By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.
, Benjamin Franklin
If you had a dinner party for 10, would you set a table for 8?
Of course not. You would probably set the table for 10 and provide enough extra food and table settings for any surprise guests. That’s called good planning.
After over two years of work in committee, the volunteer GP 2020 Steering Committee has completed its “draft” plan for changes to the existing county general plan. The committee, comprised of one member from each of the county’s 26 planning and sponsor groups, is recommending the county general plan capacity in 2020 be reduced to accommodate 186,000 “fewer” residents than the current plan. To use the analogy above, this is equivalent to setting the table for seven.
To understand the significance of these numbers and how it might affect our cities, consider the fact that in 1997, the San Diego Association of Governments released its now-famous report that estimated San Diego will grow by an additional 1.2 million people by 2020, two-thirds of which will be our children. The report also went on to state that of these potential 1 million new residents, approximately 412,000 could be accommodated by the existing county general plan and 688,000 could be accommodated by the general plans of all of the existing cities. The remaining 100,000 would not be able to be provided with housing.
Therefore it is significant that the steering committee is proposing a reduction of an “additional” 186,000 capacity because it means they expect the 19 cities to provide for 286,000 more residents than their current plans allow.
Unlikely Proposal
Due to traffic and growth woes, the prospect of any city agreeing to take any portion of this 286,000 is negligible. The city of Carlsbad, for example, has a maximum buildout of 135,000 by initiative. Planning Director Michael Holzmiller announced the actual buildout will be closer to 125,000.
Escondido has Proposition S, which will not allow any increase in density without a vote of the citizens. City officials in Solana Beach and Del Mar have been quoted as saying those cities are effectively built out. Encinitas has mounting citizen pressures to reduce its density due to traffic, urban-runoff problems and coastal bluff erosion.
The story is the same in the rest of our cities. Vista Mayor Gloria McClellan once stated any mayor in North County that proposed an increase in density would commit political suicide. So why would the steering committee propose these cities handle an additional 286,000 residents?
The committee argues the existing county general plan provides for too much anticipated San Diego growth. They also argue that the 186,000 density transfer is all “back country urban sprawl.” This is simply not true.
Consider the recently rejected Save Our Forest and Ranchlands (SOFAR) sponsored Rural Heritage and Watershed Initiative. It only recommended that we shift 54,000 of “back country” density to the urban areas, with much of this transfer being accommodated in the unincorporated urban areas.
Larger Lot Requirements
GP 2020’s steering committee recommends a shift of 186,000, all of which would go to the cities. Also, SOFAR had only proposed minimum lot sizes increase to 40 or 80 acres in certain areas, whereas the steering committee proposes lot sizes as large as 160 acres. At least one of these 160-acre designated lots is proposed on an existing approved residential specific plan that the initiative had recommended to be unchanged.
The steering committee is therefore saying in certain areas, two houses on 319 acres would be considered “urban sprawl” and not allowed. Is it any wonder that San Diego County was recently rated by the National Association of Homebuilders as the eighth “least affordable” area in the United States?
In reality, the county is the only local government agency that has significant areas of land available that could develop along “smart growth” guidelines. In a study done by the county planning department in 1991 (based on SANDAG data) it was estimated that 92 percent of the undeveloped land in San Diego is in the unincorporated area. Contrary to popular belief, all of this land is not rural farmland. Much of it is flat, vacant developable land within the urban limits and also within 1,000 feet of transportation corridors like Highway 78, Highway 76, Interstate 15, and the proposed rail connection from Escondido to Oceanside.
Anti-Smart Growth
To use an example, consider the property at the intersection of Highway 76 and Interstate 15, which has an approved Specific Plan for high density residential and industrial. It is the only potential site for high-tech employment facilities that could conceivably intercept Temecula, Murrieta and North County commuters that are overburdening Interstate 15 south of Escondido. The steering committee has designated this land to be changed to one dwelling unit per 40 acres.
Amazingly, most of the Interstate 15 corridor is proposed to be one dwelling unit per 20, 40 or 80 acres, which does not appear to be consistent with “smart growth” ideals. One area which is located approximately 2 & #733; miles from the approved Oceanside-Escondido rail line is proposed to be downzoned to 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres, making “transit-oriented development” projects impossible. Wouldn’t it make sense to accommodate some of the 286,000 residents in these areas rather than next to our three North County coastal lagoons that are dying due to urban pressures?
Unapproved Draft
Neither the Department of Planning and Land Use, nor the Planning Commission nor the Board of Supervisors has approved this “draft” plan. In fact, the county’s own study on the effects of the Rural Heritage and Watershed Initiative determined density transfers to cities could cause significant impacts to coastal agriculture, commuter traffic and the Multiple Species Conservation Plan, which is 60 percent within urban area.
The steering committee-proposed maps are available for purchase at the county Department of Planning and Land Use on Ruffin Road. Hopefully, the Board of Supervisors will reject the current proposal and send it back to the planning groups for a closer examination.
Piro is a former county planning commissioner and the owner of a civil engineering and land-planning firm in San Marcos.
