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, SEPTEMBER 28, 2005, 9:00 AM

Board of Supervisors North Chamber

1600 Pacific Highway, Room 310, San Diego, California

MORNING SESSION: - Meeting was called to order at 9:03 a.m.

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

ABSENT: Supervisor Ron Roberts

Board of Supervisors’ Agenda Items

|1. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| |APPLICANT APPEAL OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR NATIONAL QUARRIES GRANITE SAWS AND PROCESSING PLANT; MAJOR USE PERMIT MODIFICATION |

| |P87 061W1, BONSALL COMMUNITY PLAN AREA |

|2. |ADD STATE ROUTE 76 TO NORTH REGION TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE AND REVIEW DRAFT POLICY ON REDUCTION OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES FOR |

| |COMMERCIAL PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS |

|3. |FUNDING FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT INTERSECTIONS OF RECHE ROAD AND GIRD ROAD, AND MISSION ROAD AND ALVARADO STREET IN FALLBROOK |

| |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): GAS TAX] |

| |(4 VOTES) |

|4. |PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE RESOLUTION: PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE FOR DISSOLUTION OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 86 (WATSON PLACE) |

|5. |SET HEARING FOR 10/19/05 |

| |ADAMS OPEN SPACE EASEMENT VACATION; VAC 04-008, BONSALL COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA |

|6. |ADVERTISE AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR ASPHALT REPAIR & RESURFACING ON VARIOUS COUNTY ROADS |

|7. |SET HEARING FOR 10/26/05 |

| |TOPPER LANE ESTATES, LLC ANNEXATION TO WINTER GARDENS SEWER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, UNINCORPORATED AREA OF EL CAJON |

|8. |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT NO. 5281-1: APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP AND JOINT SECURED AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED |

| |IN SPRING VALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN AREA |

| |(Relates to Sanitation Districts Agenda No. 1) |

|9. |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT NO. 5389-1: APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP LOCATED IN PEPPER DRIVE BOSTONIA COMMUNITY PLAN AREA |

|10 |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| |County of San Diego Tract NO. 5297-1: Approval of Final Map and JOINT Secured Agreement for PUBLIC AND Private Improvements Located |

| |in SPRING VALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN AREA |

| |(Relates to Sanitation Districts Agenda No. 2) |

|11. |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| |CONTINUED NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| |SECOND CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE: |

| |TO CONSIDER WATER RATE ADJUSTMENTS IN THE CAMPO SERVICE AREA |

|12. |CONTINUED NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| |TO VACATE OSAGE DRIVE BETWEEN CANTON DRIVE AND CAMERON DRIVE (VAC 04-004), SPRING VALLEY COMMUNITY PLANNING GROUP |

| |(CARRYOVER FROM 9/21/05, AGENDA NO. 5) |

|13. |CLOSED SESSION |

|14. |PUBLIC COMMUNICATION |

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

| | |APPLICANT APPEAL OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR NATIONAL QUARRIES GRANITE SAWS AND PROCESSING PLANT; MAJOR USE |

| | |PERMIT MODIFICATION P87 061W1, BONSALL COMMUNITY PLAN AREA (DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |This is an Appeal by the applicant of the June 3, 2005 Planning Commission conditions of approval of a Major Use Permit Modification to |

| |allow for the continued use of the on-site granite saws and processing plant at the National Quarries mine at 28474 Twin Oaks Valley |

| |Road. The applicant has appealed condition C.11, which restricts the number of trucks hauling materials into and away from the National|

| |Quarries 210-acre site to 32 trucks per week and a maximum of 21 trucks on any one day. This restriction applies to all haul trucks, |

| |including those associated with the nonconforming mining operation on-site. |

| | |

| |The Major Use Permit for the granite saw and processing plant was approved in December 1987 for 15 years and has since expired. This |

| |Modification to the Major Use Permit was applied for in November 2002, prior to the expiration of the Major Use Permit, and is now |

| |required to continue the operation of the granite saws and processing plant. No change or increase in activity associated with the saws|

