La Jolla planners support investigation into San Diego planning process

The La Jolla Community Planning Association gave its unanimous support to a proposed investigation of the city of San Diego’s planning process, citing problems with operations of the Planning and Development Services departments.

The non-criminal investigation would be conducted by a San Diego County grand jury . Previous grand jury investigations have looked into public restrooms in downtown San Diego, street paving, and governance of San Diego Bay and tidal lands. A grand jury in such cases typically looks into local complaints and makes recommendations.

LJCPA President Harry Bubbins said during the association's May 2 meeting that the idea started with a complaint from the Community Planners Committee, which meets monthly and is composed of leaders of community planning groups across the city.

Bubbins said the CPC has asked the planning groups to “endorse a request for an investigation of the San Diego city Planning Department, Development Services Department and reporting structures that have led to improper project classifications, improper legislation of municipal code and non-compliant communications.”

Bubbins said the issue “is near and dear to all of us.”

In looking to gain LJCPA’s support for the investigation, Normal Heights Community Planning Group Chairman Paul Coogan, who also chairs an ad-hoc committee that has been looking into the issue of city planning, said the Planning and Development Services departments are the main focus “because that really sets the tone for what we build, where and how that impacts the community.”

“The city of San Diego oversees planning and development on behalf of its citizens, and civic leadership has a duty to its residents,” Coogan said.

In Normal Heights, Coogan said, he has seen improper classifications on at least one prominent project. “It didn’t qualify for the program that was being applied for,” he said. “When we pointed that out, we were given a lot of shuffling of the facts.”

“That meant a lot of time and money that was wasted,” he said, and he accused the departments of favoring developers when disagreements arise.

“If the Planning Department and DSD were to coordinate better with CPGs [community planning groups], we could get more efficiencies and less waste,” Coogan said.

Suggestions for improving efficiency are included in the investigation proposal, such as increasing accessibility to plans once they are submitted.

City representatives could not immediately be reached for comment.

LJCPA has had many disagreements with city planning and development decisions over the years and would regularly file appeals.

That boiled over in August, when the San Diego Planning Commission denied the association's appeal of a city hearing officer's support of a planned home development across from La Jolla High School. Commissioner Matthew Boomhower sharply criticized the appeal, calling it "frivolous" and a waste of "the applicant’s time and money and [city] staff’s time."

In September 2022, the City Council approved sweeping reforms for community planning groups that, among other things, drew criticism for eliminating the groups' ability to appeal development approvals for free.

LJCPA decided in January this year to appeal city decisions only if someone is willing to pay the new fee and shepherd the effort.

During a question-and-answer period at the May 2 meeting, La Jolla resident Sally Miller said the issue really is code enforcement, or lack thereof, when a project does not conform to the permits being sought.

Coogan said the investigation proposal does not suggest solutions on code enforcement but added that “the grand jury will come up with the facts and present the facts to the city. The city might then say that based on the grand jury findings, [it needs] to hire more code enforcement officers … or whatever their solution might be.”

LJCPA trustee Ray Weiss said development fees help “pay the people who make these decisions,” which he said “breeds a suspicion of corruption.” He asked whether that issue could be integrated into the investigation.

Coogan called that “an excellent recommendation” but said it would be up to the grand jury to decide whether to integrate it.

Coogan said that once more support is gathered for the investigation, the Community Planners Committee will vote on whether to send a formal request.

He noted that the grand jury might not take up the investigation.

Other LJCPA news

Planning group recognition: Bubbins said the San Diego City Council is expected to vote Tuesday, May 21, on which of La Jolla’s competing community planning groups will receive city recognition.

Both LJCPA and the new La Jolla Community Planning Group are seeking to be the official local advisory body on land-use issues.

The council’s Land Use & Housing Committee voted 4-0 on March 21 to recommend to the full council that LJCPA retain its status as the recognized planning group. The vote came on a motion by City Councilman Joe LaCava, a La Jolla resident and former LJCPA board member, leading the La Jolla Community Planning Group to question his objectivity.

The day before the vote, LJCPG filed a complaint with the city Planning Department alleging that LJCPA board members were told to fabricate demographic data on the association’s application. It asked that LJCPA’s application be disqualified and that LaCava recuse himself from future decisions in the recognition process.

Consent agenda: All four items listed on the LJCPA consent agenda May 2 were approved. They are developments at 5960 Camino de la Costa in Lower Hermosa, 543/545 Rosemont St. in the Beach Barber Tract, 3001 Cranbrook Court in La Jolla Heights and 8425 Avenida de las Ondas in La Jolla Shores.

Next meeting: The La Jolla Community Planning Association next meets at 6 p.m. Thursday, June 6, at a venue to be determined. Agendas are posted 72 hours in advance at lajollacpa.org . ◆

This story originally appeared in La Jolla Light .