Get documents about "COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Document Sample
STATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
REGULAR MEETING - PLANNING AND LAND USE MATTERS
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2011
Board of Supervisors North Chamber
1600 Pacific Highway, Room 310, San Diego, California
REGULAR SESSION – Regular Meeting was called to order at 9:01 a.m.
Present: Supervisors Bill Horn, Chairman; Ron Roberts, Vice Chairman; Greg Cox;
Dianne Jacob; Pam Slater-Price; also David C. Hall, Assistant Clerk of the Board.
Approval of Statement of Proceedings/Minutes for the Meeting of December 8, 2010.
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 December 8, 2010.
AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Horn
ABSENT: Roberts
Public Communication: [No Speakers]
Board of Supervisors’ Agenda Items
1. NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING:
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE, EURUS
BORREGO SOLAR MAJOR USE PERMITS 09-012 & 09-014; ER NO. 09-050-01;
BORREGO SPRINGS COMMUNITY, WITHIN DESERT SUBREGIONAL PLAN
NOTE:
Members of the public who are in favor of denying the appeal, thereby approving Major
Use Permits 09-012 & 09-014, and wishing to speak should complete a GREEN speaker
slip “In Favor” of the Planning Commission Recommendation.
Members of the public who are in favor of approving the appeal, thereby denying Major
Use Permit 09-012 & 09-104, and wishing to speak should complete a PINK speaker
slip “In Opposition” of the Planning Commission Recommendation.
2.* TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE FIVE YEAR REVIEW AND ANNUAL
REPORT – 2009/2010
*Presentation
01/12/11 1
3. BEAR VALLEY PARKWAY NORTH WIDENING PROJECT - APPROVAL OF
RELOCATION PLAN
[FUNDING SOURCE(S): PROPOSITION 1B REVENUES]
4. SET HEARING FOR 01/26/11:
VACATE OPEN SPACE EASEMENTS FOR U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE
5. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
SECOND CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES:
TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS (12/08/2010 - Adopt
Recommendations; 1/12/2011 - Second Reading of Ordinances)
6. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE NO. 28 AND COUNTY CODE AND
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AMENDMENTS, POD 10-002
7. CLOSED SESSION (CARRYOVER FROM 1/11/11, AGENDA NO. 11)
Supporting documentation and attachments for items listed on this agenda can be viewed online at
www.sdcounty.ca.gov/cob/bosa/ or in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at the County Administration
Center, 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 402, San Diego, CA 92101.
01/12/11 2
1. SUBJECT: NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING:
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO
APPROVE, EURUS BORREGO SOLAR MAJOR USE PERMITS
09-012 & 09-014; ER NO. 09-050-01; BORREGO SPRINGS
COMMUNITY, WITHIN DESERT SUBREGIONAL PLAN
(DISTRICT: 5)
OVERVIEW:
On October 8, 2010, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Eurus
Borrego Solar Project (Project), which includes two Major Use Permits for unmanned
photovoltaic solar energy systems. The Borrego Springs Community Sponsor Group has
appealed that decision to the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission
recommends that the Board of Supervisors deny the appeal and uphold the approval
based on the Project’s consistency with the County’s Land Use Plans, Ordinances and
the California Environmental Quality Act. The Project is located on Palm Canyon Drive
within the unincorporated community of Borrego Springs (2010 Thomas Guide Page
1079, E-7). The Project would involve the construction and ongoing operation of a 341-
acre photovoltaic solar energy system that would provide enough electricity to serve
approximately 46,000 homes in the region. Staff has reviewed the issues raised in the
appeal and determined that all issues have been sufficiently addressed in the
environmental analysis and mitigation has been incorporated to prevent significant
adverse impacts, thus the Project complies with all applicable regulations.
FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT:
The proposed Project would result in a commercial operation that could provide energy
to the residents and businesses in the local area and region. The proposed facilities would
have an overall capacity of up to 46 megawatts of power that could supply the power
needs for approximately 46,000 homes annually. A portion of the power will serve the
Borrego Valley area, with the remaining power going to the grid.
RECOMMENDATION:
PLANNING COMMISSION
1. Uphold the approval of the Project by denying the appeal of the Planning
Commission decisions.
