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, AUGUST 1, 2007, 9:00 AM

Board of Supervisors North Chamber

1600 Pacific Highway, Room 310, San Diego, California

MORNING SESSION: Meeting was called to order at 9:04 a.m.

PRESENT: Supervisors Ron Roberts, Chairman; Greg Cox, Vice-Chairman; Dianne Jacob;

Pam Slater-Price; and Bill Horn; also Thomas J. Pastuszka, Clerk.

Public Communication: [No Speakers]

Board of Supervisors’ Agenda Items

|1. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| |EAST OTAY MESA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT SPA 06-003, GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT GPA 06-013, AND BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION|

| |PLAN AMENDMENT; OTAY MESA SUBREGIONAL PLAN |

|2. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| |AMENDMENTS TO THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES RELATED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH |

|3. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| |COLLECTION ON FISCAL YEAR 2007-08 TAX ROLL OF APPROVED FEES AND CHARGES FOR COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS AND THE WINTER GARDENS SEWER|

| |MAINTENANCE DISTRICT |

| |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): ANNUAL SEWER SERVICE CHARGES] |

| |(RELATES TO SANITATION DISTRICTS AGENDA NO. 1) |

|4. |AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLES 1 AND 2 OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES AND AMENDING ARTICLE XXXIII OF THE SAN |

| |DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDINANCES |

| |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): THE STATE REALIGNMENT REVENUE AS THESE APPLICATIONS ARE EXEMPT FROM A FEE] |

|5. |INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE PALA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS REGARDING CASINO EXPANSION |

|6. |SET HEARING FOR 9/19/07: |

| |FORMATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT FOR SWEETWATER ROAD PHASE 3 IN BONITA |

|7. |SET HEARING FOR 9/19/07: |

| |OTAY VALLEY REGIONAL PARK – ACQUISITION OF 11.63 ACRES (MIDWAY BAPTIST CHURCH) |

|8. |RESOLUTION RESCINDING REJECTION AND ACCEPTING OFFERS OF DEDICATION FOR ROAD EASEMENTS -- HIGHWAY 76, PANKEY ROAD AND SHEARER |

| |CROSSING (PARCEL NO. 2007-0136-A) |

|9. |AUTHORIZATION TO EXTEND PERIOD FOR RECEIPT AND USE OF FEDERAL GRANT FUNDS FOR A WILDLAND FIRE COMMUNITY RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND |

| |OUTREACH PROGRAM |

| |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY/FEMA AND U.S. FIRE ADMINISTRATION] |

| |(4 VOTES) |

|10. |CONTRIBUTION OF FUNDING FOR STATEWIDE PAVEMENT NEEDS ASSESSMENT STUDY: CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES |

| |(4 VOTES) |

|11. |TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS |

|12. |ESTABLISH APPROPRIATIONS FOR ALPINE FOREST CONSERVATION INITIATIVE LANDS EVALUATION PLAN |

| |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 FUND BALANCE AVAILABLE IN THE LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT GROUP] |

| |(4 VOTES) |

|13. |NEW APPOINTMENTS TO THE COUNTY’S SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD |

|14. |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT NO. 5146-1: APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP AND SECURED AGREEMENTS FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED IN |

| |SAN DIEGUITO COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA |

|15. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| |HEARING TO CONFIRM FISCAL YEAR 2007-08 LEVIES FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT ZONE |

| |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): INDIVIDUAL DISTRICT TRUST FUNDS ON DEPOSIT] |

|16. |CLOSED SESSION |

| |(CARRYOVER ITEM FROM 7/31/07, AGENDA NO. 31) |

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

| | |EAST OTAY MESA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT SPA 06-003, GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT GPA 06-013,|

| | |AND BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN AMENDMENT; OTAY MESA SUBREGIONAL PLAN (DISTRICT: 1) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |With the growth of the Mexican government’s Maquiladora and Twin Plant Program in the early 1980s, demand for industrial land to |

| |accommodate the distribution and warehousing of products manufactured in Mexico accelerated in the United States. In response, |

| |the Board of Supervisors approved the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan (SPA 93-004) on July 27, 1994 (1). The Plan encompasses an |

| |area approximately 3,368 acres (2,007 acres within Subarea 1 and 1,361 acres within Subarea 2) and is located between the Otay |

| |River Valley to the north, the international border with Mexico to the south, the San Ysidro Mountains to the east and the City of|

| |San Diego’s 12,505-acre Otay Mesa Community Plan area to the west. |

| | |

| |Amendments are being proposed to the plan to realign/delete certain Specific Plan and Circulation Element roads and bicycle |

| |transportation paths to accommodate Caltrans’ realignment of State Routes (SR-) 125, SR-905 and SR-11. Other minor amendments are|

| |being included to address issues relating to sidewalk design standards, fencing requirements, transit stop, revisions to the noise|

| |standards in Subarea 2 to conform to the standards currently in place for Subarea 1, and the elimination of the discretionary |

| |permit requirement for development/improvement of new/existing County parks. (Thomas Guide, Page 1352) |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |N/A |

| |BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT: |

| |These changes will assist property owners who own property along State Routes by eliminating the need for the property owners to |

| |process individual Specific Plan Amendments. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |PLANNING COMMISSION |

| |The Planning Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors: |

| |Approve the Resolution approving GPA 06-013, which makes the appropriate findings and includes those requirements and conditions |

| |necessary to ensure that the project is implemented in a manner consistent with State law and County General Plan. |

| | |

| |Approve the Resolution approving SPA 06-003, which makes the appropriate findings and includes those requirements and conditions |

| |necessary to ensure that the project is implemented in a manner consistent with State law and County General Plan. |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| |DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE |

| |Concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation. |

| |ACTION: |

| |Noting for the record that an errata sheet has been received as part of the record; ON MOTION of Supervisor Cox, seconded by |

| |Supervisor Jacob, the Board closed the Hearing took action as recommended, adopting Resolution No. 07-174 entitled: A RESOLUTION |

| |OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 06-013 and Resolution No. 07-175 entitled: |

| |RESOLUTION OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT SPA 06-003, EAST OTAY MESA. |

