Agenda Item 10a: Enterprise Performance Reporting - Second ...
2021-01-27 Item #10A - Attachment 07 Page 1 of 19
Transcript of 2021-01-27 Item #10A - Attachment 07 Page 1 of 19
1140 South Coast Hwy 101 Encinitas, CA 92024
tel 760-942-8505 fax 760-942-8515 www.coastlawgroup.com
January 20, 2021
VIA Electronic Mail Only [email protected]
Anna Colamussi Principal Planner City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, California 92024
RE: City Council Hearing, January 27, 2021_______ __ Nolen Communities LLC’s Response to ECT Appeal
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
On behalf of Nolen Communities, LLC (Nolen), please accept the following comments in opposition to the Encinitas Community Trust’s appeal of the December 17, 2020 Planning Commission approval of the Fox Point Farms development project.
As was evident at the Planning Commission hearing, Nolen has spent the last nine months working diligently with the Fox Point community to address residents’ concerns with respect to certain aspects of the Fox Point Farms project. The result of this extensive community outreach and engagement is a project design supported unanimously by the Planning Commission and all but two disgruntled residents behind the current appeal.
We appreciate the Planning Commissioners’ thorough consideration of the project and its potential impacts and mitigation measures, as well as their general confirmation of CEQA compliance. As Nolen has pointed out, its commitment to undertaking a transparent and supportable CEQA process goes back to their first transmittal to the City during the Housing Element Update (HEU) process in 2017. While state law has evolved to allow projects like Fox Point Farms to claim “by-right” exemptions from CEQA, Nolen has made good on its commitment to conduct a full environmental impact report (EIR) containing complete and legally supportable Alternatives and Cumulative Impacts analyses, and mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant wherever possible.
As part of the CEQA process, the Encinitas Community Trust (ECT) submitted comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR (DEIR). These comments were reiterated, though not meaningfully developed further, in multiple submissions from the ECT prior to the Planning Commission Hearing.
Per the Encinitas Municipal Code, the ECT is required to provide a detailed summary to support its appeal, including “each issue which the appellant alleges was wrongly determined together with every argument and a copy of each item of evidence submitted to the subordinate entity that supports the allegation.” This requirement is intended to provide Nolen, the City, and interested citizens with a clear indication of the issues of contention and an evidentiary roadmap
2021-01-27 Item #10A - Attachment 07 Page 1 of 19
Nolen Communities Response to ECT Appeal January 20, 2021 Page 2 _________________________________________
by which the parties and the public can assess viability of the appeal. The ECT has not complied with the Municipal Code appeal requirements. Instead, the ECT’s December 26, 2020 appeal letter simply incorporates by reference its entire prior written comments on the DEIR and its further procedural and substantive comments in anticipation of the Planning Commission hearing. The appeal does not identify each issue the appellant believes was wrongly determined and does not provide “every argument and a copy of each item of evidence submitted” to the Planning Commission. Rather, the ECT would have the City and Nolen guess which of the voluminous issues raised remain unresolved and of concern to the ECT. This defect in the presentation of the appeal issues and evidence undermines the appellate process, and Nolen respectfully requests it be stated as a cause for rejection of the appeal when a decision upholding project approval is rendered. Further, where the ECT’s appeal letter states it “is not required to come forth during the administrative process with its own substantial evidence to prove the Project’s environmental impacts are more-than-significant,” it grossly misstates CEQA law as applied in the current context. When a court reviews whether an EIR sufficiently addresses issues, the court asks whether the document “includes sufficient detail to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and consider meaningfully the issues the proposed project raises.” (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 516, citing Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 405). Where, as here, the record contains substantial evidence to support the analysis and each of the conclusions contained in the DEIR, the challenger must show that the agency abused its discretion by either failing to proceed in a manner required by law (procedural defects) or by reaching factual conclusions unsupported by substantial evidence (factual defects). (Cal. Public Resources Code sec. 21168.5). When reviewing an agency’s factual conclusions, CEQA black letter law dictates that the court “may not set aside an agency's approval of an EIR on the ground that an opposite conclusion would have been equally or more reasonable,’ for, on factual questions, our task is ‘not to weigh conflicting evidence and determine who has the better argument.” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435). Put simply, absent substantial evidence proffered by the ECT to allow the City Council to find the DEIR factual underpinnings wholly without merit, the decision of the Planning Commission must stand.
