COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
STATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
REGULAR MEETING - PLANNING AND LAND USE MATTERS
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2004, 9:00 AM
Board of Supervisors North Chamber
1600 Pacific Highway, Room 310, San Diego, California
MORNING SESSION: - Meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m.
Present: Supervisors Dianne Jacob, Chairwoman; Pam Slater-Price, Vice Chairwoman; Greg Cox, Ron Roberts; Bill Horn; also Thomas J. Pastuszka, Clerk.
Public Communication: [No speakers]
Board of Supervisors’ Agenda Items
|1. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |
| |GREENHILLS RANCH; SPECIFIC PLAN SP 98-004, ZONE RECLASSIFICATION R98-006, TENTATIVE MAP TM 5140RPL7, LAKESIDE COMMUNITY PLANNING |
| |AREA |
|2. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |
| |APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FOR MINOR USE PERMIT ZAP 03-084, SPRINT PCS, VALLE DE ORO COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA, |
|3. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |
| |APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FOR MINOR USE PERMIT ZAP 03-085, SPRINT PCS, VALLE DE ORO COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA, |
|4. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |
| |FIRESTORM 2003 RESPONSE: ORDINANCES AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND COUNTY CODE RELATED TO DAMAGED OR DESTROYED STRUCTURES AND THE|
| |HABITAT LOSS PERMIT PROCESS (POD 04-05 & POD 04-06) |
|5. |FIRESTORM 2003 RESPONSE: AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTY FIRE AND BUILDING CODES, POD 04-08 |
|6. |THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 2003 MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM SUBAREA PLAN ANNUAL HABITAT TRACKING REPORT AND MAP UPDATE |
|7. |CONSULTANT SERVICES RELATED TO THE EAST COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM SUBAREA PLAN |
| |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $400,000 FROM THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE] |
|8. |MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT – DEDICATION OF LAND FOR FARADAY AVENUE EXTENSION AND SALE OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT |
| |(4 VOTES) |
|9. |ADVERTISE AND AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR RUNWAY 27R REHABILITATION AT GILLESPIE FIELD, APPLY FOR AND ACCEPT ADDITIONAL |
| |FEDERAL GRANT FUNDS (DISTRICT: 2) |
| |(4 VOTES) |
|10. |AMENDMENT TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) FOR PHASE II IMPROVEMENTS TO|
| |INTERSTATE 8 / LOS COCHES ROAD / CAMINO CANADA INTERCHANGE |
|11. |LOS COCHES ROAD (PHASE II) IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN LAKESIDE; ACQUISITION OF PARCEL NUMBER 2002-0157-A, B, C, & D (SCHAFER) |
| |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): TRANSNET REVENUE] |
|12. |SUNSET REVIEW OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICIES AND COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES ASSIGNED TO THE LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT |
| |GROUP |
|13. |SET HEARING FOR 8/4/04 |
| |TO CONFIRM ASSESSMENTS IN THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT |
|14. |ADVERTISE AND AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR LOS NOPALITOS DRAINAGE AND LOS RANCHITOS SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS IN THE LAKESIDE |
| |COMMUNITY |
| |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): GAS TAX AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT] |
| |(4 VOTES) |
| |(RELATES TO FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT AGENDA ITEM NO 1) |
|15. |ESTRELLA DRIVE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER FOR ADDITONAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND REQUEST FOR ADDITONAL FUNDS |
| |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): TRANSNET EXCHANGE FUNDS] |
| |(4 VOTES) |
|16. |ADVERTISE AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW GUARDRAILS ON DEL DIOS HIGHWAY |
| |(4 VOTES) |
|17. |AUTHORIZATION TO APPLY FOR AND ACCEPT UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER 2012 PROGRAM GRANT |
| |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY] |
|18. |AMENDMENT TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH CALTRANS FOR STATE ROUTE 54/94 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN RANCHO SAN DIEGO AND SPRING VALLEY |
|19. |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT NO. 4392-2 APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT TO IMPROVE SUBDIVISION, RELEASE OF LIEN CONTRACT AND |
| |TERMINATION OF HOLDING AGREEMENT LOCATED IN BONSALL COMMUNITY PLAN AREA |
|20. |EXTENSION OF PERFORMANCE COMPLETION DATES ON VARIOUS BONDED AGREEMENTS TO COMPLETE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS |
|21. |ESTABLISH APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNANTICIPATED REVENUE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION – FARM AND HOME ADVISORS |
| |OFFICE |
| |(4 VOTES) |
|22. |CONTINUTED NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |
| |OTAY WATER DISTRICT OPEN SPACE EASEMENT VACATION, |
| |VAC 01-011, SPRING VALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN AREA |
| |(CARRYOVER FROM 6/16/04, AGENDA ITEM NO. 6) |
|23. |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |
| |SECOND CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES: |
| |TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS |
|24. |CLOSED SESSION |
| |(Carryover from 6/22/04, Item No. 16) |
|1. |SUBJECT: |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |
| | |GREENHILLS RANCH; SPECIFIC PLAN SP 98-004, ZONE RECLASSIFICATION R98-006, TENTATIVE MAP TM 5140RPL7, |
| | |LAKESIDE COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA (DISTRICT: 2) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |This is a Specific Plan, Rezone and Tentative Map for development of Specific Plan Area 6 - AKSYN in Lakeside. The Greenhills |
| |Ranch Specific Plan proposes development in two phases. Phase 1 calls for 31 single-family residences in a residential |
| |development area that is 12.17 acres in size and open space on 39.57 acres. Phase 2 is a Future Development Area that covers 44 |
| |acres and will require a Specific Plan Amendment. The Rezone proposes standard zoning of RS7, Single-Family Residential Use |
| |Regulations with minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet for the residential development area and S80, Open Space Use Regulations |
| |with no density for the proposed open space area. The Tentative Map proposes 31 single-family lots ranging in size from 9,042 to |
| |26,375 square feet in size. The site is subject to the Current Urban Development Area (CUDA) Regional Category and the (21) |
| |Specific Plan Area Land Use Designation, with density of 1.6 dwelling units per acre. Zoning is S88, Specific Plan Area Use |
| |Regulations with minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, A70, Limited Agriculture Use Regulations with minimum lot size of 1 acre, |
| |RR1, Rural Residential Use Regulations with minimum lot size of 1 acre, and RS4, Single Family Residential, with minimum lot size |
| |of 10,000 square feet. |
| |The site is located north of the terminus of Adlai Road, west of Lake Jennings Park Road and east of Lakeview Road in the Lakeside|
| |Community Planning Area. The residential development area extends Sohail Street, at the northwest portion of the site. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |N/A |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |PLANNING COMMISSION: |
| |Adopt the attached Resolution approving SP 98-004 for the Greenhills Ranch Specific Plan which makes the appropriate findings and |
| |includes those requirements and conditions necessary to ensure that the project is implemented in a manner consistent with State |
| |law and the County General Plan (Attachment B). |
| | |
| |Adopt the attached Form of Ordinance (Attachment C). |
| | |
| |AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY |
| | |
| |Adopt the Resolution approving TM 5140RPL7 which makes the appropriate findings and includes those requirements and conditions |
| |necessary to ensure that the project is implemented in a manner consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance and State law |
| |(Attachment D). |
| | |
| |DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE: |
| |The Department concurs. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Cox, seconded by Supervisor Slater-Price, the Board of Supervisors closed the Hearing and took action as |
| |recommended, on Consent, adopting: |
| | |
| |Resolution No 04-120, entitled: RESOLUTION OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN SP 98-004 |
| |GREENHILLS RANCH; |
| | |
| |Resolution No. 04-121, entitled: RESOLUTION OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVING CONDITIONS FOR TENTATIVE MAP NO. |
| |5140RPL7; and |
| | |
| |Ordinance No. 9657 (N.S.), entitled: AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY, REF: R98-006. |
| | |
| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |
| |
|2. |SUBJECT: |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |
| | |APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FOR MINOR USE PERMIT ZAP 03-084, SPRINT PCS, VALLE DE ORO COMMUNITY|
| | |PLANNING AREA, (DISTRICT: 2) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |This is an appeal of the environmental determination made by the Planning Commission on Minor Use Permit ZAP 03-084. The |
| |determination was to find the proposed project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Valle de Oro |
| |Community Planning Group filed the appeal. This appeal is made pursuant to San Diego County Code Title 8, Division 6, Chapter 4, |
| |Appeals of Environmental Determinations, Section 86.403. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |N/A |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |PLANNING COMMISSION: |
| |Adopt the attached Form of Decision to Deny the Appeal and uphold the environmental determination made by the Planning Commission.|
| | |
| | |
| |DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE: |
| |Grant the appeal, determine that the Class 1 categorical exemption is not applicable, and remand the environmental determination |
| |to the Planning Commission for reconsideration, with any direction the Board may choose regarding the appropriate environmental |
| |determination. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Horn, the Board of Supervisors closed the Hearing, granted the appeal and |
| |determined that an Environmental Impact Report is necessary to address the land use, visual, and safety cumulative impacts of |
| |cabinets and other equipment which is visible in the right-of way and throughout the Valle De Oro community. |
| | |
| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |
| |
|3. |SUBJECT: |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |
| | |APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FOR MINOR USE PERMIT ZAP 03-085, SPRINT PCS, VALLE DE ORO COMMUNITY|
| | |PLANNING AREA, (DISTRICT: 2) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |This is an appeal of the environmental determination made by the Zoning Administrator on Minor Use Permit ZAP 03-085. The |
