S.D. County Poised to Deny Church Request for Retreat Atop Palomar : Environment: Opponents say the project would destroy the very natural wonders its backers hope to open to urban families.

A chance to bring city youth out to the wilderness to see the wonders of God’s handiwork is what Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa seeks in proposing a sprawling retreat center on the top of Palomar Mountain.

But San Diego County officials Thursday ordered their planning staff to prepare formal denial statements for the 522-acre mountaintop project unless church leaders can convince the county that it will not destroy the pristine wilderness it seeks to develop.

“This project has changed very little since it was first proposed four years ago,” Carol Popet, project analyst, told the county Planning and Environmental Review Board. “It’s unlikely that a meeting can alter that position.”

Popet and other county planners recommended to the board members that they end the lengthy debate over the church development, which proposes a wide array of housing and recreational facilities for a maximum of 679 guests and staff in secluded Jeff Valley.

Revisions ordered by the county resulted in removal of four buildings from the property, Popet said, but dining halls and meeting facilities were not reduced in size. Dining areas at the retreat would hold 800 people at one sitting, she pointed out. Conference and meeting rooms would serve 1,000. By contrast, there are about 300 permanent Palomar Mountain residents.

Some changes requested by county planners in October, 1987, “have simply been ignored” by the retreat designers, and no objective analysis of the environmental impacts of the retreat has been submitted, county planning staffers said.

Emily Durbin, spokeswoman for the Sierra Club, warned that, by putting the large complex in the virgin timber area, “you will destroy what you seek to enjoy.”

She said the financially strapped county cannot afford to spend further time in analyzing the mountain project when more important environmental studies are delayed for lack of funds and staff time.

Palomar Mountain residents have been solidly against the church camp since it first came before the planning board for its first hearing in December, l986, because of the traffic, air and light pollution, view degradation and environmental destruction they claim the development would cause.

Palomar Observatory officials joined the opposition, claiming that the church camp would compromise use of the world-famous telescope because of the lighting the buildings and outdoor recreational facilities--two swimming pools, tennis courts and three playing fields--would require and the increased air pollution from automobile traffic to the mountain retreat.

County planners added to the negative vote by pointing out that the church’s acreage is pristine mountain forest and can only be protected by dedications of land as open space, which church officials are not proposing.

The urban density of the project in the very rural mountain region leaves the development without fire or emergency services, and with inadequate water and sewage facilities.

The Rev. Charles Smith, pastor of Calvary Chapel, pleaded for the mountain camp, which would “minister to the needs of the total family.”

“As cities become more and more crowded, today’s children spend their lives in apartments and never see the wilderness,” Smith said. The Palomar Mountain camp would provide a place where youngsters could “commune with nature, see the stars,” the pastor explained. “Today’s children do not get a chance to see God’s handiwork.”

Brian Mooney, speaking for Palomar Mountain residents opposed to the project, said the proposed retreat is designed so that it would “take away all the factors that the church is seeking.”

Mooney urged the board to end the time-consuming hearings and deny the county permit because the camp’s negative effects cannot be mitigated.