Item 19 Additional Material posted 6-15-201 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19M EMQRAN DLJ M City of Poway ADDITIONAL MATERIALS (Agenda Related Writings/Documents provided to City Council or Staff after distribution of the Agenda Packet for the June 16, 2020 Council Meeting) DATE: TO: FROM: CONTACT: SUBJECT: June 15, 2020 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Faviola Medina, CMC <tf\ (858) 668-4535 or fmedina@poway.org Item #19 -Specific Plan 18-001, Environmental Assessment 19-001, Zone Change 19-001, Zoning Ordinance Amendment 20-001, General Plan Amendment 19-001, Tentative Tract Map 19-002, Development Review 19-001 and Conditional Use Permit Application 19-005, a Request to Adopt a Specific Plan, Subdivide 117 Acres of Land and Construct up to 160 Homes with Recreational, Agricultural and Commercial Amenities at the Decommissioned StoneRidge Country Club and Certify the Associated Environmental Report Attached please find correspondence received after the agenda posting deadline. Reviewed/Approved By: Wendy Kaserman Assistant City Manager Reviewed By: Alan Fenstermacher City Attorney Approved By: Chr~ City Manager
2 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19ADDITIONAL MATERIALFrom: To: Subject: Date: Cassie Jordan Steve Vaus Farm-Poway Sunday, June 14, 2020 10:24:57 PM Dear Mayor Vaus and City Council members, My family and I are in support of the proposed Farm in Poway. We think it will be a very special place to live and love all the amenities amongst the new homes. For the naysayers, things either grow or they die, people and communities alike. Best, Cassandra Jordan N011hrop Grumman Cassie Jordan Northrop Grumman Corporation Cassiej23@gmail com I 858-922-5976
3 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19From: To: Subject: Date: Keith Sato Council members StoneRidge Saturday, June 13, 2020 3:44:36 PM To Mayor Vaus and the City Council: June 13, 2020 I would like to ask that the city council first collect signatures from the citizens of Poway to place proposition FF on the November 2020 ballot. In bypassing this step, the council is ignoring the resounding defeat of Measure A in November 2017. That defeat made it clear that the citizens of Poway wanted to keep the StoneRidge property as open space. It also ignores the fact that when a developer attempted to change the zoning of another open space property in Poway, he could not even obtain the needed signatures to get it on a ballot. I have yet to read any reason why bypassing the signatures for the proposition is of any benefit to the citizens of Poway. Keith Sato
4 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19From: To: Subject: Date: Patricia Rowean Councilmembers The Farms Saturday, June 13, 2020 9:48:26 AM We strongly recommended signature gathering in order to place this proposal on the ballot it is not just up to the city council to recommend it should be up to the people! We already know this council is in favor of more growth but that's not why most ofus moved here! Pat and Don Rowean Sent from my iPhone
5 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Mike Leland David De Vries; Councilmembers Letter of Support for The Farm Thursday, June 11, 2020 5:59:08 PM Poway Chamber-The Farm-Ltr of suooort-09June2020.odf On behalf of the Poway Chamber of C01mnerce. I will also get on the agenda to speak at the meeting next week. Thank you, Mike Leland
6 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19\II POWAY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE June 9, 2020 Mr. David DeVries City Planner City of Poway 13325 Civic Center Drive Poway, CA 92064 Dear David: On behalf of the Poway Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, I would like to express our support for The Farm in Poway project on the former StoneRidge Country Club property. At our April board meeting, Kevin McNamara presented his plan for the property and answered our questions about the housing, public access to amenities, and other aspects of the plan. In addition to providing housing and public access to amenities and trails, this well thought-out and designed plan will eliminate a blighted property and bring much-needed meeting/event space to the community for use by businesses and members of the public. Sincerely, Mike Leland Chair-Elect, Board of Directors Poway Chamber of Commerce 14039 Midland Road, Poway CA 92064 I Office: 858.748.0016 I Fax: 858.748.1710 I www.Poway.com
7 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Chris Prine Steve Yaus Barry Leonard Fwd: The Farm Friday, June 12, 2020 10:11:01 AM To the Mayor and City Council----! am so disappointed in your support of The Farm I was part of a group of StoneRidge homeowners who formed a committee we called Poway Open Space. You don't need a history lesson so I will skip many details on how Michael Schlesinger was able to buy 117 acres for a ridiculously low price. But that was the beginning of our committee. We met with the mayor. John Mullin came to my home to be part of one of our first meetings. We designated a leader (Mitch Steller) who had meetings with Mr Grosch, Mr Leonard and Mr Mullin .. We came out of those meetings with the same advice from all of you "Make a deal with Schlesinger" We took your advice. We made a compromise. We came out of it with Measure A. We lost the election (with little support from you) And please keep in mind we were not the rebels. I think you all know Mitch Steller as a reasonable man who tried to bring together all factions. We pushed away the eminent domain idea (Edmonson). We believed in you to guide us thru the process. Measure A wasn't perfect but it fit the StoneRidge community. There are some young families here but I've been a member at StoneRidge for over 30 years and what I see is mostly an age group of residents over 50 years old. The luxury condos that Schlesinger's builder showed us were residences that we could move into as we got older or at least would draw new friends into a senior community. So we lost the election in 2017 and what did the voters say by voting it down? Schlesinger's history didn't help but the reality is they were voting against development (noise, cars, traffic on Espola, Martincoit, Interstate 15) The same things that Poway voters typically vote against. So now we have The Farm that will create more noise, more cars, more traffic than Measure A. But the real disappointment for us is that The Farm takes substantially more open space to execute than Measure A. The number of units is misleading --160 houses vs 180 condos. 160 single family homes, even though they are packed in on small lots, takes more space than 180 two story connected condos. Instead of green space running thru the whole development, The Farm will be packed in typical Southern California housing that will look terrible for many years. And the current residents here pay the price for a couple reasons. First off, because of our age group, many of our residents are home during the day so the construction noise will be depressing. Who is going to clean the dirt off our houses (windows) on a weekly basis? There is some open areas on the front nine near Espola Rd but in other areas, The Farm plan is building homes and roads down the center of fairways with existing houses on both sides. The Farm is putting roads in our backyards on the back nine. And possible AD Us make it worse. Please don't go into scare tactics re: the state will mandate what happens on this land. I understand that you may have been under pressure
