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:

1.      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:

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

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

c.       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.

d.      On Referral 17 the map should reflect SR4.

e.       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.

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

g.       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.

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

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

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

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

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

m.     In Valley Center the map should reflect the October Traffic Referral densities for Referrals Number 67, 69, 71, 77, 84, 86, 87, and 90.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

u.       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.

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

w.     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.

2.      Adding the following to the Alternative Map:

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

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

c.       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.

d.      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.

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

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

g.       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.

h.       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.

i.         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.

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

k.      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.

l.         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.

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

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

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

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

3.      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