Minutes of the Palomar Mountain Planning Organization Special Meeting

June 14, 2008

DRAFT not approved for distribution

Board Members Present:

Terri Bailey, Heather Beer, Glenn Borland, Cecelia Borland (alternate), Robert Carlyle, Elizabeth Getzoff, Bruce Graves, Rob Hawk, Susan Humason, Bonnie Phelps, Michael Pique, Earl Walls.

Board Members Absent:

Donna Dose, Scott Kardel, Bob O'Neill, Alan Serry.

The PMPO Special Board Meeting was convened 10:04 AM June 14, 2008, at the Palomar Mountain Volunteer Fire Department. Besides the above-listed board members, Doug Lande and Tom Burton were present. New board member Heather Beer submitted her signed conflict-of-interest disclosure form to the Chair.

Old Business

North Mountain San Diego General Plan 2020:

Tom Burton reviewed the contents of attachments he included in his June 9 email to the board. As discussed at the May 3 and May 24 meetings at the Lodge and Fire Station, the San Diego County Department of Planning and Land Use (DPLU) would like our input on three topics: mapping (definition of where commercial uses would be allowed), density (minimum acreage per `dwelling unit'), and community plan. The 2020 general plan is the highest level of `law' relating to land use in the county; beneath this level, and later developed consistent with the general plan (but not duplicating it) are zoning laws; and still at a lower level are building permit processes. In other words, the zoning and building permit processes cannot permit something that the general plan does not allow - but also all that the general plan would allow will not necessarily be allowed under later adopted zoning and building permit processes.

This meeting's purpose is to write a letter of recommendation to the County, following up on the recent PMPO board, special, and annual meetings with the community and DPLU representatives Leanne Carmichael and Eric Lardy, March 22, May 3, and May 24. Libby Getzoff asked if the boundaries we recommend for general plan designations had to be land parcel lines; Tom said Leanne said yes, that otherwise we have just `blobs' with unclear boundaries that lead to problems like those with the telecommunications overlay.

Bruce Graves suggested marking a map with specific possibilities that could be discussed and voted on. Bonnie Phelps and Michael Pique cut colored paper strips and placed them on a county-provided aerial photo-map that included parcel boundaries and topographic contours. After participation by all, three successively inclusive regions were agreed upon for discussion:

[ See map used at meeting
http://www.palomarmountain.com/pmpo/maps/pmpo2020map.jpg (click for bigger) ]

[ See topography
http://www.palomarmountain.com/pmpo/maps/topo-pmpo2020map.jpg (click for bigger) ]

orange

purple

yellow

The regions proposed were discussed in detail, with frequent reference to the May 4 Lodge meeting and to the 152 responses to Jim Hamerly's survey. Robert Carlyle thought that 2 times or 3 times increase in potential commercial space over the existing store and helipad would be OK, but not 10 times. Tom Burton pointed out that slopes and setback requirements imposed in zoning and permitting would likely restrict usage to being close to State Park Road. Bonnie Phelps said that even George Ravenscroft's 8 acre parcel on the south side of State Park road has only 1/4 acre flat, immediately next to the road. Robert Carlyle asked why locations that could never be used should be included. Tom Burton said that if a parcel is not included, then it could never be, so if any part of a parcel is potentially suitable, all of the parcel should be designated at the general plan stage. Rob Hawk said that the general plan is options for future opportunities, that ``commercial'' might be a veterans' hospital, or a walk-in medical clinic. Susan Humason felt the community was in favor of the purple area, therefore if we ``asked'' for the yellow, the County might be willing to compromise and give us the purple designated area in the final negotiations.

In voting on the three proposals (orange, purple, yellow), each board member was allocated three votes to distribute among the proposals as he or she wished. The votes were cast and tallied, see `Tabulation of Votes' table, columns `orange', `purple', and `yellow'.

Orange received 6 votes, purple 10, and yellow 17. It was therefore moved by Rob Hawk and seconded by Glenn Borland that the `yellow' region be recommended to the county with the more restrictive `purple' region as a fall-back position should the county be unwilling to approve the `yellow'. The motion was approved.

Discussion began on the second point, minimum acreage requirements. Bruce Graves moved and Glenn Borland seconded that we recommend going back to the pre-FCI 8 acre minimum, slope-adjusted. The motion passed 7 yes, 4 no, see Tabulation column `8-Acre'. Robert Carlyle moved and Bruce Graves seconded that we recommend a 10 acre minimum, slope-adjusted. The motion passed 4 yes, 3 no, 4 abstain; see Tabulation column `10-Acre'.

Discussion began on the third point, community plan. Since there have been no major changes on the mountain in the past seven years, Susan Humason suggested we re-send the letter we sent the DPLU on November 14, 2001, posting copies at the store and at the post office. Bruce Graves so moved and Glenn Borland seconded. The motion passed 10 yes, 0 no, 1 abstain; see Tabulation column `2001-letter'.