Osuna (old discussion, partially restored)

Tagged: 

Viewing 0 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #3730
      Editor
      Keymaster

      Osuna
      Thread starterCovenant Resident
      Start dateLater today at 1:47 PM
      C
      Covenant Resident
      New member
      Joined
      Jul 1, 2019
      Messages
      10
      Later today at 1:47 PM

      #1
      Your quote “Osuna, in addition to some other Association property, is a very underutilized asset. It is borderline fiscal malfeasance to not extract more utility from the property and I’m glad to see the Association starting to study options.” has a few flaws.

      First, the lower part of Osuna Ranch is in a floodplain and shouldn’t be developed.

      Secondly, Osuna was purchased with open space $$ to STOP development and lot splits, and to keep one of the last oldest historic Ranches in tact for future generations. The Adobe that sits in the middle of the property is one of the few properties that make us “Historic Rancho Santa Fe”. History should matter and be saved from special interests looking to make a profit.

      And lastly, OPEN space does not always need to be utilized. The Assoc owns over 50 properties and many have no utilization and yet cost us money to maintain. However, Osuna Ranch does pay for itself with traditional horse keeping. It’s really the ONLY open space that community members don’t subsidize with assessment funds.

      It’s my opinion, any enhancements made to the property should keep to the historic nature in which the property was originally intended and not be subdivided. Our Assocation no longer seems keen on purchasing any more open space therefore, we should do everything we can to keep the open space we have in tact. It’s one of the biggest assets to living here is the open historic character.

      Why not focus on the property the Assoc. owns next to the school ( between Mimosa and El Fuego) and develop a dog park or develop bathrooms by Richardson Field or Arroyo? Wouldn’t that make more sense to community members who currently utilize those properties?

      Reactions:Santa Fean and Don Christy

      ptrubey
      Administrator
      Staff member
      Joined
      Apr 29, 2019
      Messages
      124
      Later today at 6:03 PM

      #2
      Covenant Resident said:
      First, the lower part of Osuna Ranch is in a floodplain and shouldn’t be developed.
      By “developed” I didn’t mean construct condos or somesuch. You are right that it is a floodplain, so the most you could with it is make more sports fields or something similar. Then you have to figure out access, parking, etc. The lower part might not be a good candidate for any use other than horse activities.

      Secondly, Osuna was purchased with open space $$ to STOP development and lot splits, and to keep one of the last oldest historic Ranches in tact for future generations. The Adobe that sits in the middle of the property is one of the few properties that make us “Historic Rancho Santa Fe”. History should matter and be saved from special interests looking to make a profit.
      Yes, I think I said that the adobe and the horse activities should be kept. I wasn’t proposing changing those, other than maybe upgrades.

      Why not focus on the property the Assoc. owns next to the school ( between Mimosa and El Fuego) and develop a dog park or develop bathrooms by Richardson Field or Arroyo? Wouldn’t that make more sense to community members who currently utilize those properties?
      As I recall, that piece of land is challenging to develop due to topography. But a dog park might work there. Good idea.

      And yes, bathrooms make a lot of sense for Richardson Field – the Association’s been working on that literally for years. Staff is overworked and successive boards haven’t made it a priority (IMHO).

      The Association could build a recreation center or something similar in the northern triangle portion of Osuna. It wouldn’t change either the Adobe or horse parts of Osuna.
      V
      Vocal Resident
      Member
      Joined
      May 9, 2019
      Messages
      34
      Later today at 3:20 PM

      #3
      Covenant Resident said:
      Your quote “Osuna, in addition to some other Association property, is a very underutilized asset. It is borderline fiscal malfeasance to not extract more utility from the property and I’m glad to see the Association starting to study options.” has a few flaws.

      First, the lower part of Osuna Ranch is in a floodplain and shouldn’t be developed.

      When was the last time the flood plain flooded? There are a lot of uses for flood plain property. I would point out the there are some huge properties just down the road built on a flood plain. Perhaps you would like to drop $10m+ on one of them?