| |and processing plant is proposed. The cutting and polishing of granite is operating on the National Quarries site within and associated|

| |with the nonconforming quarry, which has been in operation since about 1940. The large diamond bit circular saw was replaced in the |

| |late 1990s with two diamond wire saws that have improved technology and produce less noise. This use is classified as Mining and |

| |Processing pursuant to Section 1810 of the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to 2825c of the Zoning Ordinance; approval of a Major Use |

| |Permit is required to operate the granite saws and processing plant within the S82 Extractive Use Regulation. The General Plan |

| |designates this site as (18) Multiple Rural Use. The granite saws and processing occur on Assessor’s Parcel 172-063-01, which comprises|

| |68.66 acres of a larger 210.9-acre ownership. This property is located to the northwest of the intersection of Par Valley Drive and |

| |Twin Oaks Valley Road in the Bonsall Community Planning Area. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |N/A |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |Planning Commission |

| |Deny the Appeal and grant Major Use Permit Modification P87-061W1 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 Zoning Ordinance and State Law. |

| | |

| |Department of Planning and Land Use |

| |The Department concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Horn, seconded Supervisor Cox, the Board continued the Hearing for 90 days. |

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

| |ABSENT: Roberts |

| |

| |

|2. |SUBJECT: |ADD STATE ROUTE 76 TO NORTH REGION TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE AND REVIEW DRAFT POLICY ON REDUCTION OF |

| | |TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES FOR COMMERCIAL PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (DISTRICTS: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was changed in 2002 as a result of the court case, Citizens for a Better Environment |

| |(“CBE”) v CRA, which eliminated the “de minimus” exception to the requirement to consider cumulative impacts from development projects. |

| |In response to this change in State law, the County of San Diego designed the Transportation Impact Fee to allow developers, large and |

| |small, to deal with cumulative traffic impacts by paying a fee rather than conducting expensive individual studies. These fees will be |

| |used to defray the costs of constructing transportation facilities necessary to accommodate increased traffic generated by future |

| |development. When combined with public funds to correct existing capacity deficiencies, there will be resources to provide a |

| |transportation system that operates at an acceptable level of service throughout the unincorporated county. |

| | |

| |On April 13, 2005 (1), your Board considered adoption of the Transportation Impact Fee and discussed adding State Route 76 improvements |

| |to the list of facilities in this fee program. Additionally, your Board directed the Chief Administrative Officer to develop a program |

| |or policy that allows the Director of Public Works to reasonably reduce fees on commercial projects by the amount of projected sales tax|

| |increment the project would generate. |

| | |

| |This is a request to add State Route 76 between I-15 and Couser Canyon Road, and ramps east of I-15 to the list of Transportation Impact|

| |Fee Facilities. Additionally, a draft Board policy describing the Reduction of Transportation Impact Fee on Commercial Private |

| |Development Projects has been developed. Section 77.213 of the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance requires that any fee reduction be |

| |addressed by replacement funding. It is recommended that consideration of this policy and funding necessary for implementation be |

| |referred to the budget process for Fiscal Year 2006-07. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Requested action to add State Route 76 between I-15 and Couser Canyon Road, and ramps east of I-15 to the list of TIF Facilities, will |

| |increase the North Regional Transportation Impact Fee by $454 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU), resulting in total revenue of |

| |approximately $29.1 million. |

| | |

| |Adoption of a policy to reduce TIF fees for commercial development would cost an estimated $3M in General Fund annually. Given the |

| |unknown financial situation of the State for Fiscal Year 2006-07 and the many competing priorities for General Fund resources, it is the|

| |CAO's recommendation the matter be referred to the Fiscal Year 2006-07 budget process. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find, pursuant to Section 15273(a)(4) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, that the collection of these fees |

| |will not result in any direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment. Before any projects are approved, |

| |environmental review will be conducted and alternatives and mitigation will be addressed. |

| |Approve and adopt an Addendum to the Transportation Impact Fee Report approved and adopted by the Board on April 20, 2005 (10), to add |