| |determination was to find the proposed project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Valle de Oro |
| |Community Planning Group filed the appeal. This appeal is made pursuant to San Diego County Code Title 8, Division 6, Chapter 4, |
| |Appeals of Environmental Determinations, Section 86.403. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |N/A |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |PLANNING COMMISSION: |
| |At the hearing on March 19, 2004, the Planning Commission reviewed Minor Use Permit ZAP 03-085, but was unable to obtain 4 votes |
| |required to pass a motion. Under the Zoning Ordinance and Planning Commission Policy, PC-2, the Zoning Administrator's decision |
| |to determine the project to be categorically exempt from CEQA and to grant the Minor Use Permit is deemed sustained by the |
| |Planning Commission in these circumstances. To sustain this decision, the Board should adopt the Form of Decision to Deny the |
| |Appeal and uphold the Environmental Determination made by the Zoning Administrator. (Attachment H) |
| | |
| |DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE: |
| |Grant the appeal, determine that the Class 1 categorical exemption is not applicable, and remand the environmental determination |
| |to the Planning Commission for reconsideration, with any direction the Board may choose regarding the appropriate environmental |
| |determination. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Horn, the Board of Supervisors closed the Hearing, granted the appeal and |
| |determined that an Environmental Impact Report is necessary to address the land use, visual, and safety cumulative impacts of |
| |cabinets and other equipment which is visible in the right-of way and throughout the Valle De Oro community. |
| | |
| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |
| |
|4. |SUBJECT: |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |
| | |FIRESTORM 2003 RESPONSE: ORDINANCES AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND COUNTY CODE RELATED TO DAMAGED OR |
| | |DESTROYED STRUCTURES AND THE HABITAT LOSS PERMIT PROCESS (POD 04-05 & POD 04-06) (DISTRICT: ALL) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |On January 7, 2004 (2), the Board of Supervisors received a report from the Chief Administrative Officer summarizing the actions |
| |proposed to be taken in response to Firestorm 2003. On December 2, 2003 (2, 3, & 4) the Board of Supervisors directed, at the |
| |request of Chairwoman Jacob and Supervisor Horn, the development of actions and recommendations on the County of San Diego’s |
| |response to the devastating wildfires that burned through the County in 2003. Among the recommendations included in the above |
| |actions were: 1) To review and propose amendments to existing County codes and ordinances to increase wildland fire protection |
| |made at the request of Chairwoman Jacob; and 2) To review the County’s building, subdivision, and zoning codes and return to the |
| |Board with recommendations to reduce the risk of structure loss during wildfires made at the request of Supervisor Horn. To |
| |address the Board’s recommendations, the Department of Planning and Land Use is proposing amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to |
| |provide flexibility in the rebuilding of structures damaged or destroyed by natural disasters. Although the proposed amendments |
| |do not directly address wildland fire protection or reducing loss of structures during wildfires, the Department has found that |
| |these amendments are important to assist victims to rebuild structures lost during such natural disasters. |
| | |
| |The project includes a proposed amendment to the San Diego County Zoning Ordinance relating to reconstruction of structures |
| |damaged or destroyed by natural disasters (POD 04-05). The proposed amendment would add a new section to the Zoning Ordinance |
| |relating to setback exceptions and would also revise the existing nonconforming structure regulations in Section 6881 of the |
| |Zoning Ordinance. The amendments are intended to provide the maximum flexibility to allow victims to rebuild structures and |
| |improvements that were damaged or destroyed by fire or other natural disasters. |
| | |
| |In addition, the project includes an amendment to the County Code to exempt projects from the requirement for a Habitat Loss |
| |Permit when there is a “de minimus” impact on coastal sage scrub habitat or for any project which has been issued incidental take |
| |authorization pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act (POD 04-06). |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |N/A |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |PLANNING COMMISSION: |
| |Find that the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as specified under section 15061(b)(3) of |
| |the State CEQA Guidelines for the reasons detailed in the Notice of Exemption Form dated April 1, 2004 on file with the Department|
| |of Planning and Land Use as case number POD 04-05. |
| | |
| |Adopt the attached form of Ordinance (Attachment A): |
| | |
| |“AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND A |
| |SETBACK EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN STRUCTURES DAMAGED OR DESTROYED BY NATURAL DISASTER” |
| | |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |
| |Concurs with the Planning Commission, and in addition, recommends the following: |
| | |
| |Find that the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as specified under section 15061(b)(3) of |
| |the State CEQA Guidelines for the reasons detailed in the Notice of Exemption Form dated April 1, 2004 on file with the Department|
| |of Planning and Land Use as case number POD 04-06 (Attachment C). |
| | |
| |Adopt the attached form of Ordinance (Attachment A): |
| | |
| |“AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND A |
| |SETBACK EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN STRUCTURES DAMAGED OR DESTROYED BY NATURAL DISASTER” |
| | |
| |Approve introduction (first reading) of the Ordinance, read the title and waive further reading of the Ordinance (Attachment B): |
| | |
| |“AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1 OF DIVISION 6 OF TITLE 8 OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE TO EXEMPT CERTAIN PROJECTS FROM THE COASTAL|
| |SAGE SCRUB HABITAT LOSS PERMIT PROCESS” |
| | |
| |Submit the Ordinance for further Board consideration and adoption (second reading) on July 14, 2004. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Cox, seconded by Supervisor Slater-Price, the Board of Supervisors continued the Hearing and took action |
| |as recommended, on Consent, introducing Ordinance for further Board consideration and adoption on July 14, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., and|
| |adopted: Ordinance No. 9658 (N.S.), entitled: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO DAMAGE OR |
| |DESTRUCTION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND A SETBACK EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN STRUCTURES DAMAGED OR DESTROYED BY NATURAL DISASTER, |
| |REF: POD-04-05. |
| | |
| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |
| |
|5. |SUBJECT: |FIRESTORM 2003 RESPONSE: AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTY FIRE AND BUILDING CODES, POD 04-08 (DISTRICT: ALL) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |On January 7, 2004 (2), the Board of Supervisors received a report from the Chief Administrative Officer summarizing the actions |
| |proposed to be taken in response to Firestorm 2003. On December 2, 2003 (2, 3, & 4) the Board of Supervisors directed, at the |
| |request of Chairwoman Jacob and Supervisor Horn, the development of actions and recommendations on the County of San Diego’s |
| |response to the devastating wildfires that burned through the County in 2003. Among the recommendations included in the above |
| |actions were: 1) To review and propose amendments to existing County codes and ordinances to increase wildland fire protection |
| |made at the request of Chairwoman Jacob; and 2) To review the County’s building, subdivision, and zoning codes and return to the |
| |Board with recommendations to reduce the risk of structure loss during wildfires made at the request of Supervisor Horn. To |
| |address the Board’s recommendations, the Department of Planning and Land Use is proposing amendments to the Wildland/Urban |
| |Interface portions of the County Fire Code to create a tiered system to determine when fire-resistive construction is required, |
| |make several amendments to existing fire-resistive construction requirements in the County Fire Code and to amend the County |
| |Building Code by repeating certain Fire Code requirements related to building construction in the Building Code. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |There is no fiscal impact associated with these recommendations. |
| |BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT: |
| |The amendments proposed by this action would benefit the business community by improving consistency in the enforcement of fire |
| |and building codes. In addition, builders will be informed of the requirements earlier in the permitting process by having fire |
| |resistive construction requirements reviewed by the Department of Planning and Land Use during the initial building plan check. |
| |In some cases there will be minor construction cost increases but they will be outweighed by the increased probability of the |
| |structure surviving a wildfire. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: |
| |Find that the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as specified under section 15061(b)(3) of |
| |the State CEQA Guidelines for the reasons detailed in the Notice of Exemption Form dated May 20, 2004 on file with Department of |
| |Planning and Land Use as case number POD 04-08. |
| | |
| |Approve the findings, which document that the County Amendments to the California Building Standards Code are reasonably necessary|
| |because of local climatic, geographical or topographical conditions, pursuant to Section 17958 of the California Health and Safety|
| |Code. |
| | |
| |Approve introduction of the Ordinances, (first reading), read the title and waive further reading of the Ordinances: |
| | |
| |AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING THE COUNTY FIRE CODE |
| | |
| |AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COUNTY BUILDING CODE TO ADOPT THE 2001 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE AND TO ADD CERTAIN FIRE-RESISTIVE |
| |CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS |
| | |
| |Submit the Ordinances for further Board consideration and adoption (second reading) on July 14, 2004. |
| | |
| |Direct the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to provide a certified copy of the adopted Ordinances together with the associated |
| |findings to the California Building Standards Commission pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Horn, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, introducing |
