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 16, 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 9:12 a.m.

Present: Supervisors Dianne Jacob, Chairwoman; Pam Slater-Price, Vice Chairwoman; Greg Cox; Ron Roberts; Bill Horn; also Thomas J. Pastuszka, Clerk.

Approval of Statement of Board of Supervisor’s Proceedings/Minutes for the Meeting of May 19, 2004.

ACTION:

ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Cox, the Board of Supervisors approved the Statement of Proceedings/Minutes for the Meeting of May 19, 2004.

AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn

Board of Supervisors’ Agenda Items

|1. |CONTINUED NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| |GENERAL PLAN 2020: TRAFFIC MODELING AND RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DISTRIBUTION MAP |

|2. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| |MAILED BALLOT PROCEEDING RESULTS AND FORMATION HEARING FOR PROPOSED SAN DIEGO COUNTYWIDE PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION NO. 1000, ZONE NO. |

| |1014 – LAVENDER POINT LANE IN THE VALLEY CENTER AREA |

|3. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| |SOMERMONT VIEW: ZONE RECLASSIFICATION, R00-005, PEPPER DRIVE–BOSTONIA PLAN AREA |

|4. |ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY FIRE SAFETY AND FUELS REDUCTION PROGRAM |

|5. |FIRESTORM 2003 RESPONSE: COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ENERGY OFFICE AND SDG&E, TO IMPLEMENT |

| |THE "REBUILD A GREENER SAN DIEGO" REBATE PROGRAM |

|6. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| |OTAY WATER DISTRICT OPEN SPACE EASEMENT VACATION, VAC 01-011, SPRING VALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN AREA |

|7. |TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS |

|8. |SOUTH SANTA FE AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION, AGREEMENTS AND PERMIT |

| |APPLICATION |

|9. |MISSION ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN FALLBROOK – ACQUISITION OF PARCEL NUMBER 2001-0043-A, B (FALLBROOK INN) AND PARCEL NUMBER |

| |2001-0044-A, B (HAMPTON) |

| |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): TRANSNET REVENUE] |

|10. |SET HEARING FOR 8/4/04 |

| |PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF PARCELS WITHIN COUNTYWIDE PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION NO. 1000; APPROPRIATIONS TRANSFER TO PERMANENT ROAD |

| |DIVISION ZONE 21 – PAUMA HEIGHTS |

|11. |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT NOS. 3702-1 AND 3702-2, APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO JOINT AGREEMENTS TO IMPROVE SUBDIVISION - SUBSTITUTION |

| |OF PARTIES LOCATED IN LAKESIDE COMMUNITY PLAN AREA |

| |(RELATES TO SANITATION DISTRICT AGENDA NO. 3) |

|12. |CLOSED SESSION |

| |(Carryover from 6/15/04 (29)) |

|13. |PUBLIC COMMUNICATION |

|1. |SUBJECT: |CONTINUED NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| | |GENERAL PLAN 2020: TRAFFIC MODELING AND RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DISTRIBUTION MAP |

| | |(DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On May 19, 2004 (1) the Board of Supervisors continued the Hearing to June 16, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. |

| |On October 1, 2003 (4) the Board of Supervisors directed staff to conduct traffic forecasts for seven future land use scenarios, |

| |and to return to the Board with information on groundwater conditions. The purpose of this hearing is to review information on |

| |traffic forecasts for the eight scenarios, to review updated information on groundwater conditions, and to receive Board direction|

| |for staff recommendations on a residential land use distribution map. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |N/A |

| |BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT: |

| |Updating the General Plan should assist the business community by providing a reliable blueprint for how population will be |

| |accommodated and for sitting commercial, industrial, and other land uses to meet projected needs. The ability to rely on the |

| |General Plan 2020 Environmental Impact Report’s cumulative impact analysis should shorten the entitlement process. |

| |RECOMMENDATION(S): |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Accept the April 2004 Working Copy map for use as the baseline residential land use distribution for the preparation of the GP2020|

| |Environmental Impact Report (EIR). |

| |Evaluate pipeline projects in the Environmental Impact Report’s cumulative impact analysis to ensure impacts are included in the |

| |review. |

| |Defer review of non-residential properties until an assessment is conducted for commercial and industrial land use within each |

| |community. |

| |ACTION: |

|1. |ON MOTION of Supervisor Horn, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board of Supervisors took action on Referral No. 110 |

| |recommending the entire property, comprised of three parcels, be designated SR10. |

| | |

| |AYES: Cox, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| |RECUSED: Jacob |

|1.1 |ON MOTION of Supervisor Horn, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board of Supervisors closed the hearing and took action as |

| |recommended in Chief Administrative Officer Recommendations and made the following additional recommendations: |

| |Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to create a new “Consensus Alternative Map,” studied at the same level as the baseline |

| |map, based upon the April 2004 recommendation which reflects the following changes: |

| |In Bonsall the map should reflect the October Traffic Referral densities for Referrals number 4, 5, 7 and P. |

| |In Fallbrook the map should reflect the October Traffic Referral densities for 8 and 13. |

| |In North County Metro, the map should reflect the October Traffic Referral density for Referral No. 16 and include the |

| |recommendation by Jim Chagala to include 309 acres at SR10. |

| |On Referral 17 the map should reflect SR4. |

| |The Twin Oaks map should reflect the October Traffic Referral densities for Numbers 24 through 27 and this area should be |