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

| |

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

| | |AMENDMENTS TO THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES RELATED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF |

| | |ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH |

| | |(DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |This is a request to adopt amendments to Title 6 of the County Code of Regulatory Ordinances related to the Department of |

| |Environmental Health. Recommendations today will align Department of Environmental Health refunds with County Administrative |

| |Manual 0030-24, Cash Receipts, and the California Government Code; delete redundant Alcohol Beverage Control signage language; and|

| |simplify medical waste labeling requirements for businesses. Additionally, this request will clean-up language associated with |

| |the April 25, 2007 (2) Board of Supervisors action approving an ordinance amendment to San Diego County Code related to Department|

| |of Environmental Health fees. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |There is no fiscal impact associated with these recommendations. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) of the State of California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines that it |

| |can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the |

| |environment and is, therefore, not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. |

| | |

| |Approve the introduction of the Ordinances (first reading), read titles and waive further reading: |

| | |

| |AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES RELATING TO MEDICAL WASTE CONTAINER LABELING |

| | |

| |AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES RELATING TO THE POSTING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE|

| |CONTROL WARNING SIGNS |

| | |

| |AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES RELATING TO FEE REFUNDS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF |

| |ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH |

| | |

| | |

| |AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES RELATING TO THE CLEAN-UP OF TITLE 6, DIVISION|

| |5, SECTION 65.107 |

| | |

| |Submit the Ordinances for further Board consideration and adoption (second reading) on September 19, 2007. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board closed the Hearing and took action as recommended, |

| |on Consent, introducing Ordinances for further Board consideration and adoption on September 19, 2007. |

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

| |

| |

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

| | |COLLECTION ON FISCAL YEAR 2007-08 TAX ROLL OF APPROVED FEES AND CHARGES FOR COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS |

| | |AND THE WINTER GARDENS SEWER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |County sanitation and sewer maintenance districts provide sewer services for nearly 34,000 customers. A public hearing is required|

| |annually for preparation of the sanitation district tax roll. Sewer service charges will continue to be collected along with |

| |property taxes. Collecting sewer fees through the tax roll avoids a separate and costly billing process. The charges described in |

| |this letter reflect no increases except for the multiple-year increases previously approved by the Board of Directors and Board of|

| |Supervisors. |

| | |

| |This is a request to conduct a public hearing on individual sanitation district tax roll reports, and to adopt resolutions |

| |approving collection of sewer service charges on the tax rolls, as authorized by the Uniform Sewer Ordinance, for Alpine, Julian, |

| |Lakeside, Pine Valley, and Spring Valley Sanitation Districts, and the Winter Gardens Sewer Maintenance District. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |This action is consistent with Fiscal Year 2007-08 proposed sanitation and sewer maintenance district budgets. Funding sources are|

| |annual sewer service charges. The charges described in this letter reflect rate adjustments previously approved by the Board of |

| |Directors and Board of Supervisors for the Alpine, Lakeside and Spring Valley Sanitation Districts. There is no change in the |

| |rate for the Julian Sanitation District, Pine Valley Sanitation District and the Winter Gardens Sewer Maintenance District. |

| |Combined, charges will generate approximately $760,300 more revenue in Fiscal Year 2007-08 than in Fiscal Year 2006-07, and are |

| |necessary to fund capital replacement and ongoing operational requirements. Approval of this request will result in no additional|

| |staff years. There will be no impact to the General Fund as a result of this action. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Conduct a public hearing to consider all objections and protests to tax roll reports for each sanitation district and sewer |

| |maintenance district, on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. |

| | |

| |Following the Public Hearing: |

| |Acting as the Board of Supervisors, adopt Resolution entitled Resolution of Winter Gardens Sewer Maintenance District Sewer |

| |Service Charges for Fiscal Year 2007-08 to be Collected on the Tax Roll. |

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

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board closed the Hearing and took action as recommended, |

| |on Consent, adopting Resolution No. 07-176 entitled: RESOLUTION OF THE WINTER GARDENS SEWER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT SEWER SERVICE |

| |CHARGES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-08 TO BE COLLECTED ON THE TAX ROLL. |

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

| |

| |

|4. |SUBJECT: |AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLES 1 AND 2 OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES AND AMENDING |

| | |ARTICLE XXXIII OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDINANCES (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The San Diego County Code of Regulatory Ordinances ("County Regulatory Code") has not undergone a comprehensive revision since its|

| |adoption in 1960. Over time, amendments to the County Regulatory Code have been adopted to address specific issues or concerns, |

| |but these amendments lacked the uniformity that a comprehensive revision of the Code would provide. This ordinance, which |

| |proposes revisions to Titles 1 and 2 of the County Regulatory Code, and which revises Article XXXIII of the County Code of |

| |Administrative Ordinances (“County Administrative Code”), is the first phase of a project that, upon completion and approval, will|

| |make substantial, comprehensive revisions to the entire County Regulatory Code and appropriate sections of the County |

| |Administrative Code. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |The impact to the County’s General Fund is as follows: |

| |Department of Environmental Health: If this request is approved, the number of applications for temporary food facilities at a |

| |community event is estimated to increase from 80 per year to 100. The funding source is the State Realignment revenue as these |

