{"id":660776,"date":"2026-03-16T23:54:21","date_gmt":"2026-03-16T23:54:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/660776\/"},"modified":"2026-03-16T23:54:21","modified_gmt":"2026-03-16T23:54:21","slug":"san-diego-community-planning-group-reforms-impact","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/660776\/","title":{"rendered":"San Diego community planning group reforms’ impact"},"content":{"rendered":"

It\u2019s a time of shifting sands for the 42 community planning groups that are the official voice of San Diego neighborhoods when it comes to land-use decisions. This is in part due to reforms passed in 2022, but also because of dramatic changes to local and statewide housing rules and regulations.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The city\u2019s Complete Communities program<\/a> and state Senate Bill 79, passed last year<\/a>, have similarly aimed to turn \u201cdiscretionary projects\u201d \u2014 those that require community review or approval from elected officials \u2014 into \u201cministerial projects.\u201d The latter means that once a city staffer determines a project meets basic development rules, it\u2019s greenlit.<\/p>\n

Reforms recap<\/p>\n

\"Dozens<\/a>Mayor Todd Gloria addresses the audience in the full City Council chambers for his 2026 State of the City address on Thursday, Jan. 15, 2025. (Photo by Adrian Childress\/Times of San Diego)<\/p>\n

That leaves community groups \u2013 and the City Council too, as one planning group observer noted \u2013 with less authority, even as the City Hall changes to CPGs have proven successful at increasing participation.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe changes have allowed for people who may not have been able to attend in person before to now be able to attend virtual meetings when a planning group provides that option,\u201d city spokesperson Peter Kelly said in a statement.<\/p>\n

The reforms followed a 2019 city attorney analysis<\/a> that concluded the city network of advisory boards was inconsistent with the city charter.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The reforms solidified their independent status. The city standardized the groups\u2019 underlying documents, tightened standards for posting and retaining public records, increased board representation (especially for renters) and required more public outreach.\u00a0<\/p>\n

More participation than ever<\/p>\n

Previously, residents began engaging with community planning groups when a local issue hit home<\/a> \u2014 like when a developer proposed a new apartment building, a national franchise tried to move in or the city considered redeveloping a golf course.<\/p>\n

Victoria LaBruzzo got involved in the Scripps Ranch Planning Group in 2019 when she and neighbors had questions about an incoming development.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m like, \u2018What\u2019s that?\u2019\u2026 They said \u2018We\u2019re your voice to the city.\u2019 So I stuck in there,\u201d LaBruzzo said. She went on to serve as chair and began representing Scripps Ranch at the Community Planners Committee, an umbrella group for all community boards in the city. She now chairs that committee.<\/p>\n

\u201c(Before) people found out about it accidentally,\u201d LaBruzzo said. \u201cNow I don\u2019t think we\u2019re stumbling over (CPGs) anymore. Now it\u2019s becoming much more part of the vernacular of community outreach, community service.\u201d<\/p>\n

Unheard?<\/p>\n

Still, some planning group members say it is more difficult than ever to get their voice heard, even with the boost to participation that followed Mayor Todd Gloria\u2019s reforms to the city\u2019s land-use advisory boards.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s an interesting position to be in to not feel heard, because our job is to advise, and it\u2019s not necessarily to agree at every bend and turn,\u201d said Felicity Senoski, a Linda Vista representative to the CPC group. \u201cThe tension is built in, and that\u2019s a good thing.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Riverwalk<\/a>Felicity Senoski first got involved in her community planning group due to the Riverwalk San Diego redevelopment. (Project rendering courtesy Hines)<\/p>\n

Planning groups have limited legal methods to provide input \u2014 specifically due to the city and state changes aimed at speeding up housing development.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe feel like sometimes our feet are taken out from underneath us,\u201d LaBruzzo said. \u201cAny direction we look at, and we\u2019re like, \u2018Oh, yeah, can\u2019t do that because of this. Can\u2019t do that because (of) this. Can\u2019t do that.\u2019 And homeowners and property owners and renters and all of the folks that live around you start pulling out their hair and going, \u2018So we have a voice, or we don\u2019t have a voice? Which one is it?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

More construction, less to advise on<\/p>\n

That\u2019s largely due to the changes that were intended to increase housing in San Diego. The streamlined rules weakened requirements for developers to meet with community groups, so they largely have been bypassing the meetings, leaving less work for community groups.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe don\u2019t see a lot of projects anymore,\u201d said Mike Singleton, chair of the new Uptown Community Planning Group. \u201cThey don\u2019t come to us.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