8 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19at one point on additional housing BUT the current politics from Sacramento that probably won't change is that the state will only push development supported by public transportation (trains---buses don't count) And if you check the October 20 San Diego Union front page, Faulconer is on board. San Diego is building train lines all over town and the city consultant actually named Poway as a place that won't be pressured. Faulconer added that trains will not come up here and Interstate 15 will not be expanded. The Farm (Mcnamera) does have some support at StoneRidge. There are some who benefit because their home is in a good location. Some will vote for the Farm because the property is such a mess right now. I met a Farm voter awhile back--very nice older woman who has lived in the Chateau condos since they were built (approx 50 years). She told me she goes to bed in fear because the property feels like a fire hazard to her. So congratulations, you're gaining votes but not because the plan is good. When Measure A lost in 2017, Mayor Vaus was interviewed on election night and the reporter asked him why Measure A was defeated, and he said that "Poway people don't like to be bullied" referring to the fact that Schlesinger would let the property go into disrepair if the Measure A lost. Other municipalities have made land owners clean up property. Escondido made Schlesinger clean up and there are other examples but our city leaders have decided to let it go in hopes of scaring us into voting for The Farm to avoid fire. Who's the bully now? Money---it's all about money so we need to address that. I have attached information on the Farm project based on 160 homes sold at one million dollars per home which is approx what Mcnamera is projecting. The profit is approx $70 million dollars. I've been a business owner for 35 years and I normally don't question profits but like most business', I believe in win/win business. I make a product that my clients like and I make a profit. The client wins, I win. We have big time losers re: The Farm---people had open space in their backyards that will now be roads. Business deals can have losers but when the 117 acres were given to Michael Schlesinger for approx 2 million dollars, that is not even close to normal value. That is a gift. But what it means is that it should be easy for the Mcnamera/Schlesinger team to create a project that is a win/win/win. Win for the owners, win for the city (taxes) and win for the residents. What should happen: go back to Measure A that had approx 85% support in the StoneRidge community (FYI--The Farm doesn't come close to that number) Take away the golf course. By eliminating the golf course, the project has more land to work with. With that land, the project stays at 180 luxury condos but you can place them further away from existing homes especially moving away from the 6th green area. Recreation wise--we move towards tennis and pickel ball. The city will make almost as much in taxes. Schlesinger will make approx 8 million dollars more than he planned on originally and can pay Mcnamera for his time. The back nine would not have housing and could be looked at several ways. If the owner wants to keep it up, he could do agriculture which has some nice tax advantages or do a nine hole golf course. Or the residents could take the land---mow it 4-5 times a year and create walking paths etc. This could be a really great senior community.
9 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19I'm sure you will have excuses why we can't go back to Measure A even though it's a great deal for everyone and no risk without golf. If not, would you please look at scaling back The Farm. For many of us, losing StoneRidge Club was very difficult. We moved here so that we were not in a packed in housing development. It was nice to have a golf course but what we really want is the open space. We paid extra so that we didn't have a another house in our backyard. Many of us have owned homes here for 20, 30 and 40 years. When we bought homes here, say 35 years ago, did we really need to go to city hall in 1985 and read the fine print in some city plan that it could all be taken away in 2020 when the open space requirement ran out? I can tell you our real estate agents didn't warn us. All we are asking is that you step in and do the right thing. I apologize that there is some anger. I assume you are doing the best you can. But please understand, after all that we have been through, why would you support a plan that is clearly worse for us than Measure A---what was agreed upon by a citizens group here and Michael Schlesinger? Chris Prine
10 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19STONERlDGE 1.60 Sources and Uses of Funds 30.-Apr.-20 Equity. Required-$25, 110,000 Investor Net Cash Flow $70,138,888 Investor Cash-on Cash Return 279.33% tnvestor-fRR 74.46% Pfl>ject Time-Fr◄ame 30MONTHS Total Per Unit PerS.F. %of Sales Revenues Home Sales 160,000,000 1,000,000 $333.33 100.0% less: -Oommissiens -4,-800,000 -30.000 -10.00 -3.0%-Closing Costs. --800,000 -5,000 -1.67 -0.5%.. Wamimy.Rese,ve -800,000 ~,000 -1.67 -0.6-% Net Sales Proceeds 153,600,000 960,000 $320.00 96.0% Costs: Land-2,000.000· 1-2,500-4.17 1.Vk land-De~ 9,SD0,000 60,000 20.00 U% Dir-eGt CeAstruetien.cests 40;$0,000 255;-000 -85-.00 25.5%--Dired ~ Costs 10,00(:),000 62,500 20-.$3-Uok .mdirecU)perating.Costs 750,-800-4,686 1.56 o.so.4. P~amtF.s -8,000,-000-50;000 1-6.67 5.00.k--Eflg/Ardl/Str-uctur-al 250,000 1,563. 0.52 CU%-Mar.ketir-lg 308-,000 1,913 0.64 O.Z.Ok-· msurance 2,133,333 1'3,333 4.44 1.3%-CGRtingency 2,309,633 14,435 4.8.1 1-.A%. Management Fee 6;400,.000 40,000 13.33. ~0%, f'fflSACing 912,145 5,701 1.90 OHie. T-etaf-Cost& 83.4:61,112 521-,632 $113.U 52.2°k Netmcome 70,138,888 438-,361-$146.12 43.8-%