| |applications are exempt from a fee. The increased cost associated with this ordinance change is approximately $15,622 for Fiscal |

| |Year 2007-08, and was included in 2007-2009 Adopted Operational Plan. |

| |Department of Planning and Land Use: If approved, this request will result in average annual cost and revenue of $5000, hence |

| |being cost neutral. The funding source is revenue collected from the assessment of Civil Penalties related to Code Enforcement |

| |cases. |

| |Sheriff’s Department: The Sheriff’s Department is in the process of updating all the fees that will be revised as a result of |

| |these proposed changes and will bring the fee package to your Board in the near future. |

| |Media and Public Relations: No Impact |

| | |

| |There will be no fiscal impact associated with the following departments: Public Works, Agriculture, Weights & Measures, |

| |Treasurer/Tax Collector, and Assessor/Recorder/Clerk. |

| |BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT: |

| |Adoption of the proposed Ordinance will clarify County regulations and add tools for code enforcement officials resulting in more |

| |certainty to the regulated community and more efficient enforcement. Clarification of licensing procedures will provide certainty|

| |to applicants and reduce staff time in processing license applications. Improved hearing procedures may reduce the number of |

| |court challenges to administrative decisions. Changes that improve collection procedures for delinquent taxes may result in |

| |greater |

| | |

| |revenue. This comprehensive review includes updates consistent with industry standard recommendations and federal or state |

| |mandates. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find that the proposed Ordinance amendments are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to |

| |Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA guidelines. |

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

| | |

| |AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLES 1 AND 2 OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES RELATING TO GENERAL REGULATIONS, |

| |ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS, LICENSING AND BUSINESS TAXES AND AMENDING ARTICLE XXXIII OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF ADMINISTRATIVE |

| |ORDINANCES RELATING TO HEARING OFFICERS |

| | |

| |Submit the Ordinance for further Board consideration and adoption (second reading) on September 19, 2007. |

| |ACTION: |

| |Noting for the record a revised Ordinance and changes to the language in the fiscal impact statement regarding Media and Public |

| |Relations that there is no fiscal impact, Directing the Sheriff’s department to review issues raised regarding background checks |

| |and report back to the Board of Supervisors; and Revising the Ordinance as follows: |

| |Include a definition of “play area;” |

| |Indicate that work badges are required only when patrons are present; |

| |Include reference to the “courtesy notice;” |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Slater-Price approved the recommendations, introducing Ordinance for further|

| |Board consideration and adoption on September 19, 2007. |

| | |

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

| |

| |

|5. |SUBJECT: |INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE PALA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS |

| | |REGARDING CASINO EXPANSION (DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On September 10, 1999, the Pala Band of Mission Indians (Pala Tribe) and the State of California entered into a tribal-state |

| |gaming compact (Compact) to permit the Tribe to conduct Class III gaming activities on its trust lands. A Compact Amendment was |

| |approved by the Governor on June 21, 2004, ratified by the California State Legislature on July 1, 2004, and approved by the U.S. |

| |Department of the Interior on August 20, 2004. |

| | |

| |Pala Tribe intends to expand its casino facilities from 230,795 square feet to 328,853 square feet within currently paved and |

| |landscaped areas west of and adjacent to the existing casino and hotel facility. The amended Compact requires that, prior to |

| |commencement of the casino expansion, the Pala Tribe must negotiate with the County of San Diego and enter into an agreement to |

| |provide environmental mitigation for off-reservation impacts and provisions to compensate the County for law enforcement, public |

| |safety and gambling addiction costs. |

| | |

| |This is a request to approve an agreement with Pala Tribe, which sets forth the commitments of the Pala Tribe to provide |

| |mitigation necessitated by Pala Tribe’s development and operation of the Casino Expansion, provides a mechanism for Pala Tribe to |

| |compensate the County for the costs of law enforcement and problem gambling programs, and strengthens the government-to-government|

| |relationship between the County and Pala Tribe. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |There will be no current year fiscal impact as a result of this request. Costs and revenues resulting from the Agreement will be |

| |budgeted in subsequent years, upon completion of the entire Casino Expansion Project, or Tribe’s placing in operation a total of |

| |2,400 Class III slot machines in the Casino and Casino Expansion combined. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find the following action is not deemed a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Government |

| |Code Section 12012.40, because it is the execution of an intergovernmental agreement between a tribe and a county negotiated |

| |pursuant to the express authority of, or as expressly referenced in, an amended tribal-state gaming compact. |

| | |

| |Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to execute three copies of an Intergovernmental Agreement between the |

| |County of San Diego and the Pala Band of Mission Indians Pursuant to Section 10.8 of Pala’s Tribal-State Gaming Compact. |

| | |

| |Authorize the Chief Administrative Officer to receive, file and execute any documents necessary to administer this Agreement. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |

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

| |

| |

|6. |SUBJECT: |SET HEARING FOR 9/19/07: |

| | |FORMATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT FOR SWEETWATER ROAD PHASE 3 IN BONITA (DISTRICT: 1) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The purpose of the Underground Utility District program is to underground overhead utilities to benefit communities. Board Policy |

| |J-17, Undergrounding of Existing Overhead Utility Facilities, establishes a policy and procedure for district formation and |

| |program administration. |

| |This is a request to set a hearing for September 19, 2007, to form a new district, Sweetwater Road Phase 3 in Bonita (Thomas Guide|

| |Page 1310 E-3) from Mesa Vista Way to Willow Street. Establishing an Underground Utility District is a two-step process. This |

| |first step is to set a public hearing, which involves recommendations 1 and 2 below. At the hearing on September 19, 2007 the |

| |Board will consider adopting an ordinance to form the Underground Utility District. That action, listed as recommendation 3, is |