2. Find on the basis of the whole record that there is no substantial evidence that the
proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment. Consider the
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) dated October 8, 2010 on file with the
Department of Planning and Land Use as Environmental Review Number
09-050-001 together with the comments received during public review and public
hearing and adopt it, finding that it reflects the independent judgment and analysis of
the Board of Supervisors.
01/12/11 1
3. Adopt the Forms of Decision entitled Form of Decision for Major Use Permits
09-012 and 09-014, approving Major Use Permits 09-012 and 09-014, make the
appropriate findings and include those requirements and conditions necessary to
ensure that the Project is implemented in a manner consistent with the General Plan,
Zoning Ordinance and State Law.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE
The Department concurs with the Planning Commission recommendations.
ACTION:
Noting for the record the addition of Planning and Land Use recommendation as
follows:
“Authorize the Director of Planning and Land Use to execute a defense and
indemnity agreement with EE Borrego Land LLC in accordance with County Code
Section 86.201 et seq. Require EE Borrego Land LLC to provide security prior to
project approval in the amount of $250,000.00 in the form of an irrevocable letter of
credit or bond in a form acceptable to County Counsel.”
ON MOTION of Supervisor Roberts, seconded by Supervisor Horn, the Board of
Supervisors deleted the Planning Commission note relating to the transmission route,
closed the Hearing and took action as recommended.
AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn
2. SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE FIVE YEAR REVIEW AND
ANNUAL REPORT – 2009/2010 (DISTRICTS: ALL)
OVERVIEW:
On September 29, 2010 (3), the Board of Supervisors directed the Chief Administrative
Officer to return to the Board with an overall progress report and review of the initial
five years of the Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Program including the Fiscal Year
2009-10 state mandated Annual Report for fees collected. Included in the action were
specific requests for information: the amount collected since the inception of the TIF
Program; how those funds have been spent; the current status of any remaining funds; an
overview of the Opt Out provision within the program and recommendations to improve
the TIF Program.
The Board also directed the Chief Administrative Officer to work with Valley Center
Shopping Center representatives, Bell Enterprises, to determine possibilities for a viable
Opt Out option to address cumulative traffic impacts by a method other than paying the
TIF for this project, and for other projects as well. Staff has researched CEQA
requirements, Vehicle Miles Traveled as a methodology, surveyed other jurisdictions,
worked with Bell Enterprises and created Opt Out guidelines.
01/12/11 2
Your Board adopted the TIF Program in 2005 to address a change in state law. The
change removed local agencies’ authority to consider a development project’s
cumulative traffic impacts to be insignificant (whereby there was no requirement of
mitigation). Cumulative traffic impacts are incremental impacts which, when added to
the impacts of other development, will eventually overburden the roadways. The change
in state law made development economically infeasible for many projects because it
added a requirement to perform extensive and costly studies and to provide road
improvements to mitigate all cumulative impacts.
At the time your Board adopted TIF, there were approximately 300 developments stalled
because of this change in state law. The County’s TIF aimed to address this situation by
providing an option for development to pay a fair share, based on trip counts the project
would generate, towards future road improvements to address cumulative traffic impacts.
Instead of requiring each project to individually mitigate their cumulative impacts, the
TIF provides a programmatic fair-share payment alternative for County projects to
collectively mitigate their cumulative impacts. The TIF Program effectively enabled the
backlog of private projects to move forward.
This is a request to receive a staff report and review of the initial five years of the TIF
Program, and to receive the Fiscal Year 2009-10 TIF annual report.
RECOMMENDATION:
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
1. Receive this progress report and review of the initial five years of the Transportation
Impact Fee (TIF) Program.
2. Receive the Fiscal Year 2009-10 Annual Report in compliance with the state of
California Mitigation Fee Act.
ACTION:
Received reports.
3. SUBJECT: BEAR VALLEY PARKWAY NORTH WIDENING PROJECT -
APPROVAL OF RELOCATION PLAN (DISTRICTS: 3 AND 5)
OVERVIEW:
On April 28, 2010 (3), the Board certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
for the Bear Valley Parkway North Widening project and authorized the Department of
General Services to commence negotiations to acquire right of way needed to construct
the project. The project will relieve traffic congestion by widening a one-mile segment
of Bear Valley Parkway, between State Route 78 and Boyle Avenue in the
unincorporated area of Escondido (2010 Thomas Guide, page 1130-D3, D4). As part of
the environmental review process, alternatives for the road alignment were considered,
and the selected alignment results in the least impact on the property owners along Bear
01/12/11 3
Valley Parkway.
