Haugh subdivision buffer zone accepted, map process will proceed

Granger Haugh’s appeal of a Planning and Environmental Review Board denial of his proposed subdivision was partially settled by the time the appeal reached the San Diego County Board of Supervisors February 9, and Haugh and the county’s Department of Planning and Land Use will continue to resolve the remaining issues on the project. Between the PERB denial in July 2004 and the Board of Supervisors hearing, Haugh and DPLU reached an agreement on the biological buffer zone. The project will be redesigned to include a 50-foot-wide biological buffer along the outer boundaries of Live Oak Creek and a 100-foot limited building zone adjacent to the biological buffer.

“The issues on the buffer zone have been resolved with staff, and I know of no other issues that would be an obstacle to completing the project,” Haugh said.

Haugh’s proposed Jo Jo Ba Ranch project would subdivide an 8.74-acre parcel into four parcels ranging from 2.0 to 2.17 acres. The parcel is on the east side of Gird Road approximately half a mile north of State Route 76. The property is surrounded by A70 agricultural zoning, which also allows for residential use, and residential use exists on all four sides. The Fallbrook Community Plan land use designation is (17), or estate residential.

The western portion of the property is relatively level and gradually increases in elevation toward the east, and Live Oak Creek traverses the middle of the property in a north-south direction. The vegetation on the parcel includes coastal sage scrub, riparian woodland, and disturbed habitat. One of the proposed parcels has an existing well, which is slated to remain on that parcel.

The county’s Resource Protection Ordinance prohibits residential uses within wetlands and their buffers. Buffers are defined as lands of appropriate size which protect the value of a wetland. Lands which support the wetland and adjacent upland biological communities are also defined as buffers.

Although the initial 25-foot buffer was not accepted, Haugh and DPLU agreed on the 50-foot buffer and the 100-foot limited building zone.

“We do feel that the buffer that’s been proposed is adequate,” said Eric Gibson of the Department of Planning and Land Use.

In March 2004 the director of DPLU issued a Notice of Decision denying the proposed tentative parcel map. Haugh appealed to PERB, which denied the appeal July 15. Haugh appealed to the Board of Supervisors, who were initially scheduled to hear the appeal October 27 before progress on the negotiations led to a decision to continue to appeal until February 9.

Haugh met with DPLU staff on January 18 and stated that the project would be redesigned to include the 50-foot buffer zone and the 100-foot limited building zone.

“This was the impasse that needed to be resolved, and we believe we can move forward with the project,” Gibson said.

Although agreement had been reached, Haugh let the supervisors dismiss the appeal with notice of the accepted conditions. “The object was to get the buffer issue on the record. We’ve agreed that a 50-foot buffer is adequate for the project,” Haugh said. “This was just a means of making sure that everyone knows we’re going to go forward.”