| |discretionary after consideration of public testimony. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Utility companies underground their overhead lines at their own expense. Funds for formation and administration of these |

| |districts are budgeted in Department of Public Works General Fund. No additional staff years will be required. |

| |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 because it consists of undergrounding existing public utilities. |

| | |

| |Adopt a resolution entitled Resolution of Intention to Form Underground Utility District No. 108, Sweetwater Road Phase 3, setting|

| |a public hearing for September 19, 2007. |

| | |

| |At hearing on September 19, 2007, after hearing public testimony: |

| | |

| |Consider adopting the following ordinance: |

| | |

| |AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 89.309 TO THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES TO FORM AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT |

| |FOR SWEETWATER ROAD PHASE 3, UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 108. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent, adopting |

| |Resolution No. 07-177 entitled: RESOLUTION WITH INTENTION TO FORM UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 108 SWEETWATER ROAD PHASE 3; |

| |setting Hearing for September 19, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. |

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

| |

|7. |SUBJECT: |SET HEARING FOR 9/19/07: |

| | |OTAY VALLEY REGIONAL PARK – ACQUISITION OF 11.63 ACRES (MIDWAY BAPTIST CHURCH) (DISTRICT: 1) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |In 2003, Caltrans filed an action in eminent domain to acquire 65 acres of the County’s Sweetwater Park, which was needed for |

| |construction of a segment of State Route 125. Under the California Park Preservation Act of 1971 (“Act”), Caltrans is required to|

| |pay, or transfer to the County, sufficient compensation or land to replace the County park land it is taking. On August 26, 2005, |

| |the San Diego Superior Court identified eight specific properties as suitable for replacement park land. Caltrans was required to|

| |acquire seven of |

| |these properties and convey them to the County, and to provide the funds for the County to purchase the other property, for which |

| |the County had an existing Option to Purchase. |

| |Midway Baptist Church owns 11.63 acres north of Palm Avenue and west of Hollister Street in San Diego (Thomas Guide, Page |

| |1330-B-7). The northern portion of this property adjoins the Otay Valley Regional Park and would connect that area of the Otay |

| |Valley Regional Park to Palm Avenue. The church is interested in selling the land to the County. The fair market value of the |

| |property is $3,730,000, as determined by an independent fee appraiser. |

| | |

| |On April 24, 2007 (19), the Board of Supervisors authorized the Director of General Services to execute an Option Agreement to |

| |purchase the property for $3,730,000. On May 9, 2007, the Director of General Services executed a six-month Option Agreement with|

| |Midway Baptist Church on those terms. Subsequently, on May 11, 2007, in order to acquire replacement property sooner by dealing |

| |with a willing seller, the Court entered a new Order substituting some of the previously identified replacement property with the |

| |church property, finding it to be similar to the lost park property and otherwise satisfying the requirements of the Act. This |

| |Order requires Caltrans to fully fund the escrow for the County’s purchase of the church property. |

| | |

| |Today, the Board is requested to set a hearing for September 19, 2007, to consider exercising the option to purchase the |

| |11.63-acre parcel from Midway Baptist Church for the appraised value of $3,730,000. Pursuant to the Court’s new Order, the entire|

| |purchase price and related escrow fees will be funded by Caltrans. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Should the Board authorize exercising the option to purchase the property for $3,730,000 on September 19, 2007, funds for the |

| |purchase price and related escrow fees of an estimated $1,940 will provided by the State of California – Department of |

| |Transportation (Caltrans). The option consideration payment of $10,000 which was previously paid to Midway Baptist Church by the |

| |Department of Parks and Recreation will be reimbursed by Caltrans upon the close of escrow. There will be a current year cost of |

| |$6,500 for Real Estate Services’ staff costs required to process the transaction and an annual cost of $335 for Special Tax |

| |Assessments, including vector control and water standby fees that will be paid from the Department’s Proposed Operational Plan. |

| |Management of the acquired property will be accomplished within the Department’s Proposed Operational Plan and no additional staff|

| |years will be required for these activities. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |At the August 1, 2007 hearing: |

| |Direct the Clerk of the Board to publish the required Notice of Intention to Purchase in accordance with Government Code Sections |

| |25350 and 6063. |

| | |

| |Set this matter for September 19, 2007, at which time the Board of Supervisors may authorize the Director of General Services to |

| |exercise the option to purchase 11.63 acres (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 628-050-18 and 628-050-23 (portion)) from Midway Baptist |

| |Church for the appraised value of $3,730,000. |

| | |

| |At the September 19, 2007 hearing: |

| |Authorize the Director of the Department of General Services to exercise the County’s option to purchase 11.63 acres from Midway |

| |Baptist Church for the appraised value of $3,730,000. |

| | |

| |Authorize the Director of the Department of General Services, or designee, to execute all escrow and related documents necessary |

| |to complete the purchase. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent; setting |

| |Hearing for September 19, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. |

