Vurbeff Rebuffed
On Tuesday of this week (March 31), approximately 40 residents from Leucadia and other parts of the city attended the EIR scoping meeting for the proposed “Hymettus Estates” density bonus project. Those who arrived expecting to get informed about the EIR process and study were sadly mistaken, as they were instead met by a bank of construction maps and instructed by [city environmental coordinator Scott] Vurbeff to “only make comments, not ask questions.”
As most attendees had no clue as to how to interpret the maps, they stood around in small groups, clearly at a loss. Disappointment quickly turned to outrage as attendees realized they’d been tricked by a purposefully divisive and non-informative City-hosted meeting.
Springing into action, residents arranged chairs in rows and self-organized so that all could hear the others’ concerns in the transparent and open format that they had originally expected from the City. Vurbeff, clearly baffled as to how to regain control of his “keep ‘em in the dark” format, had no choice but to ultimately join in the discussion and (sort of) answer questions. It should be noted that he was clearly rattled and gave responses that were largely vague and sometimes nonexistent.
Residents left with a better understanding of the project’s issues and how they related to an EIR, but only after they took over the meeting. Is the Council aware of this anti-resident format, and do they approve? Is it part of the new transparency that residents were promised?
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Open Government Theatre
From the Inbox:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good thing the residents are taking control or we would be left not knowing anything. Same on the city when they say no questions, only comments. That is no way to run a meeting.
ReplyDeleteMeant to say "SHAME on the city".
DeletePathetic that we pay for this kind of treatment. Company man Manjeet stuck his head in the door at one point and looked shocked. Guess things weren't going according to plan.
ReplyDeleteThis travesty of transparency was orchestrated by Planning Director Jeff Murphy and his Deputy Director Manjeet Ranu. Both are appointees of Gus Vina. It's time for the council to either bring them under control or force their resignation.
ReplyDeleteScore one for the residents. Maybe, just maybe we can take control of our city.
ReplyDeletePeople all across Encinitas support the Fulvia neighbors. Our Encinitas Planning Department is a disgrace.
ReplyDeleteVurbeff has no understanding of his job, and he clearly works for developers with no regard for professional standards or ethics in his field. Anywhere else and he would have been fired after his mishandling of the Desert Rose issue. What do staff have to do to lose their job at the city--tell the truth??
ReplyDeleteVurbeff's not in charge. Leave him out of it.
ReplyDeleteHe's a willing foot soldier who's very much put himself in it. He's quite comfortable in his role of ducking and weaving. You should have seen his frozen grin last night as he happily repeated "this is the format the. City wants, and I'm not going to change it."
DeleteSo who is in charge? Where does the buck stop??
DeleteUltimately the City Council is in charge, and the buck stops with each member. Vurbeff was in charge of the "scoping meeting," which initially turned out to be more of an open house. Vurbeff said that the public could have input on the EIR, but later, under the prodding of a participant, that the city could pass the EIR with "overriding considerations" and totally ignore any negative environmental consequences under the guise of "public benefit."
DeleteMany citizens left the session thinking the whole thing was a sham and that staff was working for the developer City Mark. The lackey Vurbeff, the sneaky Ranu, and the devious Murphy, keeping himself carefully hidden, all know what they want and manipulate the law. And it's not what the citizens want and not what an unbiased interpretation of the law would lead one to expect..
And Vurbeff even admitted that EIRs rarely, if ever, change the outcome of a project. This only served to reinforce the group's apprehension that the project is a done deal and that City Hall does not play fair.
DeleteFire the Director and Asst. Director and the rest will fall into line. If they don't fire them too. Most lower levels are just doing what they are told and want a paycheck at the end of the day.
DeleteI saw Manjeet pop in for a minute and he high tailed it out of there before anyone could put his feet to the fire. Bawk, bawk, bawk, bawk, bawk goes the little chicken.
ReplyDeleteCity Mark should be banned from building in this town after what they did to the neighbors on North Hymettus or was it North Hygeia, by spreading the toxic greenhouse dust all over the streets to the point that animals and kids were affected and some even moved out of the homes!!!!!!!
This time, it is nine homes zoned for five. This community has until April 15th to ask for specifics to be included in the EIR. After that, there is a forty five day period to have those specific queries answered. That is it. That is all.
There is no more except the will of the people most affected by such developments all over this city. The only thing that seems to make a difference to thwart such abuse of our zoning is the numbers of people who can show up when the opportunity arises.
