A City proposal calling for significant planning group reforms has some community planners questioning the system and their place in it.

But a City Council member said there is a lot of misinformation that needs to be dispelled surrounding what exactly the planning group changes are and what they do.

Major planning group changes proposed would make the groups more independent of the City. They would include removing meeting attendance requirements to become voting members, allowing board makeup to include renters, and business owners, and requiring a two-year absence from the group after terming out.

District 1 Councilmember Joe LaCava said the controversy over community planning group reform dates back to former Councilmember Scott Sherman, who initiated a task force to identify planning group problems and make recommendations on how they could be improved.

“The result of that was nothing ever really got drafted, but the ideas for reform all got consolidated,” said LaCava. “Then City Attorney Mara Elliott gave the opinion that planning groups are not consistent with the City’s charter, especially the rules governing boards and commissions. She said if planning groups want to be under the City’s umbrella, they have to operate under the City’s charter. And the charter is very clear that board’s and commission’s members have to be appointed by the mayor and the City Council.”

Peninsula civic leaders have expressed reservations about the justification for some of the proposed reforms. Some have questioned whether the reforms are a thinly veiled attempt to undermine planning groups by diminishing their role.

“My personal opinion is that planning boards are true fundamental democracy,” said Fred Kosmo, chair of the Peninsula Community Planning Board. “The members of the planning boards are local people who care about their specific community and are willing to volunteer tremendous amounts of time and energy to try and improve their community. My concern is that politicians in city hall think they know better than people who live in Point Loma, Ocean Beach, Midway, or other communities in San Diego. My concern is city hall is attacking planning boards so they can dictate policy down to communities, and they want to ignore the voices of communities around San Diego.”

“The Midway community is on the brink of significant redevelopment,” said Cathy Kenton, chair of the Midway-Pacific Highway Community Planning Group. “The planning group is the community’s voice. We are a diverse group of volunteers with one goal: to revitalize the Midway community. We support changes that will improve the planning group process citywide. However, we are concerned that our voice will be diminished, and special interests may erode the spirit of the planning group process.”

Another Midway planner, Tod Howarth, said he was uncertain about continuing as a community planner after some of the reform proposals were unveiled. “Based on the fact that I cannot find any public details on these new proposed rules, laws, I will be staying with the Midway planning board currently,” Howarth said. “However, if it comes to pass that possible litigation (happens) toward me personally and other board members while ‘volunteering’ our opinions in the planning group, then ‘that’ becomes problematic. We are ‘not’ the ones with the final decisions, nor are we being paid to do as such.”

LaCava, who’s been a community planner, said the objective now is for the City to explore how best to preserve the integrity of community planning groups while ensuring they don’t violate the City’s charter.

“We want to preserve the value of planning groups and their structure, and the value they are to the City in our decision making,” he said. “But there is a lot of misinformation no matter how much outreach you do to explain things.”

On his District 1 website under the policies and priorities tab, LaCava has posted the original planning group reform document approved by the Community Planning Committee overseeing planning groups in November. A second, red-line strikeout document has also been posted showing every instance where initially proposed group reforms have been modified in response to community concerns.

LaCava noted that the indemnification and defense of planning groups by the City for instance, which many planners feared would go away with the proposed reforms, are still there. “The $500 a year stipend for planning groups is still there. Access to City department staff, that’s still there.

“So what have we changed?” asked LaCava. “We said no longer will City planners come to every single planning group meeting. We said you no longer can put attendance as a condition to run for a seat on the planning group. We want to remove any barriers to people getting in. We’ve said planning groups should reflect the demographics of your communities. We want you to work harder to do that.”