| |Ordinances for further Board consideration and adoption on July 14, 2004; adding the following recommendations: |
| |Directed the Chief Administrative Officer to reference by footnote the portions of the International Code Council (ICC) that were |
| |used to create the County Code; if a Fire District wishes, it may adopt the County Code, the ICC Code (subject to also |
| |incorporating those amendments in the County Code that would be more stringent than the ICC) or whatever Code they see meets their|
| |individual needs; and |
| | |
| |Directed the Chief Administrative Officer to work with the County Fire Chiefs in order to try to move forward in the future to |
| |some kind of a uniform, baseline Code, that would cover cities, special districts, and the remaining unincorporated area of the |
| |County. |
| | |
| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |
|6. |SUBJECT: |THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 2003 MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM SUBAREA PLAN ANNUAL HABITAT TRACKING |
| | |REPORT AND MAP UPDATE (DISTRICT: ALL) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |The County Board of Supervisors adopted the County of San Diego’s Subarea Plan for the Multiple Species Conservation Program on |
| |October 22, 1997 (1). The associated Implementing Agreement entered into among the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California |
| |Department of Fish and Game, and the County, became effective on March 17, 1998. The Implementing Agreement includes a |
| |requirement that the County prepare an annual accounting for all habitat gained through acquisitions or open space dedications |
| |made through the land development process, as well as habitat lost as a result of discretionary land use and certain ministerial |
| |actions. |
| | |
| |This 2003 Annual Report summarizes habitat gains and losses within the three Subarea Plan segments (Lake Hodges, South County, and|
| |Metro-Lakeside-Jamul) for the period from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003. The map associated with the County of San |
| |Diego's Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan has been updated to reflect these gains and losses. |
| | |
| |During the 2003 accounting period, a total of 3,058.3 acres of gain and 482.6 acres of loss occurred within the entire County |
| |Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea. Of the 3,058.3 acres of gain, 2,154.6 acres presently count towards the County’s |
| |Multiple Species Conservation Program conservation goals. The remaining 903.7 acres of habitat were acquired via purchases and by |
| |securing open space easements in areas outside of the County’s pre-approved mitigation/preserve areas and therefore do not |
| |presently count towards the County’s Multiple Species Conservation Program conservation goals. |
| | |
| |The Board is requested to receive the Annual Report and approve the updated Subarea Plan Map. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |This action results in no fiscal impact. |
| |BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT: |
| |Adoption of the Multiple Species Conservation Program allows for a streamlined permitting process for local landowners and |
| |eliminates the need for duplicative efforts required by Wildlife Agencies with permit authority over sensitive species and |
| |habitats. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: |
| |Find that the approval of the 2003 Annual Report and the updated "County of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program |
| |Subarea Plan Map" are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because they are not projects as defined in |
| |Section 15378. |
| | |
| |Receive the 2003 Annual Report. |
| | |
| |Approve the updated "County of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan Map." |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Cox, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended. |
| | |
| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |
| |
|7. |SUBJECT: |CONSULTANT SERVICES RELATED TO THE EAST COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM SUBAREA PLAN |
| | |(DISTRICT: 2,5) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |On February 12, 1992 (2), the Board of Supervisors authorized the Chief Administrative Officer to submit an Application of |
| |Enrollment for any other unincorporated areas where private or public agencies have indicated a desire to enroll in the Natural |
| |Communities Conservation Plan Program. By a letter dated July 2, 1993 to the California Department of Fish and Game, the Chief |
| |Administrative Officer formally requested the enrollment of the entire unincorporated area in the State of California’s Natural |
| |Community Conservation Planning Program. |
| | |
| |The Board of Supervisors approved the existing South County Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan on October 22, 1997|
| |(1). On April 7, 2004 (2), the Board of Supervisors approved the Draft North County Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea|
| |Plan Map for the purpose of environmental analysis and authorized the selection of a consultant to prepare an Environmental Impact|
| |Report and Environmental Impact Statement to analyze the impacts of the Plan. |
| | |
| |The East County Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan will cover 1,551,600 acres of unincorporated area east to the |
| |Imperial County line including the communities of Julian, Borrego Springs, Cuyamaca, Warner Springs, Jacumba, Campo, Ocotillo |
| |Wells, Boulevard, Pine Valley, Oak Grove, and Palomar Mountain. Like the existing subarea plans, the major goal of the East |
| |County Subarea Plan is to assemble a viable habitat preserve system which will allow the County to obtain coverage under the |
| |Federal and State Endangered Species Acts. |
| | |
| |This is a request to approve the Chief Administrative Officer recommendation to obtain consultant services to assist staff in the |
| |preparation of the East County Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |Funds for this request are included in the FY 03-04 and proposed FY 04-05 Operational Plan. The funding source is a grant in the |
| |amount of $400,000 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Board of Supervisors approved the use of on-going Federal grant |
| |funds to complete planning and implementation of regional open space plans on May 10, 1994 (56). This request will result in the |
| |addition of no staff years. |
| |BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT: |
| |The intent of open space plans is not only to provide a means to assemble a regional open space preserve system, but also to |
| |provide a means for a more predictable and streamlined development review process. The proposal will not have a direct impact on |
| |the business community. However, creating a regional open space plan for the eastern part of San Diego County should assist in |
| |processing land development projects that are found to be in conformance with such a plan, by eliminating the need for separate |
| |Federal and State Endangered Species Permits. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |
| |Find in accordance with Section 15060(c)(3) of the State California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, that this action is |
| |exempt because it is not a project as defined in Guideline Section 15378 and does not commit the County to a definite course of |
| |action. Environmental review of the proposed East County Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan will be undertaken |
| |before presenting the project for approval by the Board of Supervisors. |
| | |
| |In accordance with Board Policy A-87, Competitive Procurement, approve and authorize the Director, Department of Purchasing and |
| |Contracting to issue a Request for Proposals, and upon selection and negotiation of fair and reasonable rates, award a contract in|
| |an amount not to exceed $400,000 for consultant services related to the East County Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea |
| |Plan, and amend the contract as required for changes in funding or services. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Cox, seconded by Supervisor Slater-Price, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, on Consent.|
| | |
| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |
| |
|8. |SUBJECT: |MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT – DEDICATION OF LAND FOR FARADAY AVENUE EXTENSION AND SALE OF CONSERVATION |
| | |EASEMENT (DISTRICT: 5) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |McClellan-Palomar Airport serves North County by providing facilities for general aviation aircraft, corporate jet service and |
| |commuter airline service. The Airport covers over 407 acres and is operated by the Department of Public Works. (Thomas Guide Page|
| |1127, E1) |
| | |
| |In order to mitigate for the impacts of a proposed development near the Airport, Techbilt Construction Corp. has requested that |
| |the County grant a conservation easement to the City of Carlsbad consisting of 108.4 acres of Airport land, in exchange for a cash|
| |payment of $730,000 and a finished 2.002 acre industrial lot, valued at $1,220,000. As part of this transaction, the County would|
| |make an Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate Real Property for Public Street and Utility Purposes to the City for an extension of Faraday|
| |Avenue. The proposed transactions would be memorialized in a Memorandum of Understanding between the County, City of Carlsbad and |
| |Techbilt. |
| | |
| |The proposed sale of the conservation easement and conveyance of the Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate will produce significant |
| |revenue for the County Airport Enterprise Fund and facilitate completion of a road that can be used by Airport customers. It |
| |would also provide habitat preservation for an area of land that would not be appropriate for development and assure compatible |
| |land use to Palomar Airport. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |If approved, the proposed transaction will result in the sale of a conservation easement by the County for $730,000 cash, and the |
| |acquisition of a 2.002 acre finished industrial lot valued at $1,220,000. All proceeds received or generated as a result of these |
| |actions will be used exclusively for the improvement, development, and operation of County airports. The proposed transaction will|
| |result in no current year revenue, and will require no additional staff years. Revenue of $730,000 during Fiscal Year 2004-05 |
| |will go to the Airport Enterprise Fund. Once the 2.002-acre industrial lot is leased out, it is anticipated that it will generate|
| |at least $108,000 annually for the Airport Enterprise Fund. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |
| |Find that the proposed action is addressed in the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report |
| |(EIR) certified by the City of Carlsbad pursuant to Resolution No. 2002-298, on file with the State Office of Planning and |