11 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Hi David, Daye Grosch "Keith Sato"; darosch@cox.net; Phil Maiorca: Alan"s suaarmen: Brian Edmenston: Chrstine Vickers: Cindy Noet; Katherine Kuelzel-PouHn: Kelcy Sato; L.e.e....S.u.n.; Mark Ackerman; Nathan Miller; Par Rowean; Robert Shutter; .Ron Ackerman; Ron Lewis: Ronn Veale; Tim Vickers; Wayne Chan Re: StoneRidge Sunday, June 14, 2020 12:03:21 PM I agree with Phil, Mayor Vaus is famous for saying "City has no roll." So if the city approves / allows the developer to put this on the ballot, instead of having them do the work (collecting the necessary signatures) to get it on the ballot sure sounds like the city is taking an active roll in the process. Has the City's stance changed? Are they now taking on a roll to champion this development effort? I know of at least one recreational based business (not golf) that would love to develop the land as zoned. Seems like the city should be actively involved in helping to develop the land as zoned, so all of Poway could have more recreational space/ activities to enjoy. There is not a lot of land zoned OS-R left in Poway, and once it is rezoned Poway will loose that space forever ... If you would like to know more about the recreational based business I mentioned I'd be happy to tell you more. Thanks for reading, -Chad Sixt On Sunday, June 14, 2020, 11 :08:49 AM PDT, Phil Maiorca <pmaiorca@roadrunner.com> wrote: Mr.Grosch: The initiative process for Poway( specifically Prop FF. follows the same process as all California Initiatives. If the Council places this on the Ballot without signatures it is a Referendum, which is perfectly legal. The real question that no Council Member has yet answered with my numerous inquiries:
12 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19WHAT IS THE CHANGE BETWEEN THE COUNCILS POSTURE ON THIS FARMS MEASURE WHEN THE "HAND OFF" APPROACH WAS YOUR CALCULUS ON MEASURE A. MR VAUS SAID ON KFMB ABOUT A MONTH BEFORE THE MEASURE A VOTE[ I PARAPHARASE]] "IT IS UP TO THE PEOPLE WITHOUT THE COUNCILS INTERFERENCE." What is wrong with the project, you ask, attached are the main issues: You want specifics, read the Documents! Regards, and Good health, Phil Maiorca 858-602-6819 From: Keith Sato <kjsato7977@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2020 8:21 PM To: Robert Shutter <mikkbob@sbcglobal.net>; Phil Maiorca <pmaiorca@roadrunner.com>; Christine Vickers <cvickersmail@gmail.com> Subject: Fw: StoneRidge Keith sent an e-mail to the city council this afternoon and received a reply from Dave Grosch. Both are below. We also feel a rebuttal on the ballot information mailing is needed. Jill -----Forwarded Message -----From: Dave Grosch <dgrosch@poway org> To: Keith Sato <kjsato7977@yahoo com> Cc: Dave Grosch <dgrosch@cox net> Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2020, 7:36:10 PM PDT Subject: Re: StoneRidge Keith,
13 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19Thanks for your email. Tuesday we are going to meet to review and probably make a decision on this project. It would have been nice to hear from you what you like and or dislike about the project. That would have helped me in making my decision. If it is approved by the council, then our residents will decide on Nov 4th. Which in my opinion, is the democratic way, much like our residents did back in Nov of 2017. Thanks again for your input. Dave Sent from my iPhone On Jun 13, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Keith Sato <kjsato7977@yahoo com> wrote: June 13, 2020 To Mayor Vaus and the City Council: I would like to ask that the city council first collect signatures from the citizens of Poway to place proposition FF on the November 2020 ballot. In bypassing this step, the council is ignoring the resounding defeat of Measure A in November 2017. That defeat made it clear that the citizens of Poway wanted to keep the StoneRidge property as open space. It also ignores the fact that when a developer attempted to change the zoning of another open space property in Poway, he could not even obtain the needed signatures to get it on a ballot. I have yet to read any reason why bypassing the signatures for the proposition is of any benefit to the citizens of Poway.
14 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19Keith Sato
15 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Mr.Grosch: Phil Majorca "Keith Sato"; dqrosch@cox.net; Daye Grosch Alan"s Suqarmen: Brian Edmenston: Chad Sixt: Chrstjne Vickers; Cindy Noet: Katherine Kuelzel-Poulin; ~ ~; Kelcy Sato; ~; Mark Ackerman; Nathan Miller: Par Rowean: ehil.1:1; Robert Shutter; Ron Ackerman; Ron Lewis: Ronn Veale; Jim Vickers; Wayne Chan RE: StoneRidge Sunday, June 14, 2020 11:09:23 AM # 1-stonerjdae+Farms+Site+Plan-os-20-1s1s.odf #2-Chieftain 2-20-2020 odf #3-COMMENJS ON THE FARMS odf #4-GVCA EIR -2 odf #5-ESSENTIAL RESPONSES JO McNAMARA odf #6-More Students FARMS11.pdf Ordinance 283.odf POLICY 20.pdf The initiative process for Poway[ specifically Prop FF. follows the same process as all California Initiatives. If the Council places this on the Ballot without signatures it is a Referendum, which is perfectly legal. The real question that no Council Member has yet answered with my numerous inquiries: WHAT IS THE CHANGE BETWEEN THE COUNCILS POSTURE ON THIS FARMS MEASURE WHEN THE "HAND OFF" APPROACH WAS YOUR CALCULUS ON MEASURE A. MR VAUS SAID ON KFMB ABOUT A MONTH BEFORE THE MEASURE A VOTE[ I PARAPHARASE]] "IT IS UP TO THE PEOPLE WITHOUT THE COUNCILS INTERFERENCE." What is wrong with the project, you ask, attached are the main issues: You want specifics, read the Documents! Regards, and Good health, Phil Maiorca 858-602-6819 From: Keith Sato <kjsato7977@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2020 8:21 PM To: Robert Shutter <mikkbob@sbcglobal.net>; Phil Maiorca <pmaiorca@roadrunner.com>; Christine Vickers <cvickersmail@gmail.com> Subject: Fw: StoneRidge Keith sent an e-mail to the city council this afternoon and received a reply from Dave Grosch. Both are below. We also feel a rebuttal on the ballot information mailing is needed. Jill -----Forwarded Message -----From: Dave Grosch <dgrosch@poway.org>
16 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19To: Keith Sato <kjsato7977@yahoo com> Cc: Dave Grosch <dgrosch@cox net> Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2020, 7:36:10 PM PDT Subject: Re: StoneRidge Keith, Thanks for your email. Tuesday we are going to meet to review and probably make a decision on this project. It would have been nice to hear from you what you like and or dislike about the project. That would have helped me in making my decision. If it is approved by the council, then our residents will decide on Nov 4th. Which in my opinion, is the democratic way, much like our residents did back in Nov of 2017. Thanks again for your input. Dave Sent from my iPhone On Jun 13, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Keith Sato <kjsato7977@yahoo com> wrote: June 13, 2020 To Mayor Vaus and the City Council: I would like to ask that the city council first collect signatures from the citizens of Poway to place proposition FF on the November 2020 ballot. In bypassing this step, the council is ignoring the resounding defeat of Measure A in November 2017. That defeat made it clear that the citizens of Poway wanted to keep the StoneRidge property as open space. It also ignores the fact that when a developer attempted to change the zoning of another open space property in Poway, he could not even obtain the needed signatures to get it on a ballot. I have yet to read any reason why bypassing the signatures for the proposition is of any benefit to the citizens of Poway. Keith Sato
