By Mat Wahlstrom
Perhaps the only surprise about the foregone decision by the City Council yesterday to disenfranchise the citizens of Uptown was how messy it was.
For those who don’t know: back in 2021, at the behest of his pro-developer underwriters, Councilmember Joe LaCava began work to further hobble the 42 elected community planning groups (CPGs) that had already been crippled the previous year. He received approval to again rewrite the policies and procedures that govern CPGs.
At the time, it was mystifying why a second bite at the apple was even necessary. But yesterday the reason was made clear: It wasn’t about CPGs in general, but the Uptown Planners CPG in particular.
Radical changes to the 2016 Uptown Community Plan (UCP), the policy document governing land use decisions for this part of San Diego, were publicly proposed in 2021. Among other things, they contrived two entirely new zoning categories for density and heights greater than those in Downtown, in a neighborhood where the tallest buildings were normally no higher than three stories.
Passing the package of these changes, called “Plan Hillcrest,” was the ultimate goal.
The final approval of the 2016 UCP had been contentious, with Uptown Planners exposing evidence of lobbyist influence in the process so blatant that a nine-square block area at the core of Hillcrest was left open for later interpretation.
Rather than be content with these nine square blocks, in 2019 developer lobbyists induced elected officials to apply for a state grant to fund their do-over of the entire 2016 UCP.
By law, this plan was still contingent on review for approval by the appropriate CPG. So to prevent another repeat of 2016, it was essential for them to neutralize Uptown Planners.
(While in 2019, developers had been successful in getting their stealth candidates elected as a majority of Uptown Planners, residents were appalled by their actions once in charge and routed them every election after. This necessitated sponsoring an appointed CPG rival, Vibrant Uptown, packed with these former members and defeated candidates.)
This past March, the councilmember for Uptown, Stephen Whitburn, joined LaCava to single out Uptown Planners as the only one of the 42 CPGs that, for increasingly implausible reasons, still didn’t pass the test that all of the CPGs were needlessly forced to go through. But they were sloppy about it.
The motion they got passed clearly gave an out to LaCava’s own La Jolla CPG, but moved to “recommend Council recognize Vibrant Uptown *and* the Uptown Community Planning Group.” As a matter of fact, Uptown Planners has been the only Uptown CPG for almost fifty years, so the use of the word “and” instead of “as” is a material difference that put both up for equal consideration by the City Council.
Despite their attempts to play this off at the meeting yesterday, claiming it was part of Vibrant Uptown’s name rather than aspired position and bundling it with the routine approval of the rest of the motion, one councilmember smelled what was in the diaper but refused to say it was roses.
To her great credit, Marni von Wilpert openly questioned while her peers were conspicuously silent. Despite a five-minute recess in which staffers attempted to twist her arm, she was the lone voice opposing this, voting against recognition of her own CPGs rather than co-sign the decertification of Uptown Planners and appoint a group Whitburn repeatedly referred to as “Vibrate Uptown.”
Thanks to a change initiated by the Community Planners Committee, the chairs of the 42 CPGs, Uptown Planners remains the official if lame duck CPG and its land use decisions still stand — but only until Vibrant Uptown completes elections. Foremost among these is its determination on May 7 to oppose Plan Hillcrest.
That Vibrant Uptown was always about reversing this was made abundantly clear at its meeting this past week, where two unrecognized members of Uptown Planners heard them discuss their strategy to hold elections by July 8, to ensure that they would be able to endorse Plan Hillcrest before it goes to the City Council. This raises questions of how they could decide an issue without holding open meetings for public input or know how people who haven’t been identified let alone be elected will vote.
For now, Plan Hillcrest is scheduled for hearings at the Historical Resources Board tomorrow and the Planning Commission on May 30 (along with Blueprint SD). And Uptown Planners will continue to legitimately represent the residents and businesses of Hillcrest, Bankers Hill, Middletown, Mission Hills, Medical Complex and University Heights.
