Encinitas council refines FY26–27 work plan, public commenters press for faster short‑term rental enforcement

The Encinitas City Council met in a special session June 17 to review and tighten the draft Fiscal Year 2026–27 city council annual work plan, with council members pressing staff for specific, measurable quarterly deliverables on shoreline permitting, short‑term vacation rental enforcement and permit process mapping.

Deputy City Manager James told the council staff had revised the draft after direction from the May meeting and highlighted substantive changes in the Attachment 1 red‑text language; if approved, James said the work plan would guide staff beginning July 1 and staff would return in August with a fourth‑quarter update. Mayor Ehlers proposed beginning discussion at Goal 4.2.0.1 (shoreline protection and beach maintenance) to accommodate staff scheduling.

Public comment focused on short‑term rentals (STVR). Susan Turney of Encinitas told the council she and another resident had met repeatedly with elected officials and staff and had produced detailed research. "Using city data, we are losing an estimated $1,500,000 plus annually in uncollected TOT from violators," Turney said, urging the council to move corrective action up the work plan and to require permit numbers on platforms. She said prior promises — a process mapping consultant and permit‑number requirements — had not been implemented as committed.

A second speaker, announced by the clerk as Patty Stottlemyer, urged attention to the climate action elements of the plan and warned against ceding policy parameters to unaccountable “clearinghouses.”

Council members and staff responded with a series of changes and clarifications. Several members, led by Mayor Ehlers, pushed for precise deliverables tied to quarters: hire a process‑mapping consultant and complete process mapping, launch a monthly public dashboard showing enforcement metrics, and set a reduction target for unpermitted short‑term rental units (the mayor proposed reducing roughly 200 unregistered units to 50 as a minimum and 25 as a stretch goal by the end of the fiscal year).

Staff reported steps already under way: a host‑compliance agreement has been executed; a code‑enforcement officer is included in the budget before council; initial internal process mapping has begun and could be supplemented by a consultant if necessary; and staff intends to post monthly enforcement dashboards on the city web site showing permits issued, enforcement actions and TOT recovered.

Council members also debated scope language elsewhere in the plan. They asked staff to generalize one housing line to "grants" to allow pursuit of multiple funding sources (staff said a regional homelessness partner is pursuing roughly $1,000,000 in funds and the city may provide a letter of support). Members discussed adding a council consideration of a Mobility & Traffic Commission recommendation on red‑light/stop‑sign camera pilots and agreed to agendize the commission’s letter for future consideration rather than adopt policy immediately.

A number of other objectives were clarified for timing and deliverables, including pavement striping/signage reviews, a parks master plan and a request to collate adopted plans on the city website so incoming council members and staff can access a single, authoritative list.

No formal ordinance or adoption vote on the work plan was recorded at the special meeting; council directed staff to revise objective language for a return in August. The mayor closed the meeting after confirming the next step: staff will return with revised objectives and a clearer timeline for the measures the council requested.

Ending: The council agreed to reconvene the work‑plan review in August with refined, measurable objectives and staff commitments; no binding policy or ordinance was adopted at this special meeting.