| |designated as a Special Study Area that is subject to further refinement. |

| |The Pala-Pauma map should reflect the October Traffic Referral densities for numbers 31 through 33, 36 through 39, 42, 43, and 48.|

| |On Referral 41 the map should retain the existing General Plan density as a base density, with the option to increase the density |

| |in certain developable areas if it furthers the County’s habitat planning. |

| |On Referral 46 the map should reflect a density of SR10. |

| |In Rainbow, on Referral 52, the map should reflect a density of SR10. |

| |In San Dieguito the map should reflect the October Traffic Referral densities for numbers 55, 56, 58 through 60, 63, and 65. |

| |On referral 62 the map should reflect the October Traffic Referral densities and include APN 222-130-19. |

| |In Olivenhain, the Perkins property should be designated SR4 like the Encinitas General Plan proposes. |

| |In Valley Center the map should reflect the October Traffic Referral densities for Referrals Number 67, 69, 71, 77, 84, 86, 87, |

| |and 90. |

| |Regarding the Ridge Ranch II Specific Plan Area this SPA designation. |

| |This alternative study should also include the senior housing density requested by the Castle Creek Golf Course. |

| |The map should reflect the request by Pacific Paradise Nursery to designate the property SR2. |

| |On Referral 80 the map should reflect a density of SR10. |

| |On Referral 83 the map should reflect a density of RL20. |

| |On Referrals 85 and 88 the map should reflect a density of SR10. |

| |In the North Mountain Area the map should reflect the October Traffic Referral densities for 177 through 179. |

| |Any of these areas that could be construed as islands or spot densities, the adjoining parcels should be changed to match the |

| |recommendations in this motion. |

| |In North County the modified map should remove the RL80 and RL160 designations. |

| |The modified map should recommend no designations below RL20 for properties within County Water Authority line in the Community |

| |Planning Areas of Valley Center, Pala-Pauma, North County Metro, and Fallbrook. |

| |Adding the following to the Alternative Map: |

| |Adopt the October traffic referral recommendation for Referral numbers 97, 99, 100, 101, 103, 112, and 130. |

| |Adopt designations from the August 2003 working copy map for three Referrals: an, ap, and No. 98. |

| |Adopt the compromise language for Referral numbers 102 and 104 that include designations of one dwelling unit per four acres, one |

| |dwelling unit per 10 acres, and one dwelling unit per 20 acres. |

| |Designate one dwelling unit per 40 acres for Referral No. 106 and the adjacent land in the island that is surrounded by public |

| |lands as well as in the areas for Referral No. 116 that are not already dedicated open space. |

| |In the communities of Julian and Ramona eliminate one dwelling unit per 80 acres designations and the one dwelling unit per 160 |

| |acre designations. |

| |Direct Staff to work with the Valle De Oro Planning Group to define and apply an impact sensitive designation to Referral No. 145.|

| |Designate Referral No. 148 area C in Descanso, as one dwelling unit per four acres, which is consistent with the agreement between|

| |the Planning Group and the property owners. |

| |Referral No. 164, which is adjacent to an Indian Reservation, where there is a proposed casino, and neighboring properties not in |

| |the Forest Conservation districts, should be designated, one dwelling unit per 20 acres. |

| |In the Ramona area, eliminate the designations on vacant properties designated 24 dwelling units per acre and 14.5 dwelling units |

| |per acre where they may be, they are mostly in the town center area, but if there are some outside, they are to be included. |

| |Direct staff to designate these properties for analysis purposes with nothing more dense than 7.3 dwelling units per acre and to |

| |work with the Ramona Town Center working group on density and design in the town center area and if there is community consensus, |

| |then bring it back at the appropriate time for the Board to take another look at higher densities. |

| |Direct staff to evaluate, address, and reconcile the Ramona Planning Group’s population numbers and to include those numbers in |

| |the analysis. |

| |The “Peck” property, direct staff to evaluate the request and to assign density in accordance with the context of the surrounding |

| |area and the GP2020 plan. |

| |For the “Rancho Esquilago” property, direct staff to evaluate it as a part of the Ramona Grasslands “special study area.” Staff |

| |acknowledges that this area is subject to further refinement and should make sure that that property is included in the analysis, |

| |in that special study area. |

| |For Referral No. 133, move it forward for analysis, but direct the staff to continue to work with the property owner. |

| |For Referral No.159A direct staff to study one dwelling unit per 20 acres on that property and adjacent areas. |

| |Direct staff to work with the Community Planning Groupto finalize the language in the FCI areas along Willows Road in Alpine. |

| |Direct staff to work with the State Regional Water Quality Control Board on approval of alternative septic systems. |

| |Direct Staff to review the following items (1, 5, 6, and 10) from the San Diegiuto Planning Group, in letter dated June 11, 2004 |

| |(Clerk of the Board Exhibit D): |

| |“ 1. The property identified as #62, Harlan Lowe, consists of 7 legal parcels and 500 acres with two owners and that lave been |

| |reduced in density to 1du/20 acres. We are concerned that these parcels have not been adequately considered for appropriate |

| |zoning and request that this item receive special consideration for better, more intense studies before placing a density |

| |classification onto the property. The northernmost boundary is another of these properties abutting the urban density of San |

| |Elijo Hills.” |

| |“5. The density classification of Village Core maximum of 14.5 du/acre have been placed on the village core of Harmony Grove. |

| |The developer of this project does not intend to develop to that level and we feel it not in the best interest of this community |

| |to place that level of zoning on the area, should the future of this village be changed or end up in the hands of a different |

