We Write Letters

By Olivier Canler - printed at North County Times

For most participants, the process of updating the housing and land-use elements of the Encinitas General Plan has been frustrating and difficult. These elements must be resolved before the City Council can consider the overall General Plan Update. To engage the public in re-drafting the housing element, the city administered a dot-mapping exercise that pitted the five Encinitas communities against each other. We have yet to see the results of that exercise.

Consequently, the General Plan Update is stalled after two years of work, and there's still no red-line version from the current general plan. These circumstances should produce local political drama in the run-up to the November election.
Some residents who were concerned with the potential outcome of the dot-mapping exercise have formed a committee called the Encinitas Project. The committee's goal is simple: a ballot initiative that would let registered voters in Encinitas decide on major density increases in the city.

At issue are up-zoning decisions meant to increase the density set by the present General Plan. A four of five member majority of the Encinitas City Council is required to approve certain up-zoning in the five communities ---- New Encinitas, Old Encinitas, Cardiff, Leucadia, Olivenhain ---- that make up the city.

Since the General Plan Update won't go before the current council before November's election, the next city council will eventually vote on it, should the present procedure remain in place. However, if the Encinitas Right-to-Vote Initiative reaches the ballot and voters approve it, residents will decide if major density increases should be allowed in the city.
With the Encinitas Right-to-Vote Initiative in place, voters would have the opportunity to decide if proposed changes respect community character, and maintain or improve their quality of life. Poorly planned projects that would increase traffic and the carbon footprint, degrade infrastructure, force density or height changes, or just fit badly with our community character would have little chance of approval.

The initiative is not no-growth, but it would mean growth most people can abide. The Encinitas Right-to-Vote Initiative would take the trickery out of land speculation. Developers would have to work within current zoning. Pushing city council members to up-zone would stop. Similarly, city planners would have to submit proposed up-zoning to a vote of the people. The initiative would subject the General Plan Update to a voters' referendum. The Encinitas Right-to-Vote Initiative would govern major housing and land-use amendments.

Most Encinitas residents want to maintain our small beach-town atmosphere. We're concerned about environmental issues, traffic, adequate resources, proper infrastructure and overall quality of life. We love our town and want to keep loving it. As Encinitas approaches built-out status, growth can only go two ways: denser and taller. A look at community history reveals that local control of growth motivated Encinitas to incorporate in 1986. Passing the Encinitas Right-to-Vote Initiative is in keeping with that precedent.

Volunteers are starting to walk neighborhoods to gather the number of signatures needed to get the initiative on a future ballot. Volunteers will also be in front of stores with forms for registered voters to sign. You can also find out more about the initiative by visiting www.EncinitasRightToVote.com.

Confessions of a Recovering Engineer

Pay Attention Rob Blough! and all the Encinitas Engineering Department.  This is also dedicated to the council majority and the people who refuse to question the status quo for any reason . . . just because.

This reprint from Strong Towns blog by Charles Marohn (in its entirety) is for you.

It is also in vindication of the hundreds of citizens who have attempted to be heard by engineers at city hall.

After graduating from college with a civil engineering degree, I found myself working in my home town for a local engineering firm doing mostly municipal engineering (roads, sewer pipe, water pipe, stormwater). A fair percentage of my time was spent convincing people that, when it came to their road, I knew more than they did. 

And of course I should know more. First, I had a technical degree from a top university. Second, I was in a path towards getting a state license (at the time I was an Engineer in Training, the four-year "apprenticeship" required to become a fully licensed Professional Engineer), which required me to pass a pretty tough test just to get started and another, more difficult, exam to conclude. Third, I was in a profession that is one of the oldest and most respected in human history, responsible for some of the greatest achievements of mankind. Fourth - and most important - I had books and books of standards to follow. 

A book of standards to an engineer is better than a bible to a priest. All you have to do is to rely on the standards. Back in college I was told a story about how, in WW II, some Jewish engineers in hiding had run thousands of tedious tests on asphalt, just to produce these graphs that we still use today. Some of our craft descends from Roman engineers who did all of this a couple of millennia ago. How could I be wrong with literally thousands of years of professional practice on my side? 

And, more to the point, what business would I -- let alone a property owner on a project I was working on - have in questioning the way things were done? Of course the people who wrote the standards knew better than we did. That is why they wrote the standard. 

When people would tell me that they did not want a wider street, I would tell them that they had to have it for safety reasons. 

When they answered that a wider street would make people drive faster and that would be seem to be less safe, especially in front of their house where their kids were playing, I would confidently tell them that the wider road was more safe, especially when combined with the other safety enhancements the standards called for. 

When people objected to those other "enhancements", like removing all of the trees near the road, I told them that for safety reasons we needed to improve the sight distances and ensure that the recovery zone was free of obstacles.
When they pointed out that the "recovery zone" was also their "yard" and that their kids played kickball and hopscotch there, I recommended that they put up a fence, so long as the fence was outside of the right-of-way. 

When they objected to the cost of the wider, faster, treeless road that would turn their peaceful, front yard into the viewing area for a drag strip unless they built a concrete barricade along their front property line, I informed them that progress was sometimes expensive, but these standards have been shown to work across the state, the country and the world and I could not compromise with their safety. 

