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, APRIL 13, 2005, 9:00 AM

Board of Supervisors North Chamber

1600 Pacific Highway, Room 310, San Diego, California

MORNING SESSION: - Meeting was called to order at 9:07 a.m.

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

Approval of Statement of Board of Supervisor’s Proceedings/Minutes for the Meeting of March 23, 2005.

ACTION:

ON MOTION of Supervisor Cox, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board of Supervisors approved the Statement of Proceedings/Minutes for the meeting of March 23, 2005

AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts

ABSENT: Horn

Public Communication

Board of Supervisors’ Agenda Items

|1. |ADOPTION OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES FOR FALLBROOK, RAMONA, AND REMAINING UNINCORPORATED COUNTY AREAS AND AUTHORIZATION TO JOIN|

| |SCIP FINANCING PROGRAM |

| |(CARRYOVER FROM 1/12/05, AGENDA NO. 1) |

|2. |NEW COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH SAN PASQUAL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH VALLEY VIEW CASINO |

| |(CARRYOVER FROM 3/23/05, AGENDA NO. 9) |

|3. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| |LUNDBERG TENTATIVE MAP TIME EXTENSION; TM 5132TE, NORTH COUNTY METROPOLITAN SUBREGIONAL PLAN AREA |

|4. |REPEAL OF AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING METHANE TESTING ON PROJECTS WITH MASS GRADING |

|5. |AMEND TRANSNET LOCAL STREET AND ROAD PROGRAM OF PROJECTS AND COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ELEMENT OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION |

| |IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM |

|6. |EMERGENCY REMEDIATION OF STORMWATER DAMAGED DRAINAGE CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS |

| |(4 VOTES) |

|7. |PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION ZONES 1001 – CAPRA WAY DISSOLUTION; MOUNTAIN MEADOW – 102 PUBLIC ROAD DECLARATION |

|8. |PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE RESOLUTION: DISCOVERY VALLEY EQUESTRIAN CENTER REORGANIZATION |

|9. |SET HEARING FOR 6/15/2005 |

| |PROPOSED SAN DIEGO COUNTYWIDE PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION NO. 1000, ZONE NO. 1015 – LANDAVO IN THE ESCONDIDO AREA |

|10. |AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO A CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR THE SAN ELIJO LAGOON VISITOR CENTER PROJECT |

| |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): DISTRICT 3 COMMUNITY PROJECTS FUNDS AND PROPOSITION 40 PER CAPITA GRANT FUNDS] |

| |(4 VOTES) |

|11. |AGREEMENTS WITH FOUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING FIRMS TO PROVIDE SERVICES ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS |

| |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): WITHIN THE ROAD FUND, SUCH AS TRANSNET, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, AND GAS TAX] |

|12. |OPEN SPACE SUBVENTION ACT REIMBURSEMENTS |

|13. |OUT OF COUNTRY BUSINESS FOR AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER/ SEALER TO ATTEND ANNUAL MEETING OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS |

| |ORGANIZATION-COMMITTEE ON CONSUMER POLICY |

|14. |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20549: APPROVAL OF JOINT SECURED AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS IN |

| |ALPINE COMMUNITY PLAN AREA |

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

|15. |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT NOS. 4828-8, 4828-9 AND 4828-10: APPROVAL OF FINAL MAPS AND JOINT SECURED AGREEMENTS FOR PUBLIC AND |

| |PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS IN SPRING VALLEY |

| |(RELATES TO SANITATION DISTRICTS AGENDA NO. 2) |

|16. |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| |SECOND CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE: TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS |

|17. |CLOSED SESSION |

|18. |PUBLIC COMMUNICATION |

|1. |SUBJECT: |ADOPTION OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES FOR FALLBROOK, RAMONA, AND REMAINING UNINCORPORATED COUNTY AREAS AND |

| | |AUTHORIZATION TO JOIN SCIP FINANCING PROGRAM (DISTRICTS: ALL) |

| | |(CARRYOVER FROM 1/12/05, AGENDA NO. 1) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On May 5, 2004 (5), the Board authorized the Director of Public Works to develop a Transportation Impact Fee program for Fallbrook and |

| |Ramona. The purpose of such an impact fee program is to provide funding for construction of transportation facilities needed to support |

| |traffic generated by new development. During the eight months it took to develop such a program, staff also developed a transportation |

| |impact fee program for the remaining portion of the unincorporated county. On January 12, 2005 (1), both impact fee programs were |

| |presented to the Board. |

| |On January 12, 2005 (1), the Board continued their consideration of impact fee adoption for all communities in the unincorporated |

| |county. During that continuation, staff was directed to consider alternatives that would lessen impacts to commercial development with |

| |input from community representatives, developers and other stakeholders. |

| |The primary purpose of transportation impact fee programs is twofold: 1) to fund construction of identified facilities needed to reduce |

| |or mitigate projected cumulative impacts resulting from future development; and 2) to allocate the costs of these facilities equitably |

| |among all future developing properties. These fees for future development road deficiencies, when combined with public funds to address |

| |current roadway deficiencies, will enable construction of an adequate roadway system to support planned land uses in the unincorporated |

| |county. |

| |Since January 12th, representatives from Building Industry Association, National Association of Industrial and Office Properties, South |

| |County Economic Development Council, Regional Chamber of Commerce, Ramona property owners, and Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce have |

| |contributed many ideas that have been included in this revised proposal. To summarize, changes include fee reductions for commercial |

| |development in consideration of pass-by trips; implementation of Statewide Community Infrastructure Program; a tiered fee structure and |

| |potential fee reductions due to public financial benefit for commercial development projects; prioritizing road improvements serving |