Construction of the project requires acquisition of property rights from 59 parcels within
the project area. Approximately 17 of the parcels have residential structures that will be
demolished to construct the planned improvements. Eligible owner and tenant occupants
who are displaced from their properties as a result of the project will be entitled to
relocation assistance from the County. The County has hired the firm of Overland,
Pacific & Cutler, Inc. to prepare a Relocation Plan for the project. In accordance with
California Code a 30-day notice of the Relocation Plan was circulated to each affected
household. No public comments were received. Today, the Board is requested to adopt
the Relocation Plan for the Bear Valley Parkway North Widening project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funding for this request is included in the Fiscal Year 2010-11 Operational Plan. The
funding source is Proposition 1B revenues. The estimated cost for relocation services is
$763,000, which includes estimated benefit payments to displacees of $693,000 and
estimated consultant fees of $70,000 to provide the relocation services. There will be no
general fund cost and no need for additional staff years as a result of this request.
BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT:
N/A
RECOMMENDATION:
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
1. Find that the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and Errata thereof for the
Bear Valley Parkway North Widening Project, dated April 2010, SCH No. 2009-
021015, on file at the Department of Public Works, was prepared in compliance with
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the state CEQA Guidelines, that
the decision making body has reviewed and considered the information contained
therein prior to approving the project; and
Find that the currently proposed action is within the scope of the FEIR; that there are
no changes in the project or in the circumstances under which it is to be undertaken
that would result in the significant environmental impacts beyond those considered
in the certified FEIR, nor a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects; and that no new information of substantial importance
has become available since the FEIR was prepared.
2. Adopt the Relocation Plan for the Bear Valley Parkway North Widening Project.
ACTION:
ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took
action as recommended, on Consent.
AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Horn
ABSENT: Roberts
01/12/11 4
4. SUBJECT: SET HEARING FOR 01/26/11:
VACATE OPEN SPACE EASEMENTS FOR U.S. FISH &
WILDLIFE SERVICE; VAC 10-002 (1/12/11 – SET HEARING;
1/26/11 – HOLD HEARING) (DISTRICT: 2)
OVERVIEW:
This is a request by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to vacate four open
space easements totaling 48.537 acres. The Service would like to include the land
underlying these easements in the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, but the Service
cannot take fee title to any property that has encumbrances. Therefore, a vacation of the
County’s open space easements is required for the land to be included in the San Diego
National Wildlife Refuge. Management of the Refuge is consistent with the restrictions
in the open space easements; therefore, no environmental impacts are associated with
this vacation. The four easements are located on three parcels adjacent to existing
Wildlife Refuge land in the unincorporated Crest-Dehesa and Valle de Oro Community
Planning areas, APN 517-060-17, 517-030-15 and 518-050-10. (Thomas Guide Page
1272)
FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT:
N/A
RECOMMENDATION:
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE
On January 12, 2011:
1. Set a public hearing for 9:00 a.m. on January 26, 2011, to consider vacation of four
open space easements.
2. Direct the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to provide notice of the hearing via
publication and posting as required by law.
ACTION:
ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board of
Supervisors took action as recommended, on Consent; setting Hearing for
January 26, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.
AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Horn
ABSENT: Roberts
01/12/11 5
5. SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
SECOND CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF
ORDINANCES: TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATIONS (12/08/2010 - Adopt Recommendations;
1/12/2011 - Second Reading of Ordinances) (DISTRICTS: 2 & 5)
OVERVIEW:
On December 8, 2010 (21), the Board of Supervisors introduced Ordinances for further
consideration and adoption on January 12, 2011.
The Traffic Advisory (Committee) meets every six weeks to review proposed additions,
deletions or changes to regulatory traffic controls. Sixteen items were on the
Committee's October 8, 2010 meeting agenda. The Committee recommends your action
on 13 items; three items were continued. Items 2-G and 2-H were continued to allow
input from the Valle de Oro Community Planning Group. Item 5-A was continued to
allow input from the Fallbrook Community Planning Group.