      Secondly, Osuna was purchased with open space $$ to STOP development and lot splits, and to keep one of the last oldest historic Ranches in tact for future generations. The Adobe that sits in the middle of the property is one of the few properties that make us “Historic Rancho Santa Fe”. History should matter and be saved from special interests looking to make a profit.

      RSF is historic without Osuna Ranch. The adobe on the property is a curiosity at best and is not listed on any map I’ve seen. It has recently been identified as Hap Hansen Stables and Royal Stables. Future generations will not miss a thing if they never see Osuna. The fact it was made a historic place was to handcuff and development there. It is not a beneficial thing to have done unless you are one of the people who feel they have to shackle the adobe structure on to the property. The whole purchase was an overpriced back room deal.

      And lastly, OPEN space does not always need to be utilized. The Assoc owns over 50 properties and many have no utilization and yet cost us money to maintain. However, Osuna Ranch does pay for itself with traditional horse keeping. It’s really the ONLY open space that community members don’t subsidize with assessment funds.

      Osuna pays for itself? Does that include the cost of the money that bought the place? If it had a traditional mortgage would the rents cover it? I seriously doubt that.

      It’s my opinion, any enhancements made to the property should keep to the historic nature in which the property was originally intended and not be subdivided. Our Assocation no longer seems keen on purchasing any more open space therefore, we should do everything we can to keep the open space we have in tact. It’s one of the biggest assets to living here is the open historic character.

      What part of Osuna is historic besides the old adobe building? The corrals? The big riding ring? The gate? The barn? Ah… have I missed something? Oh, the historic character that most no one can see or use? Most of the “open space” that people enjoy in RSF has to do with the size of the properties and the houses being mostly hidden from view (from the street.)

      Why not focus on the property the Assoc. owns next to the school ( between Mimosa and El Fuego) and develop a dog park or develop bathrooms by Richardson Field or Arroyo? Wouldn’t that make more sense to community members who currently utilize those properties?

      Dog park? Almost all of RSF is a dog park. What are you kidding? Perhaps you have better leave the fourth floor balcony of your development and come over to see the place.

      Richardson Field has an encumbrance to consider that prevents development which would cause the property to revert back to the family. Tread carefully on that one. Besides if the playing fields disappeared then where would all the kids playing there every afternoon (right into the dark) get together to share Covid? A zip code map has been created by the County and RSF (92067) is in the purple tier with a case rate of 8.7 It is interesting to note that when you see couples going to dinner in the village the women wear masks and the men are not. … that’s Eight point seven … Vote republican anyone?

      https://sdcounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/e09887e8e65d4fda847aa04c480dc73f
      Click to expand…
      S
      Santa Fean
      New member
      Joined
      Dec 2, 2020
      Messages
      2
      Later today at 12:05 PM

      #4
      I very much agree with Covenant Resident’s comments. The tone of Vocal Resident’s responses is snarky and cantankerous; I hope upcoming discussions of Osuna Ranch’s fate will hold to a higher plain of discourse.

      Having open space around the Osuna adobe is part of Osuna Ranch’s historical character. In fact it is integral to it. Land itself can be historical because of who lived there, who died there, what took place there, or the significance of what happened there. Does Gettysburg qualify as historical to VR? The question really should be, “how much open space should be preserved, and in what incarnation should it be maintained, to preserve Osuna Ranch’s historical character and context?” I don’t have the answer. I hope that those deciding this question will be more contemplative and more respectful of history than VR.

      Personally, I applaud the Association for purchasing Osuna to protect it from developers. Bravo. It shows an appreciation for intangibles, an appreciation that is clearly lost on VR and other like-minded individuals eager to “cash out” on Osuna or to chip away at its rural character in order to balance the books. Very little land seems to be out of developers’ reach these days.