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

| |

| |

|8. |SUBJECT: |RESOLUTION RESCINDING REJECTION AND ACCEPTING OFFERS OF DEDICATION FOR ROAD EASEMENTS -- HIGHWAY 76, |

| | |PANKEY ROAD AND SHEARER CROSSING (PARCEL NO. 2007-0136-A) (DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has requested the County of San Diego to accept the Offers of |

| |Dedication of easements for road purposes made to the County of San Diego on Parcel Map 13703 (Thomas Guide page 1048, H-1 to |

| |J-1). The purpose of this acceptance is to allow the developer of the Rosemary's Mountain project to improve the Highway 76 near |

| |Pankey Road and the intersections of Pankey Road and SR 76 and Pankey Road and Shearer Crossing as approved by Caltrans. The road|

| |improvements are required as mitigation for the Rosemary's Mountain project. This is a request to take the necessary action in |

| |accordance with Government Code Section 66477.2 (a) to accept the Irrevocable Offers to Dedicate easements for road purposes. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |The Developer will pay the County’s cost to process the requested Offer Acceptance. The estimated cost is $500 which the |

| |applicant has placed on deposit with the County. This action requires no additional staff years. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Addendum to the EIR for the Palomar Aggregates Quarry Project, SCH Number |

| |910810610, on file in the Department of Planning and Land Use as Environmental Review No. 87-02-113, was 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 EIR and Addendum reflect |

| |the independent judgment and analysis of the Board of Supervisors; |

| | |

| |Find that the currently proposed actions are within the scope of the EIR and Addendum; that there are no changes in the project or|

| |in the circumstances under which it is undertaken that would result in significant environmental impacts beyond those considered |

| |in the certified EIR and Addendum, 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 EIR and Addendum were prepared. |

| | |

| |Adopt the resolution entitled A Resolution Of The Board Of Supervisors Of The County Of San Diego Rescinding The Rejection Of |

| |Offers Of Dedication Of Easements For Road Purposes Made On Parcel Map 13703 And Accepting Those Offers Related To Highway 76, |

| |Pankey Road And Shearer Crossing. |

| | |

| |Direct the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to file this Resolution with the Office of the Recorder/County Clerk for recording |

| |pursuant to Government Code Section 66477.3. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent, adopting |

| |Resolution No. 07-178 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO RESCINDING THE REJECTION OF |

| |OFFERS OF DEDICATION OF EASEMENTS FOR ROAD PURPOSES MADE ON PARCEL MAP 13703 AND ACCEPTING THOSE OFFERS RELATED TO HIGHWAY 76, |

| |PANKEY ROAD AND SHEARER CROSSING. |

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

| |

| |

|9. |SUBJECT: |AUTHORIZATION TO EXTEND PERIOD FOR RECEIPT AND USE OF FEDERAL GRANT FUNDS FOR A WILDLAND FIRE COMMUNITY |

| | |RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH PROGRAM (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On October 18, 2006 (16) the Board of Supervisors authorized the Farm and Home Advisors Office/Cooperative Extension to accept |

| |grant funds of $323,780 to further develop the wildland fire education and outreach program for the region. These federal grant |

| |funds are from the Assistance to Firefighters–Fire Prevention and Safety Program administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland |

| |Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency and the U.S. Fire Administration. This is a request to authorize acceptance of an |

| |extension to the grant funds and period of performance. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for this request are not budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2007-08 Operational Plan. If approved, this request will result in |

| |cost and revenue of $323,780 to further develop and establish a wildfire community research, education and outreach program. The |

| |funding source is the U.S. Department of Homeland Security/FEMA and U.S. Fire Administration. There are no match fund |

| |requirements. Additional staffing needs will be met through temporary and contract employment. The outreach program will be |

| |designed and implemented to minimize ongoing operational costs. Any ongoing operational costs will be absorbed by the Farm and |

| |Home Advisor annual budget. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Authorize the Director, Farm and Home Advisors Office/Cooperative Extension or designee, to extend the period for receiving and |

| |using the $323,780 FEMA grant to February 3, 2008 for the FEMA Assistance to Firefighters-Fire Prevention and Safety Program. |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| |Waive Board Policy B-29, Fees, Grants, and Revenue Contracts – Department Responsibility for Cost Recovery, because this FEMA |

| |grant limits reimbursement to those direct costs specified and will not fully reimburse all costs associated with the |

| |administration of this grant. |

| | |

| |Establish appropriations of $323,780 in the Farm and Home Advisors Office/Cooperative Extension for wildland fire community |

| |research, education and outreach activities based on unanticipated revenue from federal grant funds. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |

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

| |

| |

|10. |SUBJECT: |CONTRIBUTION OF FUNDING FOR STATEWIDE PAVEMENT NEEDS ASSESSMENT STUDY: CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF |

| | |COUNTIES (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The California State Association of Counties has joined with the League of California Cities and the County Engineers Association |

| |of California to conduct a statewide pavement needs assessment project. The statewide study will benefit the County by providing|

| |a context for comparing County Maintained Roads with the statewide standards. More importantly, it will provide data so that all |

| |jurisdictions, including San Diego County, will be better able to communicate funding needs to State and federal funding sources. |

| | |

| |The study will be conducted during calendar year 2008 using a consultant, and cost is estimated at $500,000. All counties and |

| |cities in the State are being asked to contribute by formula (based on population) toward the fund. |

| |This is a request to establish appropriations of $30,000 and authorize contribution of this amount to the California State |

| |Association of Counties for purposes of conducting the pavement needs assessment study. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funding for this request is not currently in the Public Works Operational Plan, but is available from Road Fund fund balance. If |

| |approved, this request will result in a current year cost of $30,000 for a statewide pavement needs assessment study. There will |

| |be no subsequent year cost and no additional staff years will be required. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Establish appropriations of $30,000 in the Department of Public Works Road Fund to help fund a statewide pavement needs assessment|

| |study based on Road Fund fund balance available. |

| |Authorize the Director, Department of Public Works, to submit a contribution of $30,000 to the California State Association of |

| |Counties for the statewide pavement needs assessment 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, Roberts, Horn |

| |

| |

|11. |SUBJECT: |TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS (DISTRICTS: 1, 2 AND 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

