Dysfunctional Planning

Montecito Ranch - Equestrian Center

SP 01-001, GPA 04-013, TM 5250RPL, Montecito Ranch.  Proposed
Project Update to Include Equestrian Park.  Chris Brown, Project Contact

The Chair announced that she had received a letter from the Parks Dept. requesting a PLDO priority list for the next year.  She gave the letter to Mr. Brean.

Several members of the RCPG asked that the package be copied and distributed.

Mr. Brean said that there was no quorum at the Parks Subcommittee.  Each member looked at the project independently.  There will be a park on one side of the road, and the Charter School site on the other side.  An idea was mentioned that there be pocket parks within the project.

Ms. Mansolf gave the West Subcommittee report.  There was not a quorum.  Following the presentation by Chris Brown, there was discussion.  There were concerns about the signage for the open space and fencing, and with trails going through open space areas

Ms. Mansolf read the Transportation/Trails Subcommittee minutes.  Chris Brown gave handouts regarding his project. Handout shows map with lots. Chris talked about a section of the project called CPF. This section was to be used for a fire station, but the fire department says they don’t need it due to fire response time being acceptable. As a backup to the use, it would be an overflow parking area or something similar.  Someone from the County misread the map (Brad?) and notified the Acting Chair that there was a change in the map and told the Acting Chair that the change was going to eliminate the ball fields and the ranch house. Chris Brown says that he called the Chair and she did not return his calls, so he was here to show us the same information that the County had, and that the County made a mistake. (second attachment, letter from Renee Bahl). The only thing that is different from a design perspective is that they are showing what they’ll be doing in there, but there is no change to the plan itself.

Equestrian Center overview from Chris Brown followed, with more information on it. A round pen, day pens and an arena are part of the overall plan. Chris Brown said he met with the Degenfelders and had them review their initial plans for the Equestrian Center. This would be an open to the public facility with no fee to use, the second in Ramona (the first is Holly Oaks).

Andrew said he emailed the planner, Bill Stocks, to ask if there were changes to the project and he said there were none, that the “red lined” document shows minor changes to fire buffer but not anything that required another vote of the planning group at this time. He also noted that there would be 30-31 lots that could be horse properties, which back up to a trail.

The Charter School site, if it were never built, would belong to the Unified School District, and there could be an option to create something like a ballpark or open space, but it would have to be researched.

Luanna asked what the purpose was for us to be here, and what was needed. The Chair responded that item was to be put on the agenda for a vote of approval/disapproval per Kristi Mansolf, which she said was what Helene (Acting Chair) mandated.

Dawn Perfect asked about the ball field with the Charter School and whether or not it would be developed first, ahead of the Charter School. Chris said that it could be, subject to negotiation in the future.

Motion to approve the Montecito Ranch public park plan (diagram dated Jan 2007) made by Dawn Perfect, seconded by Luanna Stines. Motion approved , 9 yes, 1 abstain.

Ms. Anderson said that the Design Review Board tabled the item.

Ms. Dorroh said that an information kiosk was needed.  As concerns the Charter School site, it could be used as a ballfield until it is built.   

MOTION:  TO SEND COMMENTS.

Upon motion made by Torry Brean and seconded by Carolyn Dorroh, the Motion passed 9-0-1-0-5, with Dennis Grimes abstaining, and Matt Deskovick, Katherine L. Finley, Andrew Simmons and Luauna Stines absent, and Bill Jenkin resigned.

MOTION:  TO APPROVE THE MONTECITO PUBLIC PARK PLAN (DIAGRAM DATED JANUARY, 2007).

Upon motion made by Chris Anderson, the Motion failed for lack of a second.

Boutique Wineries Ordinance

POD 07-001, Log No. 07-00-001; Boutique Wineries Zoning Ordinance Amendment Revision.  Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Public Review ends 8-16-07 at 4 p.m. 

The Chair called speakers.  Steve Pelzer did not want to speak but registered opposition against the revision.