In retrospect I understand that this was utter insanity. Wider, faster, treeless roads not only ruin our public places, they kill people. Taking highway standards and applying them to urban and suburban streets, and even county roads, costs us thousands of lives every year. There is no earthly reason why an engineer would ever design a fourteen foot lane for a city block, yet we do it continuously. Why? 

The answer is utterly shameful: Because that is the standard. 

In the engineering profession's version of defensive medicine, we can't recommend standards that are not in the manual. We can't use logic to vary from a standard that gives us 60 mph design speeds on roads with intersections every 200 feet. We can't question why two cars would need to travel at high speed in opposite directions on a city block, let alone why we would want them to. We can yield to public pressure and post a speed limit -- itself a hazard -- but we can't recommend a road section that is not in the highway manual.  

When the public and politicians tell engineers that their top priorities are safety and then cost, the engineer's brain hears something completely different. The engineer hears, "Once you set a design speed and handle the projected volume of traffic, safety is the top priority. Do what it takes to make the road safe, but do it as cheaply as you can." This is why engineers return projects with asinine "safety" features, like pedestrian bridges and tunnels that nobody will ever use, and costs that are astronomical.  

An engineer designing a street or road prioritizes the world in this way, no matter how they are instructed:

• Traffic speed
• Traffic volume
• Safety
• Cost

The rest of the world generally would prioritize things differently, as follows:
Safety

• Cost
• Traffic volume
• Traffic speed

In other words, the engineer first assumes that all traffic must travel at speed. Given that speed, all roads and streets are then designed to handle a projected volume. Once those parameters are set, only then does an engineer look at mitigating for safety and, finally, how to reduce the overall cost (which at that point is nearly always ridiculously expensive). 

In America, it is this thinking that has designed most of our built environment, and it is nonsensical. In many ways, it is professional malpractice. If we delivered what society asked us for, we would build our local roads and streets to be safe above all else. Only then would we consider what could be done, given our budget, to handle a higher volume of cars at greater speeds. 

We go to enormous expense to save ourselves small increments of driving time. This would be delusional in and of itself if it were not also making our roads and streets much less safe. I'll again reference a 2005 article from the APA Journal showing how narrower, slower streets dramatically reduce accidents, especially fatalities. 

And it is that simple observation that all of those supposedly "ignorant" property owners were trying to explain to me, the engineer with all the standards, so many years ago. When you can't let your kids play in the yard, let alone ride their bike to the store, because you know the street is dangerous, then the engineering profession is not providing society any real value. It's time to stand up and demand a change. 

It's time we demand that engineers build us Strong Towns.

 Strong Towns blog and website have dozens of good posts and resources. And BTW, engineers, you can console yourselves that you don't suck as bad as the economists.

ERAC = The Big Lie

What makes ERAC, Element Review Advisory Committee, the big lie is the premise that this is a citizen participation group.  This is a hand picked group to bring the council majority the alternatives to housing and land use preferred by the financial backers they represent.

This is business under the guise of public participation. And the formation of this group has nothing to do with the legislative directives to update the General Plan to reflect the sustainability criteria for economic, resource, climate and other future stresses on our community.

This is politics.  Everything Jerome Stocks does is about politics of winning.  And governing?  You must spend many hours reviewing city council minutes and archived videos to find actions in support of the public good versus someone's profits or personal property rights. The entire offensive move of blowing up the General Plan Update is fairly obvious if you track the history. From the consultant interview committee, to the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) selection and presence at the many public workshops, there are layers of half-truths and flip-flopping declarations.

From the very beginning Stocks has maintained his position of plausible deniability by staying far away from involvement at the local level and uttering next to nothing of his deeply embedded position within the SANDAG plans as a member, then as chair, when at the end of each city council meeting he'd give glib, condescending or unsubstantial reports if he reported at all.

"Plausible Deniability - A condition in which a subject can safely and believably deny knowledge of any particular truth that may exist because the subject is deliberately made unaware of said truth so as to benefit or shield the subject from any responsibility associated through the knowledge of such truth."

Three months ago Mayor Stocks made it clear he is looking at ERAC for the alternatives that best serve his interests.  Despite any previous language of just another arm or citizen outreach, the group was designed to serve the council majority.

As with the original inflammatory rhetoric Stocks used last September to blow up the General Plan Update, his arguments are specious.  There is no logic.  Any complaints could have, should have been handled within the contracted process.  Citizens were given false choices when there were solutions at hand.  The need for ERAC was and is a lie.  Everything about it is a lie.  Citizens who have dutifully attended every meeting and schooled themselves know it is a lie.  ERAC is Encinitas newest, biggest lie created for political capital.

This week the ERAC facilitator Peder Norby's contract is on the agenda.  Norby is a vitally important scapegoat for Stocks et al.  Whether Peder Norby is your best friend or he eats kittens for breakfast, he is clearly serving the agenda laid out by those in charge.  He should go. 

We all still have our facts, our research, our issues and our feelings for our community.  We need to find the real answers and solutions, but to trust the mayor or the council majority to provide this is a big mistake.  They made the problem, they can't fix it.  And, they don't intend to fix it anyway.  Do we have a park yet on the Hall property?

Note: The big lie does not mean that there are no citizens sitting in earnest on this committee.  This is by no means mean as personal attack on individuals.  Even Stocks best friends my believe they are right in their opinions.  What is critical is the silencing of any dissent outside of the majority favored views and goals.  That isn't citizen participation, it's manufactured consent and it's a big lie. 