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

| |Twenty-two items were on the Committee's June 8, 2007 meeting agenda. The Committee recommends your action on all 22 items, with |

| |two items (Item A and Item 2-B) being continued to a future Traffic Advisory Committee meeting. Item A was continued to allow |

| |County Counsel the opportunity to review and comment on two amended versions of Section 72.123. of the County Code of Regulatory |

| |Ordinances and determine which is the most appropriate. Item 2-B was continued to provide an opportunity for the RV Resort’s |

| |manager and property owner to review and comment on an amendment from the Lakeside Community Planning Group regarding the proposed|

| |parking prohibition on the west side of Oak Creek Road. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

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

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE |

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

| |Countywide |

| |A. The Committee continued the matter of amending Section 72.123. of the County Code of Regulatory Ordinances to a future |

| |Traffic Advisory Committee meeting to allow County Counsel the opportunity to review two differing versions of the proposed |

| |amendment and determine which is the most appropriate. |

| |District 1 |

| |1-A. Valley Vista Road, south side, from a point 470 feet east of the east line of Valley Vista Way eastward 20 feet, (Thomas |

| |Guide page 1310, F-3) BONITA -- Establish a disabled parking space. |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| |1-B1. San Miguel Road, north side, from the east line of Bonita Ranch Court eastward 1,300 feet, (Thomas Guide page 1311, A-1) |

| |BONITA -- On June 20, 2007 (4) the Board approved the enabling resolution prohibiting the parking of specified vehicles on a |

| |designated County road. The Board also adopted the establishment of the above parking prohibition on the north side of San Miguel|

| |Road. Presently, an amendment to the enabling resolution is necessary to allow the California Highway Patrol to issue a temporary|

| |48-hour permit allowing a specified vehicle to park in the prohibited area for purposes of loading and unloading. This amendment |

| |is consistent with the board approved guidelines for the prohibition of specified vehicles on a designated County road. |

| |District 2 |

| |2-A. Olive Drive and Helix Street, (Thomas Guide page 1271, B-6) SPRING VALLEY -- Do not establish an all-way stop control. |

| |2-B. Oak Creek Road, west side, from a point 225 feet north of the north line of Olde Highway 80 northerly 225 feet, (Thomas |

| |Guide page 1233, B-3) LAKESIDE – The Committee continued the proposed establishment of a parking prohibition to a future meeting |

| |to provide an opportunity for the RV Resort’s manager and property owner to review and comment on an amendment from the Lakeside |

| |Community Planning Group. |

| |2-C. Petite Lane, east side, from the south line of Lakeshore Drive southward 2,050 feet, (Thomas Guide page 1232, C-4) |

| |LAKESIDE -- Establish a parking prohibition. |

| |2-D. Vista Grande Road between Hillsdale Road and Dehesa Road, (a distance of 2.03 miles) (Thomas Guide pages 1252, D-6 to 1272,|

| |C-3) EL CAJON -- Recertify the existing 40 MPH speed limit for the continued use of radar for speed enforcement. |

| |2-E. Runabout Place and Bearcat Lane, (Thomas Guide page 1272, D-3) RANCHO SAN DIEGO -- Establish a yield control for |

| |northbound motorists on Bearcat Lane approaching Runabout Place. |

| |2-F1. Winter Gardens Boulevard, west side, from a point 170 feet north of the north line of Pepper Drive northward 480 feet, |

| |(Thomas Guide page 1251, J-1) LAKESIDE -- Establish a parking prohibition. |

| |2-F2. Woodside Avenue, south side, from the west line of Riverview Avenue westerly 800 feet, (Thomas Guide page 1231, J-4) |

| |LAKESIDE -- Establish a parking prohibition. |

| |2-F3. Riverford Drive, east side, from a point 80 feet north of the north line of El Nopal northward 500 feet, (Thomas Guide page|

| |1232, H-3) LAKESIDE -- Establish a parking prohibition. |

| |2-F4. Riverford Road, west side, from a point 200 feet north of the north line of El Nopal northward 100 feet, (Thomas Guide page|

| |1232, H-3) LAKESIDE -- Establish a parking prohibition. |

| |2-F5. Marathon Parkway, both sides, from the south line of Mast Boulevard northward to the cul-de-sac, (Thomas Guide page 1231, |

| |G-4) LAKESIDE -- Establish a parking prohibition. |

| |District 5 |

| |5-A. Via Cuatro Caminos, west side, from the south line of Del Dios Highway southward 60 feet, (Thomas Guide page 1168, G-1) |

| |RANCHO SANTA FE -- Establish a parking prohibition. |

| |5-B. Nordahl Road and Rock Springs Road, (Thomas Guide page 1109, E-7) SAN MARCOS -- Place this intersection on the County’s |

| |Traffic Signal Priority List. |

| |5-C. 4S Ranch Parkway from Camino del Norte southward to the end, (a distance of 1.05 miles) (Thomas Guide page 1169, E-F4) 4S |

| |RANCH -- Do not establish a formal speed limit. |

| |5-D. Rancho Bernardo Road and Alva Road, (Thomas Guide page 1169, G-2) RANCHO BERNARDO -- Place this intersection on the |

| |County’s Traffic Signal Priority List. |

| |5-E. Deer Springs Road from the San Marcos City Limit eastward to a point 1,250 feet east of the east line of Sarver Lane, (a |

| |distance of 0.8 miles) (Thomas Guide pages 1089, A-7 to 1108, J-4) VISTA -- Raise the existing 50 MPH speed limit to 55 MPH. |

| |5-F1. La Flecha, south side, from the east line of Avenida de Acacias/Calle Jon Norte eastward 40 feet and from the west line of |

| |Via de Santa Fe westward 40 feet, (Thomas Guide page 1168, D-3) RANCHO SANTA FE -- Establish a parking prohibition. |

