Fallbrook/Bonsall Village News
Arrow Site Map

Supes vote for reconsideration of Merriam Mountains project

Bookmark
Print
Translate this page

Bookmark and Share

Joe Naiman
Village News Correspondent

Thursday, January 28th, 2010.
Issue 04, Volume 14.

The proposed Stonegate Merriam Mountains development will have another San Diego County Board of Supervisors hearing on March 24.

The supervisors heard debate on the proposed project December 9, and a 2-2 vote denied the project the three votes needed for passage. Supervisor Ron Roberts, who was in Sacramento for a California Air Resources Board meeting the day of the original hearing, asked for a reconsideration of the matter, and on January 13 the supervisors voted 3-2 to grant a new hearing and take another vote on the zone reclassification, general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, vesting tentative map, and site plan associated with the project.

"I think the appropriate thing is we have a full hearing before the full board," Roberts said.

Under the reconsideration procedure, which had not been used by the Board of Supervisors for at least 25 years, the new hearing is a "de novo" hearing in which all public speakers can testify regardless of whether they commented at the previous hearing.

At the December 9 hearing, Supervisors Bill Horn and Greg Cox voted in favor of the project while Supervisors Dianne Jacob and Pam Slater-Price voted in opposition. Although a 2-2 tie vote is equivalent to a denial since three votes were not obtained, any county supervisor has 30 days to request reconsideration. The request itself is docketed for a Board of Supervisors meeting, and if the reconsideration is approved the hearing itself will occur at a subsequent meeting.

Horn and Cox joined Roberts in supporting the motion for reconsideration, which included the March 24 hearing date. Jacob and Slater-Price opposed the reconsideration.

"We had a full public hearing, a fair public hearing," Jacob said. "I think it’s unfortunate that we have to take everybody’s time to do this."

Jacob was originally elected to the Board of Supervisors in 1992 and cannot recall a previous 2-2 vote on a land use issue. She previously worked as a staff aide for her predecessor, George Bailey, and does not believe that any 2-2 votes have occurred since Bailey was elected in November 1984. (Jacob worked for Bailey during his entire eight years on the Board of Supervisors.)

The only possible action the supervisors could take on the reconsideration motion was to approve or deny the reconsideration request and to set a date for the new hearing if the request was approved. Public comment on the reconsideration motion was allowed, although the members of the public were instructed to focus on the reconsideration motion rather than the project itself. The item drew 23 speakers in favor of the reconsideration and 17 speakers in opposition.

Many of the speakers in opposition requested that Horn recuse himself from the vote claiming he had inappropriate contact with the project applicant prior to the original hearing. County Counsel, however, has not made a finding that Horn would need to recuse himself but is reviewing public records requests to determine if such contact occurred.

Ironically, many opponents of reconsideration cited some of the same issues as Roberts, who believes that such issues raised during the December 9 hearing need to be addressed by county staff and the applicant prior to a new hearing. The issues include water availability, traffic, fire protection, construction-related noise, appropriateness of density in the particular location, and compliance with state greenhouse gas reduction legislation.

The issue of greenhouse gas reduction will also allow further analysis of an Attorney General’s opinion that the Environmental Impact Report is inadequate. Recent state legislation now requires regional plans to integrate land use with greenhouse gas emission reductions, causing San Diego County planning agencies to seek local land for residents working within the county rather than expecting that growth to be served by Riverside County homes. County staff has recommended overriding considerations as part of the environmental certification.

The "smart growth" concept focuses on locating projects Advertisement
Newhouse Legal Document Services
Newhouse Legal Document Services
west of the San Diego County Water Authority boundaries and close to existing roads. The San Diego Association of Governments smart growth map is based on projects recommended by local jurisdictions, so the southeast Merriam Mountain portion could be added as a smart growth area if approved by the County of San Diego.

The existing general plan allows for 345 homes on the site. The original proposal called for 2,700 residential units of various housing types in six different neighborhoods, although when the county’s Planning Commission voted 5-2 October 23 to recommend conditional approval of the project the conditions included replacing a 77-unit multi-family complex at the southwest corner of one of the neighborhoods with one-acre lots which would create eight or nine units.

Five of those neighborhoods would be northwest of Interstate 15 and Deer Springs Road while residential estate homes would be built in southern Bonsall. The clustering of residences in the five southern neighborhoods would allow for a biological open space buffer of 1,192 acres between the southern residential and commercial portion and the Bonsall neighborhood.

The development would also include 10.1 acres in the southeast portion which would be used for commercial and civic uses, 37 parks of various categories totaling 88.83 acres, and approximately 18.3 miles of trails.

