Resident Commentary


Who would approve high-density projects under Measure T?

Answer: ONE person, the unelected Director of Planning!  An Encinitas resident documented this transfer of power away from the Planning Commission and Council. Listen between minutes 2:40 – 4:40.

Measure T is deceptive? 

Answer: Absolutely!  This resident touches on just a few of the ways Measure T is out to fool voters; listen between minutes 11:25 to 14:30:

Pam Slater-Price states in her commentary: “If Measure T passes, I hereby publicly state that I am sorry I ever worked to escape the clutches of the county. Here’s why.”

Read the full story here.

Why these two Encinitas neighbors are “No” on T – from letters to the Editor,  Encinitas Advocate:

Vote no on Measure T

In a few weeks, every voter will have the opportunity, and responsibility, to exercise their right to vote. Among the items on Encinitas ballots will be Measure T.

This measure was formulated by the City Planning Commission based on the expressed wishes of the City Council. Citizens’ input had very little impact on the final form of the measure. Despite the city’s propaganda, no genuine citizen input was received or considered in the process of preparing this measure.

Meetings billed as informational, and designed to elicit citizen input, were actually presentations of the city’s plan as a fait accompli. No serious discussions were had of the potentially disastrous impact of this much density increase to the city’s already over stressed infrastructure.

During the Environmental Review stage, I read the Environmental Impact Report underlying the Housing Element Update. I confined myself to the sections dealing with traffic and noise. What I read was a completely inadequate examination of existing traffic patterns, based on single event observations at specific intersections. Analysis of projected future impacts on traffic was based largely on CalTrans parameters which consider a less than 15-minute wait to access a freeway on ramp to be acceptable.

In addition to inadequate roadways, one of our biggest problems is parking, both commercial and residential. The lack of adequate off-street parking means many residential streets are effectively one way streets. Yet the city proposes to allow even less off-street parking in newer developments. While the idealistic basis of this may be to encourage people to walk, bike or use public transit, the real effect will be to make our streets even more congested, impassable and dangerous for those foolish enough to walk or bike.

I have lived in Cardiff for 30 years. I love this community and want to share it. I understand that growth is inevitable. A lot of it has occurred in the time I’ve lived here. But we must think about the existing quality of our infrastructure before we stack more houses and cars on the pile. The city must find a way to address the traffic, parking and noise issues we already have.

In her recent op-ed piece, Councilwoman Lisa Shaffer referred to the high cost of having to potentially defend litigation if Measure T is not passed. What about the cost of failing infrastructure? What about the failure of the measure to address in any real way the state’s actual mandate, which is to provide affordable housing for all citizens. That is not in any way built into Measure T. Higher density will provide smaller— but just as costly per square foot — units. It will do nothing to address the real housing needs of those who live 6 or 8 or 10 to a single-family property in some of our neighborhoods because they cannot afford anything else.

Let the city know all of its citizens need to have a voice in drafting a reality-based housing plan. Vote no on T.

Barbara Murray


The terrible Measure T

By now you will have received oversized cardboard shingles in the mail from pro-development groups urging you to vote yes on Measure T. But, if you really want to preserve your peaceful neighborhood, community character and quality of life, you must reject Measure T. It is bad for the city. It is bad for you. And it does not provide affordable housing.

All five Council members have aligned themselves with the building industry and want to disenfranchise you from having a voice in the future of your beach community. They have become useful lackeys by selling your rights out to greedy developers. They even overturned their own ordinances to settle frivolous lawsuits brought on by the building industry and land barons.

They tell you that Measure T, as written, is required by state law. What they do not tell you is that Measure T goes way beyond state requirements.

They scare you into believing that your state bureaucracy will impose its will onto this city if Measure T is voted down, that the state may sue. Rest assured, the state does not have the power to overturn the will of the people. It would violate your democratic rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

They tell you that “Measure T doesn’t add any housing.” They must take you for dummies. Developers already stand in line to quadruple their profits by taking advantage of property rezoned for high-density, four-story structures with drastically reduced setbacks and parking areas.

They tell you that only “13 small areas” were selected to allow for more housing. Folks, this is only the beginning. If approved, Measure T changes the General Plan and Municipal Codes irreversibly to allow higher densities of taller structures throughout the city. Resist urbanization of your unique beach town and the nefarious attempt to destroy your quality of life through increased traffic, pollution, noise and crime.

They tell you that Measure T “ensures local residents continue to have control over new development.” But history has demonstrated that development-driven local governments don’t give a hoot about residents. They sell out to special interest groups every time. In Encinitas, they exploited the need for a Housing Element Update to destroy your right to vote on future zoning changes and on other changes to your General Plan.

If you question these statements please read the entire 237 pages (originally over 800 pages) of the Housing Element Update before you vote.

Measure T is a terrible plan. Demand a better plan that does not trash your General Plan. Demand one that will actually create affordable housing. Vote no on T.

Dietmar Rothe




Measure T Debate Slides

Couldn’t attend the October 13 Measure T debate hosted by the League of Women Voters?  Here are the slides shown by No on T spokesperson Bruce Ehlers.  Chances are someone else will have the same questions you do, so please feel free to post them to our Facebook page or write us privately for an answer.