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
I understand that you’re upset about the outcome, but there’s no need to blatantly twist words and use semantics to your favor. Vibrant Uptown is a community organization that sponsored the creation of an opposing CPG to present a different path forward than that of Uptown Planners. The Uptown Community Planning Group is the name of that new CPG and does not, as you suggest, conflate with Uptown Planners in any way. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. With all due respect to CM von Wilpert, she clearly didn’t understand the vote before her and it’s unfortunate no one was able to help her.
You wrote that a community organization wanted “a different path forward than that of Uptown Planners.” Guess what? That is called an ELECTION. CPGs are elected by the public. You people could not manage that so you have subverted democracy for that planning area by making a deal with the devil.
Wilpert understood perfectly that the council was trying to force through a very controversial action by putting into a larger action, most of which she favored. She tried to get the motion broken up to vote on things separately but had no luck. She had the courage to vote against the whole motion because of this objection and is to be commended.
I won’t be getting into a shouting match with you because there will be no end, but just to be clear, there will now be an election. All interested parties are encouraged to run and the community is encouraged to get out and vote. There has never been and will never be an unelected board at play. Plain and simple.
That wasn’t shouting, that was for emphasis because it’s the only way to do so in these comment boxes.
You did it again you wrote ” there will now be an election.” There was an election in March. There is an election every year. How is this different?
Go to every CPG every March and you will see exactly what you wrote, “All interested parties are encouraged to run and the community is encouraged to get out and vote.” How is this any different from the past?
Excellent piece again Mat. How any one of them can defend replacing one single CPG out of 42 is beyond reasonable thinking. This was a bald-faced example of the council kneeling before the mayor. A pox on all of their future political careers, except for Marni Wilpert, she was the only reasonable voice in there.
She tried to separate the pieces of the motion because she favored some but not others. She was , not surprisingly told during the five minute break that the city attorney said the motion could not be broken up into its pieces. This decision we all need an explanation for.
I was amazed at the answer to the question of who would be the planning board until the new group held elections. The straight-faced response was, the existing CPG will function until the new one is seated. Why in the name of hell would anyone on Uptown want to stick around past today? They’d get the middle finger salute from me. But, if it is possible that they get to make that vote before the new group takes over, that may be a good motive.
Thanks again for your support and setting the record straight, Geoff. In addition, I cautioned the council and the city attorney beforehand:
“I understand that the City Council normally defers to the wishes of a Councilmember whose respective district would be affected by a decision. However, voting to replace the elected Uptown Planners with the unelected Vibrant Uptown may well implicate those Councilmembers doing so in committing fraud.
By their own admission, members of Vibrant Uptown have:
• Held meetings in violation of The Brown Act,
• Accepted funding for election software and equipment in disregard of Council Policy 600-24, and
• Received not only preferential consideration by Planning Department and other City staff but also coaching from them specifically to prejudice this Council’s upcoming vote on the “Plan Hillcrest” Focused Plan Amendment.
And if this weren’t bad enough, selectively replacing only one elected Community Planning Group with an appointed one would likely violate the City Charter, as detailed in City Attorney Reports RC-2019-9 and RC-2020-7.
The potential liability is too great to allow yourselves to simply sleepwalk into scandal. Vote to OPPOSE Item 333.”
And as I wrote here, Uptown Planners isn’t going anywhere.
Is this article implying that CPG reform was a conspiracy just to replace one CPG among 42 citywide? Seems like a very silly conspiracy theory that inflates Uptown Planner’s importance. I can’t imagine that the entire city council was in on this; why would they be? Doesn’t make any sense and if you don’t like it then vote in the next CPG election if you can
The article wasn’t “implying” that CPG reform was a conspiracy, it is stating that and it is believable. Developers are chomping at the bit to jump into this area and the mayor and city council are eager to help them in order to further their political careers. Why else would you replace one of 42 CPGs and no others?
My understanding is that no other groups came forward except Vibrant Uptown and the rival CPG in La Jolla. But hey, believe whatever conspiracy theory suits you best. Still looking for the third shooter in the Kennedy Assassination or can we all just finally admit it was Oswald and call it a day?
OMG, dude! you really believe Oswald was the lone gunman? Talk about believing some weirdo theory, you’ve got it.