In addition to providing recreational activities for residents, the parks would also be part of a 537-acre fuel modification zone which would serve as a fire buffer. Manufactured and natural slopes and other open space areas, as well as the parks, would be irrigated to provide buffer zones of 150 to 200 feet from the edge of building pads. Emergency access roads would also be built.

Deer Springs Road would be widened from two lanes to four, and off-site intersection improvements would include the ramps at I-15 and Deer Springs Road and at I-15 and Gopher Canyon Road.

The Merriam Mountains project would also replace the existing Deer Springs Fire Protection District station south of Deer Springs Road with a new and larger station within the project boundaries. The Bonsall estate homes would be accessed from existing private roads, which would remain private roads but would be improved to current standards.

The Planning Commission’s other conditions would require the developer to present an evacuation plan approved by the Deer Springs Fire Protection District, require use of rubberized asphalt on Deer Springs Road as additional noise mitigation, require muffling for construction equipment, limit blasting to five days a week between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., require a post-construction sound study for Deer Springs Road and add additional permanent noise attenuation to protect the Golden Door Spa if the post-construction noise exceeds 75 decibels, provide left-turn and right-turn vehicle access to the Golden Door main driveway, require increased setbacks in five lots and modify the specific plan to establish guidelines to ensure that homes along Deer Springs Road are not in that viewshed, require all biological open space uses to meet the biological standards of the county’s existing Multiple Species Conservation Program, and increase the percentage of low-emission construction fleet vehicles from 10 percent to 25 percent.

Negotiations between Merriam Mountains project manager Joe Perring and the Deer Springs Fire Protection District have made progress on an evacuation plan, although the district still hasn’t approved such a plan.

Based on a county formula, the homes will equate to 7,614 residents including 1,208 children in their kindergarten through twelfth-grade years. All five school districts which cover part of the development area - the San Marcos Unified School District, the Escondido Union Elementary School District, the Escondido Union High School District, the Bonsall Union Elementary School District, and the Fallbrook Union High School District – have provided letters stating that the school districts have the ability to serve the children living in the new development.


 

16 comments


Voice of Reason
Comment #1 | Friday, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:12 am
Thank God! These illiterate NIMBY wackos are destroying our future. After they've driven out all the farmers with their short sighted demands they refuse to let any other form of economic support in to the area. These crazy nuts would have us go back to beating drums, grunting and scraping rabbit carcass off the ground for food. Selfish, ignorant fools.

The Big Picture
Comment #2 | Friday, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:33 am
If Voice of Reason thinks that this development will provide "economic support" to the area then he/she is the one who is a wacko! It will provide construction jobs for the short term and then nothing after that. The people of Bonsall need to take note of this project...if it is approved then anyone who thinks that where they live is protected from huge developments because of zoning laws is in for a shock. This would put nearly 2,700 homes on land zoned for 400 - after that what is to stop the land between Deer Springs Road and Camino Del Rey becoming another Rancho Penasquitos? Certainly not any zoning laws that are currently in effect. Help fight this project at: http://www.castsandiego.com/

Frosty
Comment #3 | Friday, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:43 pm
They won't be happy til we are begging for water from the rest of the country. These big faceless corporate developers only care about profit. The only jobs this project would create are temporary construction jobs farmed out to the lowest bidder which will only employ workers from far off lands. Get real! 2700 homes! More people= More congestion. I love sitting in traffic 40 minutes to drive 5 miles! 400 well built homes, small industrial area , small commercial space, dedicated open lands and trails, well thought out self-sustaining development YES! 2700 stucco,lumber and concrete dwellings covering those awesome hills, UGLY!

Voice of Reason
Comment #4 | Friday, Jan 29, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Re: The Big Picture: 2,700 homes would provide jobs for our area. Where would they shop for food, clothing, services, necessities? Here, in the neighborhood. These would be middle class homes. A strong middle class supports local growth of corporations and business parks. Companies will move to where the competent staff are living. And please tell everyone what is wrong with Rancho Penasquitos? It may not be your idea of paradise, but fortunately, you do not have the final say.

Re: Frosty, What sort of dwellings would you prefer; straw and mud? Stucco, lumber and concrete are modern building material. You just supported my argument about the drum beating desires of the local backwoods, NIMBY, ignorant populaces.

If you don't like the plan, then purchase the property. Otherwise, shut up. I hate bleeding heart liberal tub thumpers who feel they have a right to dictate how others live their lives.

