West Lilac subdivision hearing continued to January 20

The county’s Planning Commission heard comment on the proposed West Lilac subdivision map Dec. 16 before continuing the hearing to Jan. 20.

The continuance will allow the project consultants to work out unresolved issues with the one remaining property owner who has objections and with the Via Ararat Drive Association, although the primary reason for the Planning Commission’s 6-0 vote for a continuance shortly after noon was that the commission was about to lose its quorum. John Riess, who was absent from the Dec. 16 hearing, can review the taped hearing prior to Jan. 20 and will have the options of voting after declaring that he listened to the prior hearing or abstaining.

Although the West Lilac project was redesigned in response to community input, the original submission was on Jan. 3, 2002, and the general plan under effect at the time may be used. The site had an Intensive Agriculture (19) land use designation which allows for one dwelling unit per two acres if more than 80 percent of the land has a slope of under 25 percent, and its A70 Limited Agriculture zoning also stipulates a two-acre minimum lot size.

The property owned by the Pardee family is not adjacent to West Lilac Road but is south of that street and consists of two segments with a common corner. The southwest segment is east of Via Ararat Drive and north of Mount Ararat Way while Aqueduct Road is the eastern boundary of the northeast segment.

The current proposal would subdivide the 92.8 acres into 28 single-family lots ranging in size from 2.1 to 5.9 acres. The subdivision will also include a 22.6-acre agricultural open space easement, and if the homeowners wish to retain agricultural uses on their properties 58.5 acres would still be available for agriculture.

The December 2011 hearing was actually the Planning Commission’s third for the project. In August 2007 the Planning Commission heard debate but deemed that information to the Bonsall community was inadequate and sent the proposal back to the Bonsall Sponsor Group rather than approving or denying the tentative map. During meetings with the sponsor group in September 2007 and October 2007 James Pardee Jr. requested a continuance in order to perform an agricultural study. On Oct. 19, 2007, the Planning Commission officially withdrew the tentative map proposal, which means that the project was not withdrawn but that the tentative map request would return to the Planning Commission after a new public noticing process and after completion of an agricultural study.

The 2007 proposal included an environmental Mitigated Negative Declaration while the current application includes a full Environmental Impact Report. “The applicant thought that the EIR would be more legally defensible than a mitigated negative declaration,” said David Sibbet, the project planner for the county’s Department of Planning and Land Use.

“The EIR found that the loss of agriculture was significant,” Sibbet said. “It was the soil that was found significant, not the actual trees.”

The loss of six acres of placentia sandy loam soil will be mitigated by the preservation of 13.8 acres of placentia sandy loam soil within the agricultural open space easement. That easement will also include 8.8 acres of other soil. The easement area includes land currently in agricultural production, and the groundwater wells and irrigation system will be maintained.

“This ag preserve will work,” said farm manager Jerome Stehly. “They’ve taken the time to make it work.”

The Bonsall Sponsor Group, which did not take an official vote in 2007, voted 7-0 in March 2011 to recommend approval. “This is the result of negotiations and revisions that address various project issues,” Sibbet said.

“We were pleased that they came back with the idea of having an agricultural preserve,” said Bonsall Sponsor Group chair Margarette Morgan.

Project consultants met with neighbors to address community character and other issues. “We had the fortune of having really good consultants representing Mr. Pardee,” Morgan said.

“We assigned a consultant to each member of the community to work out and come back to us with a resolution,” Morgan said. “It was the first time we’ve ever had that done, and we’d love to have that as a poster child for all projects.”

The one neighboring property owner with whom resolution wasn’t obtained is John Gubler, who owns a 47-acre organic farm adjacent to the property. Gubler’s concerns include runoff and other contamination from the project’s leach fields which might put his organic certification at risk as well as his crops.

“We experience erosion already from above,” Gubler said.

“He is going to sustain irreparable damages to his farm,” said Anthony Taylor of the law firm Aleshire and Wynder, LLP.

Taylor also cited the community character and agricultural preservation issues. “The farming in this area will be irreparably lost,” he said.

“The leach lines, the way it’s designed, the percolation test was very poor,” Gubler said.

Project consultant Wes Peltzer disputed Gubler’s statement and told the Planning Commission that the county’s Department of Environmental Health approved the drainage study. Peltzer also said that the current flow of 32 cubic feet per second would be reduced by 15.1 percent to 27.1 cubic feet per second due to the on-site drainage facilities.

To comment on this story online, visit http://www.thevillagenews.com.