| |State Route 76 (SR 76) between I-15 and Couser Canyon Road, and Ramps East of I-15 to the List of TIF Facilities. |

| |Approve introduction of the Ordinance, (first reading), read title and waive further reading of the Ordinance: |

| |AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 77.208 OF THE COUNTY CODE FOR REGULATORY ORDINANCES RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE |

| |Submit the Ordinance for further Board consideration and adoption (second reading) on October 19, 2005. |

| |Refer consideration of Reduction of Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) on Commercial Private Development Projects policy and funding to the|

| |regular budget process for Fiscal Year 2006-07. It is estimated that adoption of a policy to reduce TIF fees for commercial development|

| |would cost at least $3M in General Fund annually. Given the unknown financial situation of the State for Fiscal Year 2006-07 and the |

| |many competing priorities for General Fund resources, it is the CAO's recommendation the matter be referred to the Fiscal Year 2006-07 |

| |budget process. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Horn, seconded Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, submitting Ordinance for further Board |

| |consideration and adoption on October 19, 2005 and directed the Chief Administrative Officer to look at TIF fees in regards to |

| |commercial or industrial projects that fall within a redevelopment area. |

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

| |ABSENT: Roberts |

| |

| |

|3. |SUBJECT: |FUNDING FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT INTERSECTIONS OF RECHE ROAD AND GIRD ROAD, AND MISSION ROAD AND ALVARADO STREET |

| | |IN FALLBROOK (DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On May 18, 2005 (7), the Board authorized advertisement and award of contract to construct traffic signals at Reche Road and Gird Road |

| |(Thomas Guide page 1028 C-5) and at Mission Road and Alvarado Street (Thomas Guide page 1027 F-2) in Fallbrook. The Board authorized |

| |$530,000 for this contract. |

| |On August 18, 2005, two bids were received and opened. The low bid submitted by DBX Incorporated was $530,462.70, which is slightly |

| |higher than the authorized funding amount.   |

| |This is a request to increase appropriations by $80,000 to a total of $610,000 to fund the construction contract, including contingency.|

| |Upon Board approval, Department of Purchasing and Contracting will award a contract for construction to the low bidder. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for the traffic signals at Reche Road and Gird Road, and Mission Road and Alvarado Street are budgeted in the Department of Public|

| |Works FY 2005-06 Detailed Work Program (carried over from FY 2004-05) in the amount of $530,000. The funding source is Gas Tax. This |

| |request will appropriate an additional $80,000 based on fund balance available in the Road Fund. If approved, this request will result |

| |in $610,000 current year cost, no annual cost, and will require no additional staff years. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find that the proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified under Section 15060(c)(3) of |

| |the State CEQA Guidelines because it is not a project as defined by Section 15378 of the Guidelines. |

| |Establish additional appropriations of $80,000 in the Department of Public Works Detailed Work Program for Traffic Signals at |

| |intersections of Reche Road and Gird Road, and Mission Road and Alvarado Street based on fund balance available in the Road Fund. (4 |

| |VOTES) |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded Supervisor Cox, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |

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

| |ABSENT: Roberts |

| |

| |

|4. |SUBJECT: |PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE RESOLUTION: PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE FOR DISSOLUTION OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 86 (WATSON |

| | |PLACE) (DISTRICT: 2) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code requires that the Board of Supervisors adopt a property tax exchange before the Local Agency|

| |Formation Commission can process a proposal for jurisdictional change. A reorganization request has been filed with the Local Agency |

| |Formation Commission that requires Board action representing independent special districts. |

| |On September 22, 2004 (11), the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution of application proposing dissolution of County Service Area 86|

| |which is within the City of Santee. |

| |An increment of property tax is apportioned to the County Service Area. This request will transfer that increment from the County |

| |Service Area to the City of Santee. |

| |The Local Agency Formation Commission hearing on this request is scheduled for October 3, 2005. If approved by the Local Agency |

| |Formation, the transfer is planned to take place prior to the end of 2005. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |The proposal will have no impact on the County General Fund. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: |

