Some important issues to Consider for MEASURE A: STONERIDGE DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECTING MORE RC ZONING THAN 25 ACRES AND EFFECTS OF SUCH ACTION There are a misconceptions as to the amount of Development Acreage within the Prop FF for Stoneridge. The measure claims that only 25 acres would be used for Development but REZONES much more Acreage into RC from OS-R. The “guarantee” of the remaining acreage, outside of the 25 acre development, is said to be protected through a Conservation Easement. A Conservation Easement is a PRIVATE Agreement, in this case between the Owner and OPENSPACE LLC. A Conservation Easement is an agreement that a Portion of Private Land be use for Environmental Protection, the Owner entrusts this Land to the Land Trust, in this case OPENSPACE LLC. IT IS THE ENFORCEMENT, OVER TIME, OF THIS EASEMENT, WHICH PRODUCES AN EXTREME DANGER. OPENSPACE LLC will be TOTALLY responsible for insuring the remaining RC Zoned Land be maintained as a Golf Course as per the PRIVATE agreement. This places OPENSPACE LLC in the Position of actually forcing the Owner to Operate the Course, which is highly unlikely that the Owner would agree, or OPENSPACE LLC to take over operation. HOWEVER, to OPENSPACE LLC’s own admission, the Golf Course is Financially unfeasible; which is the motivation for the Proposition in the first place: these are CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS and should raise an abundance of caution on other issues. It gets worse. It is important to realize that an Open Space by Conservation Easement is a Private agreement which could be challenged at any time, as this Conservation Easement, which is said to protect the Open Space is a Private Civil matter which is highly vulnerable to litigation. The could easily place the remaining RC Zoned land for use for Development if litigation was favorable to the Owner. The Owners penchant for litigation is well documented. An OS-R Zoned Open Space is a Public/Government guarantee which is subject to Prop FF and, thus, places the protection of Open Space IN THE HAND OF THE PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENT, NOT PRIVATE PARTIES. When the land outside of the 25 acres is changed to RC, what do you think the Owner is going to do? Just look at his past actions. In short, this Proposition exposes 80% of the Course to future Development. To better understand a Conservation Easement, I encourage all people concerned with this Proposition to simply look up CONSERVATION EASEMENT or CONSERVATION COVENANT on the Internet; there are many Legal Resources to define these agreements in detail. At least understand for what you are Voting and what protections would be in place for Open Space.
More MEASURE A ; STONERIDGE DEVELOPMENT information.
Since one of the Main Factors concerning Measure A [Prop FF name for rezoning Stoneridge] is the condition of the Course, if closed, I have, for the past 9 months, collected factual data, analyzed the data , documented and synthesized into a Summary Document of Information. These Facts will allow Voters to make realizations as to what the Course could become if “shut down”. The exaggerations, presented so far, are quite “non-factual”. I hope that this actual data and information will help people realize the truth for themselves. CLOSING THE COURSE EXAGGERATIONS: The misinformation concerning the Closing of the Course is meaningless and misleading. The Pictures and Dialogue being Posted of Escondido is a needless use of “Fear Mongering”. Real Facts are important. The responsibility of the Owner for a Closed Course is dictated by State Laws, Cal Fire Laws and Local Laws which were updated several times due to the Witch Creek/Cedar Fires, which severely impacted the Stoneridge Area. [20+ Home lost] If the owner closed the course, he will own and be essentially responsible for a OS-R Private 117 Acre “Backyard”, just like any of the larger Acre Lots in Poway. In addition, due to his “Backyard” being Zoned OS-R in the middle of Fire Country, the Laws are more stringent than has been represented. THE SITUATION IN ESCONDIDO IS SIMPLY NOT RELATED TO POWAY AS ESCONDIDO WAS ZONE RESDENTIAL WHEN THE OWNER PURCHASED THE LAND. THE LAND COULD HAVE BEEN PURCHASED AND DEVELOPED ANY TIME IN THE LAST 50 YEARS DUE TO THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING. STONERIDGE IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT: STONERIDGE IS ZONED OS-R AND IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF PROP. FF, WHICH HAS CITIZEN POWER THAT ESCONDIDO IS NOT ABLE TO EMPLOY AGAINST THE OWNER. Read all of the Laws, as I have researched, to understand the Owner’s responsibilities [ No “chicken manure” or “Extreme Browning out” would be allowed by these Laws; return to natural habitat without fire hazards is the worst case]. (References are included at the end of this post) Consider, as well, that the Owner would lose Revenue from the Membership, Property Tax, as well as Maintenance. [Approximately $2 MILLION PER YEAR . (This is verifiable with some very easy Math) If Prop FF fails, the Owner CANNOT attempt any New Development Proposition for a minimum of two years, as Initiatives must wait at least one Election Cycle before being reintroduce [California Law on Direct Democracy Initiatives, like Prop FF]. Thus, “arm twisting into submission” after a short time, cannot be used by the owners, Tactics to “bully” and “place fear” into people are not necessary if the facts are considered. Let us look at this portion of the issue with clarity, not illogical supposition and false equivalencies. References for your review [Take note of the Dates of these Documents. These Law were updated after the Witch Creek and Cedar Fires, in which this area was severely affected, as mentioned above]: 1. http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Poway/html/poway15/poway1524.html Read: Section 15.24.110 2. City of Poway>Our Community> “Unkept Yards” Read Sections: 8.76.030 and 8.76.035 3. Use your Browser and type: Defensible Space Guidelines - Board of Forestry Read pdf: bofdata.fire.ca.gov/PDF/copyof4291finalguidelines9_29_06.pdf This Document deals with maintenance of Trees, Bushes, Brush, Grass, Chaparral Vegetation Types, which the Course presently contains.