The more determined groups, however, can still take the initiative and attempt to track projects by other means, or draw developers and others with plans in the works to CPG meetings, where input can result in a more pleasing project for the community.<\/p>\n

In Ocean Beach, property owners building one ADU or a similarly small project can frequently be enticed to attend meetings. But builders of large projects steer clear.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe biggest thing I\u2019ve seen is just the professional developers are avoiding us,\u201d said Andrea Schlagater of the Ocean Beach Planning Board.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Urban design impacts<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Proposed location for a Walmart Depot in Ocean Beach (Photo by Tessa Balc\/ Times of San DIego)<\/p>\n

Unless they convince developers to meet with them, the groups have little opportunity to request public amenities, traffic mitigations and aesthetic tweaks \u2013 and developers have less incentive to include these enticements, which once won them favor from the council.<\/p>\n

\u201cI do think that, from an urban design standpoint, things have suffered,\u201d Singleton said.<\/p>\n

But to another resident in Uptown, the previous community planning group was too dysfunctional to leave an imprint on developers\u2019 plans. The city reforms allowed the collection of neighborhoods to begin anew.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201c(Developers) got yelled at, they left, and the city pretty much ignored the recommendation, so it wasn\u2019t effective,\u201d Hillcrest resident Michael Donovan said. That\u2019s why he led a push to have the city recognize an alternate community planning group in Uptown.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cNow we\u2019re starting to see those developers come to the board. They know it\u2019s going to be a good discussion, aggressive at some points, but it\u2019s a discussion.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

That newly-recognized board, Uptown Community Planning Group, held special meetings to weigh in on the urban design aspects of three development proposals for San Diego Unified\u2019s headquarters in University Heights. Board members dove into the details and graded the projects\u2019 aesthetics, community amenities, walkways and traffic reconfiguration ideas.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The school board took their feedback into account in its selection process, ultimately rejecting a project by Affirmed Housing.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Community groups have notched other small wins \u2013 convincing developers to move garage and garbage doors to an alley, or making a Valero franchisee fit its gas station in with OB\u2019s beachy aesthetic rather than sticking with its standard desert-esque design.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Ministerial vs. discretionary communication<\/p>\n

\"Scripps<\/a>Scripps Ranch High School in 2018. (Photo courtesy San Diego Unified School District)<\/p>\n

But on bigger asks, LaBruzzo has struggled to eke out community benefits \u2014 beyond combating the region\u2019s housing shortage.<\/p>\n

Five developments are underway near Scripps Ranch High School, two of which are ministerial. The community group only knew about them before they broke ground because a board member tracks the city\u2019s portal for new permit applications.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Other planning boards have volunteers doing similar work to find new developments, although not all. Even with such dedication, some board members fear they are finding out about developments when they are already deep into the permit stage at City Hall.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019re not going to be able to stop them, nor should we, but we\u2019re not going to be able to ask them to make changes, because they get so far along in the process, under the ministerial process (before the CPG knows),\u201d Singleton added.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The Scripps Ranch CPG reached out to the developers behind the two ministerial projects, hoping they would voluntarily explain their projects to the board, but received no response.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Across the street, three discretionary projects are also in progress. There, the developers have been ultra communicative, LaBruzzo said.<\/p>\n

The board has pushed for community benefits from those three developers, mainly asking that they install smart street lights to better manage existing school traffic when new residents arrive.\u00a0<\/p>\n

LaBruzzo wishes the group had the ability to work with all five developers to cover the cost of the lights.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cOrganized community groups still hold power,\u201d Schlagater said. \u201cJust now we do have to work a little bit harder. The power now has to come through from the organization and the activity and involvement of your community members, as opposed to written down power.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"It\u2019s a time of shifting sands for the 42 community planning groups that are the official voice of…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":660777,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[5134],"tags":[5229,1582,276,279719,24582,3549,7264,67,586,132,5230,68,2969],"class_list":["post-660776","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-san-diego","tag-america","tag-ca","tag-california","tag-community-planning-group","tag-land-use","tag-san-diego","tag-sandiego","tag-united-states","tag-united-states-of-america","tag-unitedstates","tag-unitedstatesofamerica","tag-us","tag-usa"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/116241554949810732","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/660776","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=660776"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/660776\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/660777"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=660776"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=660776"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=660776"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}