Speaker:  Jim Beggs, Ramona Resident

Mr. Beggs said he would like to thank the County for addressing some of the concerns raised during the public review period for the original document that ended on May 18.  He believes that the revision is a step in the right direction because it begins to address some of the concerns raised.  He felt issues not addressed included: enhanced private road liability by having the wine tasting rooms off of private roads; creation of incompatible land uses with the A-70/A-72 neighborhoods; the MND is flawed opening the County to lawsuits (reference to the letter provided to the County dated 5-18-07 from G. Scott Williams of Seltzer Caplan/McMahon/Vitek for details; and hard to enforce rules.  He can’t support the revision and feels the Major Use Permit process should remain in place.  Smaller wineries could still prosper in the County by using existing by right Limited Wholesale Winery Operations, forming cooperative wine tasting rooms, and locating them in high traffic areas which are compatible with this type of commercial activity.

Mr. Brean feels the direction of the Boutique Wineries Zoning Ordinance Amendment is good.  He doesn’t agree with item 8 of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment revision.  He thinks the private road agreement is not feasible and so the Major Use Permit will apply.  He would like to see item 8 scratched.  He feels the visitor portion of the ordinance is well-defined.

Ms. Dorroh said that the item needs to be brought into CEQA compliance.  Drivers influenced by alcohol driving on private roads is not addressed.  People want big parcels.  They should not receive special favors.  Concerning Permanent Road Divisions (PRD), even the folks who are outvoted have to participate in a PRD.  Homeowners on fixed incomes will be vulnerable to losing their parcels.  People not being able to afford to build roads to today’s standards shouldn’t make others do it at their expense.  Paving the road is growth inducing.  Ms. Dorroh lives on a dead end road, which does deter some people.  She wants the growth inducing aspects of the ordinance addressed per CEQA.  There will be a water burden – water units are not addressed. Property owners will still have liability.  She feels the Major Use Permit should still apply.

Ms. Osborn asked if one lives on a road, who pays to get it paved?

The Chair said that the funding is done by tax assessment, once there is a group of people involved who are willing to get assessed.  The majority of people in an area decide.  People who don’t agree who live in the area have to go along with it and be taxed, too.  The road will be maintained periodically.  A PRD has long term ramifications.

Ms. Dorroh said that the vote for a PRD is a weighted vote.  If a person owns 10 acres, they may have 2 votes, while a neighbor with 5 acres may get one vote.

The Chair was not aware of this, and said it must have changed since the last time she reviewed it.

Ms. Osborn said she is shocked the RCPG would entertain doing this.

MOTION:  TO ELIMINATE ITEM 8 FROM THE DOCUMENT.

Upon motion made by Torry Brean and seconded by Angus Tobiason, the Motion failed 5-2-3-0-5, with Carolyn Dorroh and Kristi Mansolf voting no, Chris Anderson, Dennis Grimes and Vivian Osborn abstaining, Matt Deskovick, Katherine L. Finley, Andrew Simmons and Luauna Stines absent, and Bill Jenkin resigned.

MOTION:  TO SEND COMMENTS.

Upon motion made by Vivian Osborn and seconded by Chris Anderson, the Motion passed 10-0-0-0-5, with Matt Deskovick, Katherine L. Finley, Andrew Simmons and Luauna Stines absent, and Bill Jenkin resigned.

Ward Project - SDCE Tennis Court / Lighting

Presentation by Ed Anderson of the San Diego Country Estates (SDCE), ECC Committee, to inform the RCPG and express SDCE concerns relative to the Ward Project (AD 07-027), Tennis Court Fencing/Lighting Project, 24524 Tesaro Way. Proposal for a 10-foot chain link fence for a 55 foot by 100 foot tennis court and 6 light poles.

Dave Chamberlin of the SDCE Environmental Control Committee (ECC) presented the perspective of that group.  Mr. Ward had been cited by the SDCE and the SDCE Board denied his request for the tennis court proposal.  Mr. Ward appealed the decision to the SDCE Board who heard the matter again, and then upheld the original decision.  Currently, the tennis court is a moot point.  An examination of the construction and drainage is questionable.  The RCPG had been provided with a packet of information that includes photographs of the site.  Mr. Chamberlin handed out the most current letter addressed to Mr. Ward on the tennis court project.

The Chair asked the RCPG members if there were any questions for the speakers?

Ms. Osborn asked about the grading.  Were there permits issued for that?

