• Official WWW Site

In 1998, the voters adopted Proposition S, which changed the Escondido general plan to require that amendments to certain portions of the general plan can only occur after a majority vote of the people at an election. Proposition S specifically provides that general plan amendments or specific plans cannot be adopted without a vote of the people if the changes increase residential density, change the general plan's residential land use categories, or change certain residential designations (rural, estate, suburban, and urban) to a commercial or industrial designation.

In addition, Proposition S re-adopted specific policies from the current general plan. These policies are those which regulate land use patterns and character, residential development, and residential preservation and development. The measure re-adopts specific policies regarding planned development zoning, specific planning areas, clustering of residential development and the population objectives. Proposition S required that changes to these policies in the future cannot be made except by a vote of the people at an election.

This particular Measure asks whether the land use category of the Escondido General Plan should be amended for 50 acres south of Stone Pointe Drive, east of Inspiration Lane, addressed as 1091 Sierra Linda Drive from the current designation of Rural II (minimum 2 acre lots) and Estate I (up to 1 unit per acre) to Estate II (up to 2 units per acre) to increase the number of single family units allowed from 20 to 52 (as shown on Exhibit 5).

Approval of this measure allows for development of the property at a reasonable density that is compatible with adjacent neighboring developments. This zoning change allows a maximum of 24 more residences than are currently allowed. Property owners are on record with the City Council to develop no more than 44 lots on 51 acres.

Approval of this measure will allow future residents to contribute to our sales tax revenue and our property tax base while making a very limited impact on municipal services. The streets and sewer system in the project will be private, maintained by a homeowners association.

The owners of this property are asking you to vote for fairness in land use issues. Your approval of this measure will be a reasonable step toward property rights and is the very definition of smart growth. Please Vote Yes!

ANDY SCHOOLER, Owner

LOUIS V. SCHOOLER, Owner

LORA D. MILLER

All development costs us more in services than is recovered in taxes. All development beyond that provided in our current General Plan contributes to unacceptable overcrowding -in our schools, on our streets, on our highways -everywhere. It all adds up, no matter how small each piece. It is regrettable that City Council declined to conduct a proper review and reject this Amendment long before now, especially when the need to do so was so obvious. Please vote NO to protect our River Park and to prevent a squandering of public funds.

EDWARD C. HALL, Retired Corporate Executive

ADOLPH C. GUERRA, Sr. Principal Scientist

RENEE M. MICHELSON

J. A. MATALAVAGE, Homemaker

SANDRA E. MATALAVAGE, Concerned Citizen

This property consists of extremely sensitive wildlife habitat. It adjoins and forms the backdrop for a major portion of the San Dieguito River Valley Park. Development would have a severe visual impact on the Park. The property is home to several rare species. The city is interested in acquiring the property for use as a habitat mitigation bank and as part of the North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan.

The city, with the strong support of the River Park, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game, has initiated discussions with the owner regarding purchase. The owner agreed that an appraisal be conducted for that purpose. The city, in good faith, is now concluding certain biological studies that must precede an appraisal.

It is likely that the city or other public agencies will offer to purchase the property at appraised, Fair Market Value and that the owner would be fairly compensated. Development is unlikely in any event given the property's steep slopes and the sensitivity of the habitat. Voting to approve an increase in density would be a vote to artificially increase the property's appraised value. This would result in the city having to pay an inflated price for the property that would be a squandering of the very limited public funds available for acquisition of critical open space in this area. Further, approval would be counterproductive for all parties in that it would disrupt and delay current efforts to obtain this land for public use and protection of the River Park. Please vote NO!

PAUL M. BERGFORD, Retired Naval Officer

RICHARD L. BARBER, DDS, Retired Dentist

EDWARD C. HALL, Retired Corporate Executive

Let's focus on fairness. The owners have owned this property for 35 years. In 1990 City Staff expressed an interest in buying this property and at the same time downzoned it from 105 units to 20 units on 51 acres. No offer has ever come forward to buy. The City Council has considered this proposed General Plan Amendment on 2 occasions and determined it was appropriate to place it on the ballot. Approval will permit 24 more homes on the property. The owners would have to submit development plans and environmental documents that evaluate relevant environmental issues. All off-site infrastructure has been built to accommodate twice the number of homes that the applicant is asking for.

Approval of Proposition M is a vote for property rights and fairness for the citizens of Escondido.

Please Vote Yes on Proposition M.!

LORA D. MILLER, Voter JACK M. GIBSON, Chairman, Citizens for Private Property Rights