| |Research as SCH No. 2000051057; that there are no changes in the project or in the circumstances under which it is undertaken |
| |which involve significant or new environmental impacts which were not considered in the EIR, or a substantial increase in the |
| |severity of previously identified significant effects; and, that no new information of substantial importance has become available|
| |since said EIR was prepared. |
| | |
| | |
| |Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board to execute, upon receipt, a Memorandum of Understanding Between Techbilt Construction|
| |Corp., the City of Carlsbad and the County of San Diego to allow for the transfer of a conservation easement of 108.4 acres of |
| |County Airport land and the execution of an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for the extension of Faraday Avenue to the City of |
| |Carlsbad in exchange for a 2.002 acre finished industrial lot and $730,000 cash from Techbilt Construction Corp. (4 VOTES) |
| | |
| |Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board to execute, upon receipt, a Conservation Easement to be granted by County to City of |
| |Carlsbad of 108.4 acres of Airport land located within County Parcel Number 2004-0045-B for the preservation of habitat. (4 |
| |VOTES) |
| | |
| |Find pursuant to Government Code Section 25526.6 that the conveyance of the Conservation Easement is in the public interest and |
| |that the easement will not substantially conflict or interfere with the use of the property by the County. (4 VOTES) |
| | |
| |Approve and authorize the Director, Department of General Services, to execute an Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate Real Property For |
| |Public Street and Utility Purposes to the City over approximately 3.02 acres of land located on Assessor Parcel Number 209-050-25 |
| |for the completion of an extension of Faraday Avenue. (4 VOTES) |
| | |
| |Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board to accept title, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, to a 2.002 acre |
| |finished industrial lot, County Parcel Number 2004-0045-C, on behalf of County Airports from Techbilt Construction Corp. (4 |
| |VOTES) |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Cox, seconded by Supervisor Slater-Price, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, on Consent.|
| | |
| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |
| |
|9. |SUBJECT: |ADVERTISE AND AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR RUNWAY 27R REHABILITATION AT GILLESPIE FIELD, APPLY FOR |
| | |AND ACCEPT ADDITIONAL FEDERAL GRANT FUNDS (DISTRICT: 2) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |The County of San Diego operates Gillespie Field, a general aviation airport in El Cajon (Thomas Guide Page 1251, E1). Gillespie |
| |Field provides facilities for 774 general aviation and corporate aircraft, numerous aviation businesses, Mercy Air and the |
| |Sheriff’s ASTREA facility. |
| | |
| |The proposed project is required to correct deteriorating runway pavement infrastructure. The project will also rehabilitate |
| |Runway Safety Areas on east and west ends of the runway, relocate an existing perimeter road to outside the runway safety area, |
| |reconstruct a concrete drainage channel, and relocate runway 27R threshold including lighting, signage, navigational aids, and |
| |pavement markings, to meet Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards. |
| | |
| |The FAA Airport Improvement program will fund the project costs with a match from the Airport Enterprise Fund. Due to additional |
| |funding opportunities from the FAA, the scope of the project was changed to better meet the needs of the airport. The total |
| |project cost is estimated to be $5.1 million with an estimated contribution from the FAA of $4.6 million. |
| | |
| |This is a request for approval to advertise and subsequently award to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, a contract for|
| |construction of runway 27R rehabilitation at Gillespie Field. This is also a request to approve submittal of an application and |
| |acceptance of additional federal grant funds for Gillespie Field Runway 27R rehabilitation project that will total approximately |
| |$4.6 million. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |Funding sources for this project are Federal Aviation Administration Airports Improvement Program ($4,590,000), and Airport |
| |Enterprise Fund ($510,000) for a total of $5,100,000. Funds for this project budgeted in FY 2003-04 are $3,180,000. Upon receipt|
| |from the Federal Aviation Administration, this action would establish additional appropriations of $1,920,000 for the project in |
| |FY 2004-05 upon award of grant monies for the project from Federal Aviation Administration. If approved, this request will result |
| |in a total construction contract of up to $4,150,000 (contract plus contingency). Remaining project costs include design, |
| |construction inspection, surveys etc. The project will require no additional staff years and there will be no impact to the |
| |general fund. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: |
| |Find that the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified under Section 15301 of |
| |the State CEQA Guidelines. |
| |Approve and Authorize the Director, Department of Public Works, as County Officer to conduct all FAA negotiations, approve, |
| |execute and submit all documents necessary for the completion of the aforementioned documents including but not limited to grant |
| |application, pay requests, agreements, and amendments that do not materially alter or impact the program. |
| |Establish appropriations of up to $1,920,000 for runway 27R rehabilitation at Gillespie Field upon grant award from the Federal |
| |Aviation Administration, based on the unanticipated revenue and Airport Enterprise Fund fund balance. (4 VOTES) |
| |Authorize the Director, Purchasing and Contracting Department, to take any action authorized by Section 401, et seq. of the San |
| |Diego County Administrative Code with respect to contracting for the subject public works project. |
| | |
| | |
| |Designate the Director, Department of Public Works, as County Officer responsible for administering the construction contract, in |
| |accordance with Board Policy F-41, Public Works Construction Contracts. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Cox, seconded by Supervisor Slater-Price, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, on Consent.|
| | |
| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |
| |
|10. |SUBJECT: |AMENDMENT TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) |
| | |FOR PHASE II IMPROVEMENTS TO INTERSTATE 8 / LOS COCHES ROAD / CAMINO CANADA INTERCHANGE (DISTRICT: 2) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |On October 10, 1995 (18), the County of San Diego and State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) entered into a |
| |cooperative agreement to improve the Interstate 8 interchange at Los Coches Road (formerly Camino Canada) in two phases. Phase I,|
| |which is complete, modified freeway ramps at Los Coches Road. Caltrans is now ready to construct Phase II. On April 25, 1995 |
| |(15), the Board approved an amendment to the TransNet Program of Projects to allocate TransNet funding for Phase II, which |
| |included replacing the existing three-span bridge with a single span bridge, constructing a sound wall along the west-bound |
| |shoulder of Interstate 8, and widening Los Coches Road including construction of curbs, gutters, sidewalks and drainage inlets. On|
| |January 24, 2001 (13), the Board approved a cooperative agreement with Caltrans as required under the 1995 Agreement, in which the|
| |County would reimburse Caltrans for costs (less a $300,000 contribution by Caltrans) associated with design and construction of |
| |Phase II. On February 11, 2004 (8), the Board approved an amendment to the TransNet Program of Projects to allocate additional |
| |TransNet funding in the amount of $1,691,300 for Phase II to fund higher than previously estimated construction costs. |
| | |
| |This is a request to approve an amendment to modify the 2001 Agreement to move Caltrans’ $300,000 contribution from construction |
| |capital to project design and extend the termination date of the 2001 agreement to December 31, 2007. Caltrans is responsible for|
| |design and construction of this project, and has completed design. Upon execution of this agreement, Caltrans will finalize |
| |construction plans and submit them for review by the County staff. Construction originally scheduled for completion in 2005 will |
| |now be completed in 2007. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |Funds for this project are budgeted in the Department of Public Works Detailed Work Program. Funding source is TransNet |
| |($1,691,300). There is no change to the project cost, only to the terms of the agreement with Caltrans. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: |
| |Find, in accordance with Section 15060(c)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, that the approval of |
| |the amendment to a cooperative agreement with State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for funding is exempt |
| |from CEQA review because the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines. |
| | |
| |Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board to execute, upon receipt, four copies of an Amendment to Agreement (No. 11-8208/A1) |
| |with the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for Phase II Improvements to Interstate 8/Los Coches |
| |Road/Camino Canada Interchange. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Cox, seconded by Supervisor Slater-Price, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, on Consent.|
| | |
| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |
| |
|11. |SUBJECT: |LOS COCHES ROAD (PHASE II) IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN LAKESIDE; ACQUISITION OF PARCEL NUMBER 2002-0157-A, B, |
| | |C, & D (SCHAFER) (DISTRICT: 2) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |The Los Coches Road (Phase II) Improvement Project will complete the improvement of Los Coches Road between Julian Avenue and |
| |Woodside Avenue, and Maine Avenue between Los Coches Road and Woodside Avenue (Thomas Guide page 1232, B-4). The project will |
| |provide two traffic lanes, a center left turn lane, bike lanes on both sides, curb, gutter, sidewalk, reconstruction of existing |
| |pavement, utility undergrounding, and drainage improvements. The segment of Los Coches Road between Maine Avenue and Woodside |
| |Avenue will remain a one-lane one-way street with parking on both sides of the roadway. Design plans have been completed and the |
| |project is ready for construction. Construction is scheduled to commence in Fall 2004 and will take a little more than one year |
| |to complete. |
| | |
| |The project requires acquisition of permanent road easements from 13 owners along the roadway. To date, five easements have been |
| |obtained. On March 24, 2004 (8), the Board approved a Resolution of Necessity for the parcels required from the remaining eight |
| |owners. One additional property owner has since agreed to sell the necessary easements to the County. The Board is requested to |