This action requires two steps. On December 8, 2010, the Board will consider 13 Traffic
Advisory Committee items. If the Board takes action on December 8, 2010, then on
January 12, 2011, a second reading of nine ordinances amending Sections 72.169.91. and
72.169.92. and deleting Sections 72.161.57., 72.161.65., 72.161.86., 72.161.88.,
72.161.98., 72.169.95.1. and 72.172.36. (Items 2-E, 2-F, 5-D, 5-E, 5-F, 5-G and 5-H)
would be necessary to implement the Board’s direction.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funds for this proposal are included in the Department of Public Works Road Fund
current year Operation Plan. If approved, there will be no change in net General Fund
cost and will require no additional staff years.
BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT:
N/A
RECOMMENDATION:
TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
District 2
2-A. Dehesa Road from a point 390 feet east of Willow Glen Drive easterly to a point
1,000 feet east of Mile Post 7, (Thomas Guide Page 1251, F-6, Edition 2010) EL
CAJON -- Direct the existing 50 MPH speed limit be recertified for continued
radar speed enforcement.
2-B. Harbison Canyon Road from a point 1,900 feet south of Collier Way northerly to a
point 650 feet north of Patrick Drive, (Thomas Guide Page 1253, C-3, Edition
2010) EL CAJON -- Direct the existing 40 MPH speed limit be recertified for
continued radar speed enforcement.
01/12/11 6
2-C. Alpine Boulevard from Viewside Lane easterly to Arnold Way, (Thomas Guide
Page 1233, F-3, Edition 2010) ALPINE -- Direct the existing 45 MPH speed limit
be recertified for radar speed enforcement.
2-D. Alpine Boulevard from Tavern Road easterly to a point 1,200 west of Victoria
Drive West, (Thomas Guide Page 1234, A-6, Edition 2010) ALPINE -- Direct the
existing 35 MPH speed limit not be recertified for continued radar speed
enforcement. Direct the posted speed limit be reviewed after completion of the
San Diego Gas & Electric Sunrise PowerLink Project.
2-E. Alpine Boulevard from a point 1,200 west of Victoria Drive West easterly to a
point 500 feet east of Marshall Road, (Thomas Guide Page 1234, B-6, Edition
2010) ALPINE -- Direct the existing 35 MPH speed limit not be recertified for
continued radar speed enforcement. Direct the two adjoining 35 MPH speed limit
ordinances on Alpine Boulevard, from Tavern Road easterly to a point 500 feet
east of Marshall Road, be combined into a single speed zone. Direct the posted
speed limit be reviewed after completion of the San Diego Gas & Electric Sunrise
PowerLink Project.
2-F. Alpine Boulevard from a point 600 feet west of Victoria Drive East easterly to a
point 520 feet east of Mile Post 12, (Thomas Guide Page 1234, B-6, Edition 2010)
ALPINE -- Direct the existing 45 MPH speed limit on Alpine Boulevard not be
recertified for continued radar speed enforcement. Direct Alpine Boulevard,
between a point 600 feet west of Victoria Drive East easterly to Honey Hill Road,
be included with the adjacent western 40 MPH posted speed zone. Direct Alpine
Boulevard, from Honey Hill Road easterly to a point 520 feet east of Mile Post 12
be included with the adjacent eastern Maximum 55 MPH posted speed zone.
Direct these posted speed limits be reviewed after completion of the San Diego
Gas & Electric Sunrise PowerLink Project.
District 5
5-B. Harmony Grove Road from Kauana Loa Drive westerly to a point 250 feet west
of Mile Post 6.5, (Thomas Guide Pages 1129, D-4, Edition 2010) ESCONDIDO --
Direct the existing 40 MPH speed limit be recertified for continued radar speed
enforcement.
5-C. Harmony Grove Road from to a point 250 feet west of Mile Post 6.5 westerly to
Elfin Forest Road, (Thomas Guide Pages 1148, J-2, Edition 2010) ESCONDIDO -
- Direct the existing 45 MPH speed limit be recertified for continued radar speed
enforcement.
5-D. Rancho Santa Fe Road (Incorporated Section), (Thomas Guide Page 1128, A-4,
Edition 2010) CITY OF SAN MARCOS -- Delete Ordinance from County Code
as a housekeeping item. Roadway has been incorporated by the City of San
Marcos for many years.