17 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19SOCIAL AMENITIES 1 SWIM & RAQUET CLUB 25 YARD 4 LANE POOL FAMILY POOL SNACK SHOP GAME ROOM CLUB HOUSE MEN'S & WOMEN'S LOCKER ROOM 5 TENNIS COURTS 4 PICKLE BALL COURTS 2 SOCIAL@ THE GARDENS CAFE/ COFFEE /WINE & BEER GARDEN WEDDING VENUE MUSIC VENUE MULTl•PURPOSE ROOM CROSS-FIT, YOGA, PILATES EDUCATIONAL AMENITIES 3 AGRICULTURAL EDUCATIONAL CENTER MULTI-PURPOSE BARN 4 BUTTERFLY FARMS DISCOVERY CENTER VIVARIUM GRE CLASSROOM PICNIC AREA GARDEN Ill AGRI-AMENITIES 5 COMMUNITY GARDENS 6 AGRI-FJELDS 7 TRAILS HIKING MOUNTAIN BIKING HORSE 8 FAMILY POND 7.SSAC 4.95AC 2.60AC 4.05 AC 1.0SAC 3.00AC S7.46AC IV GARDEN HOMES * 31.14 AC A 20 110' X 180' LOTS SINGLE FAMILY 4.72 AC B 13 70' X 100' LOTS SINGLE FAMILY 2.16 AC C 22 70' X 100' LOTS SF TWIN HOMES 1.9S AC D 12 100' X 100' LOTS SINGLE FAMILY 2.60 AC E 92 100' X 100' LOTS SF COTTAGE COURTS 19.72 AC • PERIMETER BUFFER ZONES SOFT TO lOOFT SITE TOTAL • ACRf,\GE IS APPROXIMATE ■ Archilecls BP Associates 1165a o~rn.or,Sol'I..,,. Cou,l ~u,10 1?0 San D•~•~-C:ohl<,n-,~ '?~12& ·~5-~'ll ... llQ
I 5~~-YJ2 ... 1?l ....... "('[....,,.,.,.,,,,.... 117.94AC THE FARMS AT STONERIDGE '.A GARDEN C01WMUNI1Y' POW,IY, Ci\LfFOIINli\ CONCEPT THE FARMS@ POWAY DBA THE FARM
18 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19OZOZ OZ AHVnll&~:f ·:.wo!-------www.pomeradonews.com FROM THE FARM , A1 congestion there . . Once completed, the project will generate 65 elementary students, 24 middle school students and 21 high school students, for a total of 110 students. Elementary students will be assigned to Chaparral Elementary School, about one-half mile away. Adding the new students will bring the school to about 82 percent capacity. -The Farm \Nill have no significant impacts on public services such as water, sewer, fire protection or law enforcement. Members of th""e public are encouraged to review the draft ElR and send questions or comments to the city. All issues raised during the comment period are required by the state to be addressed in the final EIR. That document will be released for public review at leasfl4 days prior to a public hearing that will scheduled before the City Council. The council will be reviewing that report, along with a project-related General Plan amendment, zoning amendment and specific plan. Ultimately, the project will be placed before city voters -probably in November -under terms of the city's Pronn<; ... ~~ -Draft EIR concludes no significant impact by The Farm 45-day public review period starts BY STEVE DREYER An exhaustive draft Environmental Impact Report on a 140-home development proposed on the former StoneRidge .. County Country Club property concludes the project would "not result In any significant and unavoidable impacts." At over l,0OO·pages, including technical appendices, the.draft ElR will be the subject of a 45-day public rl_!view period. It will be ~vailab!e at poway.org. One hard copy will be available for public mspection at the Development Services Department at City Hall. _ Knovm as "The Farm in Poway," the proposed development mcludes 140 homes of various types and sizes, indoor and outdoor meeting space_s, a wine and beer garden, a butterfly vivarium and educational center, dog park, tot lot, fitness center with a pool and tennis and pickle ball courts and a trail system. The fitness center will be membership-based while the balance of the proposed amenities will be open to the public. Forty-seven percent of the 117 .2 acres will be designated as open space, with some of that area used for commercial agricultural purposes. About 34 acres will be used for homes. Housing densities will range between 2.5 to 10.7 units per acre. _The draft EIR was prepared by a consultant selected by the city withou~ mput from developer Kevin McNamara or his partners. They will, however, be responsible for paying.the bill, which McNamara estimates will be $250,000. · Among the findings in the report: -Surf~ce streets around the project site, which fronts Espola R~ad, will be able to handle the estimated 2,524 average µally trips generated by The Farm, both in 2025 when the project is completed and for years to come. By compassion, the country club generated 1,440 average daily trips. The report notes the developer will be installing "adaptive traffic signal controls" at several major inte!sections. Proposed improvement to the ·signals at Pomerado and Stone Canyon road will significantly ease SEE THE FARM-, A10
19 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19COMMENTS ON "FARMS': 5-22,2019 LOOKING AT EIR PACKAGE WHICH IS THE ONLY OFFICALL DOCUMENT, AT THIS POINT, HERE ARE SOME OBSERVATIONS: • Focus on the following areas of the MAP from Mr. De Varies: OS REC LOTS Lots 5-9(7.81 A): #12 OPEN SPACE(17.5A); #14 Agri-Fields(15.59): This is giving the ClubHouse, Tennis /Butterfly Pond and the pitifully small "Play Areas" for developers to "hook" the buyers on wonderful amenities. Remember, we were suppose to get a full Golf Course from Measure A, just ask the POS. o Now look at RESIDENTIAL(33.87A-Homes). o The "Open Space" is comprised of 57.9 A on the MAP. ■ This section "sprinkles" in allocations of amenities that are minimally important. [Butterfly Farm, Non-Descript Gardens, Trails without any acreage described and other "fluff' that is intended to make this a "Utopia." • We are right back to Trusting those additional "Open Spaces" to be preserved; sound familiar: Deceive the amount of the development, since with the additional 57.9A, by proposition, the development increases 65%* 160=110 with could make the whole development over 370 homes! The deception is clear; we are back to the Deed Restriction/ Conservation Easement: "Trust before the Vote Issues" as with Measure A. • Finally, very insulting to the Community; Voters defeated Measure A 2-1 against Measure A. Then to come back 3 few years later! • Expect City Council to place the measure on Ballot, even as it would be totally inconsistent with the Councils' "hands off" Measure A. Not requiring Signature, like Measure A, the council is no longer "hands off" as Vaus said in TV interview during the Measure A Campaign. I for one, certainly would like the COUNCIL TO EXPLAIN their change in STANCE?