Believing that Oswald was the lone gunman was what I meant by ignorance.
Why is it that so many people find it impossible to be civil? My guess is ignorance. Some people seem to believe that the best way to cover one’s ignorance is to attack a person they know nothing of, with insults.
North Park has put up with the destruction of North Park since about 2018. The quaint, peaceful, small town vibe by day, and as the UT said at the time, the “in place to be”, with street parking, and craftsman homes is no more thanks to the North Park Planning Committee Board, who got a zoning overlay implemented, so NONE of any residential new construction came before the 1) No. Park Planning Committee, 2) City Land Use Board, 3) City Planning Commission, 4) City Council and it goes totally against the City of SD Master Plan, and the North Park Community Plan. It was all a big secret and as many long time residents say, “we didn’t know anything was going on, until the dozers pulled up”, and this happened on Chris Ward, and Kevin Falkner’s watch, and has continued with Toddles and Stevie Whitburn. If you don’t want a 3-7 story building overlooking your back yard, don’t vote for any of those people for anything. If you like the trees, shrubs, green grass in your yard, and don’t like the constant increase in City taxes, and the current mayor spending foolishly to get SD WAY in the “red”, don’t vote for any of these people. this silly mayor is not going to build SD’s way out of homeless folks sleeping wherever they feel like it. He’s never done anything but be a politician, so don’t expect him to have any common sense.
I wish you guys good luck in this corrupt system. I felt that my experience, having been to prison around convicts, along with my blue-collar and small business experience, meant that the people needed someone who would see through the scams and cons and get politically active with the current political leaders in the city council. In short, the people are getting extorted, and you guys needed your own “strongman” who wouldn’t be afraid to speak up for you against this systemic political “mafia.”
In hindsight, I could have faked it to get more votes, kissed the ass of the unions who don’t give a damn about what’s being built as long as they’re building it. But in the end, the bulk of voters chose exactly this: Weak, ineffective, incompetent, smile-in-your-face, hide-in-the-room-while-you’re-being-abused leadership here in Central San Diego. Please stay active and informed.
God bless you all, I love you all, and good luck.
Ellis, it was good to have you in the race, conducting yourself with integrity, despite all.–Lu
I second Lu’s statement.
Mr. Wahlstrom, you are a civic treasure. I would have paid admission to watch that comic opera of a Council hearing. Four favorite moments:
Von Wilpert reciting Council policy that “the City does not direct or recommend the election, appointment, or removal of voting members of CPGs” and telling her chastened colleagues, “What I feel I’m being asked to do today is to vote on who should sit in what seat.”
The razor-sharp Uptown Planners presentation revealing that, on the diversity front, their group and Vibrant match the Uptown district closely in all but one demographic: Vibrant skews wealthy on the socioeconomic scale. As noted by Matt Driver, “50 percent of Vibrant members earn more than $200,000 a year, a far cry from the media income of $84,000 in our district.”
Stephen Whitburn, who had complained that existing CPGs lack diversity, coming up with a new rationale breathtaking in its irony: Pro-density Vibrant Uptown is really all about empowering neighborhoods.
The smackdown of Whitburn by Scripps Ranch CPG Chair Victoria LaBruzzo: “This move by Councilmember Whitburn is not about the difference in group applications but about the difference in individual leaders and their priorities for changes to housing.”
Vibrant has 90 days to hold a board election. The group has chosen a slice-and-dice matrix of six neighborhood elections with separate candidate categories for “renters” and “property owners.” Ocean Beach CPG Chair Andrea Schlageter warned Vibrant from her own experience that “it’s kind of a nightmare to run elections within districts when you have a completely volunteer board without much experience running elections.”
Based on my experience with North Park CPG elections, the pressures of verifying in-person voter eligibility and the risks of making mistakes that could result in a contested election can be rather hellish. And our North Park ballots weren’t categorized by neighborhoods.
Good luck, Vibrant. You’ll need it. You have no idea what a damn mess you’ve created for yourselves.
Glad you & Mat both were there to report. I suspect you’re right about what’s to come.