| |approve the purchase of Parcel No. 2002-0157 A, B, C & D from Ronald G. and Judith A. Schafer for $150,000. Negotiations with the|
| |seven property owners who have not yet agreed to sell are ongoing. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |Funds for this request are budgeted in the Department of Public Works’ Fiscal Year 2003-04 Detailed Work Program. The funding |
| |source is TransNet Revenue. If approved, this request will result in current year cost of $150,000 for the purchase of Parcel No.|
| |2002-0157-A, B, C & D (Schafer), no annual cost, and no additional staff years. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: |
| |Find that the Environmental Impact Report on file in the Department of Planning and Land Use as Environmental Review No. 9601103 |
| |was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State and County California Environmental |
| |Quality Act Guidelines, that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained therein prior to approving|
| |the project, and that the Environmental Impact Report reflected the independent judgment and analysis of the Board of Supervisors.|
| | |
| | |
| |Find that there are no changes in the project or the circumstances under which it is undertaken which involve significant new |
| |environmental impacts which were not considered in the previously certified Environmental Impact report, or a substantial increase|
| |in the severity of previously identified significant effects, and that no new information of substantial importance has become |
| |available since the Environmental Impact Report was prepared. |
| | |
| |Approve the Real Property Contract for the purchase of Parcel No. 2002-0157-A, B, C, & D (Schafer) for $150,000, and direct the |
| |Clerk of the Board to execute two originals of the contract. |
| | |
| |Authorize the Director, Department of General Services, or assignee, to execute all escrow and related documents to complete the |
| |property purchase. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Cox, seconded by Supervisor Slater-Price, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, on Consent.|
| | |
| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |
| |
|12. |SUBJECT: |SUNSET REVIEW OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICIES AND COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES ASSIGNED TO THE |
| | |LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT GROUP (DISTRICT: ALL) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |On December 8, 1998 (53), the Board of Supervisors approved the current Sunset Review Process based on a seven-year review cycle |
| |of the Administrative Code, Board of Supervisors Policies and San Diego County Code of Regulatory Ordinances. Department heads are|
| |responsible for ensuring ordinances, policies and administrative codes and resolutions relevant to their respective departments |
| |are kept current. Sunset Review items are presented to the Board in increments for approval as they reach their Sunset dates. |
| | |
| |Pursuant to Board Policy A-76, Sunset Review Process, this is a request to approve amendments to Title 6, Health and Sanitation, |
| |of the San Diego County Code of Regulatory Ordinances, and Board of Supervisors Policies as described in this item. The Land Use |
| |and Environment Group departments are primarily responsible for this sunset review, however some sections of Title 6 are the |
| |responsibility of other groups. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |The requested actions will have no current year or annual cost and will not require any additional staff years. |
| |BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT: |
| |Title 6, Division 5, Permit Fees and Procedures for Businesses and Health Related Activities: On August 4, 2003 and February 24, |
| |2004 the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) enacted regulations that govern the handling and processing of |
| |Construction Demolition and Inert Debris (CDI). The Department of Environmental Health is the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) for |
| |solid waste issues within all areas of the County of San Diego, except the City of San Diego, and is therefore required to |
| |implement these regulations. |
| |The newly regulated facilities are categorized by the CIWMB into the existing regulatory tier structure for Transfer/ Processing |
| |Facilities and Operations as defined in California Code of Regulations Title 14 Chapter 3.0 and have been integrated into current |
| |fee structure with some clarification of the facility descriptions to reflect the new CIWMB language/definitions. |
| |The new category of facilities is related to the preexisting categories, and no business is being upgraded to a higher fee |
| |category. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: |
| |Find, in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines that it can be seen |
| |with certainty there is no possibility the following actions may have a significant effect on the environment, and that these |
| |actions are therefore exempt from CEQA. |
| | |
| |Approve introduction of the following Ordinances (first reading), read title and waive further reading of the following |
| |Ordinances: |
| | |
| |AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES RELATING TO FOOD PREPARATION AND |
| |DISTRIBUTION, AND FOOD HANDLERS AND RELATING TO BATHHOUSES, AND ENFORCEMENT OF STATE HOUSING LAW |
| | |
| |AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 62.109, 62.685 AND 62.687 OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES RELATING TO THE |
| |DUTIES OF THE COUNTY VETERINARIAN AND TO PROTECTION DOGS AND GUARD DOG OPERATORS |
| | |
| |AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 65.107 OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES RELATING TO PERMIT FEES AND PROCEDURES |
| |FOR BUSINESSES AND HEALTH REGULATED ACTIVITIES |
| | |
| |AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 68.318 AND AMENDING SECTIONS 68.311, 69.102, 69.102.1 AND 69.102.2 OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF |
| |REGULATORY ORDINANCES RELATING TO SEPTIC TANKS AND SEEPAGE PITS, AND CONDEMNATION OF BUILDINGS |
| | |
| |AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 68.501, 68.502 AND 68.563 OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES RELATING TO |
| |MANAGEMENT OF SOLID WASTE |
| | |
| |AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND ADDING PORTIONS OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES, AND ADDING SECTIONS TO THE COUNTY|
| |CODE, RELATING TO THE CERTIFIED UNIFIED PROGRAM AGENCY, REGULATION OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES, REGULATION OF |
| |HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND REGULATION OF MEDICAL WASTES |
| | |
| |AN ORDINANCE AMENDING DIVISION 10 OF TITLE 6 OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES RELATING TO GENERAL PROVISIONS,|
| |FEES, OPERATIONAL STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR AMBULANCE, CRITICAL CARE, AND NON-EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES |
| | |
| |Submit the Ordinances for further Board consideration and adoption (second reading) on July 14, 2004. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |Approve a new sunset review date of December 31, 2010 for Title 6, Health and Sanitation of the County Code of Regulatory |
| |Ordinances, including those sections that do not require amendment at this time. |
| |Determine no change is necessary to, and approve new sunset review dates as indicated below, for the following Board of |
| |Supervisors Policies: |
| |I-24, Establishment of Assessment District to Provide for Public Improvements and Facilities for Flood Control and Drainage |
| |(12-31-10) |
| |I-79, Housing Affordable to Elderly Households (12-31-10) |
| |I-80, Covenants to Improve Off-Site Private Road Easements for Minor Subdivisions (12-31-10) |
| |I-91, Policy for Use of Irrevocable Letters of Credit in Lieu of Cash Payments for Sewer Capacity Commitments for Major |
| |Subdivisions (12-31-10) |
| |I-92, Undergrounding of Utilities (12-31-10) |
| |I-98, Expiration of Use Permit – Notification of Applicant (12-31-10) |
| |I-100, Minor Encroachment into an Open Space Easement (12-31-10) |
| |I-102, Guidelines for Meeting the Socio-Economic Benefit Provisions of Regional Land Use Element Policy 3.8 (12-31-10) |
| |I-104, Policy and Procedure for Preparation of Community Design Guidelines (12-31-10) |
| |I-111, Land Use Policy for Discretionary Permits Adjacent to the International Border (12-31-10) |
| |I-115, Limitations on Continuances by Hearing Bodies (12-31-10) |
| |I-117, Mitigation Banking Policy (12-31-10) |
| |I-120, San Dieguito Joint Powers Authority – Acquisition and Disposal of Real Property Within the Unincorporated Area of the |
| |County (12-31-10) |
| |I-121, Procedure for Determining Public Convenience or Necessity for Alcoholic Beverage License Applications (12-31-10) |
| |I-122, Use of the County’s Five Percent Allowable Loss of Coastal Sage Scrub by Other Jurisdictions (12-31-07) |
| |J-3, Improvement and Maintenance of Roads, Not in the County Maintained Road System (12-31-10) |
| |J-16, Establishment of Assessment Districts to Provide for Public Improvements for Local and Circulation Element Roads (12-31-10) |
| |J-21, “One-Foot Strip" Road Openings (12-31-10) |
| |J-25, Participation by Individuals, Organizations, Private Developers, or other Jurisdictions in the Installation and Maintenance |
| |of Traffic Signals (12-31-10) |
| |J-28, San Diego Traffic Guidelines (12-31-10) |
| |J-34, Off-Site Circulation Element Road Improvements for Major Subdivisions, Large Scale Projects, and Major Use Permits |
| |(12-31-10) |
| |J-35, Protection of Routes to Accommodate the Transportation of Oversize Loads (12-31-10) |
| |Approve amendments and new sunset review dates as indicated for the following Board of Supervisors Policies: |
| |I-48, Extending Sewer Lines in Sanitation Districts (12-31-10) |
| |I-78, Small Wastewater Treatment Facilities (12-31-10) |
| |I-84, Project Facility Availability and Commitment for Public Sewer, Water, School and Fire Services (12-31-10) |
| |I-105, Mobile Home Park Conversion Policy (12-31-10) |
| |I-108, Acceptance of Surety Bonds from Developers (12-31-10) |
| |J-4, Street Name Signs; Requests from Private Individuals (12-31-10) |
| |J-5, Regulations, Signs in County Road Rights of Way other than Official Directional and Regulatory Signs (no change in sunset |
| |date) |
| |J-17, Undergrounding of Existing Overhead Utility Facilities (12-31-10) |
| |J-20, Lighting Maintenance Districts Formations and Annexations (12-31-10) |
| |J-26, Treatment of Medians on Circulation Element Roads (12-31-10) |
| |J-31, Regulations, Placement of Transit Benches and Shelters in County Rights-of-Way (12-31-10) |
| |J-36, Policy and Procedures for Preparation of Community Right of Way Development Standards (12-31-10) |
| |Approve repeal of the following Board of Supervisors Policies: |
| |I-96, Case Processing by the Planning and Environmental Review Board |
