YES vs. NO rebuttals (No on U in blue) posted on Next-door.com

Yes on U: Here are the rebuttal points to the 'No On Measure U' propaganda out there. The facts to dispute their claims are as follows -  ▪ They claim heights go to 4 stories – FALSE. The cap on Measure U sites is 3 stories, no higher. (This is the most frustrating ABSOLUTE LIE they are spewing. . . ). ▪ They claim heights go up to 42 feet – MISLEADING. The 15 sites can go up to 33 feet for a flat roof and 37 feet for a peaked roof. There is an additional 5’ ONLY FOR EQUIPMENT (such as heating, air conditioning, venting, elevators, etc.) but the extra 5’ is limited to no more than 25% of the top floor coverage with a minimum of 10’ setback and is EXCLUSIVELY for equipment.

Reply: What do you call 33 feet to 37 feet with a peaked roof? And up to 42 feet in height with appendices?  Most houses have 8 or 9 foot ceilings.

▪ They claim Measure U “kills” or “eliminates” Prop A (The Right to Vote initiative voted into effect in 2013) – FALSE. Measure U not only supports Prop A, but it defends Prop A. It specifically states within the measure “Proposition A cannot be modified except by another vote of the people” (Section 1 2013-2021 Housing Element 1-25). It also states in that same section: “Establish a schedule so that any required vote under Proposition A will be held sufficiently in advance of the Housing Element due date (target of 2020 for the 6th cycle) to ensure that an adequate housing element may be revised and approved by the voters if the initial vote is unsuccessful.” The sentence they quote and use in their literature is pulled out of context between these two factual statements.

Reply: Read the Housing Element proposal:  pg. 39 refers to Prop A as a “constraint” and that the City will “take actions” to overcome it in order “to ensure timely compliance” with the Housing and Community Development Dept. (HCD).  
The sentence that states:  “Prop A may not be modified by another vote of the people” IS that Vote to overturn Prop A and cede HCD compliance authority to the City instead of the Vote by the Citizens!  The Right of citizens to Vote on upcoming Housing cycles is called a “constraint”.  The City is deliberately vague in their language of keeping Right to Vote protections regarding future Housing cycles.  This indicates that our Right to Vote is in peril.     

▪ They claim that we won’t lose our control of local zoning or housing development decisions – UNKNOWN. We go before the judge/court on November 13th. The judge will decide the outcome of the 2 lawsuits still in place. He will have given us 2 chances at that point to have the people decide via Measure T and now Measure U. State law dictates EVERY city have an approved Housing Element. There is quite a bit of Case Law that shows the courts support State Law. . . None of us know what he will do for sure. The unknown aspect of this is very scary and puts our control in the courts hands.

Reply: The California Courts have never overturned a vote of the people.  Save once – Proposition 8 – deemed unconstitutional on its face.  Also:  It’s true that it is “unknown,” so why does the City claim we will lose our control to a judge?

▪ They claim the process that developed Measure U lacked candor and transparency – FALSE. There were over 25 meetings open and noticed to the public comprised of Task Force meetings, City Council meetings, Open House forums, etc. that involved full transparency and ALL allowed full public input and comment.

Reply: Informed citizens attended all the Open House workshops and the Task Force Meetings, and City Council meetings.  We watched a few people cry to the City Council against the L-7 site on Quail Gardens Road.  Good NIMBYs, persuading City Council member Mosca, to flip flop on his vote, and force the City to scramble for inadequate, sub-par sites in the City causing chaos among our Communities.  
Even the State Dept. of Housing and Community Development  (HCD) wrote a letter objecting to the City removing the L-7 site.   There were additional Secret City Meetings with Developers “unadvertised” to the public (Feb. 28, Apr. 4 – per Director of Development Services).
The City Task Force was disbanded, without notice, by the Mayor.  Even Kurt Groseclose said publicly to Bruce Ehlers “I think we’ve just been fired.”  So much for transparency!   Holding “workshops” is not the same as using input provided by residents.  Merely holding these meetings doesn’t mean the City listened.   

▪ They state these 15 sites will produce 2030 housing units – MISLEADING. The only way that can happen is if EVERY site is developed to the maximum density and 100% of them invoke Density Bonus State Law. That has NEVER happened in Encinitas. The true number of units is between 1504 and 2030 and that is only if 100% of the sites get developed.

Reply: IF Measure U passes, what is to stop developers – who will be the real winners of this Measure – what exactly is to stop them from building to the maximum? 30 units per acre plus Density Bonus is 41 units/acre!
Got Traffic?    With every housing unit built, traffic is estimated at 10 car trips per day/unit – do the math:  1,600 units = 16,000 car trips/day spilling onto our neighborhood and city streets and the freeway!  There are no plans or money for improved infrastructure to support this increase that will be generated by this amount of housing.   (1,600 units the “buffer” figure referred to repeatedly in City Council Meetings).
Is assuming zero Density Bonus as the City does with the 1,504 number, honest?  It is far more likely that most, if not all projects, will go density bonus (35% additional units).  What developer will leave money on the table?

They state Measure U is not compliant with State Law – FALSE. The truth is that we believe it is compliant, but we won’t know for sure until it passes and is submitted to HCD for approval. It meets ALL of the State Law requirements, so it would be a big surprise if it does not get approved.
How can a Housing Element be compliant when it is charged with building 1,140 low income units and it is building less than 250?   The carry over to the next Housing cycle – just two years away – will be 900 houses.  In 2020-2021 San Diego County is expected to absorb 171,000 more housing units, with Encinitas share being another 1,000 plus 900 = 1,900!

Reply: ▪ “We believe it is compliant?”  Who is this “we”?  The most recent July 5 letter on file from HCD states they do not find Measure U to be compliant.
 
▪ They state that Measure U will ruin the character of Encinitas – FALSE. The 15 sites in Measure U represent less than 1% of the land area (acreage) in the city and approximately 6% of the # of households in the city. Less than 1% hardly ruins the character of the city.

Reply: ▪ Preserving the Quality of Life and maintaining the Community Character of each of our incorporated communities are the precepts on which this City of Encinitas was founded!  We are a one and two story City – not 3 stories. 30 units per acre can be built within 30 feet, which is the only height requirement by the State (HCD). We have seen the character-killing monstrosities the City approves and have no faith in the design approval process the City claims it will follow.
 
▪ They say Regional Grant monies are competitive and difficult to obtain. While this is true, it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to get any of these outside resources because cities without an approved Housing Element ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO APPLY.

Reply: ▪ Not all grant money will be unavailable to our City.   There are other sources besides the State of California.
 
▪ They claim “affordable units not built will be added to the next housing element cycle WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE” – False. Any affordable units not built will be added to the next cycle but ONLY BECAUSE THEY WERE ALREADY voted on and APPROVED by a vote of the people – Measure U. . .

Reply: ▪ This sentence defies reason!
 
Building low income housing in the City of Encinitas, is an illusion.  It is a shell game perpetrated by building industry developers.  This demand for building additional housing, under the guise of creating much needed low income units is a product of State Legislators, influenced by the BIA lobbyists, coming up with numerical demands in order for developers to maximize their profits.  
There are many loopholes that allow builders to escape building the 15% low income houses. (pg. 30 ballot Measure U). IF 30 units/acre and 3 stories was created to support development of low and affordable housing, then WHY are 85% of them million dollar market rate units?  Why is the City allowing this unnecessary level of exploitation of our communities?   Building at this level under the guise of accommodating low income housing is a fraud!  Go back to page 39, where the City slyly tries to get us to forfeit our Right to Vote....in this vote!

www.VoteNOonU.com