Lisa Shaffer submitted this to Encinitas Patch, AOL's online paper and we decided to keep a copy here at Encinitas You Need Us. Love the title!On June 20, the Encinitas City Council used its "hire power" to extend and amend a contract for Peder Norby as a consultant to the City. Unfortunately this move will not fix the problems with the General Plan Update (GPU) process, nor is it an example of responsible administration.
Mr. Norby has been employed as the Highway 101 Coordinator, and this move formalizes the role he has been playing for the last several months as facilitator of the General Plan Update process. I had planned to speak at the Council meeting, but I realized that my comments were unlikely to impact the vote, so I offer them here instead.
The agenda item at City Hall mixed together two issues that each deserves a separate discussion. One is how the GPU process is handled, particularly the housing element; the other is how and when the City hires consultants.
The GPU Process: The decision on June 20 formalizes Mr. Norby’s role in facilitating several concurrent groups that are reviewing each element of the General Plan and making recommendations to the City Council. This process is a “restart” after the City spent over $1million on a consultant whose work product was rejected by the Council. No explanation has been offered of how that contract got so far off track. Who was responsible for oversight? Where is the accountability? Until the Council provides some leadership and lays out a vision, hiring more consultants won’t fix the problem.
The initial focus of the restarted GPU process is the housing element. There is a state mandate to show high density zoning that would, in theory, allow for 1300 affordable housing units to be developed in Encinitas. Mr. Norby has taken each group through a mapping exercise that is supposed to show which locations should be given highest priority for such upzoning. When all is debated and tabulated, we still won’t know what are community preferences. We won’t know which maps were dotted by Encinitas residents and which by non-residents. We don’t know which were dotted by people with business interests in development and which by people who might actually want to live in affordable housing if any were to be built. And we don't know which areas have the infrastructure to make affordable housing practical.
The question remains: what is our strategy? Is our goal to do whatever it takes to get our housing element approved? Is our goal to provide as much opportunity as possible for property owners and real estate developers to make money? Or is our goal to honestly and creatively meet real needs for affordable housing while preserving community character? Should we try to work with the League of Cities, state elected officials, and other groups to seek changes to the population projections and associated mandates?
I want to maintain a diverse community where business owners and their workers can all find housing here; where we provide for the housing needs of young families, seniors, and others who cannot afford or don’t want big single family homes in this community. I think we need to take a holistic look at traffic, land use and supporting infrastructure and decide where such capacity makes sense.
The mapping exercise I observed the ERAC, GPAC, and community workshops will not improve the quality of Council decision-making. I would like to see the Council provide some leadership. Give direction to the City Manager and let the Planning Department take responsibility for developing a GPU draft we can discuss. That doesn’t require taking Peder Norby away from this Highway 101 duties, where, by all accounts, he has been very effective. It does require accountability from public employees and the Council.
Hiring Process: The second issue is one of process. How and when does the City hire consultants? We have a Planning Department. I don’t understand why the Planning staff can’t facilitate meetings. But if we need a new facilitator beyond existing city staff capacity, issue an RFP and choose one competitively. If Mr. Norby wants to apply, and he is deemed most qualified, fine. But what if there is someone else who might have a better idea. We won't know if we don't ask.
The issue before the Council should not have been about Peder Norby’s character or competence. The issue is how the City Council and City Manager act as stewards of Encinitas. They have a responsibility to spend our money well, to enhance our quality of life, and to plan for our future. The General Plan Update process is a mess and putting Peder Norby in charge of it through a non-competitive contract with no clear deliverables won’t fix that.
Any expenditure on outside consultants should be made in accordance with established procurement policies, on a competitive basis, with clear deliverables and accountability. And when the whole Council votes to hire someone, whether it was the original GPU contractor, Mr. Norby, or someone else, let the whole Council be accountable for that decision. Everyone wants Encinitas to stay wonderful. We all want clean beaches, great schools, safe streets, a healthy economy, environmental stewardship, and neighborhood communities. Let’s work together in an open and honest dialog and move forward. We’re all on the same team.
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:07 pm