Unite to preserve. This can pop up next door to you without a warning like the Jason St attempt to max out the square footage. Better minds prevailed, thankfully, and the owners chose to stay within current zoning. Thanks for that.
City Mark, come on, you can do it with neighborhood support and create something special to be proud of. Nine in five zoned property is a travesty. Then again you have your reputation to stand on. Think of Beacons Homes behind Mozzy's. The list can go on, but the picture is all too clear.
Correction: Jason St owner/developers chose nothing. The. Council's direction to follow existing Municipal Code in calculating base density meant that they could not build as densely as the owners had hoped. They'd still be packing that property with 7 houses instead of 4 if they had their way.
DeleteNot exactly sure whose "better minds" you mean, 10:33?
City Mark are lyres and will say and do anything to equal greater profit in the short term. They regularity sell out neighborhood quality of life and lower surrounding property values for their profit. Screw them and fight them every step of the way.
ReplyDeleteCity Mark Sucks and they owners have no integrity. Any City Staff catering to them, should be fired immediately.
Is it not ironic that the "city" apparently wants to "round up" this project while they are defending a lawsuit to round down ?
DeleteThey had no choice but to defend the lawsuit; anything less would not only have exposed the Council's developer bias beyond the "usual suspects" to the entire town, it would have killed the HEU on tbe spot.
DeleteHow hard they are defending this suit is TBD.
Now are you ready to use flaming torches and pitchforks to take back your city?? City staff is LAUGHING AT YOU !!!! You, Joe and Joan Q Public are being laughed at by staff and council. Just shut up and pay your taxes...we know what is best......that's their thinking. Defy them!!! DEFY!!!!
ReplyDelete12:11am It was my understanding that the Jason St. owners originally intended to work within the current zoning of four units and all the neighbors where on board.
ReplyDeleteWhen they came back from Planning was when everything had changed to the max density bonus of seven units. That was when all the neighbors felt betrayed and began to raise heck which brought about the return to four units.
It was not the city that forced them to cut back, It was the pressure from the neighbors and the community as a whole who impressed upon the owners that Plannings push for density bonus would face a long drawn out process with no guarantee of success in the end and only serve to inflame the neighbors to fight to preserve their neighborhood from such abuse of our current zoning.
Every neighborhood should align with each other every time this is pushed. Let this town no longer be a haven for those who seek profit over our community's character that attracted us here in the first place.
That was my understanding as well, it went from 4-7 units once they spoke to staff. I went to the one meeting after the count changed, and neighbor were rightly incensed. There was no love lost after they tried to claim they were trying to do something "nice for the neighborhood" by increasing the density. Part of the recipe for success is those folks want to live on that property, which would be tough to do after you went back on a prior density agreement...
DeleteThe number if units allowed was reduced after the Council - under pressure from the Fulvia St people and their lawyer - to follow the General Plan and round down on the base density calculation.
DeleteNo amount of mere resident pressure and complaining alone would have gotten Jason St reduced.
Abd according to the property owner/developer, the project went from 4 to 7 units as the result of talking with staff, who encouraged them to go for density bonus.
ReplyDeleteNever been to one of these EIR scope meetings. Is this required by state law, local ordinance, or policy? If so, shouldn't the law or policy clearly state the meeting objectives and agenda?
ReplyDeleteHow would you run the meeting (goals, agenda, format, decisions, results, requirements, roles)?
Not required. City policy seems to be whatever "staff" feel like making up that day.
DeleteI was there the other night. How I would run the meeting is exactly as it turned out: city and developer representatives there to respond to input and questions by concerned citizens. People raised their hands and questions were answered. I'm not saying honestly, but answered.
The arrangement the city had was to send folks away with nothing. How would you run the meeting, 5:47?
7:05, I honestly don't know enough to have an opinion. Your answer seems reasonable.
DeletePlanning led the owners down a primrose path with stars [dollars] in their eyes thinking they could turn a single family residence into seven units in a neighborhood where those long time residents and their families never came into consideration.
ReplyDeleteThe needless strife created by Planning is typical of the mindset this community has to deal with over and over. If Planning were an elected office we would dump them all. If they instead chose to respect what we have here and worked with the community's standards instead of the developers every time a project comes before them well.......
2:05pm you are wrong and you know it. Instead, you sound like a tool of Planning or their handlers and I don't mean our Council, who should be handling them and do not.