ECT Issues Raised in Prior Comment Letters Comments related to the City’s adoption of the R-30 zoning, impacts to agricultural resources, traffic-related noise impacts, visual impacts to scenic corridors, impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions, adequacy of the San Dieguito Water District’s water supply assurances, significant and unavoidable traffic impacts, and suggested additional mitigation measures were identified by the ECT in its public comments to the DEIR. The Final EIR (FEIR) addresses in detail every comment raised by the ECT, including at times direct citation to evidence in the DEIR and appendices, and at times citation to supplemental substantial evidence offered into the record to support the DEIR findings. The ECT has never responded to the comprehensive FEIR rebuttal of each of its issues. Indeed, the only new comments made were non-substantive procedural issues related to compliance with the Americans with Disability Act and purported (and unsupportable) requirements to recirculate the DEIR due to new or additional evidence/issues in the FEIR.
2021-01-27 Item #10A - Attachment 07 Page 2 of 19
Nolen Communities Response to ECT Appeal January 20, 2021 Page 3 _________________________________________
In response to the pre-Planning Commission hearing ECT comments, Nolen provided further rebuttal and citation to substantial evidence in the administrative record. Nolen’s counsel has provided the City a legal response to ECT’s apparent misunderstanding regarding the triggers for DEIR recirculation obligations. So, while we believe the administrative record clearly and accurately demonstrates why the ECT’s comments do not require either additional mitigation measures or recirculation of the DEIR, please accept the following along with our apologies for beating the proverbial dead horse as to these issues: Agricultural Resources
• Summary of ECT Position on Appeal: Due to the presence of mapped “Unique Farmland,”
any conversion of land bearing this designation necessarily results in a finding of
significant impact. Additional evidence placed in the record (the Land Evaluation & Site
Assessment – LESA- Analysis) triggers recirculation of DEIR.
o Nolen’s Response: The DEIR comprehensively addresses how and why the land
mapped as Unique Farmland does not, and for many years has not, met the
State’s definition of Unique Farmland, and therefore the conversion of on-site
greenhouses to housing, commercial uses, and an actual in-ground farm is not a
significant impact to agricultural resources. After release of the DEIR, additional
substantial evidence was placed in the record to support the finding of no
significant impact. See, e.g., LESA Analysis performed in accordance with
California Department of Conservation guidance confirming impacts are less than
significant, Appendix T. See also, Response to Comments 4-32 through 4-39.
Because the new information put in the record did not disclose different or worse
impacts or result in different mitigation measures, recirculation of the DEIR is not
required.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Summary of ECT Position on Appeal: The DEIR fails to consider both project-specific and
citywide cumulative greenhouse gas impacts (and the DEIR failed to consider emissions
from the proposed HEU sites). The City’s adoption of a new Climate Action Plan triggers
recirculation.
o Nolen’s Response: The ECT is factually wrong. A project specific GHG analysis
was conducted and the DEIR determined that the project complied with the City’s
2018 Climate Action Plan (CAP) requirements. An updated 2020 CAP was adopted
after release of the DEIR, confirming buildout of the project and the other HEU
sites would not require additional mitigation measures to meet the City’s long term
GHG reduction goals. Further, the DEIR considered potential GHG emissions
impacts from all 2019 HEU sites even though it was not legally required to do so.
Under well-established CEQA law, a DEIR is required to consider only those
projects that are “reasonably foreseeable,” and not speculative. The DEIR contains
a list of projects and a methodology used to determine the scope of cumulative
projects. All 2019 HEU properties are included in the analysis despite uncertainty
2021-01-27 Item #10A - Attachment 07 Page 3 of 19
Nolen Communities Response to ECT Appeal January 20, 2021 Page 4 _________________________________________
regarding whether many will be pursued, and potential impacts were found to be
less than significant. The City’s adoption of a new CAP did not disclose different or
worse impacts or result in different mitigation measures than in the DEIR, so
recirculation is not required. See Response to comments 4-13 through 4-16, 4-24
through 4-31, EIR Appendix F.
Visual Impacts
• Summary of ECT Position on Appeal: The project will significantly change the visual,
scenic, and general character of the Fox Point community.
o Nolen’s Response: CEQA law does not require analysis of subjective psychological
feelings or social impacts that do not result in environmental impacts. The existing
Fox Point Farms parcel is currently developed with aesthetically displeasing
commercial greenhouses and fencing that do not allow for any view into or through
the property. The project does not adversely impact existing views to the site from
off-site public vantage points, does not impact historical resources, will preserve
mature trees to the extent feasible, and is designed with a mass and scale that
both meets the R30 zoning design criteria and fits into the surrounding
neighborhood. See Response to Comments 4-2, 4-3, and 4-50 through 4-54.
