#1. #2. WHAT IS MEASURE FF ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO US IN OPA? HERE ARE THE FACTS: A vote for or against Measure FF is about one issue: the land use designations within the City of Orange General Plan for the more than 50 acres we know as Ridgeline Equestrian Estates. Measure FF has NOTHING to do with altering the approved zoning of the Ridgeline property (which is zoned R‐1‐40 – one acre residential) nor changing the public benefits negotiated by the City Council under the approved Development Agreement. According to the ballot measure, a vote YES on FF affirms the Orange City Council’s vote which clarifies the General Plan’s long‐held double land use designation as OTHER OPEN SPACE and LOW DENSITY (1 acre) for the Ridgeline property. Therefore, a vote NO on FF denies and overturns the action by the City Council to provide clarity to the dual land use designation. A NO vote would continue to keep the General Plan inconsistent with the zoning of the property. What this means to all of us in OPA is that what now appears to be an expensive, drawn‐out and often confusing land use and private property fight will continue, no matter the outcome of November’s vote. I THOUGHT THE RIDGELINE FIGHT WAS OVER WHEN THE SUPERIOR COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF THE CITY AND PROPERTY OWNER. HERE ARE THE FACTS: It’s important to remember that only one of the three referendums to overturn the City Council approvals for Ridgeline Equestrian Estate gathered enough valid signatures to qualify for the November ballot. That one was a referendum to overturn the General Plan amendment, as approved by the City Council, which helps to clarify the existing and long‐held dual land use for the Ridgeline property. With regard to the General Plan, the City Council voted to affirm the Ridgeline land use designation as both OTHER OPEN SPACE and LOW DENSITY (1 acre). The Board for Orange Park Association filed litigation saying that the land use designation was only OTHER OPEN SPACE, despite documents proving otherwise presented by City Attorney Dave DeBerry. After reviewing the historical records and past resolutions by the Orange Planning Commission and City Council, Superior Court Judge Moss agreed with the City and the property owner that Ridgeline had two land use designations: OTHER OPEN SPACE and LOW DENSITY (1 acre). Since he had resolved the matter, Judge Moss then instructed the City Council NOT to place this issue before the voters in November. The Board of Orange Park Association filed an appeal to Judge Moss’ decision, which will now be reviewed AFTER the November election. Therefore the issue came back on the ballot. #3. #4. THE YES ON FF LITERATURE TALKS ABOUT PROTECTING OPEN SPACE AND LOW DENSITY PLUS PROVIDING NEW PUBLIC AMENITIES AT NO COST TO TAXPAYERS. IS THIS TRUTHFUL? HERE ARE THE FACTS: The broad land use designations in the City’s General Plan determine how the land can be used and ultimately zoned. Given that, a vote YES on FF will ensure that the General Plan land uses at Ridgeline remain OTHER OPEN SPACE and LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (1‐ACRE). And, as a result, the zoning at Ridgeline cannot be changed to allow for high density apartments, townhomes, commercial or retail uses. Last year, the City Council changed the zoning at Ridgeline to R‐1‐40 (Residential ‐ 1 acre), which is consistent with the General Plan land use designations of OTHER OPEN SPACE and LOW DENSITY (1 acre). Therefore, a vote YES on FF does indeed protect the OPEN SPACE and LOW DENSITY land use designations for Ridgeline. How Yes on FF would “provide new public amenities at no cost to taxpayers” is somewhat less clear. This issue seems to be linked to the property owners’ ultimate ability to move forward with the Ridgeline plan and deliver on his obligations to provide key public benefits, as specified in the Ridgeline Development Agreement. Certainly the plan for Ridgeline provides all of us in OPA with important and new public trails, a new open space/parkland area, a new Ride‐in‐Only Horse Arena, and, of course, the rebuilt Mara Brandman Horse Arena, including the donation of the entire 3.9 acres to the City of Orange. And, if the property owner is unable to move forward with the Ridgeline project and a new plan is proposed, then it could be that “the terms and conditions set forth in the Development Agreement are violated or cannot be implemented” based on a new land plan, so we would lose the benefits so artfully negotiated by the City Council and paid for by the property owner, all at no taxpayer expense. THE NO ON FF LITERATURE TALKS ABOUT OVERTURNING ZONING, SUPPORTING AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN