The City of Encinitas is preparing an “update” of its General Plan to bring it into conformity with regional and state mandates. Concerns about both substance and process abound from the community. Disarray within the City Council and between the Council and City Manager and planning staff are wasting time and money and further frustrating the alleged objective of meaningful public engagement in the process. 

In response to Council direction, over the past two years the city planning department has worked with a consultant and conducted a series of public workshops and informational meetings.  A General Plan Advisory Committee with representation from across the city has been meeting for two years, and many citizens did engage in the process. Nonetheless, when the draft GPU was released, loud objections were voiced by members of the public and some on the Council.

THE NEW STRATEGY:  Some are unhappy with the fundamental strategy, which is to concentrate zoning changes needed to accommodate regional affordable housing targets in three relatively small areas, roughly 5% of the city.  Most of the change is proposed along the El Camino Real corridor, and most of the objections from that area focus on traffic.  Traffic in the El Camino-Encinitas Blvd. intersection, already gridlocked at rush hour, would be allowed to further deteriorate.  There is also concern about changing height restrictions that could block existing views and change community character.  Other areas in Encinitas already have affordable housing units and higher density zoning and claim that they’ve done their share and it’s reasonable to look to other areas for future in-fill.

THE PLANNING PROCESS:  Some are unhappy about the process, claiming that they didn’t know about the workshops and their input was not heard.  The survey methods used by the consultant and the format of the public workshops have been criticized as highly biased.  Having attended some of those workshops, I agree that they were designed to encourage citizens to affirm and support the “solutions” reached by the consultant, rather than to debate different fundamental approaches.

There are different underlying assumptions about the plan update process as well.  Some question the population growth projections provided by SANDAG and the state.  Some speculate on what could happen if Encinitas is not in compliance with housing targets (which is the case currently with our current general plan).   Some complain that the draft update is really a totally new document and have requested that staff provide a redline version of the current general plan, which was carefully written when Encinitas became an incorporated City. Instead, staff are offering a redline version starting with the draft update they released last fall that caused all the commotion in the first place.  That should not be the baseline.  The baseline is our current general plan, which is and should be a “living document” and provide the starting point for any updates.

COUNCIL CHAOS:  When the draft update was released, Council members Jerome Stocks and Kristin Gaspar disowned what had been done and prior Council direction. Stocks berated the staff for bringing their “ugly baby” to the Council, [see this You Tube video]  asking everyone to say how beautiful the baby is. Ms. Gaspar pushed for a new round of public meetings and another advisory committee, the Element Review Advisory Committee (ERAC). On Dec. 15, the Council agreed to create Ms. Gaspar’s proposed Element Review Advisory Committee (ERAC), and another round of public meetings. 

However, the Gaspar proposals were not well thought out, and implementation of them is again creating some chaos.  The 41 applicants for the 23 positions on the ERAC were notified that they should present their qualifications at the January 18 Council meeting, and an agenda item was included for Council to hear from applicants.  Before the meeting, however, someone apparently realized that this would be a time-consuming process and applicants were notified that they need not appear, and the City would let them know when a selection was going to be made.  As of this writing, no further notice has been given to applicants, but the January 25 Council agenda item 6 calls for selection of ERAC members.  The background document says "Council reviewed the applications at their January 18, 2012 meeting." Those of us at the January 18 meeting know that this is not the case.  On Jan. 18, agenda item 4, which stated "Council to meet with applicants for Element Review Advisory Committee (ERAC)" was tabled when City Manager Gus Vina stated that "the item in error says that we were going to hear the applicants, and that's not what we are going to do tonight."

ERAC:  The by-laws for ERAC (whose members do not even have to be residents of Encinitas) say that ERAC is tasked to provide “effective feedback on draft GP policies.”  ERAC “has no legal identity within the city’s organizational structure, nor does fit possess any statutory powers.  The Committee will operate on a consensus basis.”  What will make this structure more effective than the GPAC already in place?  Was the new committee formed because some on the Council didn’t like what they heard from the existing GPAC?  Wouldn’t a new round of public meetings held in various locations around the City with better public notice be enough?

Even with the recommendation for more public meetings, there is a lack of clarity and a waste of time and money.  Staff prepared an informative brochure to send out city-wide notifying people of the meetings.  However, both Council and the public were unhappy with the draft and sent the staff back for a substantial revision, incurring more staff time and expense and delaying the planned meetings.

Who is calling the shots here?  I have serious concerns about a process that seems out of control.  With agenda items appearing and then being withdrawn, staff reports that don’t reflect reality, a clear lack of clarity between the Council and the planning staff, it seems that time and money are being wasted, and interested citizens are increasingly frustrated because they have ideas and preferences but no consistent and meaningful way to be heard.  The people need a transparent process for engagement, and a vote of all the people before a final plan is adopted.