Noise Impacts
• Summary of ECT Position on Appeal: The conversion of agricultural uses on the property
to residential and commercial will result in increased traffic noise impacts, and cumulative
traffic noise impacts from other projects was not considered.
o Nolen’s Response. The ECT is factually wrong. A project-specific noise analysis
was conducted, and the DEIR found the project would not contribute to a
cumulatively considerable increase in roadway traffic noise. Further, in addition to
considering cumulative traffic generated by the project together with other projects,
the DEIR analysis was extremely conservative, utilizing a lower noise threshold of
significance than required. The noise study and DEIR further found that removal of
the commercial uses would not reduce noise impacts and would be inconsistent
with project objectives. The ECT has provided no substantial evidence by which
the City could find the FEIR conclusions in error. See FEIR section 3.10, Response
to Comments 4-13 and 4-47 through 4-49.
Water Supply
• Summary of ECT Position on Appeal: The DEIR fails to consider cumulative impacts to
water supply from development of all 2019 HEU sites.
o Nolen’s Response: The City’s 2018 Environmental Assessment for the HEU sites
addressed Fox Point Farms and other HEU projects within the San Dieguito Water
District’s jurisdiction and found that an adequate water supply was expected during
normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry year scenarios. The ECT mistakenly seeks to
2021-01-27 Item #10A - Attachment 07 Page 4 of 19
Nolen Communities Response to ECT Appeal January 20, 2021 Page 5 _________________________________________
include projects not in the SDWD’s jurisdiction. The DEIR cumulative analysis
found no significant impact to water supply, and the SDWD provided confirmation
that facilities and adequate supply are available to serve the project. See FEIR
section 3.14, Appendix R, and Response to Comments 4-13 and 4-18 through 4-
23.
Transportation
• Summary of ECT Position on Appeal: The project should implement additional mitigation
measures to reduce admittedly significant and unmitigable transportation impacts
associated with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Specifically, the project should have
considered an alternative that eliminated the restaurant/commercial components of the
project, and a mitigation measure that would provide a shuttle for use by project residents.
o Nolen’s Response: The DEIR found VMT impacts to be significant and unmitigable,
and a Statement of Overriding Considerations supported by substantial evidence
was unanimously adopted by the Planning Commission. The project includes
feasible VMT reduction strategies including, but not limited to, transit pass
subsidies, e-bike sharing, car sharing, a “school pool” program, a TDM marketing
program, an onsite business center, the provision of affordable housing, and
locating mixed land uses on-site. The DEIR included a VMT Reduction Alternative
which analyzed additional measures to reduce VMT impacts and determined such
an alternative would not be feasible. In response to demands for a shuttle and
other measures, Appendix O-3 analyzed a range of potential Traffic Demand
Management VMT reduction options and found none would be expected to
produce quantifiable reductions to VMT. The project is along North County Transit
District Bus Route 304, which serves places of interest in the community and is
scheduled to pick up and drop off immediately in front of the project at 45-minute
intervals. See EIR Appendices 0-2 and O-3, Response to Comments 2-3, 2-4, 3-3,
4-11, 4-13, 4-16, and 4-42 through 4-45
Cumulative Impacts
• Summary of ECT Position on Appeal: Throughout the DEIR the City fails to adequately
analyze cumulative impacts.
o Nolen’s Response: The ECT is factually wrong. The DEIR in sections 3.0 through
5.0 provides a comprehensive discussion of all categories of potentially significant
cumulative environmental impacts. The DEIR considered a list of reasonably
foreseeable projects (Table 3.0-1) and included all HEU sites despite not being
legally required to do so. Because speculatively foreseeable projects were also
included in the analysis, the DEIR treatment of Cumulative Impacts is a worst-case
scenario. The Final EIR provides and references substantial evidence to support its
findings, and no new information has been submitted or referenced that would
require recirculation of the DEIR or reconsideration of any findings. Suggested
mitigation measures would either not avoid or would not substantially lessen
impacts. See DEIR sections 3.0 through 5.0, Response to Comments generally,
2021-01-27 Item #10A - Attachment 07 Page 5 of 19
Nolen Communities Response to ECT Appeal January 20, 2021 Page 6 _________________________________________
and specifically Response to Comments 4-11 through 4-16, 4-20 through 4-32, 4-
39, 4-40, 4-46, 4-48, 4-49, 4-54, 4-56, 8-4 through 8-9, 9-2, and 9-3.
