Commission recommends FCI overlay

The 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 Barhnart were not at the January 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 San Diego County Board of Supervi­sors. The county’s Department of Planning and Development Services (PDS) is hoping to docket the recommendation for the February 26 Board of 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,” said PDS director Mark Wardlaw.

In 1993 the county’s voters passed the Forest Conservation Initiative (FCI) 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 December 31, 2010. The hearings on the update to the county’s general plan began prior to 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 PDS 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. (Viejas had a casino on the north side of Willows Road in 1993, but the Viejas Outlet Center mall on the south side of Willows Road did not open until 1998 and the ho­tel annex to the casino opened in 2013).

In addition to developing the maps PDS 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 PDS 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. Votes on four Alpine land use adjustments were sepa­rated from the remainder of the actions which had no opposi­tion. The four proposed Alpine changes were Residential Com­mercial zoning for a 4.2-acre parcel along Willows Road west of Viejas Casino, a density of 14.5 dwelling units per acre for a 152-acre area east of Vie­jas, a one-acre minimum lot size for a 300 foot wide portion of a 51.4-acre parcel on the south side of Alpine Boulevard to cre­ate a buffer between minimum lot sizes of 6,000 square feet to the west and one dwelling unit per four acres to the east, and a change in minimum lot size from 40 to eight acres for five parcels north of Japatul Valley Road totaling approximately 1,200 acres.

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.