Density change for Pala Ranch project denied

The County’s Planning Commission has rejected a request from the ownership of the proposed Pala Ranch development for a Plan Amendment Authorization which would have initiated the General Plan Amendment process for a 419-acre site east of Interstate 15.

The Planning Commission’s 5-0 vote, with commissioners Bryan Woods and David Kreitzer absent, stops the planned development mostly on the northeast side of State Route 76 and Rice Canyon Road which would have included an estimated 817 single-family homes. Pala Ranch LLC has the right to appeal the Planning Commission’s denial to the Board of Supervisors if the ownership chooses that option, and the denial doesn’t preclude application for a different development plan in the future.

“We’re going to examine our options and make a determination on what the next move will be,” said Leonard Glickman, the managing partner for Pala Ranch LLC.

The request for the General Plan Amendment sought to change the site’s regional category from an Estate Development Area and an Environmentally Constrained Area to a Current Urban Development Area and to change the land use designation to Specific Plan (21) from Estate (17), General Agriculture (20), and Impact Sensitive (24). The entirety of the site is currently zoned A72 General Agriculture, and the current land use designation consists of 391 acres in General Agriculture areas, 20 acres in Estate, and 8 acres in Impact Sensitive. The proposed Pala Ranch development would have placed approximately half of the 419 acres in open space easements while providing a density of approximately 1.95 dwelling units per acre for the houses.

On August 14, 2006, Glickman filed an application for a Plan Amendment Authorization, but on September 13 county Department of Planning and Land Use director Gary Pryor determined against initiating the PAA since the proposed land use designation would be inconsistent both with the DPLU maps for the county’s General Plan update and with the Board of Supervisors map for GP2020. The DPLU map would allow for a density of one dwelling unit per 40 acres over the entire site while the Board of Supervisors alternative would allow one dwelling unit per 20 acres for approximately 20 acres of the site with one dwelling unit per 40 acres for the remaining 400 acres.

Pryor also noted that the site would place dense residential development outside the San Diego County Water Authority boundary line and that it would conflict with several goals and policies of the Fallbrook Community Plan and General Plan including coordination of infrastructure, support of agriculture, future growth contiguous to existing urban areas, retention of rural character of non-urban lands, agriculture-urban interface concerns, and steep slope and floodplain policies.

The site is also classified as a pre-approved mitigation area in the draft North County Multiple Species Conservation Program. It contains coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitat, riparian and wetlands habitat, and existing agriculture believed to be important for preserve design. Although a General Plan Amendment would be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, a PAA itself is not subject to CEQA.

On September 18 the Fallbrook Community Planning Group voted unanimously to recommend that DPLU not initiate the privately- requested amendment to the General Plan and cited the lack of public benefit, urban sprawl, the proposal’s violation of “smart growth” concepts regarding existing infrastructure, the undermining of the work on General Plan 2020, potential future shortages of imported water, the project’s inability to meet Current Urban Development Area designation guidelines, the limited capacity of State Route 76, and the inconsistency with Community General Plan land use policies.

The Pala Ranch application was assigned to DPLU project manager Robert Hingtgen. “It is not evident that water and sewer service would be available,” Hingtgen said at the Planning Commission meeting.

The site is within the boundaries of the San Luis Rey Municipal Water District, which currently serves about 30 landowners who utilize groundwater. “The proposed urban residential development could impact adjacent ag,” Hingtgen said. “This would conflict with the agricultural goal of the Fallbrook Community Plan.”

Fallbrook Community Planning Group first vice-chair Harry Christiansen represented the planning group at the Planning Commission hearing. “We strongly recommend that you do not initiate this GPA,” he said. “The proposed GPA that they have has no prima facie public benefit.”

Christiansen noted that approval would ignore the years of work by county staff and community members on General Plan 2020 and would violate the principles of smart growth. “As far as we are concerned the county already faces chronic shortages of imported water,” he said.

While Pala Ranch LLC cited adjacent proposed projects, Christiansen noted that a canyon separates the Pala Ranch site from those other sites. “This is just a remote piece of property that would like to be considered the same as theirs,” he said.