| |I-114, Case Processing by Departments of Planning and Land Use, Public Works and Health Services |
| |ACTION: |
| |Regarding Recommendation No. 6, Policy I-96, directed the Chief Administrative Officer to return to the Board within 60 days |
| |with a review of the Planning and Environmental Review Board (PERB) and a recommendation to sunset it, ON MOTION of Supervisor |
| |Cox, seconded by Supervisor Slater-Price, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, on Consent, introducing Ordinances |
| |for further Board consideration and adoption on July 14, 2004. |
| | |
| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |
| |
|13. |SUBJECT: |SET HEARING FOR 8/4/04 |
| | |TO CONFIRM ASSESSMENTS IN THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT (DISTRICT: ALL) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |The San Diego County Street Lighting District was formed by the Board of Supervisors on September 30, 1987 (3), under the |
| |Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, as a replacement for the Lighting Maintenance Districts. The District operates and maintains |
| |more than 9,450 public street lights throughout the unincorporated area of the County and is dedicated to providing quality street|
| |light service while maintaining a low cost to property owners. Funding for the District is through a portion of the one-percent |
| |property tax and through assessments charged to properties that benefit from the lights. Assessments are based on traffic |
| |generation with a single-family residence being assigned one unit of benefit. |
| | |
| |By 1990, the District had reduced its assessment rate from $23.00 (after Proposition 13) to $2.50 for a single-family residence. |
| |Since then, District reserve funds have been used to offset rising energy rates and routine increases in labor and material. The |
| |dramatic increase in electric costs over the last few years and the expected reduction in property tax revenue in the District |
| |necessitate an increase in the assessment rate to insure financial stability of the District and to preclude turning off lights. |
| |It is proposed to increase the assessment rate in Fiscal Year 2004-05 to $5.33 per single family home per year, which is well |
| |within the $25.00 maximum rate approved by voters, and is still the lowest street lighting rate in the San Diego region. |
| | |
| |Assessments are confirmed by the Board at an annual public hearing. The action requested today is the first step of a two-step |
| |process. This step involves approving the Engineer’s Report for the District and adopting a resolution of intention that sets a |
| |date for a public hearing. The second step is a hearing on August 4, 2004, where the Board will be requested to adopt a |
| |resolution confirming the assessments at the close of the hearing. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |The proposed Fiscal Year 2004-05 budget for the San Diego County Street Lighting District does not reflect the requested rate |
| |change. If requested actions are approved by the Board at the August 4, 2004, hearing, establishment of appropriations necessary |
| |based on this additional revenue will be requested. The requested rate change would generate an additional estimated $362,000 in |
| |Fiscal Year 2004-05. No additional staff years are required. |
| |BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT: |
| |This action will have no impact on business activity; however, should the Board approve the increase in benefit assessments at the|
| |August 4, 2004 public hearing, the average small business would experience an increase of $16.98 annually (typical residents will |
| |see a $2.83 annual increase). |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: |
| |Find that the proposed activity is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified under the CEQA Guidelines |
| |Section 15060(c)(3) because the activity in question is the annual adoption of resolutions to confirm assessments after a public |
| |hearing and is not a project as defined in Section 15378 of CEQA. |
| | |
| |Accept and approve the Engineer’s Report for the San Diego County Street Lighting District. |
| | |
| |Adopt a Resolution entitled Resolution of Intention to Order Improvements for the San Diego County Street Lighting District. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Cox, seconded by Supervisor Slater-Price, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, on Consent,|
| |setting Hearing for August 4, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., and adopting Resolution No. 04-122, entitled: NOTICE OF RESOLUTION OF INTENTION|
| |TO ORDER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT. |
| | |
| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |
| |
|14. |SUBJECT: |ADVERTISE AND AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR LOS NOPALITOS DRAINAGE AND LOS RANCHITOS SIDEWALK |
| | |IMPROVEMENTS IN THE LAKESIDE COMMUNITY (DISTRICT: 2) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |The project consists of drainage improvements adjacent to El Nopal and Los Nopalitos roads and curb, gutter, and sidewalk |
| |improvements along Los Ranchitos Road in the community of Lakeside (Thomas Guide, page 1231, F3, 2004 Edition). The project also |
| |includes drainage pipe installations through the private backyards of five parcels between Los Ranchitos Road and Los Nopalitos |
| |Road. |
| | |
| |This is a request to approve advertisement and subsequent award, to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, for construction|
| |of Los Nopalitos drainage and Los Ranchitos sidewalk improvements. This request also establishes additional appropriations for |
| |the project. Upon Board approval, Department of Purchasing and Contracting will advertise and subsequently award a contract for |
| |construction, scheduled for September 2004. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |Funds for this proposal are budgeted in the Department of Public Works Fiscal Year 2004-05 Detailed Work Program. The funding |
| |sources are Gas Tax ($170,000) and Flood Control District ($240,000). This request will add additional appropriations ($25,000) |
| |based on unanticipated revenue from Special Drainage Area 6 Fees. If approved, this request will result in a total Fiscal Year |
| |2004-05 cost of $435,000, and will require no additional staff years. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: |
| |Find that the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified under Section 15301 of |
| |the State CEQA Guidelines. |
| | |
| |Establish $25,000 additional appropriations in the Flood Control District for Los Nopalitos drainage improvements based on |
| |unanticipated revenue from Special Drainage Area 6 Fees. (4 VOTES) |
| | |
| |Authorize the Director, Purchasing and Contracting Department, to take any action authorized by Article XXIII, Section 401, et. |
| |seq. of the San Diego County Administrative Code with respect to contracting for the subject public works project. |
| | |
| |Designate the Director, Department of Public Works, as the County Officer responsible for administering the construction contract,|
| |in accordance with Board Policy F-41, Public Works Construction Contracts. |
| | |
| |Relates to Flood Control District Agenda Item No. 1. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Cox, seconded by Supervisor Slater-Price, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, on Consent.|
| | |
| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |
| |
|15. |SUBJECT: |ESTRELLA DRIVE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER FOR ADDITONAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND REQUEST |
| | |FOR ADDITONAL FUNDS (DISTRICT 2) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |On April 30, 2003 (11), the Board authorized advertisement and contract award for construction of Estrella Drive Storm Drain |
| |Improvements. The contract was awarded to Rutledge Inc., on July 14, 2003. The project consists of constructing a new storm drain |
| |system along the west side of Conrad Drive and south side of Estrella Drive to alleviate downstream flooding on Sierra Madre Road |
| |in the Casa de Oro area (Thomas Guide Page 1271; D-4). There were no pre-existing sub-surface drainage facilities in this area. |
| | |
| |During construction, staff determined that storm runoff from a developed area on the east side of Conrad Drive would flow across |
| |the road and create a hazardous condition for the traveling public. To resolve this problem, the contractor was directed to place|
| |an additional 56 feet of pipe under the road and construct additional storm drain inlets on the east side of Conrad Drive. |
| | |
| |This is a request to approve and authorize an additional $10,000 appropriation to fully fund all changes on this contract, |
| |including extension of the drainage system, bringing total contract cost to $185,000. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |This request will add $10,000 additional appropriations to fully fund this change order. The funding source is TransNet Exchange |
| |funds. If approved, the total costs for this change order will not exceed $31,186. This request will not require additional |
| |staff years. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: |
| |Find in accordance with Section 15304 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines that the project is |
| |categorically exempt from CEQA since it consists of a minor alteration to land. |
| | |
| |Establish $10,000 additional appropriations in the Department of Public Works Detailed Work Program for Estrella Drive Storm Drain|
| |Improvements based on unanticipated revenue from TransNet Exchange. (4 VOTES) |
| | |
| |Authorize the Director, Department of Public Works, in accordance with Section 20142 of the California Public Contract Code, to |
| |execute one or more contract change orders with Rutledge Inc., for construction of additional drainage system for a total cost not|
| |to exceed $31,186. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Cox, seconded by Supervisor Slater-Price, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, on Consent.|
| | |
| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |
| |
|16. |SUBJECT: |ADVERTISE AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW GUARDRAILS ON DEL DIOS HIGHWAY (DISTRICT: 5) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |Each year, Department of Public Works installs guardrails at specified locations to reduce severity of collisions. As part of the|
| |Fiscal Year 2003-04 Guard Rail Program, Department of Public Works identified locations for construction of new guardrails on Del |
| |Dios Highway between Post Miles 13 and 14 (Thomas Guide: 1229: D3). |
| | |
| |Plans and specifications for Del Dios Highway Guardrails are complete. California Department of Transportation is funding Del |
| |Dios Highway Guardrails under the Hazard Elimination System Program. |
| | |
| |This is a request to approve advertisement and subsequent award, to the lowest responsible bidder, of a contract to construct new |
| |guardrails on Del Dios Highway. This request also establishes appropriations for the project. Upon Board approval, and upon |