| |5-F2. Golden Road, east side, from the south of line of Fallbrook Street southward 150 feet (to Avenida Campana) (Thomas Guide |

| |page 1027, G-3) FALLBROOK -- Establish a parking prohibition. |

| |5-F3. West Lilac Road, west side, from a point 800 feet south of the south line of Lilac Ridge Road southward 700 feet, (Thomas |

| |Guide page 1069, E-2) VALLEY CENTER-- Establish a parking prohibition. |

| |5-F4. Del Dios Highway, south side, from the west line of Via Cuatro Caminos westward 210 feet, (Thomas Guide page 1168, G-1) |

| |RANCHO SANTA FE -- Establish a parking prohibition. |

| | |

| |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. 301 (Items 2-C, 2-F1, 2-F2, 2-F3, 2-F4, 2-F5, 5-A, 5-F1. 5-F2, 5-F3 and 5-F4) |

| |No. 306 (Item 2-E) |

| |No. 1197 (Item 1-A) |

| |No. 3072 (Item 1-B1) |

| |Approve the introduction, read title and waive further reading of the following Ordinance (Item 5-E). |

| |AN ORDINANCE DELETING SECTION 72.161.43.1. OF 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 September 19, 2007. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent, adopting the|

| |following Resolutions entitled: |

| |Item 1-A, Resolution No. 07-179 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 3073, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 1197 RELATING TO|

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

| |Item 2-C, Resolution No. 07-180 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 3074, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO |

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

| |Item 2-F1, Resolution No. 07-181 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 3075, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO|

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

| |Item 2-F2, Resolution No. 07-182 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 3076, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 REALTING TO|

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

| |Item 2-F3, Resolution No. 07-183 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 3077, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 REALTING TO|

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

| | |

| | |

| | |

| |Item 2-F4, Resolution No. 07-184 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 3078, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 REALTING TO|

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

| |Item 2-F5, Resolution No. 07-185 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 3079, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO|

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

| | |

| |Item 5-A, Resolution No. 07-186 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 3080, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO|

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

| | |

| |Item 5-F1, Resolution No. 07-187 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 3081, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO|

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

| |Item 5-F2, Resolution No. 07-188 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 3082, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 REALTING TO|

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

| | |

| |Item 5-F3, Resolution No. 07-189 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 3083, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO|

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

| | |

| |Item 5-F4, Resolution No. 07-190 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 3084, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO|

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

| | |

| |Item 2-E, Resolution No. 07-191 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 3085, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 306 RELATING TO|

| |THE ESTABLISHMENT OF YEILD RIGHT-OF-WAY INTERSECTIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; |

| | |

| |Item 1-B1, Resolution No. 07-192 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 3086, RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PARKING |

| |PROHIBITION SPECIFIED VEHICLES ON A DESIGNATED COUNTY ROAD; and took action as recommended introducing Ordinance for further Board|

| |consideration and adoption on September 19, 2007. |

| | |

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

|12. |SUBJECT: |ESTABLISH APPROPRIATIONS FOR ALPINE FOREST CONSERVATION INITIATIVE LANDS EVALUATION PLAN (DISTRICT: 2) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The Forest Conservation Initiative is a voter approved initiative which requires that approximately 83,000 acres of private lands |

| |within the Cleveland National Forest in the County of San Diego have a minimum lot size of 40 acres. The Forest Conservation |

| |Initiative was originally approved in 1993 and, unless extended by the voters, is scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2010. As |

| |required by the Forest Conservation Initiative, General Plan 2020 proposes a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 40 acres for|

| |most privately-owned lands within the Cleveland National Forest (lands within Country Town boundaries were exempt). |

| |If approved, the Board of Supervisors would direct staff to begin a process to determine the most appropriate land uses for |

| |identified privately-owned lands in the Alpine community that are subject to the Forest Conservation Initiative. Any proposed |

| |land use changes could not legally take effect unless and until the Forest Conservation Initiative sunsets on December 31, 2010. |

| |If the Forest Conservation Initiative is extended, any planning work conducted for the Alpine community would be subject to the |

| |requirements of that initiative. |

| |The planning process would be conducted in two phases. When combined, Phases I and II form a contiguous study area of |

| |privately-owned Forest Conservation Initiative lands in the Alpine community. The boundary for the study area is a subset of all |

| |Forest Conservation Initiative lands in Alpine, and the study area boundary was recommended by the Alpine Community Planning Group|

| |at their April 27, 2006 meeting. |

| |Phase I would focus on approximately 67 acres of non-tribal owned lands north of Interstate 8 and east of the Viejas reservation |

| |that are easily accessible from Interstate 8. The boundary of Phase I was agreed upon by representatives of the Alpine Community |

| |Planning Group during their May 2007 meeting with the County. The Phase II study area would evaluate an additional 1,877 acres of|

| |land in Alpine that are subject to the Forest Conservation Initiative. Work on Phase II would not begin until funding is |

| |identified. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for this request are not included in the Fiscal Year 2007-09 Operational Plan. If approved, this request will result in a |

| |one-time cost of $50,000 in Fiscal Year 2007-08. The funding source is Fiscal Year 2006-07 fund balance available in the Land Use|

| |and Environment Group. No additional staff years are required by this proposal. |

| |BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT: |

| |A General Plan Amendment of privately-owned lands in Phase I would allow the Department of Planning and Land Use and the community|

| |to consider site specific issues for an area within Alpine that is separated from the Cleveland National Forest by Interstate 8. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find that the project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements in accordance with Section 15262 |

| |Feasibility and Planning Studies of the CEQA Guidelines. |

| | |

| |Direct staff to begin Phase I of the planning analysis, with both phases of the plan to be completed prior to the sunsetting of |

| |the 1993 Forest Conservation Initiative. |

| | |

| |Establish appropriations of $50,000 in the Department of Planning and Land Use to provide funding for Phase I of the Alpine Forest|

| |Conservation Initiative Lands Evaluation Plan based on the Land Use and Environment Group’s Fiscal Year 2006-07 fund balance |

| |available. (4 VOTES) |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Horn, the Board took action as recommended. |