20 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19• The idea that this is Modeled after Gilbert, Arizona. • Read this link if you want to make your own comparison; this development is extremely different: • https://en.wikipedia.orq/wiki/Gilbert, Arizona,
21 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19• Does the new FARMS use of Ordinance 283[better known as Prop FF] include all of the 117 acres to be "up zoned" to RE-x/RC[x-# of units per acre as defined by Zone Designation of the City of Poway]? • Do the Voter realize that Prop FF is ONL V RELATED TO UPZONING AND NOT ANY PARTICULAR PROJECT, regardless of any actual proposal by the FARMS organization. It is very important that the voter understand very specifically what the citizens are voting upon, as the Ballot Statement can be deceiving in this regard. Any proposed project can be placed on the Ballot Statement but Prop FF does not have any legal bearing on any proposal. I have enclosed the Ordinance for completeness, but I am sure the GVCA has a copy. Initial EIR conclusions on Traffic Published in the Chieftain 2-20-2020: In measuring Traffic effects, it is necessary to not only Count Car-Trips PER DAV but more importantly, Count Car-Trips PER HOUR OF DAV. This is due to the fact that Traffic is dependent upon the vast majority of Vehicles in the hours of heavy transportation needs. These times occur for only 4-5 hour [School/Job Transport.]. Measuring only Trips per day [ 24 hours] DILUTES THE ACTUAL TRAFFIC IMPACT by a factor of 5-6. These finding should be projected upon the probable traffic WITHIN the proposed Development, as well, given the roads proposal versus units. o In addition "Flow " of Traffic was presented based on synchronize Signals. : I.E. Given a high volume hour in an area: o Actual analysis should include how many vehicles ENTER versus LEAVE o The issue with better flowing traffic implies that Traffic Flow in the other direction will have much longer waiting time. So what have you gains in over Traffic Time which is after all the REAL measurement of traffic. Remember that with ALL development [once the proposed plans OS-R is turn into RE-xx with Prop FF passing will add 800 cars. o Adaptive Traffic signal control" is a indication that more traffic needs to be controlled I .e Traffic Lights will need to be added,
22 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19thus,this argument of mitigating traffic is totally irrational: this statement verifies the OPPOSITE of better traffic conditions and reinforces the fact that Traffic would be WORSE.As a final issue: o If this Flow control is suppose to work so well, why isn't the method being Employed Now, so people can observe for themselves; then imagine what the additional cars will look like.
23 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19ESSENTIAL RESPONSES TO McNAMARA'S GVCA INTERVIEW • Why did you decide to pursue development at SRCC at this time and so soon after the previous ballot measure failed? Stoneridge has become an uninhabitable building, often vandalized, surrounded by a deteriorating vacant lot. The trees are dying and the future condition of the land is hopeless unless something is done. It is a fenced in property with no connectivity to any other open space or natural habitat that will never be a functional property for Poway residents unless we do something. I'd like Poway to determine its own fate. I feel that I have a singular resume to get something of quality accomplished and I enjoy challenges. After the election I felt the opportunity was there if a local person pursued a true vision that is reflective of Poway. • The land is Green as any Natural Habit: the Field is green, the Trees are alive and the Field is Rustic: Rain amounts have rendered the land SELF SUST ANIN G: hardly fallow . • • 2.Why do you think the community would support rezoning the property to something other than the current Open Space-Recreational (OS-R)? Poway voters are smart. If the property was to retain the OS-R designation under the current ownership, it would sit fallow and no enhancements or beautification could be anticipated onsite. Under our proposal a Specific Plan would, very unambiguously, land plan the property with a variety of wonderful amenities for use by all Poway residents. If a high quality project with community appropriate density and product type with public amenities and permanent open space goes through the entire planning process, which has never been done prior to a Prop FF vote, why wouldn't there be strong support? If the project is approved, Poway residents will once again have full use of the property . • • Assuming that everyone wants dense development; this is at best a bad opinion
24 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19• What commercial and/or public uses will be proposed? The proposed project is full of amenities for all Poway residents. There will be thoughtfully designed community gathering spots. The proposed design includes several ponds, pocket parks, community gardens, all connected through a series of trails. A proposed four acre Swim and Racquet Club as well as a beer, wine, and coffee garden. We are working on including potential vineyards, hops, and/ or flower growing operations. As well as a traditional country barn built as a community center and a new clubhouse to highlight Poway character. In addition to all of this we are proposing a Butterfly Vivarium which brings a unique quiet beauty to the project. All of this will be processed under a Specific Plan which will prevent deviations from whatever City Council approves -that includes preventing any increase to density or intensity of use . • Who really cares; all of the Clubs have relocated and since no GOLF COURSE, which was a deceptive "carrot" in Measure A; what the hell is so publically exciting? • If the measure is approved, what assurances will the public have that more development will not be requested in the future? The project will be processed under a specific plan which is the mechanism used to prevent any increase in density or intensity. This means that the project the City Council approves, will be the project that the City residents vote on, and will not be subject to any change through a future Prop FF vote. • Prop FF insures none of that; read the damn Initiative Ordinace 283 ! • If Prop FF is approve, it only yields 117 acres of Up-Zoned land which ANY PROJECT CAN BE CONSTRUCTED; THAT IS THE WAY YOU MUST BE AWARE OF WHAT PROP FF MEANS: the Council HAS NO CONTROL AFTER THE COUNCIL PLACES PROP FF ON THE BALLOT, DON'T BELIEVE ME, ASK THE Council what they are restricted to perform once Prop FF is voted upon! • This is the most deceptive; PROP FF has nothing to do with any "mumbo jumbo" that he is sayng can be enforced by Prop FF, the only limits in this regard place the Voter: • Right Back to Deed Restrictions or Conservation Easements, exactly like Measure A, still HAVE TO TRUST THEM BEFORE THE VOTE;.