| |developing company who may or may not be willing to keep the density levels at 7.9 du/acre.” |

| |“6. Although we understand that GP 2020 is intended to offer protection of natural and endangered habitat, we are concerned that |

| |the wording of the proposal presented today gives more support to negative declarations, with elimination of the need for CEQA |

| |findings and EIR’s, that instead the expected, compliant development requires only a negative declaration. In addition, we would |

| |also like to see some ordinance established during this process that limits the impact of sewer on septic communities.” |

| |“10. There are come City-owned properties in the community of Del Dios that contain some sensitive habitat. These properties |

| |currently have overlaid County S-80 zoning, which, as soon as the City sells the properties, it retains that unincorporated |

| |zoning. Since they account for approximately 40% of the open space in the community, we would like to see those parcels currently|

| |owned by the City to be specifically zoned to preserve the open space. There are parcels also on the other side of Del Dios |

| |Highway that need to be re-zoned from 1du/4 acres to 1du/10 or 1du/20 acres to accommodate the very steep slopes.” |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| |

| |

|2. |SUBJECT: |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| | |MAILED BALLOT PROCEEDING RESULTS AND FORMATION HEARING FOR PROPOSED SAN DIEGO COUNTYWIDE PERMANENT ROAD |

| | |DIVISION NO. 1000, ZONE NO. 1014 – LAVENDER POINT LANE IN THE VALLEY CENTER AREA (DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On April 7, 2004 (8), the Board authorized a mailed ballot proceeding to owners of 14 parcels in the proposed Permanent Road |

| |Division Zone No. 1014 – Lavender Point Lane to determine if sufficient support exists to form a district to improve and maintain |

| |.23 mile of existing road. |

| |The hearing today will provide the public an opportunity to speak to the Board regarding the proposed district and work plan. The|

| |results of the mailed ballot proceeding will be reported. Permanent Road Division Law and Article XIIID of the State Constitution|

| |stipulate guidelines under which these districts are formed. The district cannot form unless a weighted majority of the ballots |

| |returned support formation. If results are for district formation, actions requested would establish the Permanent Road Division,|

| |declare Lavender Point Lane to be a public road, and adopt an Ordinance to collect charges for the new district through the tax |

| |roll system. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for administering these requests are budgeted in the Special Districts formation fund. If approved, this request will |

| |result in a current year processing cost of $3,000 charged to formation expense for Lavender Point Lane. The new district will |

| |reimburse accumulated expenditures incurred to form this district. The proposed budget for the road improvement for Lavender |

| |Point Lane is $60,000, which would be financed by loans and benefit assessments. There is no associated annual cost and no |

| |additional staff years are required. |

| |RECOMMENDATION(S): |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, the requested actions are not |

| |subject to the environmental review process, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility they may have a |

| |significant effect on the environment. |

| |Accept and confirm the results of the mailed ballot proceeding. |

| |Adopt a resolution entitled Resolution Establishing San Diego Countywide Permanent Road Division No. 1000, Zone No. 1014 – |

| |Lavender Point Lane. |

| |Adopt a resolution entitled Resolution Declaring Lavender Point Lane to be a Public Road, Declaring Said Road Not a County Highway|

| |and Not Accepted into the County Maintained Road System. |

| |Adopt an Ordinance entitled ORDINANCE PROVIDING A PROCEDURE FOR FIXING AND COLLECTING CHARGES ON THE TAX ROLL FOR SERVICES WITHIN |

| |SAN DIEGO COUNTYWIDE PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION NO. 1000, ZONE NO. 1014 – LAVENDER POINT LANE. |

| |ACTION: |

| |The Clerk having noted that the ballot passed with 83% of ballots returned voting “Yes,” ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, |

| |seconded by Supervisor Horn, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, on Consent; adopting Resolutions: |

| |No. 04-105 entitled: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SAN DIEGO COUNTYWIDE PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION NO. 1000, ZONE NO. 1014 – LAVENDER |

| |POINT LANE; |

| | |

| |No. 04-106 entitled: RESOLUTION DECLARING LAVENDER POINT LANE TO BE A PUBLIC ROAD, DECLARING SAID ROAD NOT A COUNTY HIGHWAY AND |

| |NOT ACCEPTED INTO THE COUNTY MAINTAINED ROAD SYSTEM; and |

| |Ordinance No. 9653 (N.S.) entitled: AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING A PROCEDURE FOR FIXING AND COLLECTING CHARGES ON THE TAX ROLL FOR |

| |SERVICES WITHIN SAN DIEGO COUNTYWIDE PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION NO. 1000, ZONE NO. 1014 – LAVENDER POINT LANE. |

| | |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| |

| |

|3. |SUBJECT: |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| | |SOMERMONT VIEW: ZONE RECLASSIFICATION, R00-005, PEPPER DRIVE–BOSTONIA PLAN AREA (DISTRICT: 2) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |This is a request to change the existing zoning over a portion of the site to delete the Historic Site Special Area Regulations |

| |(“H” Designator). The site is subject to the (5) Residential Land Use Designation (4.3 dwelling units per gross acre) and the |

| |zoning includes the RS4 Single-Family Residential Use Regulation. The site is located east of First Street, just north of the |

| |intersection with Bradley Avenue in the unincorporated portion of the County known as Pepper Drive-Bostonia. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |N/A |

| |RECOMMENDATION(S): |

| |PLANNING COMMISSION: |

| |Adopt the Negative Declaration dated November 27, 2003 with last revision dated March 19, 2004, on file with the Department of |