| |Adopt a Resolution entitled: |

| | |

| |“RESOLUTION REGARDING NEGOTIATED PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE RELATIVE TO JURISDICTIONAL CHANGES” |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded Supervisor Cox, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent, adopting Resolution No. 05-188|

| |entitled: RESOLUTION REGARDING NEGOTIATED PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE RELATIVE TO JURISDICTIONAL CHANGES DISSOLUTION OF WATSON PLACE CSA NO. |

| |86. |

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

| |ABSENT: Roberts |

| |

|5. |SUBJECT: |SET HEARING FOR 10/19/05 |

| | |ADAMS OPEN SPACE EASEMENT VACATION; VAC 04-008, BONSALL COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA (DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |This project proposes the vacation of 5,577 square feet (0.128 acres) of an existing open space easement. The easement was placed on |

| |the property for coastal sage scrub habitat, of which 0.06 acres have been impacted. |

| |Board Policy I-103 states that a vacation of open space may be granted if the specified findings can be made. These findings require |

| |the vacation to be in conformance with the General Plan, that the easement is unnecessary for present or prospective public use as a |

| |public service easement, and that the vacation complies with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State and County |

| |California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Policy I-103 also requires that vacated easements placed on property for environmental|

| |mitigation be replaced with the dedication of an equal amount of open space where possible. |

| |The applicant has purchased mitigation credits for 0.18 acres of coastal sage scrub, a 3:1 ratio. Mitigation for coastal sage scrub is |

| |generally at a 2:1 ratio. However, the area of the vacation was considered to be “occupied” by California gnatcatchers. There are |

| |currently no mitigation banks with occupied habitat available. Consequently, the applicant offered to increase the mitigation ratio to |

| |3:1. |

| |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 the public hearing. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |N/A |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE |

| |Set a public hearing for 9:00 a.m. on October 19, 2005. |

| |Direct the Clerk of the Board to provide notice of said hearing via publication and posting as required by law. |

| |At the close of the public hearing on October 19, 2005, adopt the resolution entitled: |

| |“RESOLUTION OF VACATION OF STREET, HIGHWAY OR PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT (VAC 04-008, ADAMS)” |

| |At the close of the public hearing, direct the Clerk of the Board to record the Resolution of Vacation, which includes the findings and |

| |determinations required by law. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded Supervisor Cox, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent, and setting Hearing for 9:00 |

| |a.m. on October 19, 2005. |

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

| |ABSENT: Roberts |

| |

| |

|6. |SUBJECT: |ADVERTISE AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR ASPHALT REPAIR & RESURFACING ON VARIOUS COUNTY ROADS |

| | |(DISTRICT: 1, 2, 3, 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The Department of Public Works is responsible for maintaining nearly 2,000 miles of roads in the unincorporated area of San Diego |

| |County. County road crews inspect all County maintained roads and prioritize them for preventive maintenance. Through scientific |

| |methods, staff determines which roads can be protected with surface treatments and which require asphalt resurfacing and repair of |

| |asphalt dikes. Asphalt resurfacing and repair of asphalt dikes are preventative maintenance that restores the structural integrity of |

| |the road and reduces future maintenance costs. Storm drain manhole adjustment reestablishes maintenance access and allows for visual |

| |inspections inside culverts. Increased maintenance and inspections protect against sudden failure and reduces future maintenance costs |

| |and road repairs. |

| | |

| |This is a request for approval to advertise and award to the lowest responsible bidder, a contract to resurface various roadway segments|

| |and repair asphalt dikes in the unincorporated area of San Diego County. Total cost, including contingency, is approximately $ |

| |4,300,000. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for this request are budgeted in the Department of Public Works Fiscal Year 2005-06 Detailed Work Program. Funding sources are |

| |gas tax revenue ($4,152,000) and contributions from the benefiting Permanent Road Divisions (approximately $148,000) having work |

| |performed in this contract. Total current year cost will be $4,300,000 with no subsequent years and no additional staff years. 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. |

| |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 administering the construction contract in |

| |accordance with Board Policy F-41, Public Works Construction Contracts. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded Supervisor Cox, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |

