More information about Osuna

Author: Phil Trubey

Date: April 25, 2025

Hello, Phil Trubey, RSFA Board member sending an occasional email about RSF.

If you haven't read Rachel Laffer's latest article about Osuna, consider yourself lucky. If you have, indulge me while I clear up the many falsehoods she wrote.

I "supposedly ... [have] a deal and a buyer already in the bag" to sell Osuna to. False. If the Board and Members voted to sell Osuna, it would be marketed by a professional real estate agent and sold in the usual way. I know of no buyers and I certainly personally have zero interest in buying it.

With regard to Laffer's insinuation that the Board would not put such a sale to a member vote, I would direct her to the Association's Bylaws which state, Article IV, section 6a:

Resolutions providing for the acquisition of real property by the Association or for the sale, mortgage or other disposition of any real property of the Association (except for granting, accepting, relocating or extinguishing franchises, rights-of- way, and easements for public utility or for other public or quasi-public purposes upon, over and/or under any real property owned by the Association or by any other party) shall not become effective until thirty (30) days after written notice shall have been mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to all Members. If during such thirty (30) day period there shall be presented to the Secretary of the Association a petition signed by not less than one hundred (100) Members protesting against such acquisition, sale, mortgage or other disposition of property, such resolution shall not become effective unless approved by the Members in the manner prescribed by these Bylaws. During the periods referred to above, the Board and/or Association shall not consummate the transaction and shall notify affected third parties of the provisions contained herein.

In other words, the Association must have a Member vote for property sale, assuming it receives a 100 signature petition. I don't know if this Board will actually vote to sell Osuna, but if it did, I suspect it would obviate the petition requirement and go directly to a Member vote.

Laffer: "Like the member survey the Association conducted in 2022? Because neighbors already spoke their mind."

Laffer uses a generic satisfaction survey as a proxy for a definitive vote of the disposition of Osuna. It's rather telling that members of the Osuna Committee and others vociferously push back against even asking Members about selling Osuna. That particular question is verboten somehow. I tried gaining support for a non binding advisory vote about Osuna with three different scenarios last year. I was told by various Osuna partisans that having "sale of Osuna" as one of the options was not to be done.

If the Board were to vote to sell Osuna, we would then have a Member vote on that very topic. A simple yes/no vote and there will be zero controversy about where Members stand. 

I personally have no idea which way such a vote would go. And frankly I don't care. If Members want to retain Osuna and spend assessment money to continue to maintain it, it's fine with me. I pay less in Association assessments than I do for my Big Bear ski condo! If my Association assessments go up for Osuna (and other amenities, let's upgrade them all), I'm am totally and completely fine with that.

But I also think it's fiscally improper for any Board to not ask Members their opinion on a significantly under utilized and decaying $10M asset.

"selling off the surrounding 20 acres for a measly $10 million ... a firesale". I'm glad Laffer thinks the Osuna property is worth more than $10M, I do too. If it were to be sold, it would be at a market price of course. $10M is a number I personally estimated to be a low ball number, hopefully we would get more than that.

"Is Trubey seriously suggesting one of the wealthiest HOAs in the nation can’t afford multiple member amenities?"

Wow, Laffer and I agree again! I have been an ardent advocate for spending money on any and all amenities. 

However I gotta say that during my first year on the audit finance committee, I kinda got PTSD when we had to raise assessments from $0.14 to $0.15/$100 property value. Now, it wasn't that bad, we did raise assessments without too much angst (maybe I'm just sensitive). 

But yeah, me personally? I think we should raise rates at least $0.03 from $0.15 to $0.18 and fund Osuna properly (it needs about $3M in capital upgrades), spend some assessment money on both the tennis and golf clubs (they are a part of our property values whether we are members there or not), the recreation fields and the trails. Also another restroom at the Arroyo (I pushed hard for the two recreation field restrooms), and many other things. 

I personally feel we are too darn cheap in this Association. 

By the way, that Big Bear condo HOA I belong to? I just got a vote packet to vote on a $7,965 special assessment per unit to replace the asphalt roadway with pavers. We just had a Board meeting about sending out the ballot. No hue and cry, no histrionics, just a calm discussion about pros and cons. How I wish that RSF could measure up to a 32 unit HOA in Big Bear.

There is a fear that if Osuna were to be sold, it could be subdivided or over developed. 

First, the property is zoned within the Association as class A and L, meaning it can have 1 single family home and be used for horse operations. So unlike the parcel that Silvergate is looking to develop (which has class C), you cannot overdevelop the land as is.

OK, what about a zone modification? Well, we just tried that with Osuna (interesting test run!) to add an additional class H to allow for a dog park and such a zone modification required the neighbors to agree. It failed. 

Such a future potential zone modification would also require the Board to agree, which would also fail at the Board level since there is no requirement that the Board agree to any particular zone modification.

OK, what about subdivision then? Again, the Board (and Art Jury in this case) must agree to any proposed subdivision and again, there's no requirement for the Board to do so. They can simply say no, and there's nothing a land owner can do about it.

Bottom line is that I think it is only fair to ask Members their view in a binding member vote regarding selling or retaining a property that few use, yet many have strong opinions about.