25 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19• What would property owner Michael Schlesinger's involvement be in the development? Mr. Schlesinger does not have any involvement in this project, publicly or behind the scenes. I've never met him, talked to him, or sent or received an email from him. The option was negotiated for me by a broker. Mr. Schlesinger will only regain control of the property if the Poway residents vote no on this project. • DON'T BUY THE BS THAT MS IS NOT INVOLVED, when asked, McNamara simply said it was a Private Option; well doesn't that mean that the Owner of the Land [MS] has to be involved in an option on the land he owns? • Will affordable housing be part of the project? No
26 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19can make cuts. Cuts would have to include eliminating positions, furloughs for employees and increasing class sizes, Phelps said. "(These are) really the on,ly places this district can look (for cuts)," Phelps said. "There's not a lot of ~padding. We don't have an excess of programs; we've · applied for every grant possible." , O'Connor-Ratcliff said the district has been lean for "quite a while," but cuts are· a necessity. . "It's going to be really, really difficult," O'Connor-Ratcliff said. "It's going to hurt to get leaner and I can't think of one area where I'd want to cut. But we have to. The reality is we have to." ---' .... wv.rw. pomeradonews.coiii"' Poway ~nified has to-ugh financial challenges, decisions ahead __ BY EMILY SORENSEN Poway Unified School District's financial options indude making additional cuts to an already lean staff or depleting its reserves during the upcoming school year, officials said. PUSD Board of Education President Michelle O'Connor-Ratcliff said during the June 3 meeting there was a "zero percent chance" she would vote for a budget which would take the district's reserve levels to $3.3 million. The board got a lo'ok at a grim budget for the 2020-21 school year at the meeting, which shows the district facing a $40 million deficit in 2020-21. This projected deficit would nearly wipe out the district's reserve fund of about $43 million, leaving it with $3.3 million in reserves. The district is required by the San Diego County Office of Education to submit a budget for the following school year by the end of June regardless if the state has approved its budget. The district's preliminary budget is based on Gov. Gavin Newsom's May revise budget, which was recently rejected by the California legislature. Newsom's budget · contains several reductions in funding to K-12 schoo'l districts, while the state senate's recently proposed budget contains no requcti'ons to schools, but also relies on receiving $14 billion of federal funding. Ron Little, associate superintendent of business support services, said the district's budget could change when it comes back for approval on June 25 depending on if the state passes its budget in the Qext couple of weeks and what kind of funding for schools it contains. . Little said.he believes many school . . districts will have negative ending balances in the next year due to COVID-19 revenue losses and budget cuts. The district's 2019-20 revised budget shows ~ revenues of $408.3 million and expenditures ! of $426.4 million. Out of those expenditures, $361.1 million are certified and classified employee salaries and employee benefits, or about 84 percent of the district's general fund allocation. This is considered a good percentage by best practices, Little said, and many districts average about the same. _PUSD is estimated to end the 2019-20 school year with $43.4 million in its _ reserves, or a reserve level of 9.2 percent. The state requires districts maintain at least a 2 percent reserve level. Board members have previously stated their preference to stay at about 10 percent. Little said the preliminary budget for the 2020-21 school year was built with Newsom's original proposed cuts in mind and has $ 7 .85 million of proposed \)udget solutions built into it. The 2020-21 budget is projecting $34 million less revenue than estimates in January and $8 million less in expenditures, for a $40.1 million deficit. With reserves of $43.4 going into 2020-21, this would leave the district with $3.3 million in its reserves - a reserve level of 0 percent. The SDCOE would permit this through a waiver, Little said. As for the 2021-22 budget, Little said economic recovery is anticipated to take about 18 to 24 months and the district's -financial team will have a better idea by September. O'Connor-Ratcliff said she would vote no on such a budget and instead asked Little to find the cuts needed to preserve the district's reserves for the coming years. "The reserves we're calling robust are meant to safeguard the district in times of trouble, and this is clearly a time of trouble," O'Connor-Ratcliffsaid. "But the trouble is not going to be over in one year." O'Connor-Ratcliff said the district . "c~ot, should not, ca~'t spend 100 p~rcent of our reserves in the first year_ of this downturn. "We must make some cuts," O'Connor-Ratcliff said. "We have to plan for several years of trouble here and hope we can begin to rebuild our reserves after that, but we have to have some amount of reserves." · O'Connor-Ratcliff said sh~ is not -comfortable going below the state's required 2 percent reserve level and that amount is already too low for her. She said she does not want to use all the district's reserves in the hope the legislature will bail the district out. ~ "I know the cuts are going to hurt," O'Connor-Ratcliff said. "The ones you've already built in, those hurt. I think we have to make the hard cuts and I know we don't · want to." Supt. Marian Kim Phelps said the district is already leaner staffed than many other · districts and there are very minimal places it SEE PUSD, A19
27 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19ORDINANCE NO. 283 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA REQUIRING VOTER APPROVAL OF LAND USE CHANGES TO CERTAIN PROPERTY IF SUCH CHANGES WOULD INCREASE THE DENSITY OR INTENSIFY THE USE PERMITTED BY THE LAW IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF POWAY DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amendment of the General Plan. A. The Land Use and Open Space Elements of the General Plan of the City of Poway shal 1 be amended as hereinafter set forth. This amendment shal 1 not be modified or rescinded without the approval of a simple majority of the voters of the City voting at a special or general election. B. The f o 11 owing Objective and Po 1 icy sha 11 be added to the Land Use Element of the General Plan: "Objective 20. Rural Residential and Open Space Use Intensification. Permitted land uses in the rural and open space areas of the City shall be intensified only when the voters approve such changes, consistent with the provision of the local public services and facilities. Policy 20. No general plan amendment, zone change, tentative subdivision map, or other discretionary land use decision shall be adopted which would increase the residential density permitted by law or change the residential or open space zone or residential or open space general plan designation to a conmercial or manufacturing zone or general plan des1gnat1on on property designated RR-A, RR-8, or RR-C, 0-S, or OS-R unless and until such action is approved by ordinance adopted by the voters of the City at a spec i a 1 or general election, or approved first by the City Council and then adopted by the voters in such an election." c. The following language shall be added to the following objectives and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan: "Objective 6. Rural Land. The slope criteria and minimum parcel sizes of Table 3 shall not be changed to allow increased density or intensity of use in rural residential or open space areas unless the voters approve such a change.
28 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19Policy 6.a. Ordinance No. 283 Page 2 No change to Table 3 which would permit increased density or intensity of use shall be adopted unless and until such change is adopted by ordinance adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election, or approved first by the City Council and then adopted by the voters in such an election. Objective 7. Rural Residential Land. The slope cr1ter1a and minimum parcel size of rural residential and open space areas and the lot averaging provisions set forth in this General Plan shall not be changed to allow increased density or intensity of use in such areas unless the voters approve such a change. Objective 18. Special Study Areas. Once established by the City Council, the residential density of the South Poway Area and the Old Coach Area shall not be increased unless the voters approve such a change. Policy 18.a. South Poway Area: No change to the South Poway Planned Conmun1ty Development Plan or to the Poway Municipal Code which would increase the residential density within the South Poway Planned Conmunity shall be adopted unless and until such change is approved by ordinance adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election, or approved first by the City Council and then adopted by the voters in such an election. Old Coach Area: No change to the Old Coach Planned Conmunity Development Plan or to the Poway Municipal Code which would increase the residential density or increase the conmercial or manufacturing use within the Old Coach Planned Conmunity shall be adopted unless and until such change is approved by ordinance adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election, or approved first by the City Council and then adopted by the voters in such an election.11 D. The following Policy shall be added to the Land Use Element of the General Plan:
29 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #1911Po11cy 7.1. Ordinance No. 283 Page 3 No change to the slope criteria and minimum parcel sizes and lot averaging provisions of this General Plan which would permit increased density or intensity of use shall be adopted unless and until such change 1s approved by ordinance adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general elec-tion, or approved first by the City Council and then adopted by the voters in such an election." Section 2. Amendment of the Zoning Development Code. A. The Zoning Development Code of the City of Poway, codified as Title 17 of the Poway Municipal Code, shall be amended by adding the language hereinafter set forth. The language added hereby shall not be modified or rescinded without the approval of a simple majority of the City voting at a special or general election. B. The following language shall be added to Section 17.08.020 of the Poway Mun1c1pal Code: "In order to preserve the very low density residential character of such property, no property zoned RR-A, RR-B or RR-C shall be rezoned to a zone, nor shall any amendment to this Title 17 of the Poway Municipal Code be adopted, which would increase the residential density on property so zoned or change the uses permitted thereon to al low comnercial or manufacturing uses unti 1 and unless such rezoning or amendment is approved by ordinance adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election, or first approved by the Poway City Council and then adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election." C. The following language shall be added to Section 17.08.180(L) of the Poway Municipal Code: "The slope criteria and minimum parcel sizes for property zoned RR-A, RR-B, and RR-C shall not be modified to permit increased density or rescinded unless and until such modification or rescission 1s approved by ordinance adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election, or first approved by the Poway City Counci 1 and then adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election." D. The following language shall be added to Section 17.08.180(0) of the Poway Municipal Code: "The lot averaging provisions of the Poway Municipal Code shall not be modified to permit increased density or rescinded unless and unt11 such modification or rescission is approved by ordinance adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election, or first approved by the Poway City Council and then adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election."