Mr. Chamberlin said that no permits of any kind have been issued for the work that has been done.

Ms. Dorroh asked about stormwater management?

Mr. Chamberlin said that stormwater management is a concern as are drainage issues.  There is a horse trail easement below the wall, and any drainage from the site will go onto the trail.

Ms. Osborn said the item had been on the agenda previously and should be put on again for next month.

The Chair said that Gary McKee, Jack Campbell, Jess Mull and Donna Mull wished to register support for the project, but did not wish to speak.

Speaker:  John Ward, Ramona Resident

Mr. Ward coaches softball and donates signs, among other community oriented activities.  He is a family man.  He wants to build a tennis court on land he has purchased.  He has been harassed, spied on and petitioned against.  A renter in the neighborhood has incited people.  He added a room addition to his home.  He bought his house in 1997 for $200,000.  It is now worth over 1 million dollars.

Speaker:  Jan Vleck, Ramona Resident

Mr. Vleck represents 25 property owners.  The work done by Mr. Ward encroaches into a trail – may be a trespass.  There are many concerns about the work that has been done and the impacts the work will have on the residents who live below the project.  There are concerns over the tennis court that has been proposed and the noise and light that will be the result of that proposal should it be built.  Mr. Vleck wanted to see the work done brought into compliance.

Speaker:  Emily Lovci, Ramona Resident

Ms. Lovci is a resident 1 lot removed from the Ward properties.  This has been an emotional topic for her and her family.  They have to look at it – the Wards don’t.  She has enjoyed a north view for 20 years.  There is no view now.  The HOA doesn’t guarantee views.  Mr. Ward bought a single family lot – not a playground for him and his family.  The lot that has had the vegetation removed had lilac before.  All the animals and plants on the property have been killed.  There has been lots of noise.  Work has been done on Sunday.  Mr. Ward has put money into the wall.  He will lose everything because he didn’t follow the rules and didn’t get a building permit.

Ms. Radzik said that this issue is a difficult and much of it is beyond the RCPG purview, which is the Administrative Permit.

Ms. Mansolf said that the County planner had said that the chain link fence – because it was requested to be 10 feet rather than the allowable 6 – is part of the Administrative Permit, as is the lighting.  The planner said that the lighting was also part of the Administrative Permit.  She had requested the applicant submit a replacement map with more detail.  The original map did not provide enough detail.  There is no way to tell what height the proposed lights will be.  The resubmittal date for the map was in June.  No map had been submitted the last time Ms. Mansolf had spoken to the planner.

Ms. Dorroh had the following concerns:  lack of stormwater management; use of biodegradable material in the block wall construction; soil compaction; lack of landscaping to soften the view; the structure is incompatible with the neighbor’s structures; visual impacts; lack of landscaping and irrigation; in conflict with the SDCE HOA CC&R’s.  Can the County approve this project without the SDCE HOA approval?

Ms. Anderson said that the SDCE HOA CC&R’s are more stringent than the County rules.  The stricter rules take precedence.  For example, second dwelling units are allowed by the County but not by the SDCE HOA CC&R’s, so the stricter rules apply.

MOTION:  TO PUT THIS ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT MONTH.

Upon motion made by Vivian Osborn and seconded by Kathy S. Finley, the Motion passed 10-0-0-0-5, with Matt Deskovick, Katherine L. Finley, Andrew Simmons and Luauna Stines absent, and Bill Jenkin resigned.

MOTION:  TO SEND A LIST OF COMMENTS BROUGHT FORWARD TONIGHT TO THE COUNTY AND ASK THAT EACH ONE BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO THE END OF AUGUST.

Upon motion made by Carolyn Dorroh and seconded by Chris Anderson, the Motion passed 10-0-0-0-5, with Matt Deskovick, Katherine L. Finley, Andrew Simmons and Luauna Stines absent, and Bill Jenkin resigned.

At this point, Mr. Ward became upset with the Acting Chair, Helene Radzik. He called her some colrful names, and then Charlene Ayers (see Groupies) spoke out from the floor in support of Helene Radzik. That in itself was interesting, since Helene rules the floor with an iron fist and no one shall speak out from the floor - unless you're friends with the perpetrator.