| |Planning and Land Use as Environmental Review Number 91-14-003. |

| |Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 7586, find that new information and analysis shows that the old house and barn located at |

| |1707 North First Street in El Cajon are: 1) Not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad |

| |patterns of San Diego County’s regional or community history and cultural heritage; 2) Not associated with the lives of persons |

| |important to the history of San Diego County or its communities; 3) Do not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, |

| |period, San Diego region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high|

| |artistic values; or 4) Have not yielded or are unlikely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. |

| |Adopt the Form of Ordinance entitled: |

| |“AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE PEPPER DRIVE–BOSTONIA AREA” |

| |DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE: |

| |The Department of Planning and Land Use concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Horn, the Board of Supervisors closed the hearing and took action as |

| |recommended, on Consent; adopting Ordinance No. 9654 (N.S.) entitled: AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN |

| |PROPERTY IN THE PEPPER DRIVE – BOSTONIA PLAN AREA REF: R00-005, TM 5206RPL1, P00-010. |

| | |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| |

| |

|4. |SUBJECT: |ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY FIRE SAFETY AND FUELS REDUCTION PROGRAM |

| | |(DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |San Diego County is threatened by an extensive tree mortality problem with up to 80% of trees in some coniferous forested areas of|

| |the unincorporated county, dead and dying due to drought and insect damage. This problem poses a significant threat to life and |

| |property from catastrophic wildfires. In March 2003 and again in May 2004, the Governor of California declared a State of |

| |Emergency in the counties of San Diego, San Bernardino and Riverside due to this fire threat. The United States Department of |

| |Agriculture declared a “State of Exigency” releasing funds with reduced or no match to speed the removal of dead, dying and |

| |diseased trees in high risk areas. |

| |In order to prevent wildfires like those experienced in 2003, the Land Use and Environment Group proposes to establish a County of|

| |San Diego Fire Safety and Fuels Reduction Program to include 1) assessment of community fire risks; 2) reduction of fuel loads; 3)|

| |finalization of work plans; 4) prioritization of tree and vegetation removal areas; 5) collaboration with fire agency |

| |representatives and other stakeholders; 6) environmental review; 7) development of policies and guidelines; 8) determination of |

| |best management practices; and 9) community outreach and education. |

| | |

| |On May 19, 2004 (14), the Board authorized approval to accept federal grant funds totaling up to $39.904 million for hazardous |

| |fuels reduction activities. These grant funds must be used to reduce hazardous fuels by removing dead, dying and diseased trees |

| |and includes $1.25 million for woody biomass utilization. It is necessary to obtain $5 million in additional County funds to |

| |integrate activities from these three grants into the County’s comprehensive regional program. Many of the activities essential |

| |to the success of the proposed Fire Safety and Fuels Reduction Program cannot be funded by the federal grants. The scope of the |

| |grants is limited to treatment along specified road right of way, private property, parkland and tribal lands. These County funds|

| |will allow treatment in other public and private property locations at the wildland/urban interface, as well as the technical and |

| |organizational activities necessary for management and integration of multi-departmental activities. |

| |This Board action provides the authorization to establish the Fire Safety and Fuels Reduction Program that will begin work |

| |immediately to maximize federal grant funds and provide comprehensive fuels treatment in all high-risk areas. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |This action will result in the expenditure of up to $5 million in County General Fund, fund balance, to augment the grant |

| |activities over the four-year term of the grants, previously approved by your Board on May 19, 2004 (14). The annual costs during|

| |each of the next four fiscal years will become part of the Operational Plans of the Departments of Agriculture Weights and |

| |Measures, Planning and Land Use, Public Works, and Parks and Recreation, and Farm and Home Advisor, as part of the budget change |

| |letter process. Expenditures as required, in Fiscal Year 2003-04 will be from Land Use and Environment Group existing |

| |appropriations. |

| |BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT |

| |The County is committed to enlisting local agencies and technical experts to reduce fire hazards and support economic viability |

| |through utilization of resulting woody biomass. |

| |RECOMMENDATION(S): |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find that the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified under Public Resources |

| |Code Section 21080(b)(3), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15269(a), for Declared Emergency projects, for the reasons detailed in the |

| |Notice of Exemption Form dated May 11, 2004 on file with the Department of Planning and Land Use and attached to this Board |

| |request. |

| |Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to establish the Fire Safety and Fuels Reduction Program. |

| |Waive Board Policy A-91, Mid-Year Budget Changes, to allow for the expenditure of existing appropriations, as required, in Fiscal |

| |Year 2003-04. |

| |In accordance with Article XXIII, Section 401, et seq. of the County Administrative Code, authorized the Director of Purchasing |

| |and Contracting to issue Competitive Solicitations and award contracts for services as required and to amend the contracts as |

| |needed to reflect changes to services and funding, subject to approval of the Director of Public Works. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Horn, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, on |

| |Consent. |

| | |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| |

| |

|5. |SUBJECT: |FIRESTORM 2003 RESPONSE: COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ENERGY OFFICE |

| | |& SDG&E, TO IMPLEMENT THE "REBUILD A GREENER SAN DIEGO" REBATE PROGRAM |

| | |(DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The County of San Diego implemented the Green Building Incentive Program on April 15, 1997 (41), at the recommendation of Vice |

| |Chairwoman Slater-Price, with the adoption of Board Policy F-50 Voluntary Resource-Efficient Guidelines on New Construction and |