According to Mary: The Housing Element Mapping Exercise

We Write Letters, Blog, Participate & Protest Too

Our Mayor, this council majority and City Staff are increasing being confronted by a citizenry wanting more leadership, accuracy and accountability. There are many different viewpoints and criticisms that all converge on one theme, distrust.

Prior to 5/7/12 Workshop
Olivier Canler wrote the following letter for his Patch blog:

Over the last two weeks, all five Encinitas communities had a chance to attend a community open house and listen to the city planners tell us what is driving the need for additional multi-family housing, and what growth will look like in the future.

The meetings were pretty well attended with roughly 50 to 60 people at each one, except New Encinitas where roughly 160 people showed up at Park Dale Lane Elementary.

Each meeting started with an introduction from Gus Vina, the new city manager, followed by a presentation by Michael Strong, associate city planner, who told the audience where the “required” number of 1,300 multi-family units is coming from and why we need to comply with the state housing mandate. Following, was a presentation by Patrick Murphy, director of the planning department, that detailed what could be expected at the two upcoming workshops (May 7th and Mat 14th at the Encinitas Community Center from 6 to 8pm). This is when the residents will give their input as to where these 1,300 high-density apartment units should go.

The most entertaining part of the presentation was witnessing the city planners and Peder Norby attempt to answer some of the tough questions asked by the public. Unfortunately, questions were submitted on 3x5 cards and answered by staff with no opportunity for the public to engage in a discussion on some of the most contentious items of the presentations.  The format of this Q&A was regrettable and did not allow for a dialogue, but it may have been the best format for the organizers to avoid having the discussions degenerate into an all-out verbal fight.

Judging from the questions, the public was not enthusiastic about the plan for growth. Some questions were very community specific, but most of them revolved around city-wide issues that could be summarized in a few bullet points:

1.  The population forecast presented by the State Department of Finance is way too aggressive and does not account for the latest population trends in California. It also does not take into account the 2010 US population census, which SANDAG itself proclaimed to be the “gold standard”. Since 2008, the net migration has been negative with more people leaving than arriving, and the birth rate has been declining since the onset of the recession. Both of these factors should continue for the foreseeable future according to a SANDAG demographer. Marginal growth is coming from the aging baby boomers.

2. The State, through the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), is concerned about showing the ability to offer housing for all ranges of incomes. That sounds like an honorable idea, but unfortunately not a likely outcome in Encinitas. According to the HCD logic high density (30+ units per acre) is the only way to yield affordable housing. Since there is no mandate to control rent and affordability, these high density units will be available at market rate which, given current conditions, would garner a rent of $1,500 for a one bedroom apartment and $2,000 for a two bedroom apartment. Not exactly what you would call affordable.  In the end, we are planning for luxury condos and apartments. Let’s not pretend we are planning for affordable housing, we are really planning for high-density dwelling units.

3. Very little information was presented as to how these new potential housing developments will impact our city infrastructure. How will public safety, schools, water needs, traffic, and pollution be affected by this plan? This is short-sighted planning at best.

4. The city planners were very skilled at not accepting any blame for the failure of the first round of planning in which El Camino Real and Encinitas Blvd were targeted for most of the growth. They projected the blame on the public that attended the city workshops in 2011, mentioning that there was very adequate representation from Encinitas residents. They failed to mention that New Encinitas residents were unaware of the plan, and therefore the recipients of the growth.

What will these workshops accomplish? They will most likely result in communities turning against one another and neighbors putting this unwanted growth in someone else’s backyard.

All this for what purpose? Just to make sure we comply with Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) guidelines so that we won’t have to fear potential litigation from builder/developers associations and low-income advocates? The city has not had a compliant housing element for two decades, with no monetary or legal penalties imposed, so why the urgency to push compliance through now?

We need to preserve our quality of life and community characters and not support a dubious allocation process.

We like our communities just the way they are: Olivenhain with its rural charm, New Encinitas with its highly functional suburban feel with good amenities, Old Encinitas with its beautiful coast and its many landmarks, Cardiff with it beautiful views and its small community charm, and Leucadia with it funkiness and patch work zoning.

Ultimately, this will be resolved in November with your choice of candidate.

Proceed cautiously during the general election. A lot is at stake for the character of our communities.


At the 5/7/12 Workshop 
Oliver and Brian Burke were cheerfully handing out the flyer below and chatting with people participating in the event.  Protesting and participating aren't mutually exclusive or necessarily antagonistic or accusatory as some agitators project, even though the goals and methods of various critiques vary. (Click on Document to Enlarge)

Ootsie Feeling Stocks

Three years ago Jerome Stocks had to share officially his "ootsie" feeling about one of the members selected for the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) because she had been a paid real estate representative in a re-zoning case.  Here's his description.

 

Conflict of interest questions now?  Pfft! Not so you'd notice.  In January the city council selected the members of this artificial arm, ERAC, publicized as a redress for the oversights of the previous several years of workshops having missed gathering the opinions of some citizens.  Well, that's the ostensible reason when it's pretty clear this is a handpicked group of council majority friends, funding sources and those representing the commercial status quo. The group was never presented publicly, never was described with any kind of criteria beyond "stakeholders" and is on it's own timeline and agenda running parallel to GPAC and open houses and workshops.  