The residents only have Council to rely upon to direct Planning and where is that direction by Council to Planning?
I have witnessed Council giving direction to Planning too many times and they disregard it and go on like they did before, with no price to pay. Just what does it take for Council to have finally had enough of Plannings behavior?
Voting out the Council seems to be the only resort and even then Planning remains. There will be no change if the players in Planning remain the same. That goes for Council too, who let them get away with this subpar performance and never do more than thank them for their shoddy efforts, time and time again.
2:05 here - you most certainly misunderstand me...if I told you who I was, you'd put the egg on your face yourself :)
ReplyDeleteMy point was the council is no more willing than the planning department to protect residents - otherwise the planners and other departments, for that matter, would be under control. They're not. It took reading the General Plan AND retaining an attorney to force the council to direct planning staff to abide by the General Plan base density rounding down.
My point is neither the planning department NOR council protect residents. That's why it's so important to read the code ourselves, not take staff's "interpretations" as gospel and then make council either understand or invite resident lawsuits such as Desert Rose and the potential for one on Fulvia. We are actually in agreement.
should have said "...make the council understand or BRING lawsuits...."
DeleteThis is in response to the April Fools post about how Vurbeff should be "left out " of this issue since he is only following orders; I have a question. Isn't it time to move beyond the Nuremburg Trial defense for these planners who we pay six-figure salaries? It didn't work for Nazi henchmen. and it shouldn't work here!
ReplyDeleteThe claim that planners have their hands tied doesn't hold up when we have people like Manjeet and Vurbeff who use their training to benefit themselves yet turn a blind eye to the citizens who pay them. Manjeet and Vurbeff have demostrated they how to engage in citizen particiption when they want to promote and protect their own political interests in their own neighborhoods.
Manjeet is an activist in his own community in East Del Mar, and Vurbeff was involved in a lawsuit against Shea Homes in his own community.
However, they use their positions to work AGAINST Encinitas residents and to marginalize Encinitas citizens' efforts to engage in the process to protect their own neighborhoods. Does it seem right that we are paying them to apply skills for them to advance their own personal interests in their own neighborhoods when they work overtime to squash the rights of Encinitas residents?
Actual professionals would avoid such conflicts of interests, but where else would Vurbeff and Ranu get paid six-figure salaries for the quality of work that they do in Encinitas?
Ultimately, the council is responsible for not taking charge of this situation, and at least we have the right to vote them out if they are unwilling to demand higher standards.
I am tired of hearing council members praise Jeff Murphy and the planners who bring shame on our entire city and are so bad that they make council look foolish.
Good points all and interesting about the hypocrisy of Vurbeff and Ranu.
DeleteThe Council make themselves look foolish when they take a back seat to staff decisions. None seem to have cottoned on to the fact that they, Council, are running the show. Perhaps that was not part of Vina's new Council member orientation?
Yes.
DeleteOur Planning Department is exactly like the Nazis in every single way.
Good point. You win the internet today.
Way to evade the point, 10:34. Isn't it a little early for your lunch break? Or is this an alternate Friday off?
DeleteThe reference was to the Nuremberg trials and the defense of "just following orders" used by the Nazis, not to the Nazis themselves and what they stood for.
DeleteNice try. You must work for the city.
12:13 sounds like a NAZI!
Delete12:35?
DeleteAlso a Nazi.
Godwin's Law.
Deletehttp://knowyourmeme.com/memes/godwins-law
Murphy, Ranu, and Vurbeff are using the excuse of just following orders. Their careers and retirements are more important than their personal ethics.
DeleteHa, 12:13 (me) and 12:35 on the same wavelength. City workers are well-trained in twisting the facts and are easy to spot.
ReplyDeleteSame wavelength, same brown shirts.
DeleteIf it steps like a goose. . .
See 6:34 above for your goose-steppers, 5:35. You get alternate Fridays off too, do you?
Delete6:34 said it much better, without a Nazi reference.
DeleteThe Nuremberg Trials did indeed establish that following orders is not a defense to crimes against humanity, and those convicted were executed. That's the problem with the reference. It was the enormity of the crimes--systematic extermination of 20 million people, that could not be mitigated or justified by orders from superiors.
Making the reference in this context suggests some form of equivalency between the "crimes:" mass extermination of millions and a couple of bureaucrats in a beach town running an EIR meeting.
See how silly that is?