30 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19Ordinance No, 283 Page 4 E. The following section shall be added as Section 17.22.090 of the Poway Municipal Code: 11In order to preserve open space in the conmunity, no property zoned 0-S shall be rezoned to any zone other than OS-R nor shall any amendment to this Title 17 of the Poway Municipal Code be adopted which would increase the residential density on property so zoned or change the uses permitted thereon to al low corrmerc1al or manufacturing uses until and unless such rezoning or amendment is approved by ordinance adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election, or first approved by the Poway City Council and then adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election." F. The following section shall be added as Section 17.24.100 of the Poway Municipal Code: "In order to preserve open space 1n the corrmunity, no property zoned OS-R shall be rezoned to any zone other than 0-S nor shall any amendment to this Title 17 of the Poway Municipal Code be adopted which would increase the residential density on property so zoned or change the uses permitted thereon to allow conmercial or manufacturing uses until and unless such rezoning or amendment is approved by ordinance adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election, or first approved by the Poway City Council and then adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election." G. The following section shall be added as Section 17.20.120 of the Poway Municipal Code: "In order to preserve the very low density character of the residential portions of the South Poway Planned Conmunity, no property located within the South Poway Planned Conmunity shall be rezoned to a zone, nor shall the Poway Municipal Code or the South Poway Planned Community Development Plan be amended in such a way, which would increase the residential density within the South Poway Planned Corrmunity until and unless such rezoning or amendment is approved by ordinance adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election, or first approved by the Poway City Council and then adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election." H. The following section shall be added as Section 17.20.130 of the Poway Municipal Code: "In order to preserve the very low density and intensity of development in the Old Coach Planned Conmunity, no property located within the Old Coach Planned Conmunity shall be rezoned to a zone, nor shall the Poway Municipal Code or the Old Coach Planned Conmunity Development Plan be amended in such a way, which would increase the residential density or increase the commer-cial or manufacturing use permitted within the Old Coach Planned Corrmunity until and unless such rezoning or amendment is approved by ordinance adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election, or first approved by the Poway City Council and then adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election."
31 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19Section 3. C1ty Council Act1on. Ordinance No. 283 Page 5 A. The City Council shall as quickly as permitted by law following the adoption of this ordinance by the voters, take all actions required to carry out the mandates of Section 1 and Section 2 hereof. B. The City Council shall take all steps necessary to defend vigorously any challenge to the validity or constitutionality of this ordinance. C. In the event that the C1 ty Council approves a change. amendment, subdivision map, or other land use decision which must, by the terms of this Ordinance, be adopted by the voters of the City in order to become effective, the City Council shall set such matter to election by placing it on the ballot as a Council sponsored measure. No initiative petition shall be required to be filed by the proponent of such measure. D. In the event that the City Council does not first approve a change, amendment, subdivision map, or other land use decision which must, by the terms of this Ordinance, be adopted by the voters to become effective, the proponent shall comply with all requirements of California Elections Code Division 5, Chapter 3, comnencing with Section 4000 of said Code, including qualification of the measure by initiative petition, in order to have the measure placed on the ballot. E. The City Council shall set any election required by this Ordinance to the next available general municipal election at no cost to the proponent of the land use change requiring the election. If a special election is requested by such proponent and the proponent qualifies therefor, the City Council shall call a special election, the cost of which shall be borne by the proponent, provided, if permitted by State law, that the proponent shall first deposit the estimated cost of such election with the City Clerk, and shall pay the actual costs of such election within forty-five (45) days after the date thereof. Section 4. Construction. Nothing contained in this ordinance shall be construed to make illegal any lawful use presently being made of any property, or to prohibit the further development of any property in accordance with that property's present zoning and general plan designation at a density and intensity presently permitted by existing zoning and general plan standards. Nothing contained in this ordinance shall be construed to require more than a simple majority vote for the adoption of this ordinance or for the approval of any future measure required by this Ordinance. For purposes of this section, "presently" shall mean as of the date of the election at which the voters approve or disapprove this Ordinance.
32 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19Section 5. Seve rab 111 ty. Ordinance No. 283 Page 6 If any section, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion of this ordinance 1s for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. It 1s hereby declared that this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion thereof, would have been adopted or passed irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 6. Effective Date. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 4013, this ordinance shall be considered as adopted upon the date that the vote by the electorate of the City of Poway is declared by the City Counci 1, and shal 1 become effective ten (10) days after that date. PASSED the 8th day of November, 1988, by the voters of the City of Poway, California, at a general election on that date in which approval or disapproval of this ordinance appeared on the ballot. ADOPTED the 6th day of December, 1988, by the City Council of the City of Poway, California upon the declaration of the vote at said general election. ATTEST: i \.) TEN, City Clerk O/Growth7-12/CP27.1
33 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19POLICY 20-ORDINANCE 283[PROP FF] I read Ordinance 283 often for deeper understanding purposes, as well as any question(s) about the Ordinances Legal Authorities. Policy 20. No general plan amendment, zone change, tentative subdiv1s1on map, or other d1scretionary land use dec1s1on shall be adopted which would increase the residential density permitted by law or change the residential or open space zone or residential or open space general plan designation to a comnercial or manufacturing zone or general plan des1gnation on property designated RR-A, RR-8, or RR-C, 0-S, or OS-R unless and until such action 1s approved by ordinance adopted by the voters of the City at a special or general election, or approved first by the City Council and then adopted by the voters in such an elect1on.n Notice the first sentence as it deals with "Zone change" and SUBDIVISION. This is clearly saying NO Plan, SUBDIVISION, or TENATIVE USE can take place without first passing Prop FF. Specific language stated: (Unless and until ... adopted by the voter):notice the past tense on ANY PLAN, SUBDIVSION ETC before Prop FF actually passes! This answers some major questions: • Prop FF ONLY deals with up-zoning the Densities of Designated property Zones, NOT any PLAN. This is where the real deceit by the FARMS is laid bare! • No general Plan is attached to Prop FF until the Proposition passes.( Unless and until. . .is adopted) .Thus, the FARMS is simply a "placeholder" for whatever ANY Plan COULD BE ADOPTED ONCE THE Proposition passes. • This is clearly saying NO Plan, SUBDIVISION, or TENATIVE USE can take place without first passing Prop FF. Specific language stated: (Unless and until ... adopted by the voter):notice the past tense on ANY PLAN, SUBDIVSION ETC before Prop FF actually passes!
