By now you have probably read in the local press the story of what
happened at the October 3rd Council meeting. (A short summary of
the actual meeting can be found on the Home Page of our website):
www.lahopenspace.com
Voting 3-0, Councilmembers Fenwick, Casey, and Cheng directed
the Town's attorney to proceed with their own initiative. We wish we
could believe that the Council's action was taken with the best interests
of the residents at heart. But these are the facts:
Never once did they let on what they were planning, let alone offer to
cooperate so that a single unified initiative could be placed before the
voters. Even when we pleaded for them to work with us at the Council
meeting, we were brushed off with a brusque "We're moving ahead
with our own initiative."
Our attorney had prepared a 6-page letter pointing out some significant
deficiencies in their measure. (For our Attorney's letter click on
www.lahopenspace.com/AttorneyLetter.html
) One of these was
dealt with -- providing language for future easements -- at the meeting
when it was pointed out by a spokesman for our Open Space Committee.
However, there are other very serious concerns with the Council-
sponsored initiative:
(1) The Council's mechanism for putting forth their initiative is "by
ordinance," a method that has been found invalid by the California
Supreme Court and which therefore opens their initiative up to a
legal challenge.
The LAH Open Space Initiative, by contrast, amends the General
Plan by readopting the General Plan designations where they do
reflect existing conditions and amending those designations where
they don't.
Examples: Edith Park, Juan Prado Mesa Preserve, Rhus Ridge
Properties are currently all designated "residential." Under the
Council's initiative these designations are "locked in."
Inappropriate General Plan designations such as these cited above
control the future use of the property.
This means that the Town could still "develop" our open space where
the designations like these above exist. Say, for example, the Town
were to decide to build a conference center on Juan Prado Mesa
Preserve, or, responding to the State mandate for affordable housing,
develop the property at the corner of Fremont and Edith! This would
not be the first time in our Town's history that the Town acted as
developer (i.e. Matadero Creek subdivision).
In the case of Westwind Barn, currently designated as "Private
Recreation," the Town could proceed to replace it with a private
facility.
So, the biggest difference between our two initiatives is this:
The Town's initiative allows development on open space lands now
designated "residential." Ours does not. Our initiative recognizes
the inadequacy of the General Plan and amends the General Plan to
reflect what the actual uses are. Our initiative guarantees permanent
open space/public recreation protection to these properties, unless
the residents were to vote to change them. Under our initiative:
Juan Prado Mesa Preserve is Open Space.
Rhus Ridge Properties are Open Space.
Murietta Ridge is Open Space.
Byrne Preserve is Open Space.
Central Drive is Open Space.
O'Keefe Property is Open Space.
Westwind Barn is Public Recreation.
Little League Fields is Public Recreation.
Edith Park is Public Recreation.
Under the Council's initiative three significant open space areas (Juan
Prado Mesa Preserve, Rhus Ridge Properties, Murietta Ridge) are
not locked in as permanent open space. Under the Council's initiative
two significant public recreation properties (Westwind Barn and Edith
Park) are mis-designated.
The Council-sponsored initiative doesn't add a single acre more of
useable open space or public recreation land. Yet, you'll hear that the
Council's Initiative goes further than ours in protecting 11 more acres.
We're protecting 157 out of 168 acres. These 11 additional acres
include the Town Hall, Heritage House and fewer than a dozen very
small parcels almost all of which are undevelopable!