| |receipt of authorization from California Department of Transportation, the Department of Purchasing and Contracting will advertise|
| |and subsequently award a contract for construction, scheduled to begin in October 2004, and be completed in December 2004. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |Funds for this project are not budgeted in the Department of Public Works Detailed Work Program. This request will add |
| |appropriations based on unanticipated revenue from the Hazard Elimination System Program ($112,860). If approved, this request |
| |will result in up to $112,860 current year costs, no annual cost, and will require no additional staff years. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: |
| |Find, that the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified under Section 15301 of|
| |the State CEQA Guidelines. |
| | |
| |Establish appropriations of $112,860 in the Department of Public Works Detailed Work Program for contract services based on |
| |unanticipated revenue from the Hazard Elimination System Program. (4 VOTES) |
| | |
| |Authorize the Director, Department of Purchasing and Contracting, to take any action authorized by Section 401 et seq. of the |
| |Administrative Code with respect to contracting for subject public works project. |
| | |
| |Designate the Director, Department of Public Works, as the County Officer responsible for administrating the construction |
| |contract, in accordance with Board Policy F-41, Public Works Construction Contracts. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Cox, seconded by Supervisor Slater-Price, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, on Consent.|
| | |
| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |
| |
|17. |SUBJECT: |AUTHORIZATION TO APPLY FOR AND ACCEPT UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, UNITED STATES/MEXICO|
| | |BORDER 2012 PROGRAM GRANT (DISTRICTS: 1 & 2) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Regions 6 and 9, have made funds available for projects in the California/Baja,|
| |Arizona/Sonora, Chihuahua/New Mexico/Texas, and Texas/Coahuila/Nuevo León/Tamaulipas Regional Workgroup areas that address the |
| |objectives of the United States/Mexico Border 2012 Program. The Border 2012 Program has an environmental and public health focus |
| |with approximately $1.2 million dollars available on a competitive basis to border States, Indian Tribes, universities, local |
| |government and non-governmental agencies. The Department of Environmental Health submitted three pre-award proposals to the |
| |United States Environmental Protection Agency in December 2003. United States Environmental Protection Agency has indicated |
| |interest in two of the three proposals. |
| | |
| |The Department of Environmental Health requests Board authorization to apply for and accept, if awarded, the United States |
| |Environmental Protection Agency funding for the following project proposals: (1) Provide emergency response training skills and |
| |establish the framework for a training institute for Mexican fire, law enforcement, and industry personnel reducing the potential |
| |for international assistance; and (2) Establish a Green Business Partnership with Tijuana stakeholders assuring consistent program|
| |standards on both sides of the border. Total funds requested are in the amount of $89,000 for both Fiscal Year 2004-05 and |
| |2005-06. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |Funds for this request are not budgeted in the Department of Environmental Health. The funding source for this request is the |
| |U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. If awarded, these funds will result in an estimated $59,000 in costs and revenue and will |
| |be appropriated during the Fiscal Year 2004-05 First Quarter Adjustment Board Letter. Funds for Fiscal Year 2005-06 in the amount|
| |of $30,000 will be included in the proposed Operational Plan. The funding program requires an in-kind matching contribution of |
| |five percent (5%) of the requested amount. The matching contribution of $4,450 will be from existing budgeted staff time. This is|
| |a full cost recovery program and will result in no additional staff years. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: |
| |Find in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) of the State of California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines that it |
| |can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the |
| |environment and is, therefore, not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. |
| | |
| |Authorize the Director of the Department of Environmental Health to apply for and, if awarded, accept the United States |
| |Environmental Protection Agency United States/Mexico Border 2012 Program grant funds for a total amount of $89,000 for Fiscal Year|
| |2004-05 and Fiscal Year 2005-06. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Cox, seconded by Supervisor Slater-Price, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, on Consent.|
| | |
| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |
| |
|18. |SUBJECT: |AMENDMENT TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH CALTRANS FOR STATE ROUTE 54/94 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN RANCHO SAN |
| | |DIEGO AND SPRING VALLEY (DISTRICT: 2) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |On July 1, 1992 (3), the County of San Diego entered into a Cooperative Agreement with Caltrans for improvements on State Routes |
| |54/94 located in Rancho San Diego, Spring Valley (Thomas Bros. Page 1271 H1 and 1272 A4). At the time of the agreement, these |
| |improvements were to be constructed by the developer of Rancho San Diego Estates as a condition of a land use permit. On March 6, |
| |1996 (1), the Board approved a Settlement Agreement with Rancho San Diego Partners to take over the developer’s responsibilities |
| |for constructing this project. Of the total deposited per the agreement, $4,900,000 was allocated for State Route 54/94. |
| |The project will improve Campo Road (SR 94) from Jamacha Blvd. to the Campo Road intersection, and Jamacha Road (SR 54) from the |
| |intersection to Brabham Street, to a six-lane highway in accordance with the County of San Diego Circulation Element. Phase 1 was|
| |completed on March 10, 1999 as part of the Rancho San Diego Shopping Center project. This phase widened Jamacha Road (SR 54) from|
| |395 feet west of the Campo Road intersection easterly to Fury Lane. |
| |On May 4, 1999 (7), the Board approved an amendment to the Cooperative Agreement continuing the County’s obligation to fully fund |
| |the cost of planned improvements. This agreement expires on June 30, 2004. In 1999, construction was anticipated in 2002-03, |
| |however delays were encountered in obtaining Caltrans approval of the Project Study Report and Environmental Impact Report. These |
| |issues are now resolved. |
| |This is a request to approve an amendment extending the Cooperative Agreement until June 30, 2007, which will give sufficient time|
| |to complete construction of State Route 54/94 improvements. The Environmental Impact Report for the project will be brought to the|
| |Board for approval in Summer 2004, and construction is scheduled to begin in 2005. Completion of the project will ease congestion |
| |and enhance safety for the motoring public. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |The State Route 54/94 total project cost is estimated at $6.6 million, and is funded with TransNet and Developer Deposit funds. |
| |If approved, this request will result in no current year cost, no annual cost, and will not require the addition of staff years. |
| |Full fiscal information will be provided when the Board is requested to approve advertisement and award for construction. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: |
| |Find that the proposed activity is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified under CEQA Guidelines |
| |Section 15060 (c)(3) because it is an administrative action and not a project as defined in Section 15378 of the State CEQA |
| |Guidelines. |
| | |
| |Authorize the Clerk of the Board to execute, upon receipt, the amendment to the Cooperative Agreement with Caltrans for certain |
| |road improvements on SR 54/94. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Cox, seconded by Supervisor Slater-Price, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, on Consent.|
| | |
| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |
| |
|19. |SUBJECT: |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT NO. 4392-2 APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT TO IMPROVE SUBDIVISION, RELEASE |
| | |OF LIEN CONTRACT AND TERMINATION OF HOLDING AGREEMENT LOCATED IN BONSALL COMMUNITY PLAN AREA (DISTRICT: |
| | |5) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |Tract 4392-2 is a planned subdivision consisting of 22 residential lots, and a total of 154.31 acres. It is located in the Bonsall|
| |area 300 feet north of the intersection of Camino Cantera and Via Subria. (Thomas Guide, Page 1088, D-1, 2004 Edition) |
| | |
| |The project is being brought before the Board for approval of Amendment to Agreement to Improve Subdivision, Release of Lien |
| |Contract and Termination of Holding Agreement. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |N/A |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: |
| |Approve the Amendment to Agreement to Improve Subdivision, Release of Lien Contract and Termination of Holding Agreement, for |
| |street and drainage improvements and setting of final monuments, and authorize execution by the Clerk of the Board (Attachment B).|
| | |
| |Approve the Amendment to Agreement to Improve Subdivision, Release of Lien Contract and Termination of Holding Agreement, for |
| |water facility improvements, and authorize execution by the Clerk of the Board (Attachment E). |
| | |
| |Direct the Clerk of the Board to forward the executed agreements in recommendations 1 and 2 above to the County Recorder for |
| |recordation and to notify the Holding Company. |
| | |
| |Grant an extension of time for the performance completion date for County of San Diego Tract 4392-2 to February 8, 2006. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Cox, seconded by Supervisor Slater-Price, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, on Consent.|
| | |
| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |
| |
|20. |SUBJECT: |EXTENSION OF PERFORMANCE COMPLETION DATES ON VARIOUS BONDED AGREEMENTS TO COMPLETE SUBDIVISION |
| | |IMPROVEMENTS (DISTRICTS 2 AND 5) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |On July 6, 1976 (34) the Board of Supervisors approved a process for extending time to complete improvements for major |
| |subdivisions. In this process, the Department of Public Works reviews all existing subdivision agreements every four months and |
| |determines if a time extension for agreements whose completion dates are approaching is warranted. This process is more efficient |
| |than reviewing and preparing Board Letters for each subdivision agreement as it nears expiration. |
| | |
| |Board approval is requested to extend subdivision improvement completion dates for developers with existing bonded agreements to |
