The real question is: Will Poway’s Prop FF survive?
A debated question is why build “The Farm” on the land of the now closed StoneRidge Country Club rather than leave it as privately-owned open space? On the surface, it would seem desirable to leave the land as-is. However, keeping this privately-owned land as long-term open space rather than a housing development is dependent on the survival of Prop FF which requires voter approval to increase housing density. If Prof FF were to be overturned (more on that later), a high density housing development could be approved without voter say or local control. We are not being alarmist. This is grounded in the reality of the many legislative bills proposed and those approved by the State of California legislation, which could eventually lead to state lawmakers passing legislation that overturn local land use ordinances like Prop FF.
A little history
Back in the late 1980s, there was concern about out-of-control housing density in the newly created City of Poway. To address the concern, Prop FF was drafted with support from the GVCA. Prop FF provides that any land use decision which increases the residential density on commercial, manufacturing or residential land zoned RR-A, RR-B, or RR-C, O-S, or OS-R must be approved by a majority of the voters at an election. Basically, city council can not alone approve increases in residential density. In November 1988, Poway voters passed Prop FF which is codified as Ordinance 283.
Fast forward to today
The region and state have some of the highest housing prices and lowest affordability rates in the nation. The State of California legislature is on a mission to fix this through legislation and has introduced and passed a number of bills that are aimed at increasing the number of homes built and at more affordable prices while usurping local control.
What does this mean to Poway and Prop FF?
Poway is one of the few cities with an ordinance like Prop FF that puts changes in housing density decisions in the hands of the voters. However, the state legislature is moving in the direction of limiting local control by passing statewide housing initiatives which mandate cities to allow more and higher density housing with less environmental review. To date, much of the legislation has been related to areas with high levels of public transit services. It’s inevitable that the legislature will continue its quest to increase the housing supply and bring more affordability by disallowing local control ordinances like Prop FF.
Does any of this apply to the former StoneRidge County Club land?
Maybe. In September 2020 the State approved AB725, a land use bill that requires the City of Poway’s housing element to include an inventory of land suitable for residential development. Land suitable for residential development includes: “Sites zoned for non-residential use that can be redeveloped for residential use, and for which the housing element includes a program to rezone the site, as necessary, rezoned for, to permit residential use, including sites owned or leased by a city, county, or city and county.” The bill outlines high zoning densities to accommodate housing for lower income households.
Read the full bill here:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB725
Also passed in September is AB1851, which allows faith-based organizations to build affordable housing on their parking lots. Since churches are allowed as a permitted use in the OS-R zone, it might be possible for a faith-based owner to develop portions of the property into affordable housing. The legislation would reduce or eliminate various local parking requirements that would otherwise preclude development of housing, and prevent cities from forcing faith-based organizations to later make up lost parking spaces when a parking lot is developed for housing.
Read the full bill here:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1851
How far will the state go in legislating land use?
In 2019, the state of California passed AB670 which requires cities to allow accessory dwelling units (aka ADUs or granny flats); prior to that, the city of Poway highly restricted ADUs. For more extreme state legislation, look no further than the state of Oregon which passed HB2001 which largely bans single-family zoning across the state. It legalizes the development of duplexes on land currently zoned single-family in all communities of 10,000 or more. The bill also allows for the construction of triplexes, fourplexes, row houses, and cottage clusters on what was single-family-zoned land in cities of 25,000 or more.
Read the full bills here:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB670
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2001
What if the StoneRidge property stays privately owned OS-R zoned land?
The owner of StoneRidge, a Los Angeles developer, is in the business of buying closed golf courses and redeveloping them into housing. Will he let this one sit as open space forever? Our bet is NO. Rather, we expect he will use his resources and connections to pursue state legislation to allow housing on under-utilized land of closed golf courses with city’s having little or no local control.
Will the City of Poway spend its limited resources fighting the State of California to preserve Prop FF. Again, our bet is most likely NO. In-fact when asked about this very issue at our City Council Candidate Forum, all four stated Prop FF is vulnerable.
Read the candidates forum here:
https://www.gvca.info/news/2020/9/23/poway-city-council-pre-forum-questionnaire
Bottom line
If Measure P fails, it is unknown whether the City will still have the benefit of voter approval or City Council control over zoning and project approval on a future development. On the other hand, a voter-approved Measure P – which includes a land use “specific plan” and permanent deed restrictions for open space – would shield the property from future state legislation.