Members of the Fallbrook Community Planning Group (FCPG) are concerned that the Red Tape Reduction Task Force, recently organized by the County Board of Supervisors, may put adequate representation from the unincorporated area of Fallbrook in peril.

According to FCPG member Roy Moosa, "On Dec. 7, 2011, in a report presented to the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, an appointed Red Tape Reduction Task Force stated that community planning groups‘provide value to acommunity.’" In that same report, the task force stated that "the actions of some CPG members have evolved from acting in an advisory role to the County, into one of direct negotiation with project applicants. The report states that this behavior has led to significant delays in the county permitting process. It was also mentioned that planning groups ‘create additional oversight responsibilities for the County and can create potential liabilities if a member or members were not to file an adequate disclosure or inappropriately vote on a particular project.’"

Moosa said the task force made two recommendations to the board - the first was to remove community planning groups from under the County’s umbrella; effectively disbanding them completely.

"The suggestion that the current 26 community planning groups be disbanded because of the actions of ‘some’ members completely ignores the problem and does not address possible solutions," said Moosa. "The suggestion also implies that the actions of a few non-compliant members coupled with insurance liability requirements outweigh any benefit of local representation the planning groups provide."

Moosa said that the responsibilities of planning group members are clearly set, with the parameters established.

"If the member does not adhere to those guidelines, then his actions should be addressed," said Moosa. "The solution is enforcement, not dissolution."

Moosa pointed out that in regards to liability concerns, the county stated that since 1999, total legal expenses for the 26 planning groups has been $58,147.

"This equals roughly $172 per year per planning group, a negligible amount," said Moosa.

Planning groups were formed by the County over four decades ago to fulfill a specific need. According to Policy I1-A, the purpose was "to encourage a high level of citizen participation in the community planning process."

"That policy also states that ‘local planning is more responsive to local needs if there is a high level of citizen participation in the planning process,’" said Moosa.

"It is hoped that the County’s goal to be responsive to local needs has not lost its relevancy," he added.

Moosa said the FCPG, through its member volunteers, has "steadfastly fulfilled its mission by representing the citizens of Fallbrook."

"It has provided input to the county regarding numerous community concerns including recent issues dealing with [State Route] 76 alignment, the Liberty Quarry, and the local issue of land being transferred into Indian Trusts," he said.

"The [FCPG] is the only local representative form of government that the citizens of Fallbrook have," explained Moosa. "Without it, decisions affecting Fallbrook would be determined by those who work and live elsewhere and are unfamiliar with the needs of the area. It would be as improper as Fallbrook residents making decisions about what’s best for the residents of Kearny Mesa."

Moosa said if the proposal to disband planning groups is not approved, then the task force made the following recommendations:

1) Limit the scope of their review to the preparation and amendment of the General Plan and Community Plan and the PPP as described below.

2) Staff each planning group meeting with a senior level planner and County counsel.

3) Institute term limits on planning group members to a maximum of two, two-year terms, in a 10 year period.

4) Revise the Fee Ordinance to clarify that CPG’s no longer receive free appeals to the Board of Supervisors.

"The recommendation to limit the scope of planning groups does not address the issue at hand," said Moosa. "Enforcing the existing scope of planning groups does address the issue. Planning groups are advisory and should remain as such. If some group members have exceeded their bounds it’s because they have been allowed to do so."

Moosa said the recommendation that each meeting be staffed with a County planner and County counsel "will lead to exorbitant costs to the taxpayer and would not be necessary if planning group guidelines were clearly enforced."

"Currently the county Advertisement

[ Berry-Bell and Hall Mortuary ] states that it spends approximately $375,000 per year on community group support - this roughly adds up to approximately $14, 423 per year for each of the 26 planning groups," said Moosa. "Even when the average election cost of $4,742 per year is added to this figure, totaling $19,165 per year, the cost of a County planner and County counsel attending each of the 26 planning group monthly night meetings would far exceed this amount. The cost of planning groups to the county is negligible when compared to the options presented."

Moosa said since the planning group positions are voluntary and the members are not specialists, it takes several years to obtain knowledge and experience.

"The recommendation of limiting planning group members with two, two-year terms in a 10-year period would eliminate planning group effectiveness by insuring that members would not gain enough experience to be seasoned in the varied aspects of the planning process," said Moosa.

FCPG member Jackie Heyneman, a well-known community volunteer, is approaching her four-year anniversary on the board and agreed with Moosa.

"It takes almost four years to understand all the aspects of what we have to look at regarding these projects; it is quite a learning curve; implementing a rule where one can only serve two two-year terms in 10 years is not reasonable," said Heyneman.

Moosa pointed out how long some projects are on the drawing board and that continuity of the process is important.

"Few if any members would be able to follow though from start to finish on large development projects, most of which last longer than two years," said Moosa.

Moosa also noted that FCPG members are elected by the community.

"If a planning group member is elected by the constituents of a community then it is apparent that the member represents the citizens of the community," said Moosa. "If the community feels that he does not represent them, then he will not be re-elected."

Fallbrook resident Myriam Padilla said she feels secure with the Fallbrook Community Planning Group in place.

"I am happy to have a planning group in Fallbrook; it is good to know that we have people in local government who understand our community," said Padilla. "As it is, I feel that any local problem can be brought up to our planning group and it will be worked out."

Moosa said in regards to the appeals process, that the loss of the planning group appeals process would "muffle the voice of the people while giving the advantage of a megaphone to the voice of a developer."

The recommendations made by the Red Tape Reduction Task Force are not advisable said Moosa.

"The recommendations suggested have sweeping effects on many and will be a major setback for local representation," said Moosa, who added that some feel it wouldn’t be surprising if campaigns for incorporation begin in some unincorporated communities if planning groups are abolished.

"The real solution is to clearly deal with the specific problem and not to eliminate a program that has proven its value to the citizens it represents," said Moosa.

"Who else would better understand what our community needs and wants?" asked Padilla. "Our planning group members focus on keeping our town looking good and making it a safe environment for our kids to grow up in."

In regards to this issue, the Fallbrook Community Planning Group has suggested that the County:

• Create a job description for incoming planning group members clearly defining their responsibilities, scope, and parameters.

• Implement a training session with County counsel and Senior DPLU staff for each individual planning group rather than one, large, combined countywide gathering. This will allow planning members the freedom to ask questions pertinent to their area and would prevent a single planning group from dominating the combined training sessions as has occurred in the past.

• Request that each member sign an agreement verifying that they understand their responsibilities and parameters and agree that if these are not followed, they may be removed from their position.

• The key to alleviating county concerns and to creating more effective planning groups is detailed training and policy enforcement. By implementing this approach, the county will succeed in preserving an institution that was formed to fulfill a goal that still exists: being responsive to local needs.