As I do you, Kate. Just didn’t want to appear to “leave you on read” here — for those who might assume otherwise. As you say and I agree, this appears the very definition of a “Phyrric victory.” Just a shame we’re all going to have to suffer from it.
As a baby boomer millionaire landlord who profits greatly from very little competition for my rental units, I am outraged that a group of people would want to increase the number of people and businesses in any neighborhood in San Diego. The small town feel that keeps rental and land prices artificially inflated not only keeps the riff raff out, it keeps my pool filled with gold coins, just like Scrooge McDuck.
I hope OB isn’t next because the trust fund weed smokers who can afford my rents and will put up with my sub-standard housing so they feel authentically 1960s might move someplace else if they can get higher quality housing at lower prices.
“Higher quality housing at lower prices”? Dude, you’re the one who needs to put down the bong.
Don’t overlook that this comment was written with tongue firmly planted in cheek.
Marni earned my respect with her thoughtful comments.
I encourage all the democratically-elected Uptown Planners to put their name back in the hat, and spread word of this city-mandated “redo” election.
I can speak from experience their bylaws are going to messy to run an election with, and result in conflict. It looks like if someone owns a business and a property, AND is a renter, they can run for 3 seats. If they finish second place for a property owner seat, will they be given preference on an unclaimed seat that they also qualify for? What if they win seats under multiple categories? Do they just put their name in for all 3 and choose which one after? They do have an election cycle chart, which is useful. This clarifies which will get 3-year seats in this election, vs 2 vs 1, thus setting up a new cycle where 1/3 of seats are up each year.
(6) Property owners (can be residential, commercial etc.)
(6) Renters of residential property
(5) Business representatives (at-large, max 2 per community)
(1) Non-profit representative (at-large)
(2) Appointed large-employer representative (at-large)
It also sounds to me like the Vibrant bylaws are in full effect now regarding election procedures, aside from anything overridden by the city council vote. This means their council-endorsed self-appointed (and still unidentified) election committee is now subject to the Brown Act and 72hr noticing of meetings and should be reporting to attendees of the current Uptown Planners and other community meetings with pertinent dates and candidate info. I believe all committee members are required to be members of the community. These committee members cannot be on the ballot. They also need to complete COW training asap, although council policy says within 60 days of appointment, which could mean after the election is run.)
Who will certify the election results? Technically, the Uptown Planners are in effect until that happens, and they should be certifying it. But I doubt that’ll happen. It’ll be some unelected group of buddies that is absolutely adverse to many of the members that may be participating in this redo-election. So they’ll just do what they want I guess. Democracy and transparency are inconvenient so we’ll just set those aside.
What a mess. I almost want to offer my help, they will need it.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64c30ecf3f77bb1349434f66/t/65d15b4bfc773a7df91a1020/1708219213748/UCPG+Operating+Procedures.pdf
Well said, kh.
I believe this was intentional, adopting a system like this. As OB has seen, it results, more often than does the area-wide elections, in appointees because of a lack of interest in certain areas. This will certainly result in the elected group choosing a number of seats.
There’s zero chance those 6 neighborhoods within Uptown are similar in population or # of businesses. How many people reside in “Medical Center”? Who even defined these boundaries? I can’t find it on a city map and they don’t match census tracts.
We had this system in OB and it always restricted volunteerism. Area and renter/owner representation is a good thing but it should not be so rigid.
Right you are, kh. We repeatedly pointed out that all of our neighborhoods are notional, with widely different demographics not connected to any census or other demographic data — precisely unlike how LaCava and Whitburn kept equating them to their own city council and other electorally representational districts.
Again, “it was always the plan.”
I have the hardest time with the narrative being used to replace the old with the new… it’s false… “older, whiter, wealthier” is not a basis to replace… The model proposed by opposing groups is NOT better. In fact it’s worse. The proposal to OVERdensify neighborhoods under the auspices of affordable and diversity is a joke and an affront to those that make the initiative possible… DONT USE DIVERSITY AS A PLOY TO BEHAVE WORSE THAN THOSE U ACCUSE??