Americans with Disabilities Act Issue
• Summary of ECT Position on Appeal: The City’s notice for the Planning Commission
hearing indicated project files could be viewed in hard copy at City offices. The ECT claims
this precluded many elderly residents with medical conditions from being able to
participate in the hearing.
o Nolen’s Response: First, the ECT does not have standing to bring such a claim.
This unincorporated neighborhood association has not alleged harm to any of its
members, nor has it provided the requisite detail necessary to achieve
organizational standing had it done so. Second, the Planning Commission Agenda
expressly states, “If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting,
please contact the Development Services Department at 760-633-2710 at least 72
hours prior to the meeting.” No Individual contacted the City to express difficulty
obtaining documents or to request an alternative accommodation. No individual
participated in the hearing to express difficulty obtaining documents. Nolen notified
the ECT that project documents would be available digitally well before the
Planning Commission hearing, and the ECT’s only response was that other
members of the public might not be aware of the availability of documents linked to
the Agenda. ECT does not have standing to prosecute ADA concerns of non-ECT
members. The issue is a red herring, raised by the ECT because it was frustrated
that Nolen would not agree to a continuance of the Planning Commission Hearing.
In summary, based on the foregoing and the entirety of the administrative record, Nolen respectfully requests that the City Council deny the ECT’s appeal and confirm the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval of the project, certification of the FEIR, and adoption of Statement of Overriding Considerations (and other approvals). The Fox Point Farms project is the result of significant outreach and compromise between Nolen and the Fox Point community and represents exactly the type of project and process the City Council should support for the R30 zoned properties. Sincerely, COAST LAW GROUP, LLP Marco A. Gonzalez Attorney for Nolen Communities, LLC Cc: Nolen Communities, LLC
2021-01-27 Item #10A - Attachment 07 Page 6 of 19
1
Anna Colamussi
From: Anna Colamussi
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 8:37 AM
To: David Dekker
Cc: [email protected]; Paul Kibel
Subject: RE: Fox Point Farms project
Good Morning David,
See my responses in green below.
Thank you,
Anna
From: David Dekker <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2021 1:19 PM
To: Anna Colamussi <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Paul Kibel <[email protected]>
Subject: Fox Point Farms project
[NOTICE: Caution: External Email]
Anna, I have a couple of questions for you.
The existing property is tiered downward in three locations from Leucadia Boulevard north to past Sidonia Court. The
plans for the project shows that the homes along Sidonia street are on one level. In order to achieve one level one of
two things must occur; Excavation or landfill. Can you tell me what the developer proposes to use? The proposed
residences along Sidonia are relatively level and there will be a combination of cut and fill to grade the proposed pads.
My second question refers to the proposal that Sidonia Street will be widened at the entrance from Leucadia Boulevard
on to Sidonia Street.
If this is true;
1. Why is this necessary? The City’s Public Road Standards require the widening. Each roadway has a classification and a
required ultimate right-of-way width.
2. How far north on Sidonia Street would this widening take place? The entire frontage of the Fox Point Farms property.
Thank you,
David Dekker
Encinitas Community Trust
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
2021-01-27 Item #10A - Attachment 07 Page 7 of 19
1
Anna Colamussi
From: Anna Colamussi
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 7:02 PM
To: David Dekker
Cc: Paul Kibel
Subject: RE: Fox Point Farms Appeal
Hi David,
We are required to hear the project within 30 days of the appeal for projects involving maps.
Thank you,
Anna Colamussi
From: David Dekker <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 4:05 PM
To: Anna Colamussi <[email protected]>
Cc: Paul Kibel <[email protected]>
Subject: Fox Point Farms Appeal
[NOTICE: Caution: External Email]
Anna,
The subject appeal is scheduled for January 27.
My question is can the date be rescheduled for a date in March or April?
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
2021-01-27 Item #10A - Attachment 07 Page 8 of 19
1
Anna Colamussi
From: Anna Colamussi
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 7:00 PM
To: David Dekker
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Fox Point Farms project
Hi David,
The EIR’s geotechnical investigation (Appendix G) describes core samples.
That can be found in the Planning Commission Agenda Report that is still on our webpage and will be a part of the
Council Agenda Report as well.
Let me know if you have any trouble and I can find it for you and send.