01/12/11 7
5-E. Rancho Santa Fe Road (Incorporated Section), (Thomas Guide Page 1128, C-2,
Edition 2010) CITY OF SAN MARCOS -- Delete Ordinance from County Code
as a housekeeping item. Roadway has been incorporated by the City of San
Marcos for many years.
5-F. Rancho Santa Fe Road (Incorporated Section), (Thomas Guide Page 1128, B-2,
Edition 2010) CITY OF SAN MARCOS -- Delete Ordinance from County Code
as a housekeeping item. Roadway has been incorporated by the City of San
Marcos for many years.
5-G. Rancho Santa Fe Road (Incorporated Section), (Thomas Guide Page 1148, A-6,
Edition 2010) CITY OF ENCINITAS -- Delete Ordinance from County Code as a
housekeeping item. Roadway has been incorporated by the City of Encinitas for
many years.
5-H. Rancho Santa Fe Road (Incorporated Section), (Thomas Guide Page 1147, J-7,
Edition 2010) CITY OF ENCINITAS -- Delete Ordinance from County Code as a
housekeeping item. Roadway has been incorporated by the City of Encinitas for
many years.
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
Adopt Ordinances entitled:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 72.169.91. OF THE SAN
DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS
IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 72.169.92. OF THE SAN
DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS
IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO.
AN ORDINANCE DELETING SECTION 72.161.57. OF THE SAN
DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS
IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO.
AN ORDINANCE DELETING SECTION 72.161.65. OF THE SAN
DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS
IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO.
AN ORDINANCE DELETING SECTION 72.161.86. OF THE SAN
DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS
IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO.
AN ORDINANCE DELETING SECTION 72.161.88. OF THE SAN
DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS
IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO.
01/12/11 8
AN ORDINANCE DELETING SECTION 72.161.98. OF THE SAN
DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS
IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO.
AN ORDINANCE DELETING SECTION 72.169.95.1 OF THE SAN
DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS
IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO.
AN ORDINANCE DELETING SECTION 72.172.36. OF THE SAN
DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS
IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO.
ACTION:
ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took
action as recommended, on Consent, adopting the following Ordinances:
Ordinance No. 10109 (N.S.) entitled: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION
72.169.91. OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC
REGULATIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO;
Ordinance No. 10110 (N.S.) entitled: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION
72.169.92. OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC
REGULATIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO;
Ordinance No. 10111 (N.S.) entitled: AN ORDINANCE DELETING SECTION
72.161.57. OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC
REGULATIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO;
Ordinance No. 10112 (N.S.) entitled: AN ORDINANCE DELETING SECTION
72.161.65. OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC
REGULATIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO;
Ordinance No. 10113 (N.S.) entitled: AN ORDINANCE DELETING SECTION
72.161.86. OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC
REGULATIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO;
Ordinance No. 10114 (N.S.) entitled: AN ORDINANCE DELETING SECTION
72.161.88. OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC
REGULATIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO;
Ordinance No. 10115 (N.S.) entitled: AN ORDINANCE DELETING SECTION
72.161.98. OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC
REGULATIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO;
01/12/11 9
Ordinance No. 10116 (N.S.) entitled: AN ORDINANCE DELETING SECTION
72.169.95.1. OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC
REGULATIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; and
Ordinance No. 10117 (N.S.) entitled: AN ORDINANCE DELETING SECTION
72.172.36. OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC
REGULATIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO.
AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Horn
ABSENT: Roberts
6. SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE NO. 28 AND COUNTY CODE
AND ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AMENDMENTS, POD 10-002
(DISTRICTS: ALL)
OVERVIEW:
The Zoning Ordinance is the ordinance which specifies the allowable uses and
establishes the development standards for properties within San Diego County. These
regulations are used to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. The
Director of Planning and Land Use periodically proposes a series of amendments to the
Zoning Ordinance in order to streamline regulations and to clarify ambiguities. This
project is a series of proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that are intended to
amend the applicability of the ordinance to allow certain limited uses on County-owned
solid waste sites and buffer properties without requiring a discretionary permit and to
amend various definitions. There are also proposed amendments to the civic and
commercial use regulations, height exceptions, temporary use regulations and accessory
use regulations as well as amendments to the procedures and other miscellaneous
revisions and clarifications.
FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT:
Maintaining current land use regulations that reflect the needs of our communities helps
streamline the land development process, resulting in more efficient permit processing
for the customer and County.