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

| |ABSENT: Roberts |

| |

|7. |SUBJECT: |SET HEARING FOR 10/26/05 |

| | |TOPPER LANE ESTATES, LLC ANNEXATION TO WINTER GARDENS SEWER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, UNINCORPORATED AREA OF EL |

| | |CAJON (DISTRICT: 2) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |Topper Lane Estates has filed Temporary Parcel Map 20745 for a four lot residential subdivision in the El Cajon area. The property is |

| |located on Topper Lane, 300 feet south of the intersection of Pepper Drive and Topper Lane. Conditions of the map require annexation to|

| |the Winter Gardens Sewer Maintenance District. Extension of the existing public sewer is not required. The Board of Supervisors is the|

| |conducting authority for Winter Gardens Sewer Maintenance District. |

| | |

| |This is a request to set a hearing on October 26, 2005 to adopt a Resolution authorizing annexation of property to the Winter Gardens |

| |Sewer Maintenance District. This petition for annexation is in accordance with the Uniform Sewer Ordinance adopted by the Board of |

| |Supervisors for processing an annexation of property to the Winter Gardens Sewer Maintenance District. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for this proposal are Annexation fees. There will be no fiscal impact to the County General Fund as a result of this action. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find the Negative Declaration on file for Temporary Parcel Map 20745 in the Department of Planning and Lane Use as Log No. ER 03-14-030 |

| |has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, that the|

| |decision-making body has reviewed and considered the information contained therein prior to approving the project, and that the Negative|

| |Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Board of Supervisors, and; |

| | |

| |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 September 1997, 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 ND was prepared. |

| | |

| |Adopt a Resolution entitled Resolution of Intention to Annex Territory to Winter Gardens Sewer Maintenance District, Topper Lane |

| |Estates, LLC, Annexation No. 2005-04, Assessor Parcel Number 388-210-02, setting a public hearing for October 26, 2005 to hear and pass |

| |on the proposal to annex. |

| | |

| |At the close of the October 26, 2005 public hearing, adopt a Resolution entitled Resolution Annexing Territory to Winter Gardens Sewer |

| |Maintenance District, Topper Lane Estates LLC, Annexation No. 2005-04, Assessor Parcel Number 388-210-02. |

| | |

| |Direct the Clerk of the Board to file a certified copy of the Resolution Annexing Topper Lane Estates LLC, together with a legal |

| |description and map of the boundaries, with the County Assessor and the State Board of Equalization and to send the required remittance |

| |to the State Board of Equalization. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded Supervisor Cox, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent, adopting Resolution No. 189 |

| |entitled: RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ANNEX TERRITORY TO WINTER GARDENS SEWER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, TOPPER LANE ESTATES, LLC, ANNEXATION|

| |NO. 2005-04, ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS 388-210-02 and setting Hearing for October 26, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. |

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

| |ABSENT: Roberts |

| |

| |

|8. |SUBJECT: |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| | |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT NO. 5281-1: APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP AND JOINT SECURED AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE |

| | |IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED IN SPRING VALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN AREA (DISTRICT: 1) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |This project is a subdivision consisting of 1 future condominium lot and a total of 15.882 acres. It is located in Spring Valley, on the|

| |southeast side of Jamacha Boulevard at Pointe Parkway (Thomas Guide, Page 1291, F-1). |

| | |

| |The project is being brought before the Board for approval of final map and joint secured agreement for public and private improvements.|

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |N/A |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Acting as the Board of Supervisors: |

| |Approve this map. |

| | |

| |Accept on behalf of the County the access rights from Lot 1 in and to Jamacha Boulevard South (SF 1397) as relinquished and waived on |

| |said map. |

| | |

| |Approve and authorize Clerk of the Board to execute Joint Agreement to Improve Major Subdivision, which includes street and drainage |

| |improvements, sewer and water facilities (Attachment B). |

| | |

| |Approve and authorize Clerk of the Board to execute Improvement Security Agreement, Cash Deposit (Attachment C). |

| | |

| |Relates to Sanitation Districts Agenda No. 1 |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded Supervisor Cox, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |

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

| |ABSENT: Roberts |

| |

| |

|9. |SUBJECT: |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| | |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT NO. 5389-1: APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP LOCATED IN PEPPER DRIVE BOSTONIA COMMUNITY PLAN AREA|

| | |(DISTRICT: 2) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |This project is a subdivision of one future condominium lot, and a total of 1.116 acres. It is located in the Bostonia Community at 547 |

| |Hart Drive, west of Victor Avenue (Thomas Guide, Page 1251, G-3). |

| | |

| |This project is being brought before the Board for approval of final map. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |N/A |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Approve this map. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded Supervisor Cox, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |

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

| |ABSENT: Roberts |

| |

| |

|10. |SUBJECT: |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| | |County of San Diego Tract NO. 5297-1: Approval of Final Map and JOINT Secured Agreement for PUBLIC AND Private |

| | |Improvements Located in SPRING VALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN AREA (DISTRICT: 2) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |This project is a subdivision consisting of 1 future condominium lot and a total of 5.685 acres. It is located in Spring Valley, on the|

| |northwest side of Jamacha Boulevard at Pointe Parkway (Thomas Guide, Page 1291). |

| |The project is being brought before the Board for approval of final map and joint secured agreement for public and private |

| |improvements.. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |N/A |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Acting as the Board of Supervisors: |

| |Approve this map. |

| |Accept on behalf of the County a Pedestrian and Equestrian Trail easement as granted on said map. |

| |Approve and authorize Clerk of the Board to execute Joint Agreement to Improve Major Subdivision, which includes street and drainage |

| |improvements and water facilities. |

| |Approve and authorize Clerk of the Board to execute Amendment to Security Agreement Cash Deposit. |

| |Relates to Sanitation Districts Agenda No. 2 |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded Supervisor Cox, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |

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

| |ABSENT: Roberts |

| |

| |

|11. |SUBJECT: |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| | |CONTINUED NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| | |SECOND CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE: |

| | |TO CONSIDER WATER RATE ADJUSTMENTS IN THE CAMPO SERVICE AREA (DISTRICT: 2) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On September 21, 2005 (4) the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended on Consent, submitting Ordinance for further Board |

| |consideration on September 28, 2005. |

| |On July 27, 2005 (1), the Board held a public hearing to consider water and sewer rate adjustments in the Campo Service Area. At that |

| |meeting, the Board continued consideration and adoption of an Ordinance amending sewer fees to August 2, 2005. The Board also directed |

| |the Chief Administrative Officer to revise the proposed Ordinance related to water service rates to reflect a declining schedule of |

| |County subsidies over a five year period in a manner similar to the adjusted sewer rate schedule, and to report to the Board what would |

| |happen to County costs if 50% or 100% of the non-County customers left the systems. |

| |At the August 2, 2005 (62) Board meeting, the Board further directed that new connections to the Campo Water and Sewer Systems be |

| |conditioned to waive applicable noticing requirements and pay the full cost recovery rate. This condition is included in today’s |

| |proposed Ordinance related to water service rates and in the sewer Ordinance adopted by the Board on August 2. |

| |This item provides a new rate schedule for Water Services, and provides an estimate of what would happen to County costs if 50% or 100% |

| |of non-county customers left the system. A full-cost recovery financing plan has been developed that would increase water bills to |

| |customers served by the Campo Community Water System over a five year period starting January 1, 2006. The General Fund subsidy would |

| |steadily decline, and end once the Campo Community non-County customers are paying the full cost recovery rate. |

| |Over the next five years, the recommended rate adjustments will increase the average Campo Community residential customers’ water bill |

| |from $26 to $150 per month, based on consumption. Corresponding adjustments will be made for multi-family and commercial customers. The |

| |same rate structure will be applied to County facilities. When fully implemented, these water charges will be comparable to the charges|