Stocks and Gaspar have several times pushed to find out when ERAC will be reporting to the council, making it clear this arm is their preferred arm over all the other arms. 

So, we are yet again left with conjecture or taking the council majority's word for things.  Said another way taking Stocks' word rather than taking stock.  Here is what we can know.  ERAC members include donors to Stocks and Gaspar's election campaigns.  Some of these men were part of the "ugly baby" demonstration evening last Sept and it was obvious the advance work to organize.  And one of Stocks' bestest friends spoke and continues to speak as an un-appointed member of ERAC even as an un-appointed spokesperson to the newspapers. It's not illegal to support the mayor.  It's what is said that can become problematic and secret speech opens a real can of suspicious concoctions and feeds "us and them" divisions. Ootsie anyone?  Here's a peek at the last meeting.

To be clear, there is no way of really recognizing the genuinely engaged residents dedicated to looking out for their neighborhoods, the whole community and those are single minded in ensuring personal or corporate financial gain above any other criteria.  Without being allowed to have had from the outset: a conversation, presentations, open interviews or recorded statements it remains best guess.  Our thanks to those who go to these meetings, who watch and share and who record for us all to see.  So far, we haven't gotten much up on the blog. This was just a peek and enough of a look to question the unofficial agendas in the room (especially in the corner by the door, amirite?). 

But, the past has plenty of examples that taught Encinitas citizens to be very vigilant. Watch, listen, film and confront cronyism, favoritism or the kinds of things that can institutionalize exclusion through our General Plan Update, those policies that favor a proscribed population in class, race and systematically marginalize other residents.

This happens when only one segment alone is heard and represented. We can still clearly call out, to protest and revise the flaws in massive growth strategies, resource scarcity and inferior development.  That's what citizens do. 

Update: As yet, no definition for ootsie is available.

Erase (ERAC) – What was lost? What is cost?

Erase (ERAC) has the official gimmick capacity to transform all that was accomplished over nearly two years of the General Plan Update.

Via this official gimmick capacity:

• the super majority financial backers are ushered into a front and center advisory position. 
• the staff and the consultant are made into the prime culprits of blame game. 
• the super majority’s voter base in New Encinitas is preyed upon by fear tactics from unreliable sources and persistent accusations from the council dais. 
• the super majority’s nemesis, Barth, is  politically maneuvered to play along or be tar brushed with their imaginary plot. 
• the super majority’s enemies (actual citizens participating in the process) are called names and erased. 

Jerome Stocks threw his offensive tantrum last September paraphrased as, “I want control of the General Plan Update (GPU) through the council and the planning commission. Alternatives to the status quo that come from this community process are unacceptable.” Because the actual words he used amounted to rejecting a contract process and contract schedule long known and heartily approved by him, by the entire council. But he couldn’t say that. It’s illegal.

The anger directed at the staff was a foil. They were sacrificed on the pretense of a community outreach failure. Instead, he erased the GPU contracted structure, process and timetable in a 1.3 minute rant. A rupture in what had become a well oiled machine towards updating the General Plan was forced through this first big lie.

An opening had to be made for the majority’s financial backers and the majority’s voter base.

 

Stocks was the set-up. Step two, Bond denigrates the community participants who had spent hours of their own time contributing in the designed process while elevating the business community as the more important voices. Like Stocks, Bond did a 180 on the process he’d agreed to and praised consistently for more than a year. Then mayor, Bond effectively erased all goodwill generated by this citizen process and democratic participation in favor of pay to play.

Enter the speakers including the council majority financial backers like developer, Meyers; Stocks’ BFF Andreen plus business, real estate and property owners who self-identify as the most valued people, business and property owners on El Camino Real. Threats of “businesses will all leave if these update changes happen” were central to the majority of the presentations.
 
Sincere revelations of individuals feeling left out and uninformed, just like business fears of change were issues that did need to be heard by the council and dealt with by the council. A four month review had been built into this process to accommodate that very thing. Staging a protest for political positioning is another story.



But even if there was a massive failure in reaching New Encinitas and getting their viewpoints heard and recorded, solutions were far simpler than what actually had been scripted for Gaspar to present.

Offensive step 3 is “throwing out the baby with the bathwater” a radically extremist reaction to responses already anticipated and planned for in the contracted process and approved timeline. Again, a ruse is scripted to give language to a takeover with words like stakeholders (read: financial backers), This takeover erases the contracted process and timeline in favor of a majority council-centric process.

The most divisive step so far, put Gaspar as stage manager creating a new process, with new schedule, new stakeholders group via subcommittee forced on Barth. Despite breathless protestations over costs, Gaspar maps changes that will cost many months and hundreds of hours of staff time, council time, consultant time, commissioners time far in excess of a process that wasn’t broken. Every sentence Gaspar reads from the playbook is misleading, falsely framed, unsubstantiated and clearly intended to confuse.




In the midst of this majority theatrical, Barth is backed into playing a part. With civility she places the community interest at the heart of her response. She stresses the contracted four month period is a respectful approach for the community to digest the draft and let business review. But, this one voice can’t balance the power play being foisted on the city government. Barth remains a touchstone for the community at large, despite majority’s repeated attempts to paint her as an enemy.



