Planning Commission approves Calavo Road tentative map

The county’s Planning Commission approved a tentative map for a Calavo Road subdivision April 20 on a 4-0 vote with three commissioners absent.

The tentative map request had initially been heard by the Planning Commission on April 6, and a two-week continuance allowed county staff to address claims by a neighbor of inadequate procedure. County Department of Planning and Land Use staff and County Counsel determined that the procedure had been adequate.

The ownership group has been trying to subdivide 3.7 acres on the east side of Calavo Road between Pepper Tree Lane and Sea Larke Drive into six single-family residential lots ranging from 0.52 to 0.82 acres. The lot size is consistent with the RR2 zoning which calls for a maximum density of two dwelling units per acre and with the general plan which provides a Residential (3) designation for the site. Letters of service availability have been received from the Fallbrook Public Utility District, the North County Fire Protection District, the Fallbrook Union Elementary School District, and the Fallbrook Union High School District.

Although sewer and water capacity are available to serve the project, pipelines will need to be extended 750 and 1,000 feet to the point of connection. Access for motor vehicles will be from a private road easement from Calavo Road. The site once supported an avocado grove, and the majority of the property is relatively flat with slopes of about 15 percent toward the eastern boundary. The slopes will require about 8,000 cubic yards of cut and 12,900 cubic yards of fill with the amount beyond the cut quantity to be imported.

In January 2004 the Fallbrook Community Planning Group voted 13-0, with one abstention, to recommend approval of the project. That discussion included comments that the planning group did not want street lights, curbs, or gutters in that part of the

community, and the project will incorporate asphaltic berms instead of curbs and gutters.

The environmental Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review in September and October 2006, nearly three years after the planning group meeting. At the April 2007 Planning Commission hearing, the owner of the property across the street from the project, Tim Miller, told the Planning Commission that he was not advised when the environmental document was circulated for review. Miller also told the Planning Commission that he never received a copy of the site plan.

A notice of the April 6 public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project on March 22. County Counsel noted that technically the project does not have a site plan, which is a document showing buildings, landscaping, and other development details. A site plan is required for a “vesting” tentative map but not for a subdivision tentative map, and the subdivision design for the Calavo Road project was depicted on the tentative map which indicated lot boundaries, street locations, drainage, and topography while a preliminary grading plan provided additional details. Because of the bulk of a tentative map, the county does not include the map itself with the hearing notice but invites neighboring property owners and other interested parties to inspect the map at the Department of Planning and Land Use offices.

The public review notice for an environmental document is distributed primarily to public agencies and interest groups and is not sent to neighboring property owners, but interested individuals may request to be added to the distribution list. No such request had been received from Miller.

The mailing of the hearing notice, the availability of the project at the DPLU offices, and the availability to request notice of environmental documents were deemed to have constituted legal requirements for due process in notifying interested parties.

Miller had also expressed concern that lot size minimums didn’t prevent multi-story homes, specifically worrying about three-story residences. The subdivision site, as is the case with all properties in the surrounding RR2 zone, has a “G” height designator which limits structures to 35 feet or less and also allows for a maximum of two stories. Thus no additional conditions are needed to restrict the development to one or two stories. The property also has a setback designator requiring buildings to have a front yard setback of at least 50 feet from the street centerline, an interior side yard setback of 10 feet from the property line, an exterior side yard setback of at least 35 feet from the street centerline, and a rear yard setback of at least 40 feet from the property line. That setback distance, along with the height restrictions and the setback of Miller’s own property, will assure that the subdivision will not create visual impacts to Miller’s residence.

Miller said that the access to the new subdivision is directly across the street from two driveways, including his, and that while the Mitigated Negative Declaration addressed the cumulative impacts of the new vehicular traffic it didn’t address the existing level of service. Miller also noted that the Mitigated Negative Declaration didn’t address when the cumulative mitigation measures would be installed.

Calavo Road is not a Circulation Element route, and it currently has an average daily traffic volume of 3,100 vehicles. The development is expected to add 72 average daily trips with peak hour additional trips estimated at an additional seven average daily vehicles, or one car every eight minutes. Since Calavo Road is not a Circulation Element road, it does not have a designated level of service, but the road functions as a two-lane

residential collector and that type of road is expected to operate at Level of Service C or better until it exceeds 4,500 average daily trips.

Although the traffic study identified potential cumulative impacts on two area roads, the improvements to those roads will also address cumulative impacts from other future projects and will be constructed as the need arises.

On April 18 staff from the county’s Department of Public Works observed the road for two hours, including the morning peak hour, and observed smooth operating conditions both of Calavo Road in the project’s vicinity and of Calavo Road at the intersection of Stage Coach Road. DPW staff did not observe any congestion which would make exiting from Miller’s driveway difficult and found that the worst-case outbound wait at the intersection of Calavo Road and Stage Coach Road was less than 90 seconds.

Miller’s property actually lies one lot further north along Calavo Road than the subdivision parcel, so an access street aligned precisely across Miller’s driveway is not possible. From a traffic safety standpoint it is preferred to have opposing driveways as directly aligned as possible, and the location of the subdivision access easement was located as close as possible to Miller’s driveway after review by the Department of Public Works. Due to the minor amount of traffic from the new subdivision, conflicts with Miller’s driveway are not expected.