34 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19• No subdivision can take place without Prop FF. first passing, as well. • Prop FF is definitely tied to OS and OS-R Zone designations. • The language is unambiguous and singularly interpretive. • The FARMS is attempting to write other provision into Prop FF, which DO NOT apply. o Editorial Comment: This is the same Hedge Fund Arbitrage of Golf Courses that MS has been successful many times, in the past, including the Poway defeated 2-1 Measure A in 2017. • Removing Prop FF would , in itself, require a Vote to nullify the actual Proposition. • The only way the Open Space could be protected is by a DEED RESTRICTION or CONSERVATION EASEMENT which is at the owners' discretion. The Voters already dismissed this issue in Measure A. This is the Comment that McNamara gave to the GVCA Question concerning this issue: • If the measure is approved, what assurances will the public have that more development will not be requested in the future? The project will be processed under a specific plan which is the mechanism used to prevent any increase in density or intensity. This means that the project the City Council approves, will be the project that the City residents vote on, and will not be subject to any change through a future Prop FF vote. "processed under a specific plan, which is the mechanism used to prevent any increase in density or intensity"
35 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19This is the "mumbo-jumbo" I have referred in previous documents Where is this "specific plan stated" in Prop FF? Answer: IT IS NOT! Clearly not within the purview of Prop FF.
36 of 36June 16, 2020, Item #19From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Importance: Carol Legg agendadocs resource Chris Hazeltine; Bob Manis: David De Yries; Fenstermacher. Alan FW: Please do the right thing and make it the peoples choice, not just the Council"s Thursday, June 11, 2020 2:45: 12 PM High From: Robert Shutter <mikkbob@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 1:33 PM To: Councilmembers <Councilmembers@poway.org> Subject: Please do the right thing and make it the peoples choice, not just the Council's Importance: High Dear Council Members, I believe it is important to allow the citizens of Poway the most voice possible when it comes to issues of protecting our city from unnecessary density increases by land owners and developers, or even complicit government. I urge you as Poway Resident's yourselves to reject any request of Kevin McNamara's to place a measure on the ballot that would remove OS/R Zoning protections at Stoneridge, and/or pave the way to his proposed housing development. Placing such an important item on the ballot should, as with past efforts of this type, be conducted using a signature gathering effort on McNamara's part -and not just left/or trusted to only five people on the City Council. Remember, with signature gathering effort, all you Council members will still get to vote, just like everyone else. If McNamara, et.al., hopes to eliminate OS/R safeguards so they can make a killing on development, and increase our community's density (and everything that goes with that) then he needs to hard work for it by appealing directly to all the people of Poway. Again, I urge the Council not allow his measure. Then he free to choose whether to continue with a signature gathering effort. His chaise. Please do this right thing for Poway. Bob Shutter 858-487-687 4
From:Steven Stone, GVCA
To:City Clerk; Councilmembers
Cc:Kevin McNamara
Subject:Public Comment, June 16 Council Meeting, Agenda Item 19
Date:Monday, June 15, 2020 11:11:41 AM
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
The Farm in Poway – The right plan, the right time for Poway.
With the “No” vote outcome of the Measure A/StoneRidge special election in November 2017, the StoneRidgeCountry Club permanently closed and turned into a neglected eyesore of dead trees, fire prone brush, abandonedbuildings, and vandalism. The Green Valley Civic Association board of community members unanimously believesThe Farm in Poway is the right project at the right time for Poway. We support you approving those items in theJune 16 City Council agenda that will allow this proposed project to move forward and be placed on the November2020 ballot for voter approval.
This plan clearly defines the development with specifics on the homes, public facilities, roads, gardens, open spacefields and trails. Unlike prior land use change proposals, this one is tied to a Specific Plan and most importantly, itprovides permanent deed restrictions for open space and prohibits future increases in residential density.
As we have done since 1960 with many issues facing north Poway, the GVCA serves as a watchdog, a source offactual information, and an advocate for our members and the community. As The Farm in Poway concept evolved,we have hosted a community forum, undertaken surveys of our members, and held numerous meetings with City ofPoway staff, the development team, and listened to the community’s questions and concerns.
In our evaluation of The Farm in Poway, we reviewed the Environmental Impact Report, details of the Specific Planand General Plan Amendment, and considered impacts and mitigation measures for traffic, noise, schools, the lossof privately owned open space, fiscal impact to the city, and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods.
We also considered public benefits that this project may offer the community, such as a new community club, pool,tennis courts, walking and biking trails, meeting and entertainment amenities, and new housing options for localresidents. We also weighed the value and positive impact of having a plan that would put the property back intolocal ownership, cleans up a blighted prominent property, and resolves the uncertainty around the future of theproperty.
We believe it is also worth noting that the State of California is increasingly encroaching on local governmentbodies' land use decisions. If The Farm proposal fails, it is possible that several years will elapse before anydevelopment occurs and it is unknown whether the City will still have the benefit of voter approval or City Councilcontrol of zoning and project approval.
We encourage residents to move beyond the divisiveness that arose from the prior ballot measure and shed theunrealistic notion that this private property could remain undeveloped or taken over by the City. With your support,this 117-acre property can once again be a prized public centerpiece of our community called The Farm in Poway.
Green Valley Civic Association
Steven Stone, PresidentAnita Edmondson, Vice PresidentJack Tripp, TreasurerJohn DeSantis, SecretaryLouise Ziminsky, PublicityDavid Rauterkus, Membership