Well, a feature of the majority plan was an attempt to discredit Barth, to rob her of her formidable reputation as a superior civil servant whose stance is inclusive rather than divisive. With absolutely no way for anyone to verify her accusations, Gaspar dumps a fetid pile of grievances on a crowd leaving the room and to a dais of baffled looks, again, with the script.



This was so pathetic it gained no traction. Gaspar is an embarrassment as parrot for the more hateful features of the majority exhibited years prior to her presence. But it isn’t just bad behavior. What this cost, what was lost hasn’t even begun to be tallied.

On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 the planning staff will be asking council to approve more than $43,000 for the thrice re-designed community outreach mailer printing / mailing and additional consultant fees. Five months have been lost that could have been used for review and increased public input. Instead there has been bad will, distraction and a whole series of secretive meeting changes, agenda changes, false applications and absolutely zero public scrutiny of this ambushed and erased General Plan Update process.

Taxpayers are essentially paying hundreds of thousands of dollars and precious time to campaign and fund raise for Stocks and Muir. Classy.

Post Script – Mayor Stocks BFF and Gaspar’s purported mentor is bragging that council is going to re-boot the General Plan. Erase (ERAC) to start over looks like a plan.

Tuesday is Dues-day: Developer's Agreement

Tuesday is Dues-day.  The dues?  Paying attention . . . Yes, by simply schooling yourself on how our local governance is organized, who are the players, what are the screw-ups, where is the money and what things get reported you can legitimately call yourself a citizen, an advocate for democracy.

Today's citizen tip was mined out of the early treasure trove of video archives circa 2007.  We owe a debt of thanks to Sheila Cameron and any other local activists and public servants in the early days of Encinitas local government for pushing videotaping of meetings.  This tape was one of the first videos, as videotaping meetings began in September of 2007.

Developer Agreement

Let's put it this way, we are the 99% and the large land owners and developers are the 1% - in the relative measure that is Encinitas.  More than four years of video recordings make the position of the council majority's serving the 1% over the 99% fairly obvious.  But, don't take anyone's word for this.  Watch the actions of our council members, listen to the public speakers and judge for yourself.  Take your time, talk to friends, talk to neighbors and talk to the candidates for city council; Lisa Shaffer and Tony Kranz.  They have been dues-paying citizens for years.

Acronyms and planning terms abound:

IOD - Irrevocable offer of Dedication. When an agency requires a developer or landowner to give certain things to the agency, often as a component of development, such as land for open space or for a sidewalk, an entire street, a streetlight, a pipeline or other infrastructure, etc., the property is granted through an IOD.

CEQA – California Environmental Quality Act

Upzoning -A change in the zoning classification of a property from one of lower use to one that is of higher use; for example, a change from residential to commercial use.

There are three more clips from this November 2007 meeting with well articulated dissent from the public.  These citizens bring a wealth of information to us via their public speeches in 3 minute intervals.  All will be posted this week because it may be very timely.  The super majority on the council are positioning a new advisory group, ERAC, heavily seated with developer, realtor and commercial interests, to be scrutinizing the General Plan update.

Paul Ecke III is scheduled with the Planning Commission regarding his agriculturally zoned land. More details will be forthcoming because . . . forewarned is forearmed. 

Previous Dues-day citizen tips: Mayoral Rotation, SANDAG Growth Forecast 2050
Cross-posted at Our Mayor Stocks blog and Encinitas You Need Us blog

Update, Today's details:
City of Encinitas Planning and Building Department

NOTICE OF PENDING ACTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT

The Planning and Building Department of the City of Encinitas is currently reviewing the following Administrative Application request for a project located within the Coastal Zone of the City of Encinitas:

CASE NUMBER: 11-113 TPM/CDP FILING DATE: 7/18/11 APPLICANT: Paul Ecke Ranch

LOCATION: 810 Ecke Ranch Road

PUBLIC HEARING: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 at 5:00 p.m., to be held at the Planning and Building Department, Lilac Room, 505 South Vulcan Ave, Encinitas.

Union Tribune article, Hearing set on Ecke Ranch Plan

Tuesday is Dues-day: SANDAG Forecast 2050

Today is Dues-day, introduced last week, featuring Mayor Rotation. 

The dues?  Paying attention . . . Yes, by simply schooling yourself on how our local governance is organized, who are the players, what are the screw-ups, where is the money and what things get reported you can legitimately call yourself a citizen, an advocate for democracy.

For most people local politics only becomes a reality when you are afraid for your home, your property or your neighborhood. Fears can be physical, financial and cultural.  Fears can be great motivators, as so many activists' stories of initial involvement attest.  Fears can also be manipulated with lies, so some video evidence might help set some records straight.


First, SANDAG is the acronym for San Diego Association of Governments.

In October 2009 a demographer from SANDAG gave a comprehensive presentation of the region's Forecast 2050 land use strategy.  This plan was and is the driver for all of the land use controversy going on now across all of Encinitas and with newborn activist ferociousness in New Encinitas.  It doesn't help that misinformation is throwing fuel on this fire to distract people's passions toward the wrong targets. The clip below should clarify some of this deliberate confusion.



SANDAG is essentially a shadow regional government made up of area mayors, council members, county supervisors and policy planners. Although many members were voted into their community offices, they are appointed amongst their councils to hold a seat on SANDAG, like Jerome Stocks was in Encinitas. Stocks has been appointed by his council cronies for 6 years. He now chairs SANDAG, ironically through simple rotation method.