Anna Colamussi
From: David Dekker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 7:21 PM
To: Anna Colamussi <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fox Point Farms project
[NOTICE: Caution: External Email]
Anna,
Are the core sample results available?
I couldn't find them in the EIR.
Sent from ProtonMail mobile
-------- Original Message --------
On Jan 11, 2021, 8:36 AM, Anna Colamussi < [email protected]> wrote:
Good Morning David,
See my responses in green below.
Thank you,
Anna
2021-01-27 Item #10A - Attachment 07 Page 9 of 19
2
From: David Dekker <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2021 1:19 PM
To: Anna Colamussi <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Paul Kibel <[email protected]>
Subject: Fox Point Farms project
[NOTICE: Caution: External Email]
Anna, I have a couple of questions for you.
The existing property is tiered downward in three locations from Leucadia Boulevard north to past
Sidonia Court. The plans for the project shows that the homes along Sidonia street are on one level. In
order to achieve one level one of two things must occur; Excavation or landfill. Can you tell me what the
developer proposes to use? The proposed residences along Sidonia are relatively level and there will be
a combination of cut and fill to grade the proposed pads.
My second question refers to the proposal that Sidonia Street will be widened at the entrance from
Leucadia Boulevard on to Sidonia Street.
If this is true;
1. Why is this necessary? The City’s Public Road Standards require the widening. Each roadway has a
classification and a required ultimate right-of-way width.
2. How far north on Sidonia Street would this widening take place? The entire frontage of the Fox Point
Farms property.
Thank you,
David Dekker
Encinitas Community Trust
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual(s) addressed in
the message. If you are not the named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute, or copy this e-
mail. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that disclosing, distributing, or copying this
e-mail is strictly prohibited.
2021-01-27 Item #10A - Attachment 07 Page 10 of 19
1
Anna Colamussi
From: Anna Colamussi
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 7:24 PM
To: David Dekker
Cc: Paul Kibel
Subject: RE: Fox Point Farms Appeal, January 27 Hearing.
Hi David,
The final Resolution is not signed. As soon as I receive the signed version, I can send it to you. It will also be part of the
Agenda Report that will be posted on Friday.
The condition of approval for the gated entry will be within that Resolution. However, the shuttle was never discussed
by the Planning Commission to be a condition of approval or mitigation measure in the EIR as part of their motion.
Please let me know if you have follow up questions.
Thank you,
Anna Colamussi
From: David Dekker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 1:10 PM
To: Anna Colamussi <[email protected]>
Cc: Paul Kibel <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Fox Point Farms Appeal, January 27 Hearing.
[NOTICE: Caution: External Email]
Hello again Anna.
I have another question for you. During the Planning Commission hearing on December 17 at least two changes the EIR
were suggested by Nolen Communities.
1. Gated entry way on Sidonia Street for emergency vehicles only.
2.A shuttle bus operated by Nolen Communities for use by the residents of Fox Point Farms.
Can you give me copies of these and other changes that may have been made after the hearing on December 17?
Thank you again,
David Dekker
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 10:55 AM, Anna Colamussi <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi David,
2021-01-27 Item #10A - Attachment 07 Page 11 of 19
2
Absolutely. It will be Attachment CC‐2.
Thank you,
Anna Colamussi
From: David Dekker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 10:50 AM
To: Anna Colamussi <[email protected]>
Cc: Paul Kibel <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Fox Point Farms Appeal, December 27 Hearing.
[NOTICE: Caution: External Email]
Hi Anna, i trust that when the agenda is posted that it will include the documents related to our appeal. I
reiterate that it is important that the public is aware of the reason for the appeal. Encinitas Community
Trust sent a trove of documents related to the appeal. The public must be able to read these
documents.
Thank you,
David Dekker
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 10:21 AM, David Dekker <[email protected]> wrote:
Thank you Anna, but I'm on your website now and see nothing for the agenda on
January 27.
When will it be there?
2021-01-27 Item #10A - Attachment 07 Page 12 of 19
3
.David Dekker
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Monday, January 18, 2021 8:39 PM, Anna Colamussi <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi David,
I do see it in there as shown in the snip below:
The agenda will be posted on Friday.
Also, please note that I need your PowerPoint presentation no later
than 5pm this Wednesday, January 20th, which will be 7 days prior to
the hearing. No new information can be included after that date.
Let me know if you have any other questions.
