Planning Commission recommends FCI overlay

Planning Commission recommends FCI overlay

Joe Naiman

Village News Correspondent

San Diego County’s Planning Commission has recommended an overlay designator for land which was previously restricted by the Forest Conservation Initiative.

Michael Seiler, Michael Edwards, and Doug Barnhart were not at the Jan. 10 Planning Commission meeting, but a 4-0 vote supported by Michael Beck, Bryan Woods, Yolanda Calvo and David Pallinger forwarded the recommendation to the county Board of Supervisors.

The county’s Department of Planning and Development Services is hoping to docket the recommendation for the Feb. 26 supervisors’ meeting.

A general plan amendment would not be prohibited for properties in the overlay area but must meet water supply, fire safety, environmental resource, land use pattern, emissions and open space, including agriculture, preservation criteria and would also be analyzed for consistency with the county’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment in conjunction with the nearest Village or Rural Village area.

“These are the findings you would have to consider,” PDS director Mark Wardlaw said.

In 1993, the county’s voters passed the Forest Conservation Initiative which stipulated a density of one dwelling unit per 40 acres for lands within the Cleveland National Forest boundary but outside of existing community town areas. The FCI covered approximately 286,000 acres, including approximately 72,300 acres under county land use jurisdiction and prevented general plan land use designations from being changed until the FCI's expiration date of Dec. 31, 2010.

The hearings on the update to the county's general plan began before the expiration date, so the FCI lands were not included in that update which was approved in August 2011 although during the update process county Department of Planning and Land Use, which became Planning and Development Services in 2012, staff began a separate effort on new maps for FCI land based on the principles of the general plan update.

DPLU staff did not pursue significant changes when the new maps were developed, and most of the planned additional development was near the Viejas Indian Reservation in Alpine.

In addition to developing the maps, Planning and Development Services staff identified alternatives, and the Planning Commission held hearings in October 2013 and November 2013. In November 2013 the Planning Commission voted 5-1, with Beck opposed due to concerns regarding Alpine and John Riess absent, to recommend the rezones.

The maps went to the board of supervisors in June 2014, although the action was to choose a preferred map for the Environmental Impact Report rather than to adopt the general plan amendment for the densities.

The supervisors’ 3-1 vote, with Ron Roberts absent and Dave Roberts opposed due to his preference for the FCI densities to be used as the baseline to evaluate the draft EIR, returned the update to Planning and Development Services for environmental analysis and also directed staff to prepare a scope of work for a special study in eastern Alpine.

The proposed general plan amendments were heard by the Planning Commission in October 2016. The new land use designations for the former FCI land along with a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report were approved by the board of supervisors in December 2016.The following month a lawsuit was filed by the Sierra Club, the Cleveland National Forest Foundation and Save Our Forests and Ranchlands. The county and the plaintiffs began settlement discussions, and in February 2019 a settlement agreement was reached in which the county would place a Forest Indicator overlay over the former FCI lands outside of Village or Rural Village boundaries.

The settlement required the board of supervisors to consider adoption of the FCI overlay within 12 months of the settlement agreement date if no Environmental Impact Report was required or within 18 months if an EIR was required.

The overlay would not change the land use regulations or general plan densities adopted by the board of supervisors in December 2016 but would require that additional analysis and findings be made prior to the approval of any general plan amendments which would increase residential density beyond what is currently allowed in the general plan.

If a land use amendment for an FCI overlay area is brought to the board of supervisors the county supervisors with the assistance of county staff would be required to analyze the consistency of the project with the county’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation and determine whether there is available development potential in the nearest Village or Rural Village area to accommodate that project’s proposed increase in residential density.

The supervisors would also be required to make findings that the project is supported by adequate access to water supply consistent with the county’s Groundwater Ordinance, that it would not exacerbate wildfire risks, that it is compatible with the environmental resources of the Cleveland National Forest and would not adversely affect the stability of land use patterns in that area, that it employs carbon-neutral principles, and that it is not part of a piecemeal conversion of a larger forest area to residential or other uses which are not open space.

“It’s a case by case situation,” Wardlaw said.

A majority of the parcels have some constraints covered by existing general plan policy limitations including steep slopes, location outside the San Diego County Water Authority boundary which makes those properties dependent upon groundwater, or inadequate public or private roadway access.

“It is more and more challenging to be policy consistent the further away you get from the urbanized areas in the county,” Wardlaw said.

“There’s no development project that doesn't have to comply with our ordinances,” Beck said.

Three DeLuz parcels are subject to the Forest Conservation Initiative. Two of those were upzoned to one dwelling unit per 10 acres while the other remained at one dwelling unit per 40 acres.

Approximately 81% of the FCI land, or 58,799 acres, has agricultural zoning and 58,671 acres have land use designations of rural lands with one dwelling unit per 40 acres or rural lands with one dwelling unit per 80 acres.

Approximately 17% of the FCI land, or 12,450 acres, has special purpose zoning such as open space, extractive use, or a transportation or utility corridor. The S80 open space zoning classification is intended for recreation areas or areas with severe environmental constraints. Structures such as restrooms, storage buildings, and pavilions are allowed on land with S80 zoning if a site plan addresses the impacts of the structures. County-owned parks are exempt from the Zoning Ordinance, so the Department of Parks and Recreation would not need Planning Commission or board of supervisors' approval for a site plan. The zoning for the other 448 acres includes residential, commercial and tribal lands.

Although any proposed general plan amendment would be analyzed for consistency with the unincorporated county's Regional Housing Needs Assessment, which is 6,700 units for the years 2021 through 2029, the FCI lands do not overlap with any existing RHNA sites and since most of the areas are outside of the CWA boundaries and in environmentally-constrained areas the overlay is not expected to impact the county's ability to meet its housing requirements.

The overlay itself is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act review although any general plan amendments would need to meet CEQA standards.

The Sierra Club endorsed the overlay.

“It’s common sense,” Sierra Club representative George Courser said.

Courser added that the Sierra Club will seek to ensure consistency with the overlay regulations.

“We will scrutinize everything in the future,” Courser said.

“A GPA in the area is highly unlikely. The rules and regulations are so restrictive,” Pallinger said.