SANDAG planning is behind this Dues-day Citizen Tip.  Mayor Jerome Stocks, the Encinitas city planning staff, the city manager, the city attorney and the rest of the city council are all aware of these facts and this background.  There is no confusion, only super majority council misdirection, drama and blaming about who or what is directing land use, housing and traffic elements in the General Plan Update.

Cross Posted at Encinitas You Need Us Blog.

Deputy Mayor's BFF*

* Best Friends Forever

I'm shocked, shocked I say that one of the Deputy Mayor's friends was selected for the ERAC group last night.  (Pronounced erase at this site.) The council majority selected Roger Bolus for the New Encinitas Representative.  Thing is, it isn't a bit clear that he even lives in New Encinitas.  Quail Gardens area is considered Old Encinitas.

And that is only the beginning.  Does the name ring a bell for anyone?

Here is a clue - a Gaspar team member allegedly yelled out at a Leucadia candidate forum in 2010.  Those close by said he called Teresa Barth a whore, stupidly misogynist hatefulness considering she was defending Kristin Gaspar against discriminatory remarks about her being a mother.  She looked right at the man and asked, What did you say?  And, no, he didn't reply; he left the forum with his buddies. Here's a clip snippet.


From an observer at the forum:

When these guys came into the room they drug extra chairs up from the back and took over two seats reserved at the front by event organizers. So, sitting behind them it was clear they were belligerent and bullying before anyone even started to speak. Did anyone else notice (or get video coverage) of one or two taking off the Gaspar shirt while walking out? Was that an attempt at stealth or a rejection of their candidate? This same crew was at the Olivenhain forum.

During that time, Leucadia Blog identified Roger Bolus, Rotary Club President, as the central figure above, while local papers hadn't even asked the questions.

But, just because Roger and his cohorts allegedly acted like bullies and attempted to harass and strong-arm Kristin Gaspar's opposing candidate they were not arrested or even accused of doing anything illegal.  So, by the kind of narrow reasoning so favored by the deputy mayor, mayor, councilmen Bond and Muir and the city attorney; justice can be reduced to Just Us.

As citizens we all have the responsibility to be vigilant.  Jean-Bernard Minster demonstrated that last night when he demanded the criteria for ERAC selection and exposure to the public's scrutiny.  This week's public demands for open government is only the first ripple in a great wave of dissent coming.

ERAC - Majority Armed

Sloppiness or secrecy, that is the question.

Editor Note: ERAC - at this blog - is pronounced erase, with a soft "C", as in Encinitas rather than a hard "C" as in club.

ERAC = Do Over? or Disappear?

ERAC (Element Review Advisory Committee) note of concern received this weekend:

"[ . . . ] looking at the agenda for the January 25 Council Meeting Item 6 addresses the staff recommendation that Council make appointments to the Element Review Advisory Committee with an effective date of January 26, 2012. I accessed the staff report associated with this agenda item and noted the following:

• The report consists of an email to Council from Patrick Murphy, Diane Langager, and Mike Strong. In the Background section it states, "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.  Agenda item (Item 4), which stated "Council to meet with applicants for Element Review Advisory Committee (ERAC)" was tabled. In regard to the wording of Item 4, 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."  

• There is no list of applicants or the positions on ERAC for which they applied accompanying this report. The public was not allowed to hear the applicants and now the public isn't even given a list of who applied to review before the meeting? Sloppiness or secrecy, that is the question."

 Editor Note: List of applicants was included in January 18, 2012 staff report. The point being, this list should have also been included in this week's agenda packet. Was it only a week ago that this funny smell was named?

Update: Lisa Shaffer's excellent summary of this gigantic screw-up at City Hall is now posted at Encinitas Patch.  Go read the whole thing for a condensed version of the whole sordid story.  Here is a sampling:

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, 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.

KC and the Sunshine Band

Musical homage to Kevin Cummins and the many other advocates for Sunshine Ordinance in Encinitas. See further information about tomorrow's, January 18th meeting below.

More seriously, open government is well and truly the most fundamentally important issue in all of the city issues. Councilwoman Barth has consistently spoken out for open government. This video clip spells out her views on the public's right to know.

January 18 Council Agenda Packet

• Item # 4 Council to meet with applicants for Element Review Advisory Committee (ERAC)
• Item # 5 Review public notice mailer for the Comprehensive General Plan Update
• Item # 6 Report from Commission for the Arts FY10/11 accomplishments and consider and approve FY11/12 proposed Work Plan
• Item # 7 The Sidewalk Café Policy

The whole KC and the Sunshine Band intro relates to what's lurking in the Consent Calendar where it doesn't belong?

Calendar definition: "Items on each Consent Calendar are matters which are routine, and it is anticipated they will not be discussed separately. With a motion "to adopt the Consent Calendar" the City Council approves all Consent Calendar Staff recommendations, as shown on the agenda. Items may be removed for discussion by submitting a "PINK" speaker slip to the City Clerk".

If you guessed "Destruction of records in accordance with retention guidelines and pursuant to Government Code." you'd be right. By no stretch of the imagination could record destruction be considered routine or unworthy of public discussion. Citizens and Candidates have championed open government and the need for sunshine ordinances for years.