01/12/11 10
RECOMMENDATION:
PLANNING COMMISSION
On December 8, 2010:
1. Find on the basis of the whole record that there is no substantial evidence that the
proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment. Consider the
Negative Declaration on file with the Department of Planning and Land Use as
Environmental Review Number 10-00-002 together with the comments received
during public review and adopt it, finding that it reflects the independent judgment
and analysis of the Board of Supervisors.
2. Adopt the attached Form of Ordinance (Attachment A), titled:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE RELATED TO APPLICABILITY OF THE
ORDINANCE, DEFINITIONS, CIVIC AND COMMERCIAL USE
REGULATIONS, PROCEDURES AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS
TOPICS.
On January 12, 2010:
3. Approve the introduction of the Ordinance, (first reading), read the title and waive
further reading of the Ordinance (Attachment B), titled:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8, DIVISION 7, CHAPTER 7
OF THE COUNTY CODE RELATED TO SURFACE MINING;
AMENDING TITLE 9, DIVISION 1, CHAPTER 1 OF THE COUNTY
CODE RELATED TO ADOPTION OF APPENDIX CHAPTER 1,
CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE AND AMENDING ARTICLE XXIa
OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, RELATING TO RULES OF
CONDUCT AND PROCEDURE FOR PLANNING AND ZONING
PROCESS.
4. Submit the Ordinance (Attachment B) for further Board consideration and adoption
(second reading) on January 26, 2011.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE
The Department concurs with the Planning Commission recommendations.
ACTION:
ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took
action as recommended, on Consent, introducing Ordinance for further Board
consideration and adoption on January 26, 2011.
AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Horn
ABSENT: Roberts
01/12/11 11
7. SUBJECT: CLOSED SESSION (CARRYOVER FROM 1/11/11, AGENDA
NO. 11) (DISTRICTS: ALL)
OVERVIEW:
A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Government Code section 54957.6)
Designated Representatives: Carlos Arauz, Susan Brazeau
Employee Organizations: All
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code section
54956.9: (Number of Cases – 1)
C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (a) of Government Code section 54956.9
Christine Hill v. County of San Diego, et al.; San Diego County Superior Court No.
37-2010-00087740-CU-WT-CTL
D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (a) of Government Code section 54956.9
County of San Diego v. Solpac Construction, Inc., et al.; San Diego County
Superior Court No. 37-2009-00098849-CU-BC-CTL
E. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (a) of Government Code section 54956.9
County of San Diego v. Ryan Companies US, Inc.; San Diego County Superior
Court No. 37-2010-00092681-CU-EI-CTL
F. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (a) of Government Code section 54956.9
City of Santee v. County of San Diego, et al.; San Diego County Superior Court No.
37-2009-00094497-CU-TT-CTL
G. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code section
54956.9: (Number of Cases – 1)
H. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (a) of Government Code section 54956.9
Douglas Gunderson v. County of San Diego, et al.; San Diego County Superior
Court No. 37-2009-00064064-CU-PA-EC
I. 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)
01/12/11 12
J. 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:
In closed session on January 11, 2011, the Board of Supervisors took the following
actions:
Item 7B: By vote of the four members of the Board who were present, all of whom
voted “Aye,” with District 4 absent, the Board gave approval to County Counsel to
initiate an action, the defendants and other particulars of which shall be disclosed in the
manner authorized by Government Code section 54957.1, once the action is formally
commenced;
Item 7G: By vote of all five members of the Board present and voting “Aye,” the Board
gave approval to County Counsel to initiate an action, the defendants and other
particulars of which shall be disclosed in the manner authorized by Government Code
section 54957.1, once the action is formally commenced;
Item 7J: Settlement of pending claims, specifically a series of claim for services
provided to the Office of the Public Defender by former employees of the office, by vote
of all 5 members of the Board present and voting “Aye,” authorized settlement by
payment of invoices totaling $17,884.75.
There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 11:19 a.m. in memory of John Todd Figi,
Harriet Stockwell, Roger Challberg, Father Steven Grancini, and R.E. “Togo” Hazard.
THOMAS J. PASTUSZKA
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
County of San Diego, State of California
Consent: Vizcarra
Discussion: Mazyck
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.
01/12/11 13
