|
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CIRCULATE A PETITION
Notice is hereby given by the persons whose names appear hereon of their intention to circulate the petition within the City of Santee for the purpose of putting before the voters a policy to protect existing and future operations of Marine Corps Air Station (“MCAS”) Miramar from residential encroachment and to prevent inappropriate development of sensitive hillsides surrounding MCAS Miramar and elsewhere in the City and its adjoining Planning Area. A statement of the reasons of the proposed action as contemplated in the petition is as follows:
WHAT IT DOES: The MCAS Miramar/Santee Hillside Protection Initiative protects operations of MCAS Miramar from residential encroachment thereby discouraging its closure and replacement with a noisy international airport, prevents the over-development of nearby Santee hillsides, and prevents resultant traffic gridlock. It does so by amending the Santee General Plan to restrict development on lands adjacent to MCAS Miramar and on other steeply sloped lands within the City and its official Planning Area.
WHY WE NEED IT: The mission of MCAS Miramar is vital to our national security and economic vitality and its existence is threatened by encroaching urban sprawl on undeveloped areas such as Fanita Ranch which is under a primary path for jets and helicopters approaching Miramar. Urban sprawl can significantly restrict the military's access to and use of military lands and limit its ability to engage in training. Reducing the utility of MCAS Miramar can leave the base vulnerable to closure and replacement with an international airport that threatens quality of life. Santee’s General Plan warns “a new regional airport could create significant land use compatibility issues for the City.” A new regional airport would greatly increase adverse noise and traffic impacts for area residents. At the same time, urban sprawl in areas surrounding MCAS Miramar, including Fanita Ranch and East Elliot, would cause traffic gridlock to worsen even further.
Valuable local resources are also threatened. Santee’s scenic golden hills absorb rainfall, protecting homeowners from floods and landslides as they add clean water to local creeks and San Diego River parks. While their dramatic views define Santee’s geographic sense of place, steep fire-prone slopes and ancient landslides make these hillsides ill suited for high-density building. Recent actions by the City Council, however, including amendments to the General Plan in 2003, have weakened the City’s protections for steeply sloped lands. Accordingly, this Initiative will amend the General Plan to reinstate and strengthen the City’s commitment to preserving sensitive hillsides, ridgelines, and scenic viewsheds.
Therefore, to support the national security mission of MCAS Miramar, to promote public safety and the general well being of the community, we hereby propose to amend Santee’s General Plan.
WHO’S BEHIND IT? This Initiative is sponsored by Preserve Wild Santee (PWS), the same organization that sponsored the successful referendum that overwhelmingly defeated a 2,988-unit project on Fanita Ranch in 1999.
Tom Abshire
Perry T. Shipman
Van K. Collinsworth
The City Attorney has prepared the following Title and Summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure:
Ballot Title
An Initiative to Amend Santee’s General Plan Related to the Fanita Ranch and Rattlesnake Mountain Planned Development Areas, Hillsides and Land Outside the City but within its Planning Area
Summary
The proposed initiative would amend Santee’s General Plan to: (1) generally limit residential development in the Fanita Ranch and Rattlesnake Mountain Planned Development Areas; (2) apply a Park/Open Space pre-planning designation to undeveloped land outside the City but within its planning area, including land adjacent to MCAS Miramar; (3) limit development on hillsides with slopes of 25% or greater; and (4) require voter approval to amend or repeal the provisions of the proposed initiative, except as otherwise provided.
The proposed initiative would amend the Fanita Ranch Guiding Principles as follows:
* Establish a one-acre minimum residential lot size and require that at least 75% of the total lots be two-acres or larger.
* Prohibit development on hillsides with slopes of 20% or greater, except for the extension of Cuyamaca Street, which may extend to slopes of 25% or less.
* Require that all buildings on any parcel over two acres in size be placed within a contiguous “development envelope” not to exceed two acres, except for certain public facilities.
* Prohibit private development within 150 feet of any ephemeral, perennial, intermittent, or permanent water course or any vernal pool.
* Prohibit the extension of Fanita Parkway north of the SDG&E power lines, as they existed on April 19, 2004.
* Prohibit the connection of Cuyamaca Street with Fanita Parkway, Carlton Hills Boulevard, Strathmore Drive, Ganley Road, Halberns Boulevard, Cecilwood Drive, Via Francis and surface streets between these streets.
* Delete the business or office park option.
* Delete the golf course and hotel/conference complex or man-made lake/recreational facility requirement.
The proposed initiative would amend the Rattlesnake Mountain Planned Development Guidelines as follows:
* Apply the Hillside Limited land use designation and Conservation Element Policy 1.3 to any individually developed parcels within this area.
* Establish a one-acre minimum lot size.
* Delete the condominium development option.
* Require custom home designs for all residences and require use of contour grading and individual lot pads.
The proposed initiative would also:
* Pre-plan as Park/Open Space all undeveloped land outside the City but within its planning area, including land adjacent to MCAS Miramar.
* Amend Conservation Element Policy 1.3 to restrict development on hillsides with slopes of 25% or greater to 25% of the base zoning district density.
* Make other amendments to the Land Use, Housing and Circulation Elements to promote internal consistency.
* Require voter approval until December 31, 2034, for any amendment to Section 2 of the proposed initiative, except under certain limited circumstances.
* Require voter approval to amend or repeal the proposed initiative, except as otherwise provided.
The proposed initiative would not apply to the development of a single residence on an existing legal parcel or to any development project that has obtained a vested right under state or local law.
|