Christiansen compared the request for a PAA to initiate the General Plan Amendment to a grand jury inquiry to determine merit of a case. “In my mind there are some hard questions that need to be answered,” he said. “The proposed project is totally inconsistent with the land use policies required by the county General Plan and the Fallbrook Community General Plan.”

Glickman noted that one of the requests of the PAA was to extend the County Water Authority boundary, which likely will be extended for other projects in the area. “One has to really think in terms of context,” he said. “What we represent really is the hole in the donut.”

Glickman noted that the other developments would also require extension of fire, water, and sewer services. “If there are no glaring technical reasons as not to allow development, how could you ignore a property which is in the middle of an area which is being developed?” he said. “The department denial is fundamentally flawed in its reasoning and its fairness.”

Glickman also objected to basing the denial on inconsistency with General Plan 2020, which is currently in the environmental review process for the maps adopted by the supervisors. “2020 is not in existence. It is a proposal. It has not been adopted,” he said. “The department use of 2020 as their reason for denial is flawed.”

Glickman noted that approval of the PAA did not guarantee approval of the project. “It’s allowing us to go forward and prove our case,” he said.

Lee Vance of Vance and Associates cited DPLU’s approval of the Warner and Pappas PAA requests which would involve annexation for water, sewer, and fire service. “There is a master plan that’s being developed that’s under way,” he said. “We’ll be the only major property in that whole area that’s been annexed that doesn’t have a development project on it.”

The current agriculture use on the property includes both orchards and cattle ranching. Vance told the Planning Commission that field crops accounted for only $6 million of the county’s $1.5 billion agricultural production in 2005 and that a total of 373,000 acres in the county are in agriculture. “Agriculture in this county is thriving,” he said.

Realtor Dave Shibley understands the county’s position that the project was inconsistent with guidelines but noted that there was a difference between the PAA process and the project application process. “Let’s take the opportunity to study it,” he said.

Rice Canyon Road resident Bruce Lane addressed the logistics of the proposed project during his comments in opposition. “It’s a canyon,” he said. “How are you going to get the volume of people on and off that freeway?”

State Route 76 is technically not a freeway, nor is State Route 79, and Lane noted that traffic to and from the Pechanga Casino has overloaded Highway 79 and has caused many San Diego County residents to use Pala or Rainbow surface streets as alternate routes.

Lane also noted that the Highway 76 traffic will dump into Interstate 15, and he noted that the quality of life for the residents of the proposed development would also suffer. “No one’s going to be able to get in and out of it,” he said.

“Rice Canyon is a very narrow road,” said Rice Canyon Road resident Vicki Van Kainen. “It’s not conducive to being widened.”

Van Kainen told the Planning Commission that curves on the road limit speeds on some sections to 10 mph. “The traffic congestion is already horrendous,” she said.

“Mr. Glickman moved into this area after we did,” said Rice Canyon Road resident Roger Bernard. “To see it destroyed with more homes would be a nightmare.”

Ed Baldyga has lived in the area for three decades. “It’s a rural area. Most of the people around here where I live have animals,” he said.

“It would impact everybody along both sides,” said Rice Canyon Road resident Richard Groovet. “What they’re wanting to do would be devastating.”

Glickman noted that the question wasn’t one of growth or no growth. “It’s a question of planned growth, of good growth,” he said. “We do want to bring about some very comprehensive planning to the project.”

Pryor noted that some of the other projects proposed for the area are already being studied as alternatives in the GP2020 process. “This is by no means consistent with what has been planned for that area,” he said.

Pryor added that the Environmental Impact Report for GP2020 acknowledges the possibility of development east of Interstate 15 which was proposed prior to the adoption of the map alternatives. “If we keep doing PAAs, we’re a moving target,” he said.

“I think there’s probably half a dozen fatal flaws in this proposal,” said Planning Commissioner Michael Beck. “It’s so far off the scale that it’s kind of mind-boggling.”

Commissioner Adam Day cited the integrity of the GP2020 process. “It’s not fair for everyone who’s invested their time and money going through this process expecting some certainty,” he said.