      Open space has value beyond its purchase price to developers bent on building something salable on the land in order to turn a handsome profit. Open space (whether or not it’s visible from the street!) is undoubtedly one of assets that draws many Rancho Santa Feans to RSF. For me, open space in the Ranch is valuable because it leaves room for wildlife, and because it provides relief from urban density and the traffic congestion, noise pollution, & light pollution that are the inevitable consequences of increased housing density.

      That said, I would still be interested in knowing what ongoing costs are incurred by the Association to maintain Osuna Ranch. If these costs are sizable, perhaps there are other uses for the property (other than building houses) that could help to offset these costs without forever destroying the rural character of Osuna Ranch?

      Last edited: Later today at 7:17 PM

      Reactions:Covenant Resident
      V
      Vocal Resident
      Member
      Joined
      May 9, 2019
      Messages
      34
      Later today at 12:39 PM

      #5
      Civility is a weapon designed to deflect accountability and it is a weapon that conservative commentators have learned to wield very effectively.

      It’s the perfect weapon, because it can be so easily buried into the back of any justifiable protest. We are a land of law and order, we are reminded, and civility is the safeguard to our way of life. This lens is supremely powerful, and it can burn a dissenting voice like a leaf under a magnifying glass.

      Weaponised civility can twist the most justifiable protests into narratives of pure evil.

      Let us put Osuna to a vote of the members. One it has never had before. What say you Santa Feign?

      Reactions:RSF_Survivor

      ptrubey
      Administrator
      Staff member
      Joined
      Apr 29, 2019
      Messages
      124
      Later today at 6:46 PM

      #6
      Vocal Resident said:
      Civility is a weapon designed to deflect accountability and it is a weapon that conservative commentators have learned to wield very effectively.

      It’s the perfect weapon, because it can be so easily buried into the back of any justifiable protest. We are a land of law and order, we are reminded, and civility is the safeguard to our way of life. This lens is supremely powerful, and it can burn a dissenting voice like a leaf under a magnifying glass.

      Weaponised civility can twist the most justifiable protests into narratives of pure evil.

      Let us put Osuna to a vote of the members. One it has never had before. What say you Santa Feign?
      Click to expand…
      What kind of vote do you suggest? What would the question be?
      C
      Covenant Resident
      New member
      Joined
      Jul 1, 2019
      Messages
      10
      Later today at 10:54 AM

      #7
      ptrubey said:
      What kind of vote do you suggest? What would the question be?
      Should Osuna be developed for commercial use or maintain its current zoning as Rural Residential?
      V
      Vocal Resident
      Member
      Joined
      May 9, 2019
      Messages
      34
      Later today at 9:53 AM

      #8
      Well, here is a bird’s eye view of Osuna. All this hoola boola about saving the old farm house. Can you even find it in the photograph? Clearly the major purpose of this property is stables and horses. If the impetus is for the historic farm house then pare off the horse businesses. If members are not allowed to visit the rest of the property without the manager’s permission then this is essentially a private property in all it’s intents and purposes. Given the Association is subzidizing the property, in addition to having purchased it and the tenants are not even charging market rates then this is a corrupt arrangement. Oh yeah, new fences and a new roof are on the way.. All at member’s expense. Shameful.

      Attachments

      Osuna photo copy.png
      700.3 KBViews: 4

      Reactions:ptrubey
      C
      Covenant Resident
      New member
      Joined
      Jul 1, 2019
      Messages
      10
      Later today at 4:42 PM

      #9
      Clearly your mis informed (vocal resident). All members are welcome to visit any time during the day ( Monday is when the property conducts maintenance, so probably not the best day). I’ve been every day of the week and have never had any problems and I don’t have a horse. The property is safe and peaceful and staff/Mgr. are welcoming and nice. I enjoyed just walking around. I visit the Adobe, chickens, horses and take in the view. The property was purchased “for its historic authenticity and to preserve the site for the education of Covenant generations to come.”