We as citizens have the right to our distrust. This council majority has consistently failed us. Their votes tell us they want us to keep our expectations tiny. This council majority headed by Mayor Stocks have battled sunshine ordinances and recently cost the city taxpayers thousands and thousands of dollars by refusing to be open and forthcoming with a single pavement report. Kevin Cummins' lawsuit has been covered several times already at this blog here, here & here.

So, no doubt Kevin and others will pull this item from the Consent Calendar and be present for the other agenda items. Update: Schedule conflict with event to unveil art banners may empty the room.

Whoops! Another confusing message from city staff. And this is most critical for New Encinitas residents becoming involved in city government through the General Plan Update. First applicants are on the agenda to interview with the city council and then essentially told they are NOT needed for the council to make decisions. Sit down and be still? The applications were received more than a week before this meeting and only now volume and time constraints are considered?

Dear Applicants for the Element Review Advisory Committee (ERAC):

Due to the volume of applicants and time considerations, the applicants will not be interviewed on January 18, 2012. On January 18, the City Council will receive the applications and provide direction. You are welcome to attend the January 18, 2012 meeting. You will be notified of the date the Council makes the appointments.

Thanks.

Patrick Murphy

Director of Planning and Building

City of Encinitas

Nurseryman Hall Is Gone

Today the North County Times includes the obituary article for Robert Hall with a photo from the Hall family.

"Robert Hall, one of the big names in the region's flower-growing industry and the former owner of a 43-acre property that's slated to become an Encinitas city park, died of cancer Dec. 20 in Leucadia."

"Known for his ability to capitalize on innovations in the nursery business and put them into large-scale production, Hall at one time had more than 80 acres growing under plastic in Encinitas."

Warm wishes to the man's family and friends in their loss. Though this isn't actually a post about Robert Hall or the mess our mayor Stocks or the city has made of the park plans following purchase of Hall's property in 2001 for $17.2 million. No, this is about our imaginations, our visions regarding Encinitas precious agricultural acres - a swath that runs through the heart of the five communities - and our sustainable future, our homes, our foods, our land use and economy. For the late Hall and so many of his fellow nursery owners hit hard by globalized business flooding the US economy with cheap imports, many have chosen upzoning of Agricultural land as the only land use option.

Editor's Picks

Alternatives that retain, but rethink the Agricultural land use are available all over the world. In response to climate change, peak oil, unemployment, food security and food safety; localized food production is increasingly pursued as a serious community investment. The following video from Civil Eats shows one Wisconsin town's approach to historic unused local greenhouses.

"It all seems like such a waste of resources and energy and a sad reminder of the pace our economy has slowed to. In the face of this hardship, ideas such as The Greenhouse Project in Central Wisconsin offer respite. A group of passionate people, working on a volunteer basis towards providing “opportunities for participation, education, cooperation, and action to support a local food economy in Central Wisconsin” have banded together and successfully started renovations on a dilapidated 38,000 square foot property in downtown Stevens Point. The vision is to create a self-sustaining, multi-faceted production and education center, where rural farming techniques can coalesce with a thriving urban community ready to learn about them."

Will Allen and Growing Power mentioned in the video clip - visit blog for this dynamic man and his impact in Wisconsin.

Greenhouses, Greenhorns and Green Houses (oh my)

And the concept in the video of teaching people how to farm, how to grow food directs me to this fantastic group of organized young farmers called The Greenhorns. What they wouldn't give to have access to Encinitas greenhouses and possible eco-communities for farmers-in-training on agricultural land! Tiny homes densely clustered next to agricultural training facilities is even a tourist enticement. This is a density that is growing in popularity and would make some sense for other infill areas around this community. Do we ever hear ideas like this from our city council chambers? From our local press? From critics of the ongoing GPU land use element draft? If not developer-led housing and big box commercial land use, what?

Lastly, a short trailer about Transition 2.0. movie soon to be released. Transition is an international movement wherein communities are rethinking the way they view their communities and the future.

Isn't this what a General Plan Update asks of us, to envision our future? All over Encinitas people are up in arms over the draft GPU. What we are not hearing are alternative plans, other ideas. The strength of local businesses, co-ops over the vulnerability of relying on multi-national chains like Walmart? Let's get those facts out into the open. If we throw into the mix the whole range of unsustainable current systems failing all around us, these alternative examples in imagining our future are food for thought. They are presented for that purpose and to encourage us to look beyond the short term to the future for the next several generations. And, they are encouraging despite the unmistakeable challenges.

Delighted Stocks Flip Flops?

Everything Stocks opens with in this clip seems clearly to be what the developers want and SANDAG wants and the State is pushing. So WTF?

Watch and come up with your own observations. This about-face invites speculation and parody . . . That's all there is until someone can tell us what Stocks, Andreen - the Crony Club have as agendas and who is funding all of it.

Investigations. Exposé. STAT!

Calendar Stress

There’s a mad scramble to get 23 individuals to apply and be selected by the city council’s super majority to the brand spanking new Element Review Advisory Committee (ERAC) by January 9. Hurry, hurry, hurry. If you don’t apply our Mayor will say you just don’t care or (another favorite) you can’t disagree because you didn’t apply. The ERAC will meet on a regularly scheduled basis on Saturdays and/or weekday evenings. Application here.

Who amongst us believes that 17+ hastily juggled General Plan Update Elements meetings in front of all city commissions, committees on top of the dozen plus regularly scheduled city council and planning commission meetings in 90 days will get us any closer to a better plan? The thoroughness is refreshing, the timeline is punishing. Doesn’t the latter negate the former?