And finally, who died and made you king to determine that the 400 homes currently zoned is appropriate? What if current zoning was for 40 homes? Then you would be fighting against the 400. The zoning was developed by government. And we all know how competent the government is. It just goes to show that you can't rationalize with the ignorant.

Frosty
Comment #5 | Friday, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:01 pm
voice of no reason: Your retort is made me laugh! I think you may have your hand in a pocket somewhere..... hummmm. What's with the "shut-up"? I have every right to voice my opinion as you do. The stucco lumber and concrete the way modern developers utilize it is very in-efficient. They are still using construction techniques of the 1950's. Any building should be done smarter (not denser as you would seem to have it) it's funny you mention straw, because it is one of the most sustainable construction materials in the US. As far as ignorance, you fit that bill pinning the liberal tag on me! I am a Conservative and most always vote libertarian( I gave up on the Republican party after Dole should have been elected and I have never ever voted democrat, I am also a self-employed business owner who Bush almost ruined and Obama is determined to make jobless) But nonetheless we need to quit basing our economy on growth, growth, growth which only leads to boom, bust and wasting of natural resources. We need to move to a more self sustaining economy based in energy and local agriculture. But if you want your 2700 homes better add 6 more lanes to the 15 and get ready for an outlet mall and Taco-Bell near the mobile station.

Redneck Bill
Comment #6 | Sunday, Jan 31, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Frosty:

Thank you for giving me a glimmer of hope.

So many people from both political parties are ideologues. You sound pretty pragmatic to me.

As far as this particular project goes, while I agree with everything you've said, I'm afraid that someone slipped Supervisor Roberts some big bucks. (Or they have pictures of him with a...) If he was satisfied with the previous outcome, he wouldn't be calling for another vote.

Voie of Reason
Comment #7 | Sunday, Jan 31, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Frosty the 'NO' man: I said liberal, not democrat or conservative. Liberal people feel that they have a right to dictate how everyone else lives there life. You fall right into that category. I will also add foolish and loudmouth to that label. Your concept of a sustainable local economy based on energy and local agriculture is a joke. A bad joke at that. We live in a desert and have chosen to grow a tropical fruit with imported water. Not a very sustainable economy. What native agriculture would you like to grow under a sustainable local economy? And what local energy sources would you like to establish? It seems to me that we can only grow imported crops. So you, in your limited intelligence, are desperate to import anything but humans, exposing your NIMBY true colors. If you are going to continue to blather, please be honest, not just with everyone else, but especially yourself. You only care about yourself and what you can grab. Everyone else can go to heck in a hand basket as far as you are concerned. Selfish and liberal!

Frosty
Comment #8 | Monday, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:44 am
V.o.N.R., Again your response is laughable at best! Obviously you're a close-minded sell-out like Bill Horn, hoping beyond hope for revenue from property tax $, that will only result in having to spend way more $ to support the more and more people and more vehicles. Who am I telling to do what? All I'm saying is "go with the growth then be prepared for the negative consequences". Technically this area is not desert, it is what's known as chaparral and is an ideal climate for most any type of agriculture, all we are lacking is water but I would rather import water for a proper food source than to flush your 5400 toilets! As far as local energy goes, My neighbor was trying to establish a bio-diesel operation, producing about 1000 gallons per month but was literally chased out of this area by all the regulation and fees and taxes, he packed up and moved out last Spring, letting go of two employees. Just what am I trying to grab? I don't want to send anybody to hell in a hand basket.

Voice of Reason
Comment #9 | Monday, Feb 1, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Frosty the 'NO' Man... Chaparral is characterized by hot dry summers and mild winters. Drought is very much a part of the Chaparral environment. But, since you obviously know everything, I shouldn't have to state those facts. Chaparral, to the laypeople, is a desert environment; hostile and unforgiving.

Your comments about 'local agriculture' and 'an ideal climate for most types of agriculture' shows a severe ignorance regarding the environment where we live. And you foolishly support my arguments by continuing your blather about importing water for a 'proper' food source rather than people. Thank you for proving my point that you will import anything other than humans. You've got yours, and that is all that matters. Everyone else must fend for themselves. Way to support your neighbor and kids! Where should they live? Your selfishness knows no bounds.