Excellent and accurate commentary from “Waves to Ride” blogger:

If Voters Approve the HEU, Three-Story Buildings Could Line Leucadia 101

There’s no way to easily summarize and explain the state-mandated Housing Element Update (HEU). Anybody who wants to spend countless hours deciphering it can go to the 230-page “Entire Ballot Measure” here

Specific to Leucadia 101:

The HEU doesn’t require three-story buildings to line Highway 101 in Leucadia, but if the commercial strip there is upzoned to allow them, you can bet at least some will be built.

Anyone who doubts that should check the six three-story mixed-use monstrosities that march north from the corner of Phoebe Street. They were allowed under the city’s North 101 Corridor Specific Plan before voters passed Proposition A.

After June 2013, Prop A required buildings above two stories or 30 feet to be approved by a vote of the people. Hence, only two stories since. The proposed HEU, affectionately called “At Home in Encinitas” by city staffers and council members, effectively cancels Prop A in designated areas of the city’s five communities.

If approved by voters, the HEU will upzone every parcel fronting on 101 from the Leucadia Creek Apartments at address 1786 to the north corner of Leucadia Boulevard at addresses 902/914 with two exceptions: Sea Bluff and Pacifica condos.

North of Diana Street, the HEU identifies the zoning as both AHE-GC-X30 and AHE-101SP-X30. As far as we can tell, the two codes mean the same thing: At Home Encinitas-General Commercial-Mixed Use 30 Housing Units Per Acre; 101SP = 101 Specific Plan.

North of Diana, the zoning will let property owners build three-story buildings that can be either all residential, or commercial on the first floor and residential on the second and third floors. Although the building heights will be limited to 38 feet, stuff on the roofs can push the heights to 48 feet. Developers of buildings with five or more housing units who invoke the state Density Bonus Law can raise the density from 30 to 41 units per acre.

South of Diana, the HEU identifies the zoning as both AHE-GC-S30 and AHE-101SP-S30. Again, the two codes seem to mean the same thing. Where S replaces X, it means Shopfront. The three-stories will be commercial on the first floor and residential on the second and third. The same height and density facts north of Diana apply south of Diana.

Aside from property owners’ consciences, intentions and pocketbooks, we see two constraints on developing parcels with frontage between 1786 and 902/914 North Highway 101: First, in the Leucadia 101 zones, the HEU allows three-story buildings only on parcels that measure at least 10,000 square feet. Of course, owners-developers can combine adjacent smaller parcels to reach the minimum.

Second, many of the eligible parcels already have two- or three-story buildings and/or long-established businesses on them. For example: Leucadia Creek Apartments, Mobil station and 7-11, Rodeway Inn, Dos Palmas building at Jason, six three-story mixed-use buildings at Phoebe, former Pacific Surf Inn under renovation, south corner Jasper under renovation, Solterra Winery and north corner Leucadia Boulevard. It’s hard to imagine many of those parcels scraped for the sake of erecting high-density three-story mixed-use buildings.

On the other hand, there are many other eligible parcels that seem ripe for maximum development. For example, Sands Mobile Home Park/Leucadia Donuts at Avocado, Bar Leucadian, nursery at Edgeburt, Scott’s Automotive, Royal Motel and Liquor, Fish 101, north corner West Glaucus, Papagayo and El Torito. The last two might not be 10,000 square feet; the city’s MyEncinitas site makes it hard to tell.

General to the whole city:

The state law’s purpose, as effected by any city or county through the Housing Element of its General Plan, is to provide affordable housing for very low-, low- and moderate-income people. The sad irony is the HEU proposed by the city of Encinitas cannot achieve that purpose because the economics make it impossible.

City and state personnel admit that building new affordable housing in Encinitas is not possible. That’s why the HEU ballot summary states its purpose is to “incentivize greater housing affordability.” That’s why “enable market-based solutions to the provision of attainable housing” is among the HEU intents published by the city as a legal notice in the July 1 Coast News. That’s why, rather than guaranteeing new affordable housing, the 230-page “Entire Ballot Measure” here states that one of the city’s goals is to “encourage the provision of a wide range of housing by location, type of unit, and price to meet the existing and future housing needs in the region and city.”

To be clear on two points: First, federal housing subsidies that once helped very low- and low-income people pay for housing no longer exist. The waiting list is at least 10 years long. Second, affordable housing might be built under the HEU’s provisions only if a developer of five or more units invokes the state Density Bonus Law, or if a developer of 10 or more units invokes the city’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and actually builds the affordable unit(s) rather than pays the in-lieu fee to avoid building them. In either case, the number of affordable units in relation to the number of market rate units would be tiny.

If voters approve the HEU in November, there’s no doubt that high-density three-story mixed-use buildings will be built on at least some of the upzoned sites in the five communities of the city of Encinitas. Considering density bonus and inclusionary units, approval could mean up to 4,000 new high-density housing units, few if any of which would be occupied by very low- and low-income people. Traffic would grow dramatically. Parking availability would shrink dramatically. Stuff atop the new buildings could raise their heights to 48 feet.

Lawyers and others have speculated what the consequences of voters’ disapproving the HEU will be. But nobody knows for sure because there has never been a situation in California that duplicates ours in Encinitas.

We’ll take our chances and vote NO on the HEU.