| |Building Renovation Projects. On December 3, 2003 (2), the Board of Supervisors received a report on improvements to the County’s|

| |Green Building Incentive Program and public outreach efforts to promote the program. Additionally, 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. On |

| |January 7, 2004 (2) the Board received the report summarizing the proposed actions. |

| |The “Rebuild a Greener San Diego” rebate program encourages fire victims who lost their homes during Firestorm 2003 to adopt the |

| |latest efficiency and renewable technologies when rebuilding their homes and offers financial incentives to help them get back on |

| |their feet. The program will have three primary elements. The first element is enhanced energy efficiency incentives for new |

| |construction, which would provide a rebate of up to $2,000 to participants who purchase and install energy efficiency measures |

| |from a pre-approved list of items including high performance (energy-efficient) heating and/or cooling equipment (furnaces, air |

| |conditioners, programmable thermostats, whole house fans), water heaters, windows, and air ducts. The second element of the |

| |program would provide incentives to homeowners who install solar, wind, or fuel cell technologies to "self-generate" power, and |

| |would offer rebates of up to $4 per watt for installing self-generation systems. The third element would enable groups involved |

| |with this effort to provide technical assistance through a series of workshops and educational materials designed to simplify the |

| |decisions and educate the owner, builder and contractor about energy efficient options. |

| |This is a request for authorization to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with the City of San Diego, San Diego Regional Energy |

| |Office and SDG&E, to implement the “Rebuild a Greener San Diego” Rebate Program. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |The waiver of building permit fees for victims of the Cedar and Paradise fires is considered to be the County of San Diego’s |

| |financial contribution and additional funding is not required of the County to participate in the program. |

| |RECOMMENDATION(S): |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Authorize the Director of the Department of Planning and Land Use, as agent of the County, to conduct all negotiations and execute|

| |a Cooperative Agreement with the City of San Diego, San Diego Regional Energy Office, and the San Diego Gas and Electric Company, |

| |to implement the “Rebuild a Greener San Diego” Rebate Program. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Horn, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, on |

| |Consent. |

| | |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| |

| |

|6. |SUBJECT: |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| | |OTAY WATER DISTRICT OPEN SPACE EASEMENT VACATION, VAC 01-011, SPRING VALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN AREA (DISTRICT: |

| | |2) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |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(S): |

| |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 Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Slater-Price, the Board of Supervisors continued the hearing to June 23, |

| |2004 at 9:00 a.m. |

| | |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Horn |

| |ABSENT: Roberts |

| |

| |

|7. |SUBJECT: |TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS (DISTRICTS: 2, 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The Traffic Advisory Committee (TAC) meets every six weeks to review proposed changes or additions to regulatory traffic controls.|

| |Twelve items were on the Committee's April 23, 2004, meeting agenda. The Committee recommends your action on all twelve items with|

| |one of these items recommended for continuance. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for this proposal are budgeted in the Department of Public Works Road Fund. |

| |RECOMMENDATION(S): |

| |TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE |

| |Consider and file report including the following recommendations: |

| |DISTRICT 2 |

| |2-A. Keyes Road and Steffy Road, RAMONA-Do not establish an all-way stop control. |

| |2-B. Tenth Street and H Street, RAMONA-Continue the matter of placing this intersection on the County’s Traffic Signal Priority |

| |List to a future TAC date to allow the Department of Public Works time to address overgrown vegetation, relocate existing signage |

| |and examine alternate methods of highlighting the fire station entrance. |

| |2-C1. Julian Avenue and Lemon Crest Drive, LAKESIDE- Do not establish an all-way stop control. |

| | |

| |2-C2. Julian Avenue, south side, from the west line of Lemon Crest Drive westerly 60 feet, LAKESIDE -Establish a parking |

| |prohibition. |

| |2-D. Conrad Drive from Campo Road northerly to Vista del Sol, CASA DE ORO- Direct the existing 35 MPH speed limit posting be |

| |recertified for radar enforcement. |

| |2-E. Willow Road from SR-67 to Wildcat Canyon Road/Ashwood Street, LAKESIDE-Establish a seven-ton weight limitation. Designate |

| |SR-67/Mapleview Street/Ashwood Street as the reasonable unrestricted alternate route. |

| |2-F1. Calle Albara from the east line of Wieghorst Way easterly to the west line of Jamacha Road, RANCHO SAN DIEGO-Direct the |

| |existing 35 MPH speed limit posting be recertified for radar enforcement. |

| |2-F2. Marlinda Way, east side, from a point 420 feet south of the south line of the cul-de-sac southerly 120, EL CAJON-Establish a|

| |passenger loading zone. |

| |2-F3. B Street, south side, from a point 40 feet west of the west line of Fourth Street westerly 40 feet, JULIAN-Establish two |

| |disabled parking spaces. |

| |2-F4. Main Street (SR-78), east side, from a point 220 feet south of the south line of Seventh Street southerly 35 feet, |

| |RAMONA-Establish a parking prohibition. |

| |DISTRICT 5 |

| |5-A. Lake Wohlford Road/North Lake Wohlford Road from the Escondido City Limit to Valley Center Road, VALLEY CENTER-Maintain the |

| |existing 50 MPH speed limit on Lake Wohlford Road from the Escondido City Limit easterly to Guejito Road. Lower the existing 50 |

| |MPH speed limit on North Lake Wohlford Road, from Guejito Road northerly to Valley Center Road, to 45 MPH. Direct both the |

