Supervisors deny Pala Ranch density change

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously May 16 to deny a Plan Amendment Authorization for the proposed Pala Ranch development which would initiated a General Plan Amendment for a 419-acre site east of Interstate 15.

Pala Ranch, LLC, sought an estimated 817 single-family homes for the planned development mostly on the northeast side of State Route 76 and Rice Canyon Road. The General Plan Amendment proposal also 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 entire 419 acres are 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 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.

The request for a Plan Amendment Authorization had previously been rejected by the Fallbrook Community Planning Group, the director of the Department of Planning and Land Use (DPLU), and the county’s Planning Commission. “I think we had to follow their wishes,” said County Supervisor Bill Horn.

Leonard Glickman is the managing partner for Pala Ranch, LLC. On August 14, 2006, Glickman filed an application for a Plan Amendment Authorization (PAA), and on September 13 DPLU director Gary Pryor determined against initiating the PAA since the proposed land use designation would be inconsistent with both the county’s General Plan update and with the Board of Supervisors map for General Plan 2020.

During the General Plan 2020 process, which is currently in its environmental review phase, the supervisors directed that both the land use map proposed by DPLU and one with various alternatives recommended by the supervisors be studied. Those alternatives assume some development along the Interstate 15/State Route 76 corridor, but the Pala Ranch density change had not been requested during those hearings.

“It’s a little bit late for the dance, to be honest with you,” Horn said. “That was not part of any one of those land use models.”

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 and one dwelling unit per 40 acres for the remaining 400 acres.

Pryor’s denial also noted that the site would place dense residential development outside of the San Diego County Water Authority boundary line and that it would conflict with several goals and policies of the General Plan and the Fallbrook Community 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 within the boundaries of the San Luis Rey Municipal Water District, which currently serves about 30 landowners who utilize groundwater. “He’s on the wrong side of the county water line. I don’t see how he’s going to get any infrastructure put in at this point,” said County Supervisor Bill Horn.

DPLU project Robert Hintgen noted at the November 17 Planning Commission hearing that sanitation service as well as water service would likely not be available.

The site is also classified as a pre-approved mitigation area in the draft North County Multiple Species Conservation Program. The area 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 against the PAA. The planning group 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.

Glickman had argued that other developments in the area would also require extension of fire, water, and sewer services and noted that General Plan 2020 has not yet been adopted.

The Planning Commission’s vote November 17 was 5-0 for denial of the PAA, with two commissioners absent. The denials by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors do not preclude Pala Ranch, LLC, from applying for a different development plan in the future.