      The association is NOT subsidizing Osuna Ranch. If you look at the financials they are profitable and have been with the exception of one year ( due to a changes in what the association required for Reserves and some sort of unexpected issue). Please do not continue to spread false information about market rates for horse accommodations. I’ve inquired and was shown data that it is in line with market rates. The data shows details and I was told many outside horse boarding stalls do NOT have any shelter or over hang, (you can’t compare apples to oranges ) when all other horse boarding facilities have some sort of over hang for the horse when it’s rains. Another item, I was told was missing was a horse walker which all surrounding barns have as standard equipment. It’s appears Osuna horse facilities are like a best western motel located in a posh area surrounded by 4 season style resorts. Hardly a fair comparison. The fencing is a Assoc board decision and a small amount compared to the $35,000 Assoc members will pay to move Pickleball courts. Let’s face it – Golf, Tennis and Osuna Can be subsidized by the Assoc board of directors approval and all are given money from the general fund. The golf club restaurant gets over $300,000 plus annually. Next time, ask staff or the Osuna committee for details, like I did, and get the facts not conjecture.

      ptrubey
      Administrator
      Staff member
      Joined
      Apr 29, 2019
      Messages
      124
      Later today at 7:53 PM

      #10
      Covenant Resident said:
      Clearly your mis informed (vocal resident). All members are welcome to visit any time during the day ( Monday is when the property conducts maintenance, so probably not the best day). I’ve been every day of the week and have never had any problems and I don’t have a horse. The property is safe and peaceful and staff/Mgr. are welcoming and nice. I enjoyed just walking around. I visit the Adobe, chickens, horses and take in the view. The property was purchased “for its historic authenticity and to preserve the site for the education of Covenant generations to come.”

      The association is NOT subsidizing Osuna Ranch. If you look at the financials they are profitable and have been with the exception of one year ( due to a changes in what the association required for Reserves and some sort of unexpected issue). Please do not continue to spread false information about market rates for horse accommodations. I’ve inquired and was shown data that it is in line with market rates. The data shows details and I was told many outside horse boarding stalls do NOT have any shelter or over hang, (you can’t compare apples to oranges ) when all other horse boarding facilities have some sort of over hang for the horse when it’s rains. Another item, I was told was missing was a horse walker which all surrounding barns have as standard equipment. It’s appears Osuna horse facilities are like a best western motel located in a posh area surrounded by 4 season style resorts. Hardly a fair comparison. The fencing is a Assoc board decision and a small amount compared to the $35,000 Assoc members will pay to move Pickleball courts. Let’s face it – Golf, Tennis and Osuna Can be subsidized by the Assoc board of directors approval and all are given money from the general fund. The golf club restaurant gets over $300,000 plus annually. Next time, ask staff or the Osuna committee for details, like I did, and get the facts not conjecture.
      Click to expand…
      To be fair to Vocal Resident, I wrote in the Post that Osuna’s rates are too low, and that it receives financial support from the Association, which you don’t dispute since you even point out that the fencing will come from Association funds, and not Osuna’s. Financial accounting for a horse ranch is tricky since most ranches (Osuna included) have a lot of deferred maintenance that isn’t properly reserved.

      Also you can’t point to the lack of one amenity (horse walker) while not mentioning the huge positive of the enormous grass pastures that Osuna has.

      You are quite right to point out that other areas of the Association do get subsidies from the general fund. However, I would counter that those other areas service an order of magnitude more members than does Osuna. And meanwhile, some areas that also service a huge number of members, like the soccer fields, have historically been left to fend for themselves.

      And then there is a huge amount of money that is tied up in the Osuna property itself. It is worth at least $8M – $10M if not more, today.

      Opinions will differ on Osuna, but I would caution against charging that someone is misinformed. Again as you point out, it is hard to compare apples to apples when you not only have a unique piece of land, but the business operations are also unique.

      Incidentally, I know of member(s) who are forbidden to visit Osuna. So yes, Vocal Resident is correct in saying that you need the manager’s approval to visit. The Association has taken the view that they have the right to deny access to Association owned property in certain circumstances. Actually, this is old news – restaurant member privileges are routinely stripped from members if they do not pay their monthly dues and/or fines.

Viewing 0 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.