| |existing 50 MPH and proposed 45 MPH speed limit postings be certified for radar enforcement. |

| |5-B. Rambla de las Flores from La Granada southerly to La Orilla, RANCHO SANTA FE- Direct the existing 40 MPH speed limit posting |

| |be recertified for radar enforcement. |

| |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. |

| |Concur with Traffic Advisory Committee's recommendations. |

| |Adopt, amend and/or delete the following Resolutions. |

| |No. 300 (Item 2-F2) |

| |No. 301 (Items 2-C2 and 2-F4) |

| |No. 1197 (Item 2-F3) |

| |Approve the introduction, read title and waive further reading (first reading) of the following Ordinances (Items 2-E and 5-A). |

| | |

| | |

| |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|

| |Submit for further Board consideration and adoption (second reading), on June 23, 2004. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Horn, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, on |

| |Consent; submitting ordinance for further consideration on June 23, 2004 and adopting Resolution No. 04-107 entitled: TRAFFIC |

| |RESOLUTION NO. 2899, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 300 RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMNET OF LOADING ZONES IN THE COUNTY |

| |OF SAN DIEGO; |

| |Resolution No. 04-108 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2900, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO THE |

| |ESTABLISHMENT OF NO STANDING OR PARKING ZONES IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; |

| |Resolution No. 04-109 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2901, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO THE |

| |ESTABLISHMENT OF NO STANDING OR PARKING ZONES IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; |

| |.Resolution No. 04-110 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2902, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 1197 RELATING TO THE |

| |ESTABLISHMENT OF DISABLED PARKING SPACES IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; |

| | |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| |

| |

|8. |SUBJECT: |SOUTH SANTA FE AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION, |

| | |AGREEMENTS AND PERMIT APPLICATION (DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |South Santa Fe Avenue is north of State Route 78 and south of Monte Vista Drive in northwest San Diego County. South Santa Fe |

| |Avenue runs parallel to State Route 78 providing an alternate route between the cities of Vista and San Marcos for surrounding |

| |residences and businesses (Thomas Guide page 1108, 2004 edition). In the unincorporated area between Vista and San Marcos, South |

| |Santa Fe Avenue is a two-lane road with occasional center, left-turn pockets. South Santa Fe Avenue is improved to a four-lane |

| |configuration within the Vista City limits. |

| |The South Santa Fe Avenue Reconstruction Project (Project) would widen South Santa Fe Avenue to a four-lane Major Road, with a |

| |center left-turn lane, from the Vista city limit to the San Marcos city limit, an approximate distance of two miles. The Project |

| |also includes realignment and extension of approximately 0.3 mile of Sycamore Avenue between its existing built-out terminus at |

| |the Vista city limits near University Drive, east to South Santa Fe Avenue at Buena Creek Road. Sycamore Avenue would replace |

| |Robelini Drive as the link between South Santa Fe Avenue and State Route 78. The Sycamore Avenue extension includes a drainage |

| |component to improve existing flood control problems associated with Buena Creek. |

| |The intersection and railroad crossing in the vicinity of York Drive and Woodland Drive would be improved. Intersection |

| |improvements also include Palmyra Drive/South Santa Fe Avenue, Poinsettia Avenue/South Santa Fe Avenue, and Smilax Road/South |

| |Santa Fe Avenue. |

| |This letter summarizes the impacts and mitigation measures analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report, and describes the |

| |agreements necessary to construct the railroad crossing improvements. |

| |This request is to certify Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project; adopt necessary findings and statements; approve the|

| |Project; authorize right of way acquisition for construction of the first phase; authorize the acquisition of mitigation land; |

| |approve the agreements with North County Transit District regarding rail crossing maintenance, rail trail easement, and Oceanside |

| |to Escondido Light Rail System; and authorize submittal of the Public Utilities Commission permit application. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |The South Santa Fe Avenue Reconstruction Project is a multi-year project with estimated current funding of $27,555,000. Fiscal |

| |Year 2004-05 Department of Public Works Detailed Work Program includes $7,600,000 for right of way and design costs. Funding |

| |sources include SANDAG Highway TransNet ($9,588,500), Local TransNet ($9,281,300), SR 78 Corridor Funds ($8,235,200), City of |

| |Vista Developer Funds ($200,000) and County Developer Funds ($250,000). There will be no additional staff years required. |

| |RECOMMENDATION(S): |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Certify that Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and attached Errata, dated June 16, 2004, SCH No. 1999061053 have been |

| |completed in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); review and consider information contained therein; and |

| |find that Final EIR reflects independent judgment of the Board of Supervisors. |

| |Adopt Findings Concerning Mitigation of Significant Environmental Effects pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. |

| |Adopt Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines. |

| |Approve South Santa Fe Avenue Reconstruction Project (Project) and adopt Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the |

| |Project. |

| |Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board, to execute, upon receipt, agreements with North County Transit District regarding |

| |Rail Crossing Maintenance, Rail Trail Easement, and Oceanside to Escondido Light Rail System. |

| |Authorize Director, Department of Public Works to apply for permits from Public Utilities Commission, authorizing County to |

| |construct railroad-highway grade crossings consistent with PUC regulations. |

| |Authorize Director, Department of General Services to negotiate and execute right of way permits with North County Transit |

| |District. |

| |Authorize Director, Department of General Services to proceed with right of way negotiations and acquisitions for first |

| |construction phase of South Santa Fe Avenue Reconstruction Project. |

| |Authorize Director, Department of General Services to proceed with appraisals, right of way negotiations, and acquisitions of |