Anna Colamussi
2021-01-27 Item #10A - Attachment 07 Page 13 of 19
4
From: David Dekker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 11:16 AM
To: Anna Colamussi <[email protected]>
Cc: Paul Kibel <[email protected]>
Subject: Fox Point Farms Appeal, December 27 Hearing.
[NOTICE: Caution: External Email]
Anna,
I received the notice for appeal on Saturday and noticed that there was
no link to the appeal documents.
Encinitas Community Trust feels that it is important for the public to
know and understand the basis for the appeal in advance. Failure to to
include this documentation undermines the public's ability to
participate in the hearing on the appeal.
Thanking you in advance,
David Dekker
Encinitas Community Trust
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for
the individual(s) addressed in the message. If you are not the named
2021-01-27 Item #10A - Attachment 07 Page 14 of 19
5
addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute, or copy this e‐mail. If
you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that disclosing,
distributing, or copying this e‐mail is strictly prohibited.
2021-01-27 Item #10A - Attachment 07 Page 15 of 19
1
Anna Colamussi
From: Anna Colamussi
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 10:55 AM
To: David Dekker
Cc: Paul Kibel
Subject: RE: Fox Point Farms Appeal, December 27 Hearing.
Hi David,
Absolutely. It will be Attachment CC-2.
Thank you,
Anna Colamussi
From: David Dekker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 10:50 AM
To: Anna Colamussi <[email protected]>
Cc: Paul Kibel <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Fox Point Farms Appeal, December 27 Hearing.
[NOTICE: Caution: External Email]
Hi Anna, i trust that when the agenda is posted that it will include the documents related to our appeal. I reiterate that it
is important that the public is aware of the reason for the appeal. Encinitas Community Trust sent a trove of documents
related to the appeal. The public must be able to read these documents.
Thank you,
David Dekker
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 10:21 AM, David Dekker <[email protected]> wrote:
Thank you Anna, but I'm on your website now and see nothing for the agenda on January 27.
When will it be there?
.David Dekker
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
------- Original Message -------
On Monday, January 18, 2021 8:39 PM, Anna Colamussi <[email protected]> wrote:
2021-01-27 Item #10A - Attachment 07 Page 16 of 19
2
Hi David,
I do see it in there as shown in the snip below:
The agenda will be posted on Friday.
Also, please note that I need your PowerPoint presentation no later than 5pm this
Wednesday, January 20th, which will be 7 days prior to the hearing. No new information
can be included after that date.
Let me know if you have any other questions.
Anna Colamussi
From: David Dekker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 11:16 AM
To: Anna Colamussi <[email protected]>
Cc: Paul Kibel <[email protected]>
Subject: Fox Point Farms Appeal, December 27 Hearing.
[NOTICE: Caution: External Email]
Anna,
I received the notice for appeal on Saturday and noticed that there was no link to the
appeal documents.
2021-01-27 Item #10A - Attachment 07 Page 17 of 19
3
Encinitas Community Trust feels that it is important for the public to know and
understand the basis for the appeal in advance. Failure to to include this documentation
undermines the public's ability to participate in the hearing on the appeal.
Thanking you in advance,
David Dekker
Encinitas Community Trust
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual(s)
addressed in the message. If you are not the named addressee, you should not
disseminate, distribute, or copy this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are notified that disclosing, distributing, or copying this e-mail is strictly prohibited.
2021-01-27 Item #10A - Attachment 07 Page 18 of 19
1
Anna Colamussi
From: Anna Colamussi
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 8:39 PM
To: David Dekker
Cc: Paul Kibel
Subject: RE: Fox Point Farms Appeal, December 27 Hearing.
Hi David,
I do see it in there as shown in the snip below:
The agenda will be posted on Friday.
Also, please note that I need your PowerPoint presentation no later than 5pm this Wednesday, January 20th, which will
be 7 days prior to the hearing. No new information can be included after that date.
Let me know if you have any other questions.
Anna Colamussi
From: David Dekker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 11:16 AM
To: Anna Colamussi <[email protected]>
Cc: Paul Kibel <[email protected]>
Subject: Fox Point Farms Appeal, December 27 Hearing.
[NOTICE: Caution: External Email]
Anna,
I received the notice for appeal on Saturday and noticed that there was no link to the appeal documents.
Encinitas Community Trust feels that it is important for the public to know and understand the basis for the appeal in
advance. Failure to to include this documentation undermines the public's ability to participate in the hearing on the
appeal.
Thanking you in advance,
David Dekker
Encinitas Community Trust
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
2021-01-27 Item #10A - Attachment 07 Page 19 of 19