To be clear, there are the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) members and committed citizens who have been a part of this process for two years; including the last four months of reading through the draft document. Councilwoman Barth has been at every workshop, General Plan function and weekly study groups to review the 2035 GPU Draft. No other council members have had more than perfunctory involvement in the public process. For past participants this schedule is onerous, but given the background of being educated to the many elements it is do-able.

ERAC, this soon to be appointed ‘other’ group of new participants may well be playing catch up to review all draft General Plan elements. The good news is that New Encinitas citizens are getting involved in local government. There are some really talented and dedicated community members who, through baptism by fire, are becoming seasoned activists. A handful of volunteers have worked tirelessly to communicate with as many neighbors / citizens as possible. One thing they have against them is this glut of information (1,000 plus page draft document) and meeting commitments (see above) and historical perspective. To quote Shock Doctrine author Naomi Klein, “People without memory are putty.”

We must beware the environment that would manipulate people through perceived crisis and fear or dread out of context. Some of the loudest compelling arguments come from our Mayor and his crony network with full agendas none of us in the public are privy to knowing. Speculation is all there is to date. This blizzard of meetings came out of seemingly choreographed populist uprising. Was this first anticipated by Mike Andreen? (Stay with me on this one . . . ) At the onset of General Plan Update process in the fall of 2009 as Andreen was re-inventing himself as the New Encinitas Chamber of Commerce whiz where he wrote this newsletter warning regarding the soon to be launched General Plan Update,

“New Encinitas is the economic engine of Encinitas but decisions could be made by coastal representatives that effect [sic] those of us who live and work here.”

Simply having a voice doesn’t seem the central point as he amps up the threat to New Encinitas with this charge,

“The first Mayor of Incorporated Encinitas made sure that all cross streets leading into Olivenhain were obstructed so ALL traffic was driven through New Encinitas and not her neighborhood. Obviously, we don’t want something like that appening [sic] again. New Encinitas has 2/3rds of the City’s votes and generates over 2/3rds of the sales-tax dollars in the City; now with hope and hard work, it will have some say-so on what its future is.”

What? They’re bigger and wealthier and need to be in charge? Or is it because, presumably, New Encinitas residents have been barred from the democratic process? That’s implied and it’s a lie that can now die as New Encinitas neighborhoods rouse themselves into community involvement. Volunteers from the other Encinitas communities are anxious to join in this process of New Encinitas stepping up and becoming informed and engaged.

Two years and Mike Andreen couldn’t get a toehold until the September 14 council meeting rally, kicked off by Stocks’ “ugly baby” performance piece, was the chance for Mr. Chamber of Commerce expert to speak. He followed a cadre of business owners who claimed to have been rebuffed or forgotten. The council discussion ended with councilwoman Gaspar presenting Andreen’s game plan like a spokesmodel for “stakeholders” and subcommittee motion dictated by Stocks. You can judge yourself with video clips - we'll post later.

Mike Andreen, like the majority council, seems to promote the financialization of civic life over any other planetary realities, the public good, laws or people’s aspirations or empirical facts. He blogged recently,

“Where did the ‘walk-ability over financial stability’ decisions and directions in the 1100 page, million-dollar plus ‘Update 2035 Draft’ comes from then, if not required by the State?”

Not only is this question framed to pit economy questions falsely as either/or choices; if allowed, each and every decision made will have dollar values as the determining factor. Commercial and real estate voices can make threatening predictions if their business interests aren’t placed above any others. This is standard in corporate-speak decision making. Without even voting this thinking can poison. This is pay to play and not democracy. Our participation in the process must challenge this. Klein states, “Democracy is not just the right to vote, it is the right to live in dignity.”

Thirty meetings or even half that in 11 weeks do not bode well for the democratic process and the nascent activist movement in our most populated young community New Encinitas. It can be done. People are surprising and they can rise to this clarion call to participate directly in the future direction and values for Encinitas. The most vitally important part is if these individuals can STAY involved despite burn-out, betrayals and other potential bumps along the way. The council majority has counted on voter apathy and disengagement for more than a decade to build parity against all diverse voices not agreeing with them. Or simply stated, it makes their job easier the fewer citizens are involved. Rushing to deadlines is a well worn tactic, especially in an election year tactic. We need to put the brakes on this hysterical urgency.

Public Service Announcement Post Script:

From the City Website:
ERAC Membership and Selection: The ERAC is to be appointed by the City Council and is to be comprised of approximately 23 members, representing diverse perspectives and interests.

ERAC members will include residents, commercial property owners, and other community members. The application form will be utilized to appoint community members to these positions. Application here

In order to be eligible for appointment to the ERAC, applicants must not currently serve on the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) or any City commission or committee. At the conclusion of the recruitment process, the City Council will review applications.

The deadline for submitting applications is January 9, 2012 by 6:00pm PST.

Other Ways to Stay Involved: Write or email your comments and ideas about the CGPU work program, visit the city’s website or the project website, and attend meetings as they occur throughout the process. Subscribe to city e-alerts and select your referred email notification/newsletter topics to receive email notifications of upcoming events.

PPS: Note, the bubble calendar is a real thing in the real world.

Tantrum Humiliating Staff During Presentation