| |mitigation land for the South Santa Fe Avenue Reconstruction Project. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Horn, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, on |

| |Consent. |

| | |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| |

| |

|9. |SUBJECT: |MISSION ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN FALLBROOK – ACQUISITION OF PARCEL NUMBER 2001-0043-A, B (FALLBROOK INN) |

| | |AND PARCEL NUMBER 2001-0044-A, B (HAMPTON) (DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The Mission Road Improvement Project is a part of the Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Operational Plan in the Department of Public Works’ |

| |Detailed Work Program. The project proposes to improve a 0.6-mile section of Mission Road from Pepper Tree Lane to Clemmens Lane |

| |in the community of Fallbrook. The proposed improvements consist of widening travel lanes, the realignment of the intersection of|

| |Mission Road and Old Stage Road, and the addition of drainage structures, concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks and bicycle lanes |

| |in each direction (Thomas Guide page 1027-F4). |

| |The project requires the acquisition of permanent right of way easements from 13 property owners along the roadway. On March 24, |

| |2004 (7), the Board adopted a Resolution of Necessity to initiate an action in eminent domain against eight property owners that |

| |had yet to sign contracts to sell the necessary right of way for the project. |

| |Negotiations with the remaining eight property owners continued and four of the unsigned property owners have since agreed to sell|

| |the necessary rights to the County. Two of the signed contracts were for values less than $50,000 and were approved by the |

| |Director of General Services pursuant to Section 73 of the County Administrative Code. |

| |The Board is requested to approve the attached Real Property Contracts for the purchase of Parcel No. 2001-0043-A, B (Fallbrook |

| |Inn) for $112,697 and Parcel No. 2001-0044-A, B (Hampton) for $148,700. Negotiations with the four unsigned property owners |

| |continues. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds are budgeted in the Department of Public Works’ Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Detailed Work Program. The funding source is TransNet|

| |revenue. If approved this proposal will result in a current year cost of $261,397, no annual cost and no additional staff years. |

| |RECOMMENDATION(S): |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find, that there are no changes in the project or in the circumstances under which it is undertaken which involve significant new |

| |environmental impacts which were not considered in the previously adopted Negative Declaration, dated February 24, 2004 (7), 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 Negative Declaration was prepared. |

| |Approve the Real Property Contracts for the acquisition of easement rights over Parcel No. 2001-0043-A, B (Fallbrook Inn) for |

| |$112,697.00 and Parcel No. 2001-0044-A, B (Hampton) for $148,700 and direct the Clerk of the Board to execute two originals of |

| |each contract. |

| |Authorize the Director, Department of General Services, or assignee, to execute all escrow and related documents to complete these|

| |transactions. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Horn, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, on |

| |Consent. |

| | |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| |

| |

|10. |SUBJECT: |SET HEARING FOR 8/4/04 |

| | |PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF PARCELS WITHIN COUNTYWIDE PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION NO. 1000; APPROPRIATIONS TRANSFER |

| | |TO PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION ZONE 21 – PAUMA HEIGHTS (DISTRICT: 2, 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |Over the past 40 years, nearly 100 special districts (formerly known as County Service Areas and now known as Permanent Road |

| |Division Zones) have been formed for the purpose of improving and maintaining roads within unincorporated San Diego County. A |

| |recent evaluation of each district’s boundary indicated there are several parcels that should be annexed into existing districts. |

| |State Law stipulates that a parcel must be included if it benefits from district road improvements and maintenance. The districts|

| |annexing additional properties are No. 49 - Sunset Knolls Road in Lakeside, No. 63 - Hillview Road in Valley Center, No. 105 - |

| |Alta Loma Drive in Jamul, and No. 117 - Legend Rock in the Escondido area. |

| |This is a request to adopt the Resolution of Intention to Annex Parcels into Zones within San Diego Countywide Permanent Road |

| |Division No. 1000, and to set the annexation hearing date. Noticed property owners whose parcels are to be added to the districts|

| |will have an opportunity to speak to the Board about the proposed annexation of their property, and the Board will consider |

| |adoption of the resolution implementing the recommended annexations. |

| |This is also a request to transfer $40,000 from the Permanent Road Division Internal Service Fund and approve a private bank loan |

| |of $160,000 for the account for Permanent Road Division Zone 21 – Pauma Heights. These actions are needed to finance redesign and|

| |an asphalt concrete overlay for a quarter mile of Pauma Heights Road. The benefiting property owners will repay the loans through|

| |their tax bills. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |The proposed budget for Pauma Heights Road improvement is $470,925, which will be financed by the two new loans, and property and |

| |developer funds on deposit. If approved, these actions will have no impact to the County and will require no additional staff |

| |years. |

| |RECOMMENDATION(S): |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find, in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, it can be seen with |

| |certainty there is no possibility the following actions may have a significant effect on the environment. |

| |Adopt resolutions entitled: |

| |Resolution of Intention to Annex Parcel to San Diego Countywide Permanent Road Division No. 1000, Zone No. 49 – Sunset Knolls |

| |Road. |

| |Resolution of Intention to Annex Parcel to San Diego Countywide Permanent Road Division No. 1000, Zone No. 63 – Hillview Road. |

| |Resolution of Intention to Annex Parcel to San Diego Countywide Permanent Road Division No. 1000, Zone No. 105 – Alta Loma Drive. |