Frosty
Comment #10 | Tuesday, Feb 2, 2010 at 9:49 am
V.o.N.R. Come on brother, its dry but hardly "hostile and unforgiving", you should have been here 25 years ago when you looked around and could see just miles and miles of fruit trees on every hillside. Here is something to ponder for a moment, San Diego County has almost 4 million population right now, which is about the population of the whole state of Oregon. If a Haiti or Katrina like disaster ever struck here, God help us, as almost all food is imported from somewhere else, I'm sorry, but all your attempts to label me as a "liberal, tub-thumping, NIMBY, now home-owner" are all false! I am a conservative, non-instrument playing, supporter of the Gregory Canyon landfill AND the waste-to-energy plant(both closer to my backyard), renter( the only thing I own in this state are 3 vehicles and 2 small businesses). Lo siento, mi amigo, but you are way off again! Oh by the way, if your precious Merriam Mountains project goes through you can bet that the Liberty Quarry and Gregory Canyon Landfill will all be pushed in right behind it." Blather on"

Pink
Comment #11 | Tuesday, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Whew, this was a fun read. Voice of Reason I sure hope you took your blood pressure medication!! You are way too "into" this whole discussion, you must be the builder!?!

Voice of Reason
Comment #12 | Tuesday, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Frosty the 'NO' man; I don't believe I ever said you were a home owner, just greedy and selfish. And regardless of what you call yourself, your words and actions clearly scream, "LIBERAL!".

Twenty five years ago the region was covered in fruit trees due to imported water, some would argue stolen from other areas of the country. Drop yourself into this area 100 years ago and it would have looked decidedly different; hostile and unforgiving. There is a big reason northern San Diego county can't support a vibrant and booming agricultural industry without importing both water and workers. You like the imported water, you just hate the imported workers. Can't have one without the other.

You loose. I win. Yay me!

Redneck Bill
Comment #13 | Wednesday, Feb 3, 2010 at 6:34 am
Yay me???

Just as I suspected--it's all about me. Or in this case, you VOR.

Are you the builder?

Frosty
Comment #14 | Wednesday, Feb 3, 2010 at 6:34 am
V.o.N.R. Wow! You seem to know everything, I guess I am the most pro-life, anti-illegal immigration, 2nd amendment supporting, drag racing liberal you're ever gonna meet! Now you've really shown your complete lack of knowledge and true ignorance about this area of our United states, going back 100 years would put us in 1910, Vital Reche and his large family farm and productive honey business would have been here 41 years! The Fallbrook Mercantile was already here over 10 years, the Citizens' Bank was being established that year, the Naples Hotel( later the Hotel Ellis) was here in 1887. Charles Crane had established a lumber yard around 1890. Back then the hills were covered in lemon groves and olive groves and Fallbrook was well known around the country as having very good olive oil. Not to mention all the regular farming of grains and grasses that was already going on. You have shown yourself to be a dullard at best. You cannot "win" a battle of wits if you show up unarmed! But, thanks for the fun banter. Good day!

ReaganRepublican
Comment #15 | Thursday, Feb 4, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Why is it that I'm held to certain zoning standards regarding how many dwelling units/how I can subdivide my multi acre property when others (ie Merriam Mountain developers) are not? At least Jacob and Slater are pricipaled.

robert
Comment #16 | Thursday, Feb 11, 2010 at 2:53 pm
i say build the think already. requaire the school districts to bus all of the children to school and back, that will help some of the traffic.

Article Comments are contributed by our readers, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Fallbrook Village News staff. The name listed as the author for comments cannot be verified; Comment authors are not guaranteed to be who they claim they are.

 

Add your Comment


Name

Images, Formatting, or HTML is not allowed : plain text only. You may post up to 5 website addresses within your comment.
Disclaimer

The Fallbrook Village News has tightened its' policy regarding comments.
While we invite you to contribute your opinions and thoughts, we request that you refrain from using vulgar or obscene words and post only comments that directly pertain to the specific topic of the story or article.
Comments that are derogatory in nature have a high likelihood for editing or non-approval if they carry the possibility of being libelous.
The comment system is not intended as a forum for individuals or groups to air personal grievances against other individuals or groups.
Please, no advertising or trolling.
In posting a comment for consideration, users understand that their posts may be edited as necessary to meet system parameters, or the post may not be approved at all. By submitting a comment, you agree to all the rules and guidelines described here.
Most comments are approved or disregarded within one business day.



RSS Feed
Online Digital Edition
Sign up  for iNews
Earthquake Information

Adrail Advertisement

Adrail Advertisement





Most Commented
The Fallbrook Village News The Fallbrook Village News
760-723-7319 - 127 West Elder Street, Fallbrook CA 92028
All contents copyright ©2010
About Us
Earthquake Information
Business Listings
Contact Us
Letter to the Editor
Report a website error
Sitemap
Online Digital Edition
RSS Feeds
Login