San Diego City Council Vote on Replacing Uptown Planners Was Not Valid

By Geoff Page

At the May 21 City Council meeting, councilmembers passed a motion that replaced the Uptown Planning Group with another group of unelected people friendly to the mayor and his donors. The vote was 8 to 1 with Marni von Wilpert being the only one voting against the change.

The OB Rag detailed what transpired in several stories recently. But, taking a closer look at what actually occurred at the May 21 council meeting results in the conclusion that this vote was not valid, on two grounds.

The first issue is the agenda item description.

This is the description for Item 333 on the City’s May 21 agenda:

Community Planning Group Recognitions, Extension of a Community Planning Group Recognition Application Deadline, Allowing Certain Community Planning Groups to Have More Than Twenty Voting Members, and Amendments to Council Policy 600-24 Relating to Community Planning Groups.

How would a person reading this agenda item description know that the council would also be voting on replacing an elected community planning group, Uptown, with a new group of unelected people?  And rejecting a new group challenging the existing La Jolla community plannin group (CPG)?

Replacing a sitting CPG with an unelected group of people is an unprecedented action but the agenda item description made no mention of it. Some will say, and the city has, that you cannot put everything into an agenda description. Well, they in fact put a lot in the description about everything else and it all came directly from two resolutions they were voting on.

Here is Agenda Item 333 wording broken down by the two Resolutions Council was voting on, R-2024-523 and R-2024-5-24.

“Community Planning Group Recognitions” – Specifically mentioned in Resolution R-2024-524

“Extension of a Community Planning Group Recognition Application Deadline” – Specifically mentioned in Resolution R-2024-524

“Allowing Certain Community Planning Groups to Have More Than Twenty Voting Members” – Specifically mentioning, in Resolution R-2024-524, University Community Planning Group, the Scripps Ranch Planning Group, the City Heights Area Community Planning Committee, and the Linda Vista Planning Group.

The last wording in the agenda description, “Amendments to Council Policy 600-24 Relating to Community Planning Groups” was the sole subject of R-2024-523.

Neither of the two Resolutions specifically mentioned the La Jolla or the Uptown groups. There was no mention of the very specific action of deciding which of two competing groups, in La Jolla and in Uptown, would be the CPGs for those areas.

When questioned about this, the city responded that this action was covered in the agenda description “Community Planning Group Recognitions.” That is simply incorrect.

The Resolution language, and the agenda description that came from those Resolutions, all came from actions by the Land Use and Housing Committee. The committee recommended four things. The first three were:

1.  Adopt a resolution to adopt clarifying and procedural amendments to Council Policy 600-24.

2.  Adopt a resolution to waive the Dec. 31, 2023 submittal deadline for planning group applications and allow an extension to Jan. 31, 2024.

3.  Adopt a resolution:

a. Recognizing that the following planning groups have met all requirements of Council Policy 600-24, have agreed to all requirements of the Terms and Conditions, and are recognized as the official planning group for their respective communities: Barrio Logan Community Planning Group, Carmel Mountain Ranch/Sabre Springs Community Council, Carmel Valley Community Planning Board, Chollas Valley Community Planning Group, City Heights Area Community Planning Committee, Clairemont Community Planning Group, College Community Planning Board, Del Mar Mesa Community Planning Group, Downtown Community Planning Council, Eastern Area Community Planning Committee, Greater Golden Hill Planning Committee, Kearny Mesa Planning Group, Kensington-Talmadge Planning Group, Linda Vista Planning Group, Midway-Pacific Highway Community Planning Group, Mira Mesa Community Planning Group, Mission Beach Precise Planning Board, Mission Valley Planning Group, Navajo Community Planners, Inc., Normal Heights Community Planning Group, North Park Community Planning Committee, Ocean Beach Planning Board, Old San Diego Community Planning Group, Otay Mesa Planning Group, Otay Mesa-Nestor Community Planning Group, Pacific Beach Planning Group, Peninsula Community Planning Board, Rancho Bernardo Community Planning Board, Rancho de los Penasquitos Planning Board, San Pasqual-Lake Hodges Community Planning Group, San Ysidro Community Planning Group, Scripps Ranch Planning Group, Serra Mesa Planning Group, Skyline-Paradise Hills Community Planning Committee, Southeastern San Diego Community Planning Group, Tierrasanta Community Council and Planning Group, Torrey Hills Community Planning Board, Torrey Pines Community Planning Board, and University Community Planning Group. [My emphasis]

Notice that the language from these three is what is contained in the agenda description. No mention of of the fourth sub-item, a separate committee motion, 4a. and 4b., that came after this long list.

Motion by Council President Pro Tem LaCava, second by Committee Member Whitburn to:

4a.  recommend Council recognize La Jolla Community Planning Association as the official planning group of the La Jolla community.

Motion by Committee Member Whitburn, second by Council President Pro Tem LaCava to:

4b.  recommend Council recognize Vibrant Uptown and the Uptown Community Planning Group.

How can the city now claim that the description “Community Planning Group Recognitions” covers what was in 4a. and 4b. when these two sub-items were clearly in a separate committee motion. Additionally, there is a distinct difference between rubber-stamping recognition for 40 planning groups and actually replacing a citizen volunteer body elected by the community, which is why these were separate items.

The conclusion for all of this is that the city improperly noticed the public about this action depriving the public of a chance to comment. Whether this obfuscation was intentional or simply a poor job by someone does not matter. This mistake on the city’s part should invalidate the vote.

There is another reason to invalidate the vote, a blatant Brown Act violation. During the council discussion of Item 333, councilmember von Wilpert asked if the item could be separated and each the parts voted one by one. von Wilpert did not want to vote for the replacement of the Uptown group but did agree that most of the other pieces in the item were agreeable, such as recognizing the long list of CPGs.

Right in the middle of discussing this item, publicly, council took a five-minute recess to discuss the item among themselves because they all seemed to be confused about it. They went behind closed doors to discuss this very thing, out of the public eye. This is clearly a Brown Act violation, discussing an agenda item in private among themselves as they did.

When they returned from the five-minute recess, von Wilpert revealed that she had been advised that it was not possible to separate the pieces and the item had to be voted on as a whole. She did not describe what she was told beyond that.

A city attorney representative sits at the council meetings. Why was it necessary to go behind closed doors to tell von Wilpert anything? The city attorney should have been able to provide the advice publicly, there is surely nothing complicated or private about this. The public has a right to know the explanation for not allowing the separation von Wilpert asked for.

The city attorney has been asked to explain this reasoning, no response as yet. Regardless, the incomplete agenda description and the secret meeting Brown Act violation are sufficient to require a new hearing and a new vote on replacing the Uptown group and rejecting the challenge in La Jolla.