| |Resolution of Intention to Annex Parcels to San Diego Countywide Permanent Road Division No. 1000, Zone 117 – Legend Rock. |

| |Set a hearing date of August 4, 2004, for parcel annexations to Permanent Road Division Zones. |

| | |

| | |

| |Adopt a resolution entitled Resolution Approving the Transfer of Money to San Diego Countywide Permanent Road Division No. 1000, |

| |Zone No. 21 – Pauma Heights and Schedule of Repayment to County. |

| |Authorize the Clerk of the Board to execute the Loan Agreement between California Bank and Trust and the County of San Diego on |

| |behalf of Zone No. 21 - Pauma Heights of San Diego Countywide Permanent Road Division No. 1000. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Horn, 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. 04-111 entitled: RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO |

| |ANNEX PROPERTY TO ZONE NO. 49 – SUNSET KNOLLS ROAD OF SAN DIEGO COUNTYWIDE PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION NO. 1000; |

| |Resolution No. 04-112 entitled: RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ANNEX PROPERTY TO ZONE NO. 63 – HILLVIEW ROAD OF SAN DIEGO COUNTYWIDE |

| |PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION NO. 1000; |

| |Resolution No. 04-113 entitled: RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ANNEX PROPERTY TO ZONE NO. 105 – ALTA LOMA DRIVE OF SAN DIEGO |

| |COUNTYWIDE PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION NO. 1000; |

| |Resolution No. 04-114 entitled: RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ANNEX PROPERTY TO ZONE NO. 117 – LEGEND ROCK OF SAN DIEGO COUNTYWIDE |

| |PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION NO. 1000; |

| |and Resolution No. 04-115 entitled: RE. TRANSFER OF MONEY TO SAN DIEGO COUNTYWIDE PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION NO. 1000, ZONE NO. 21 –|

| |PAUMA HEIGHTS AND SCHEDULE FOR REPAYMENT TO COUNTY. |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| |

| |

|11. |SUBJECT: |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| | |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT NOS. 3702-1 AND 3702-2, APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO JOINT AGREEMENTS TO IMPROVE |

| | |SUBDIVISION - SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES LOCATED IN LAKESIDE COMMUNITY PLAN AREA. (DISTRICT: 2) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |Tract 3702-1 is a planned development consisting of 140 residential lots, one private street lot, nine open space lots, one |

| |recreation lot, one commercial lot, and a total acreage of 395.43 acres. Tract 3702-2 is a planned development consisting of 110 |

| |residential lots, two private street lots, six open space lots, and a total acreage of 407.11 acres. They are both recorded |

| |subdivisions and are located in the Muth Valley area, on the westerly side of Wildcat Canyon Road, approximately two miles north |

| |of Lakeside (Thomas Guide, Page 1212, C & D-4, 5 and 6, 2004 Edition). |

| |This is a request to approve Second Amendments to Joint Agreements to Improve Subdivision (Substitution of Parties), and Second |

| |Amendments to Agreements to Perform Erosion Control (Substitution of Parties). |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |N/A |

| |RECOMMENDATION(S): |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Acting as the Board of Supervisors: |

| |Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board to execute the Second Amendments to Joint Agreements to Improve Major Subdivision |

| |(Substitution of Parties) for Tracts 3702-1 and 3702-2 (Attachments B and L). |

| |Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board to execute the Second Amendments to Agreements to Perform Erosion Control Work |

| |(Substitution of Parties) for Tracts 3702-1 and 3702-2 (Attachments I and S). |

| |Upon approval of recommendations 1 and 2 above, and after recordation of the grant deeds transferring title of Tract Nos. 3702-1, |

| |and 3702-2 to the new owner (High Meadow Ranch LP) authorize the Clerk of the Board to release the current bonds submitted with |

| |the Amendments to Joint Agreements to Improve Major Subdivision, issued by Federal Insurance Company to guarantee construction of |

| |improvements to Tract Nos. 3702-1 and 3702-2, per agenda item #14, on July 17, 2002. |

| |Upon approval of recommendations 1 and 2 above, and after recordation of the grant deeds transferring title of Tract Nos. 3702-1, |

| |and 3702-2 to the new owner (High Meadow Ranch LP) authorize the Clerk of the Board to release the current bonds submitted with |

| |the Amendments to Agreements to Perform Erosion Control Work, issued by Federal Insurance Company to guarantee erosion control |

| |work for Tract Nos. 3702-1 and 3702-2, per agenda item #14, on July 17, 2002. |

| |Acting as the Board of Directors of the Lakeside Sanitation District: |

| |Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board to execute the Second Amendments to Joint Agreements to Improve Major Subdivision |

| |(Substitution of Parties) for Tracts 3702-1 and 3702-2 (Attachments B and L). |

| |Relates to Sanitation District Agenda No. 3. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Horn, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, on |

| |Consent. |

| | |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| |

| |

|12. |SUBJECT: |CLOSED SESSION (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| | |(Carryover from 6/15/04 (29)) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS |

| |(Government Code section 54957.6) |

| |Designated Representatives: Carlos Arauz and Mike Kolb |

| |Employee Organizations: All |

| |ACTION: |

| |No reportable matters. |

| |

| |

|13. |SUBJECT: |PUBLIC COMMUNICATION |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |Anton Botter addressed the Board of Supervisors thanking the Board for road work in front of his business. |

| |ACTION: |

| |Heard; referred to the Chief Administrative Officer. |

There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 3:52 p.m.

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.

Google Online Preview   Download