TO RIDGELINE AND LOSING OPEN SPACE AND PARKS. IS THIS TRUTHFUL? HERE ARE THE FACTS: A vote NO on FF denies and overturns ONLY the action by the City Council to affirm the General Plan land use designations for Ridgeline. There is no other land use designation proposed in the ballot language. It does NOT affect or address the zoning of Ridgeline, which is and remains R‐1‐40 (Residential – 1 acre). So, should Measure FF be voted down then the issue of Ridgeline’s General Plan land use designation will have to be addressed again by the City Council and our legal system, which appears to already be in the works with the Court of Appeal action expected after the election. However, again, the zoning will remain as approved (R‐1‐40). Therefore, the No of FF literature is inaccurate in its representations about changing the Ridgeline zoning. With regard to an “alternative plan,” especially one involving other land owned by the Ridgeline property owner, there does not appear to be any alternative plan proposed by the landowner nor the City of Orange in the ballot language. This representation in the No on FF literature appears to be misleading. It should be noted that, in the past, the Board of the Orange Park Association tried to lobby the Ridgeline property owner to support what the Board called its “win win” plan as an alternative to Ridgeline. This “win win” plan was rejected by the property owner and by the City of Orange. In fact, the current plan for Ridgeline provides about 20 times more in open space and recreational uses than what is required as mitigation by the City and State of California. If the “win win” plan had been adopted, then #5. the property owner would have been forced to provide about 275 times more in open space and recreational uses than what is required by the City and State. Certainly, asking one property owner to provide all of the open space and parks which the Orange Park Association Board wants and claims to need seems absurd and outrageous. In fact, representing that recreational open space will be lost with a NO on FF vote is also inaccurate since ALL of the property in question is private property and has never been proposed nor designated to be a “public park,” and therefore, the people of Orange are not losing a public park, nor will they get a public park if FF is voted down. HAVE YOU RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THE OPA ASSOCIATION BOARD WHICH RESPONDS TO RROPA’S REQUESTS? HERE ARE THE FACTS: No, RROPA has not received a response to our March 9 letter to the Orange Park Association Inc., which formally requested a series of documents regarding the Association’s structure and finances. According to Article V, Section 2 of the Association’s By‐laws, Association members are allowed to “read and copy all Association reports and other documents.” A copy of RROPA’s letter to the OPA Board requesting information is posted at www.RROPA.org. In the absence of a reply from the Association, RROPA conducted a search for information on the organization’s practices and made a number of troubling findings, including: • This year, Orange Park Association was fined by the CA Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to file required campaign finance statements in a timely manner. A copy of the FPPC violation is posted at www.RROPA.org. • Orange Park Association is the subject of a complaint and reiterative follow‐up letter by campaign finance watchdogs for failing to include disclosure statements (Paid for by ___) in a series of newspaper advertisements advocating a No vote on Measure FF. A copy of the most recent correspondence is posted at www.RROPA.org. • Orange Park Association is the subject of litigation regarding tactics used to qualify Measure FF last summer. Although the case has yet to be heard in court, existing documentation on the matter calls into question whether signatures were illegally obtained by referendum advocates. RROPA continues to receive questions about the financial health and priorities of the Association, as well as the financial implications of its involvement with ongoing lawsuits and campaigns. Members of any dues‐based have the right to expect transparency, particularly in the wake of monetary penalties and accusations of misconduct. RROPA will keep readers updated on any information the Association provides regarding these matters. We hope these facts are helpful. You can review past editions of “Getting the Facts” and documentation backing up each fact in this issue by visiting www.RROPA.org. And, as always, feel free to visit our website to ask your questions for our research and report back to the community. Russ Garcia and Bryon Meyer RROPA Co‐Chairs and OPA Residents