| |paid by Campo Hills residents. |

| |This is a request for Board’s adoption of an Ordinance related to fees and charges for water service for the Campo Community Water |

| |System customers. Upon Board approval, first phase rate changes for water services will take effect January 1, 2006. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |N/A |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Adopt Ordinance: |

| | |

| |AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO 9678 OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO RELATED TO FEES AND CHARGES FOR WATER SERVICE FOR THE CAMPO SERVICE |

| |AREA |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded Supervisor Cox, the Board closed the Hearing and took action as recommended, adopting Ordinance |

| |No. 9736 (New Series) entitled: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9678 OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO RELATED TO FEES AND CHARGES FOR |

| |WATER SERVICE FOR THE CAMPO SERVICE AREA and directed the Chief Administrative Officer to create a policy for the distribution of the |

| |excess capacity. |

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

| |ABSENT: Roberts |

| |

| |

|12. |SUBJECT: |CONTINUED NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| | |TO VACATE OSAGE DRIVE BETWEEN CANTON DRIVE AND CAMERON DRIVE (VAC 04-004), SPRING VALLEY COMMUNITY PLANNING |

| | |GROUP (DISTRICT: 2) |

| | |(CARRYOVER FROM 9/21/05, AGENDA NO. 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On September 21, 2005 (5), the Board of Supervisors continued the Hearing to September 28, 2005 at 9:00 a.m., at the request of the |

| |Chief Administrative Officer. |

| |This is a request to vacate Osage Drive between Canton Drive and Cameron Drive in the Spring Valley Community (Thomas Guide page 1290, |

| |H-1). This street has not been built and, therefore, does not provide access between Canton Drive and Cameron Drive. On May 11, 2005 |

| |(9), the Board set a public hearing for July 13, 2005 to consider the proposed road vacation. |

| |All properties adjacent to Osage Drive have access to public roadways. Vacating Osage Drive will not land-lock any affected parcels. |

| |The area proposed for vacation is no longer needed for current or prospective public use. It is in the public interest to vacate |

| |unneeded easement rights that can prevent the beneficial use of real estate and expose the County to potential liability as a property |

| |owner. |

| |At the July 13, 2005 (2) public hearing the owner of the adjacent property expressed concern that vacating Osage Drive would result in |

| |loss of existing access to her property. In response, the applicant has agreed to dedicate an access easement to the property owner to|

| |allow continued use of the driveway. |

| |This is a request to adopt a Resolution to Vacate Osage Drive Between Canton Drive and Cameron Drive (VAC 04-004). |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |There will be no fiscal impact as a result of recommended actions. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305 of the State |

| |CEQA Guidelines. |

| |Adopt a Resolution entitled Resolution to Vacate Osage Drive Between Canton Drive and Cameron Drive. |

| |Direct Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to record this Resolution pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 8325. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded Supervisor Cox, at the request of the Chief Administrative Officer, the Board continued the |

| |Hearing to October 26, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. on Consent. |

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

| |ABSENT: Roberts |

| |

| |

|13. |SUBJECT: |CLOSED SESSION (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION |

| |(Subdivision (a) of Government Code section 54956.9) |

| |Brian Cahill v. County of San Diego, et al.; United States District Court No. 03-CV-1562 (W) |

| |B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION |

| |(Subdivision (a) of Government Code section 54956.9) |

| |Richard Cary, et al. v. County of San Diego, et al.; San Diego County Superior Court No. GIE 024669 |

| |C. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION |

| |(Government Code section 54957) |

| |Title: County Counsel |

| |ACTION: |

| |No reportable actions. |

| |

| |

|14. |SUBJECT: |PUBLIC COMMUNICATION |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |John Van Doorn spoke to the Board about tolerance of fraud and corruption |

| |ACTION: |

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

There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 9:28 a.m. in the memory of Kenneth Walter Trent, Pamela May Lomax and Macey L. “Corky” McMillin Jr.

THOMAS J. PASTUSZKA

Clerk of the Board of Supervisors

County of San Diego, State of California

Consent: Kellogg/Tosh

Discussion: Hall

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