A revision of San Diego County’s General Plan to account for National Forest inholdings has been returned for additional study absent sufficient positive direction from the Board of Supervisors.


In 1993, San Diego County voters decisively passed the Forest Conservation Initiative (FCI) which rezoned private lands within the boundaries of the Cleveland National Forest – or “inholdings” – to a low density of 1 unit per 40 acres (or “1:40”). When the County adopted its General Plan Update in 2011, these 72,000 acres were excluded due to the voter-imposed zoning. With the expiration of the measure, the County processed an amendment that would conform the former-FCI land to the rest of the General Plan.

The former FCI lands are among the most distant from infrastructure and services, most fire prone, and most ecologically intact in the County. According to the Guiding Principles of the General Plan, they should largely be retained at 1:40 or changed to 1:80, except in areas dominated by existing smaller parcels and where higher densities are compelled in the interest of consistency.

Early in the process, landowners and community groups which favor destructive estate subdivision were allowed to set the agenda. Later, comments from the Cleveland National Forest––which sought to protect the public interest in these priceless lands––and from EHL provided a counterbalance, and the Staff Recommendation corrected most of these excesses. The major exception was a spillover of the Village of Alpine into highly fire prone habitat lands south of Intestate 8, which violated the Guiding Principles. Pushed by an Alpine Community Planning Group whose appetite for development appears unlimited, the County Planning Commission rejected Staff’s compromise and put together a very poor recommendation in Alpine and other locations.  

At a subsequent Board hearing, in which a map was chosen for a final Environmental Impact Report, EHL and the Cleveland National Forest either supported an Environmentally Superior Alternative or the Staff Recommendation. But emotional testimony from landowners seeking to increase development potential swayed the Board away from the thoughtful Staff Recommendation to instead create bad-planning exceptions that sacrifice public safety. And in Alpine, the pro-development forces were granted a “study area” to evaluate major infrastructure and service expansion outside the town boundaries. It is possible, however, that the accompanying studies required by the Board may prove that infrastructure extension is not financially feasible. In other locations–– reflecting a lack of consensus on the Board for reduced development in remote and fire-prone lands––a range of options will be continue to be studied, although a surfeit of information was already at hand to limit development.

It was noteworthy that Supervisor Dave Roberts, in his first major land use debate, proved an eloquent advocate for the intent of the original voter-approved Forest Conservation Initiative and for environmental protection and fire safety.

Also, complicating matters, the citizens group that sponsored the original ballot measure may litigate the decision of the County to revert to pre-initiative zoning as the baseline condition.

This ill-defined and disappointing outcome at both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors bodes poorly for retaining the integrity of the historic General Plan Update that, in 2011, had seemingly saved the countryside. This year’s razor thin election victory by a Supervisor who is a radical property rights advocate is a big part of the problem, and is especially distressing considering that the environmentally oriented challenger received a disappointing amount of help from the San Diego conservation community.