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

| |

| |

|13. |SUBJECT: |NEW APPOINTMENTS TO THE COUNTY’S SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On April 14, 1992 (45), the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution to establish the Science Advisory Board for San Diego |

| |County. The purpose of the Science Advisory Board is to provide scientific and technological input and recommendations to the |

| |Board of Supervisors and Chief Administrative Officer on issues that affect economic policies. Currently there are two vacancies |

| |on the Science Advisory Board. This action will result in the appointment of two new members, each for a three-year term. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |None |

| |BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT: |

| |This action enables the Science Advisory Board to continue to assist the County by providing technical advice on scientific and |

| |technology issues as they affect the development of Board policies on economic and business development issues. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Appoint Dr. Ezcurra and Dr. Scioscia for three-year terms on the Science Advisory Board, terms to expire August 1, 2010. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board appointed Dr. Ezcurra for a three-year term on the |

| |Science Advisory Board, term to expire August 1, 2010, on Consent. |

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

| |

|14. |SUBJECT: |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| | |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT NO. 5146-1: APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP AND SECURED AGREEMENTS FOR PUBLIC AND |

| | |PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED IN SAN DIEGUITO COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA (DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |This project is a subdivision consisting of two Country Estate lots and one Community Recreation lot to accommodate a passive or |

| |active park. There is a total of 14.16 acres. This tract map is located in Rancho Cielo at the southwest corner of Paseo |

| |Esplanada and Via Ambiente. (Thomas Guide, Page 1149, A-3). |

| | |

| |This project is being brought before the Board for approval of final map and secured agreements for public and private |

| |improvements. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |N/A |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Approve this map. |

| | |

| |Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to execute the Agreement to Improve Major Subdivision (TM 4229-1 |

| |Offsite Sta. 102+00 to 161+45) which includes sewer and waterline improvements and setting final monuments (Attachment B). |

| | |

| |Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to execute the Agreement to Improve Major Subdivision (TM 4229-1 |

| |Offsite Sta. 4+79 to 102+00) which includes street and drainage improvements (Attachment E). |

| | |

| |Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to execute the Agreement to Improve Major Subdivision TM 4227-1 |

| |(Attachment H). |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |

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

|15. |SUBJECT: |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| | |HEARING TO CONFIRM FISCAL YEAR 2007-08 LEVIES FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT ZONE |

| | |(DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On July 25, 2007 (4) the Engineer’s Report was approved for Landscape Maintenance District Zone 1, and a hearing set for August 1,|

| |2007 to consider approving assessments for that District. |

| | |

| |A public hearing is required annually to confirm and adopt levies for Landscape Maintenance District Zones prior to placing on the|

| |tax roll. Article XIIID of the State Constitution (Proposition 218), approved by California voters in November 1996, determines |

| |how these districts set maximum rates, dependent upon whether they are categorized as an assessment, fee or charge, or a special |

| |tax. The levies described in this letter reflect no increases except those previously approved by property owner ballot or |

| |registered district voters. |

| | |

| |In Fiscal Year 2007-08, one Landscape Maintenance District, Landscape Maintenance District Zone 1, will levy an assessment within |

| |its ballot-approved rate. |

| | |

| |This request is, after hearing public testimony, to adopt assessments for the Landscape Maintenance District Zone No. 1. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for processing this request are budgeted in Department of Public Works, Special Districts Administration. The funding |

| |source is individual district trust funds on deposit. The levies are consistent with revenues shown in the proposed budgets for |

| |the County Service Areas and Zones. The proposed budgets were submitted to the Board on May 15, 2007 (17) and were subject to |

| |public hearings from June 4 through June 13, 2007. The Board tentatively approved the County’s Operational Plan following budget |

| |deliberations on June 19, 2007. Final budget adoption is scheduled for July 31, 2007. If approved, these requests will result |

| |in no additional current year costs, no annual cost and will require no additional staff years. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Adopt a resolution entitled Confirming Diagram and Assessments in the Landscape Maintenance District Zone No. 1 in order that the |

| |assessments may be collected on the tax roll for Fiscal Year 2007-08 as provided in Streets and Highways Code Section 22645. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board closed the Hearing and took action as recommended, |

| |on Consent adopting Resolution No. 07-193 entitled: RESOLUTION CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENTS IN THE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE |

| |DISTRICT ZONE NO. 1. |

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

| |

| |

|16. |SUBJECT: |CLOSED SESSION (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| | |(CARRYOVER ITEM FROM 7/31/07, AGENDA NO. 31) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

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

| |Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code section 54956.9: (Number of Cases – 1) |

| | |

| |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. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION |

| |(Government Code section 54957) |

| |Title: County Counsel |

| | |

| |D. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION |

| |(Government Code section 54957) |

| |Title: Chief Administrative Officer |

| |ACTION: |

| |In Closed Session on Tuesday, July 31, 2007, the Board of Supervisors took the following reportable actions: |

| |Item 31A: By vote of all 5 members being present and voting “Aye,” authorized County Counsel to initiate action, the defendants |

| |and other particulars to be revealed only after litigation has been commenced, upon inquiry. |

There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 11:45 a.m. in memory of Peg Divine and Thomas Mitchell.

THOMAS J. PASTUSZKA

Clerk of the Board of Supervisors

County of San Diego, State of California

Consent: Mazyck

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