That's why virtually all references to Nazis, Hitler, Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc. are lazy, silly, and stupid. They attempt to score rhetorical points by creating a false association between the target of your local ire with evil that is global in scale.
I can't believe this needs to be explained in 2015.
The equivalency was made between the excuse used, not the crime committed. Go back and read the original comment. It was about the trial defense used, not the crime. Silly only if read it incorrectly.
DeleteCouncil voted to allow Murphy and Manjeet send Housing Element information up to the state. Maybe we should send up our own information to show that they are as bad as the negotiators who have stuck SDGE customers with the 4 billion dollar bill for shutting down San Onofre. Just because backroom deals happen at city hall and not a fancy hotel in Poland doesn't mean that they aren't doing everything possible to manipulate the outcomes and deprive citizens of the ability to participate in the process.
ReplyDeleteWe need to see some people go to jail!
A thought.... If we only need to show the state zoning that allows for low income housing then why not make a map of zoning changes from r1 to r2. The stipulation being the second unit must be under a certian size and rent for under a certain price. I am zoned r2 but only have my single family home. Does that unbuilt second resident get counted towards our quota? I know there is no developer money in this idea but planning keeps saying the units do not have to be built, just the available zoning.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, not how it works.
DeleteThe state law provides two options for demonstrating zoning that could support enough affordable housing. The first is to have a track record of affordable unit creation using a specific zone. Affordable basically translates to $200K units. So unless you can show a track record of $200K units at R2, and enough R2 land available in that zone to create over a thousand units, option one is off the table.
Option 2 is basically R20-30.
3:41 PM
ReplyDeleteJeff Murphy and Manjeet Ranu have tried scare tactics to get parcels rezoned to a high density.
This is what is on the HCD website:
Background Information: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3), the housing element must include analysis of identified sites which must demonstrate density standards to accommodate a jurisdiction’s regional need for all income levels, including lower-income households.
To meet this statutory requirement, local governments should provide an analysis demonstrating how adopted densities accommodate the regional housing need for lower income households. The analysis shall include, but is not limited to, factors such as market demand, financial feasibility, or information based on development project experience within a zone or zones that provide housing for lower income households.
As an option and alternative to preparing the analysis described above, Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B) allows local governments to elect the option of utilizing “default” density standards that are “deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households.” The default density option is not a mandated density. The default density standard provides a streamlined option for local governments to meet the density requirement. No analysis to establish the appropriateness of the default density is required and the Department must accept that density as appropriate in its review.
Zoning to 30 units per acre instead of doing the analysis of the current zoning is the lazy way out for Jeff Murphy and HCD.
The default density option is not a mandated density. This sentence is written as part of the HCD information and is underlined by HCD for emphasis. Jeff Murphy, Manjeet Ranu, Lisa Shaffer, and Tony Kranz will tell you that the 30 units per acre is mandatory.. Not true.
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/Default_2010census_update.pdf
9:03,
DeleteIf you think Encinitas can demonstrate a track record of producing homes at or below $200K using less dense zoning, and that we have enough undeveloped acrage at that zone to meet eight years of projected growth needs, we would all like to see your analysis. If it holds water, we will surely enshrine your likeness on a bronze statue somewhere.
11:02 PM
ReplyDeleteThe state and Encinitas planning are talking about new apartments; not homes for sale.
9:20,
DeleteAre you sure about that? Pretty sure state law defines affordable housing as housing that would cost no more than a third of the resident's income, irrespective of whether the payment is made as rent or mortgage payment.
The affordable units can be rented or sold. Of course, at R-30 density the units would be apartments to be rented or condos to be sold.
DeleteCan't a condo be a home?
DeleteCan't an apartment be a home?
My, how interesting that someone saw the word home, and thought the word only applied to single family detached residences, like theirs.
Snob much?
What many are objecting to is that they will sell these condos for $600-$800,000, which is the justification for affordable, high-density units. No low income person could afford to live in one, so they will be sold as high-density 2nd homes to out of town vacationers who will fly in and increase the carbon footprint more than having a decent-sized home with a yard.
DeleteThe whole thing is a fraud to keep planners in jobs and city employees in pensions while enriching developers. This has nothing to do with taxpayers who live in Encinitas nor affordable housing for people who already work here.
8:44 PM
ReplyDeleteIf you look at the previous comments of 3:41 PM and 8:28 PM the discussion is about R2 zoning which is single family homes.