| |June 23, 2006. Projects are listed by their tentative map numbers. All have final maps previously approved by the Board. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |Recommended action has no fiscal impact and will require no additional staff years. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: |
| |Find in accordance with Section 15060(c)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines that extension of |
| |agreements to complete subdivision improvements is not a project as defined in Section 15378. |
| | |
| |Extend to June 23, 2006, the performance completion date in subdivision agreements for developments referenced by Tentative Map |
| |numbers 3734-2, 3786-1, 3832-10, 3832-6, 3832-7, 3832-8, 3832-9, 4016-1, 4053-2, 4062-1, 4062-2, 4227-1, 4227-2, 4229-1, 4229-2, |
| |4229-3, 4229-4, 4249-3, 4348-1, 4351-1, 4449-1, 4459-1, 4553-1, 4554-2, 4569-1, 4569-3, 4569-4, 4569-5, 4569-6, 4613-1, 4613-2, |
| |4665-1, 4805-1, 4831-1, 4837-1, 4844-1, 4847-1, 4867-1, 4901-1, 4908-1, 4944-1, 5004-1, 5004-2, 5004-3, 5004-4, 5005-1, 5011-1, |
| |5016-2, 5037-1, 5037-2, 5059-1, 5067-1, 5067-6, 5073-1, 5092-1, 5152-1, 5153-2, 5166-1, 5168-1, 5189-1, 5196-1, 5216-1, 5256-1. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Cox, seconded by Supervisor Slater-Price, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, on Consent.|
| | |
| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |
| |
|21. |SUBJECT: |ESTABLISH APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNANTICIPATED REVENUE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE |
| | |EXTENSION – FARM AND HOME ADVISORS OFFICE (DISTRICT: ALL) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |The Farm and Home Advisors Office conducts programs of education and applied research in a three-way partnership with the County |
| |of San Diego, University of California (UC) and United States Department of Agriculture. This brings the resources of all three |
| |together to address local issues, and to empower individuals and organizations with research-based information to improve |
| |themselves and their communities. Thirteen academic advisors are University extension professionals with expertise in Agriculture |
| |and Plant Science, Marine and Natural Resources, Youth Development, Nutrition and Food Safety, Family and Consumer Science, Water |
| |Quality and Environmental Issues, Invasive Plants, Home Horticulture/Master Gardeners, and Integrated Pest Management. Support |
| |staff and 1,250+ volunteers provide coordination and assistance for 4-H, Master Gardener and other related volunteer programs. |
| | |
| |During fiscal year 2003-2004, the Farm and Home Advisors Office implemented a space utilization plan to include construction of |
| |office space and related work areas for academic advisors and support staff. Existing workspace (approximately 40 years old) |
| |hampered the ability to take on new projects and did not meet existing space standards. Construction required an additional |
| |significant effort to relocate storage areas, to renovate and refurbish existing space and to properly furnish additional office |
| |space. A $28,500 appropriation for the completed construction is requested based on unanticipated revenue from the University of |
| |California Cooperative Extension. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |Funding source is the University of California Cooperative Extension. Action requested would establish additional appropriations |
| |of $28,500 with no additional staff cost, no annual cost, and will require no additional staff years. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: |
| |Establish appropriation of $28,500 in the Farm and Home Advisors Office for office space utilization improvements based on |
| |unanticipated revenue from the University of California Cooperative Extension. (4 VOTES) |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Cox, seconded by Supervisor Slater-Price, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, on Consent.|
| | |
| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |
| |
|22. |SUBJECT: |CONTINUTED NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |
| | |OTAY WATER DISTRICT OPEN SPACE EASEMENT VACATION, |
| | |VAC 01-011, SPRING VALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN AREA |
| | |(CARRYOVER FROM 6/16/04, AGENDA ITEM NO. 6) (DISTRICT: 2) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |On June 16, 2004 (6), the Board of Supervisors continued the hearing to June 23, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. |
| | |
| |On May 19, 2004 (4), the Board of Supervisors set a hearing for June 16, 2004. |
| | |
| |This is a request to vacate a 1.29-acre portion of open space easement, next to an existing Otay Water District water tank at 2105|
| |Ledge Avenue. This Vacation will allow the Otay Water District to construct a second water tank on top of this hill. The water |
| |tank site is surrounded by 36.50 acres of dedicated open space, which will remain. Access is provided via a paved access road |
| |extending up the hill from the terminus of Ledge Avenue. The open space easement was required as a condition of approval of |
| |Tentative Map 4828, recorded May 12, 1999 (Maps 14152, 13779, 13780, and 13781). The General Plan Land Use Designation is (21) |
| |Specific Plan Area within the Spring Valley Community Plan. The zoning on the site is S88 Specific Plan Area Use Regulations. |
| |The Pointe Specific Plan was adopted on February 27, 1980 and allows essential public facilities such as a water tank. |
| | |
| |The vacation of open space easements is a two-step process. The first step is to set a date for the public hearing and direct the|
| |Clerk of the Board to provide notice and posting as required by law. The second step is to adopt a resolution to vacate portions |
| |of open space easements at the close of public hearing. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |N/A |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE: |
| |At the close of public hearing, adopt a Resolution entitled: “RESOLUTION OF VACATION OF STREET, HIGHWAY, OR PUBLIC SERVICE |
| |EASEMENT (VAC 01-011, Otay Water District)” |
| | |
| |At the close of public hearing, direct the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to record the Resolution of Vacation, which includes |
| |the findings and determinations required by law. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Cox, seconded by Supervisor Slater-Price, the Board of Supervisors closed the Hearing and took action as |
| |recommended, on Consent, adopting Resolution No. 04-123, entitled: RESOLUTION OF VACATION OF STREET, HIGHWAY, OR PUBLIC SERVICE |
| |EASEMENT (VAC 01-011, OTAY WATER DISTRICT). |
| | |
| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |
| |
|23. |SUBJECT: |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |
| | |SECOND CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES: |
| | |TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS (DISTRICTS 2 & 5) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |On June 16, 2004 (7), the Board of Supervisors submitted ordinances for further consideration on June 23, 2004. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: |
| |Adopt Ordinances entitled: |
| |AMEND ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 72.161.35.1. OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN |
| |DIEGO |
| |ADD ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 72.161.35.6. TO THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO |
| |ADD ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 72.243.27.41. TO THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO|
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Cox, seconded by Supervisor Slater-Price, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, on Consent,|
| |adopting the following: |
| | |
| |Ordinance No. 9659 (N.S.), entitled: AMEND ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 72.161.35.1. OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO |
| |TRAFFIC REGULATIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; |
| | |
| |Ordinance No. 9660 (N.S.), entitled: ADD ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 72.161.35.6. TO THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC |
| |REGULATIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; and |
| | |
| |Ordinance No. 9661 (N.S.), entitled: ADD ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 72.243.27.41. TO THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC |
| |REGULATIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO |
| | |
| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |
| |
|24. |SUBJECT: |CLOSED SESSION |
| | |(Carryover from 6/22/04, Item No. 16) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION |
| |(Subdivision (a) of Government Code section 54956.9) |
| |The Rural Lands Initiative Committee, et al. v. Sally McPherson, et al.; San Diego County Superior Court No. GIC 823071 |
| | |
| |B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION |
| |Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Government Code section 54956.9: (Number of Potential Cases – |
| |1) |
| | |
| |C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION |
| |Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Government Code section 54956.9: (Number of Potential Cases – |
| |1 |
| |ACTION: |
| |County Counsel reported that in Closed Session, on June 22, 2004, the Board of Supervisors took action on Item A: Rural Lands |
| |Iniative Committee v. Sally McPherson; San Diego Superior Court No. GIC. 823071. By vote of the four members of the Board present|
| |and voting “Aye,” with District 4 absent, the Board authorized waiver of an appeal from the Final Order and Judgment entered by |
| |the Superior Court. |
There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 11:04 a.m., in memory of Larry Triplett, Sr., Paul Cour, and Clare Schwab.
THOMAS J. PASTUSZKA
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
County of San Diego, State of California
Notes: Tosh
NOTE: This Statement of Proceedings sets forth all actions taken by the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors on the matters stated, but not necessarily the chronological sequence in which the matters were taken up.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- clare county council clare county council
- final determination of program adequacy michigan
- the origins of bridget carmody
- city of duluth street listing
- city of palm coast ordinance no
- maryland historical trust
- pre planning ref no clare county council clare county
- presque isle county road commission
- united states department of agriculture
- county of san diego board of supervisors
Related searches
- san diego gs pay scale
- uchs san diego bell schedule
- san diego writer s conference 2020
- university high school san diego ca
- city of new haven board of education
- san diego city high school
- san diego high schools
- san diego county high schools
- san diego writers conference
- preliminary change of ownership san diego ca
- san diego county retirement association
- 2019 san diego county fair