ethical Standards” document and a “Community Participation and Representation Plan” along with by-laws that have been properly amended to reflect the new changes.

Whew! So, groups of volunteers, not recognized by the city, have to get together and create these things and then ask to be in existence. This will guarantee that competing groups will form and apply to represent different areas, should be fun.

The applicants will also need to do this:

Consider designating seats for renters, stakeholders and business representatives to ensure voting members are representative of the broader community

While this says “consider,” a published Edit to Resolution-2023-87 states:

CPGs that apply for City Council recognition that demonstrate a commitment to diversity and inclusion shall be given priority for recognition;

It does not say who the arbiter will be to decide which of the applying groups better demonstrates “a commitment to diversity.” But, we know.

This noble push for diversity is a smokescreen designed to satisfy critics who believe the planning groups intentionally keep people out. Nothing could be further from the truth; planning board members are democratically elected. No one has ever described exactly how these groups have been limiting participation, it is only an allegation.

One new rule removes a common requirement in almost all CPGS, the attendance requirement. The changes prohibit any attendance requirements in order to vote or run for a seat. The CPGs have foolishly believed candidates should show enough interest in a group to have at least attended one or two meetings in a year before running for a seat. Silly to require a candidate to have some idea what a meeting actually looks like or demonstrate previous interest. Right?

But, the Municipal Code changes really tell the story of how the city wants to mute CPG voices. Each change described below is about removing the CPGs from the process.

• §86.0104 Angle Parking, removing a requirement that proposed angle parking installations be reviewed first by CPGs

It is unknown how much of an issue this is.

•  §98.0510 Project Selection and Disbursement of Funds, removing a requirement that all projects using Housing Commission funds to be reviewed first by CPGs

This one is big, now the Housing Commission can do as it and the city pleases without bothering to listen to the public.

•  §112.0503 Process Two, removing the extended period of time allowed for an appeal for Process Two projects to allow for CPG review and recommendation

The Municipal Code for a Process Two permit previously stated:

Decision Process. The designated staff person may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application without a public hearing. The decision shall be made no less than 11 business days after the date on which the Notice of Future Decision is mailed to allow for sufficient time for public comment.

The extended period language that was struck was as follows:

This 11 business days minimum time frame for a staff decision will be extended by a period not to exceed an additional 20 business days to allow time for a recommendation by a recognized community planning group, if requested by the group’s chair, or the chair’s designee.

So, the permits can now be granted without a public hearing and without planning group reviews

• §112.0602 Process CIP/Public Project-Two, removing the extended period of time allowed for an appeal of a Process Two CIP/Public Project to allow for CPG review and recommendation

This one also does not require a public hearing and also will no longer include planning group review.

• §157.0203 Gaslamp Quarter Development Permit Procedures, removing the requirements of a CPG recommendation for Process Five development projects with certain deviations in Gaslamp Quarter

This one used to state the following, the lined-out wording is what is being removed:

The development shall be reviewed, and a recommendation provided by the planning group officially recognized by the City of San Diego, the Historical Resources Board, and the Planning Commission prior to consideration by the City Council.

• §112.0203 Waiver of Fees or Deposits, removing the ability of CPGs to waive appeal fees

This last one is also a very big deal. Appeal fees have risen dramatically in recent years. This writer was involved in appeals only a few years ago when the fee was $100. Apparently, in an effort to discourage appeals, the city bumped the cost up tenfold. The CPGs did not have to pay the fee because the CPGs have no money.

By requiring the fee now, the incidence of appeals will fall dramatically, so one would believe. But, only certain appeals, planning group appeals. Here is what Councilmember Joe LaCava’s presentation to city council said about this “problem.”

60 project appeals filed in five year period 2017-2021
Of these, 12 were filed by Community Planning Groups
8 were filed by one CPG
4 by the other 41 CPGs

So, one CPG apparently caused the concern while the other 41 CPGs were largely silent providing an incredibly weak excuse for removing this planning group privilege from all 41 groups. And only 12 CPG appeals in five years hardly represents a terrible problem that needs correcting. This will have no effect on other appeals like the 48 appeals in La Cava’s presentation. This is like a using a sledgehammer to kill a single gnat.

Project Review

Here is the stated purpose of the CPGs, according to the city’s own website:

There has been long-standing citizen involvement in planning in the City of San Diego. The City Council adopted policies in the 1960s and 1970s that established and recognized community planning groups as formal mechanisms for community input in the land use decision-making processes. Community planning groups (CPG) provide citizens with an opportunity for involvement in advising the City Council, the Planning Commission, and other decision-makers on development projects, general or community plan amendments, rezonings and public facilities. The recommendations of the planning groups are integral components of the planning process, and are highly regarded by the City Council and by staff.

Now, Council Policy 600-24 states:

The City will endeavor to document CPG recommendations, including project review recommendations. The City will endeavor to notify CPGs of discretionary permits or actions located within their area.

“endeavor to document and “Endeavor to notify” the planning groups. Endeavor means to try. Does that read like a hard and fast rule for the city? Then this:

Private project applicants are not required by this policy to present their application before CPGs, although the City encourages applicants to conduct robust engagement with CPGs, the community, and project neighbors. Because CPGs are independent of the City, the City does not consider CPG hearings to be hearings as defined in California Government Code section 65905.5.

That is a “get-out-of-jail” card for developers and the fans of Circulate San Diego. Where once the review by the CPG was a requirement of the development process, it is now just an encouragement. Why would any developer waste time with this step when it is not a requirement? They won’t.

All of these changes are designed to help developers by streamlining the development process by removing the public from the process. Supporters of Circulate San Diego have been fooled into thinking these changes will lead to their utopia of affordable housing and density and a car-free world.

All the changes really do is put money in developer’s pockets – the mayor’s support group –  and free them to manipulate the system without the bother of the watchdog community planning groups. And the changes will make volunteering to be on one of these groups much, much less attractive, which was the goal.