| |projects with paid impact fees; and several reimbursement and credit provisions. In addition, County staff added information to the |

| |previously published engineering studies. Staff also added Ordinance language to 1) ensure fees would be deposited in interest accruing |

| |funds to help reduce overall costs, and 2) allow formation of a zone where impact fees would be reduced where public funds are |

| |determined appropriate due to overall identified benefits. A separate impact fee for SR 76 improvements was suggested and will be |

| |developed and brought to the Board within 60 days. |

| |This is a request to approve and adopt the Fallbrook and Ramona Transportation Impact Fee Report, and the County of San Diego |

| |Transportation Impact Fee Report. Both include transportation facilities studies, transportation improvements and fee schedules. The |

| |Board is requested to authorize the Director, Department of Public Works, to establish accounts for receipt of Transportation Impact |

| |Fees. This is also a request to repeal existing Title 7, Division 7 of the San Diego County Code and adopt new Title 7, Division 7 as a |

| |replacement to provide an enabling ordinance for these Transportation Impact Fee programs. |

| |This also includes a request to authorize the County to join the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program and authorize the California|

| |Statewide Communities Development Authority to accept applications from owners to conduct special assessments and levy assessments |

| |within San Diego County. This action will allow developers to voluntarily place their projects into an assessment district as an |

| |alternative to cash payment of Impact Fees. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |If approved, this request could result in new total revenue of $909 million, over a 25 to 40 year period, depending on the rate of |

| |development. Adoption of Transportation Impact Fees will result in no current year costs and require no additional staff years. |

| |BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT: |

| |Approval of these fees will provide developers with a mechanism for complying with requirements of CEQA related to identification and |

| |mitigation of cumulative traffic impacts. The program will allow developers to contribute a fair share to fund infrastructure |

| |improvements needed to serve their projects. Joining the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program will allow developers to spread |

| |impact fee costs over 30 years. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find that proposed action is exempt from requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as specified in Section |

| |15273(a)(4) of CEQA Guidelines, as fees collected from this action will be used for transportation infrastructure necessary to maintain |

| |service within existing service areas and collection of these fees will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect |

| |physical change to the environment. Before the location and extent of transportation improvement projects are finalized by future |

| |County actions, alternatives, environmental impacts and mitigation will be addressed. |

| |Approve and adopt the Fallbrook and Ramona Transportation Impact Fee Report, including new Addendums, alternative fee schedules, and |

| |alternative transportation improvements identified for illustrative purposes to provide a basis for determining reasonable costs |

| |(without Northern Bypass alternative), with the understanding that environmental review will be conducted and alternatives considered |

| |before improvement construction; and direct Chief Administrative Officer to initiate collection of the fees upon effective date of the |

| |proposed Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance. |

| |Approve and adopt the County of San Diego Transportation Impact Fee Report, including new Addendums, alternative fee schedules, and |

| |transportation improvements identified for illustrative purposes to provide a basis for determining reasonable costs, with the |

| |understanding that environmental review will be conducted and alternatives considered before improvement construction; and direct Chief |

| |Administrative Officer to initiate collection of the fees upon effective date of the proposed Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance. |

| |Authorize the Director, Department of Public Works, to establish accounts for receipt of Transportation Impact Fees, identified in the |

| |Fallbrook and Ramona Transportation Impact Fee Report. |

| |Authorize the Director, Department of Public Works to establish accounts for receipt of Transportation Impact Fees, identified in the |

| |County of San Diego Transportation Impact Fee Report. |

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

| |AN ORDINANCE REPEALING EXISTING TITLE 7, DIVISION 7 OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGULATORY CODE AND ADOPTING NEW TITLE 7, DIVISION 7 RELATED|

| |TO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES |

| |Submit the Ordinance for further Board consideration and adoption (second reading) on April 20, 2005. |

| |Direct that the Ordinance be operative June 19, 2005, and report back to the Board of Supervisors after the ordinance has been in effect|

| |for 180 days with any needed changes. |

| |Adopt the Resolution entitled Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego Authorizing the County to Join the |

| |Statewide Community Infrastructure Program and Authorizing the California Statewide Communities Development Authority to Accept |

| |Applications from Property Owners, Conduct Special Assessment Proceedings and Levy Assessments Within the Territory of the County of San|

| |Diego and Authorizing Related Actions. |

| |ACTION: |

| |Adding the following recommendations: |

| |Amend Section 77.210(e) to allow developers a credit of up to 100% of the savings; |

| |Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to continue to work on the fee schedule and consider the BIA fee schedule to determine whether |

| |it is legally justifiable; |

| |Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to provide reports to the Board on efficacy of the program using examples of projects that |

| |proceed under the new fee schedule; |

| |Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to create a program or policy within 60 days that allows the Director of Public Works to |

| |reasonably reduce fees on commercial projects by the amount of a projected sales tax increment; |

| |Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to allow for the use of a completion bond to forestall the fee; |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Horn, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended using the version with |

| |errata to Attachment B, introducing Ordinance for further consideration on April 20, 2005 and adopting Resolution No. 05-51 entitled: |

| |RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY TO JOIN THE STATEWIDE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE |

| |PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT APPLICATIONS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS, CONDUCT |

| |SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDINGS AND LEVY ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND AUTHORIZING RELATED ACTIONS. |

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

| |NOES: Roberts |

| |

|2. |SUBJECT: |NEW COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH SAN PASQUAL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH VALLEY |

| | |VIEW CASINO (DISTRICT: 5) |

| | |(CARRYOVER FROM 3/23/05, AGENDA NO. 9) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On March 23, 2005 (9), the Board continued this item to April 13, 2005. |

| | |

| |On September 10, 1999, the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians signed a tribal-state gaming compact with the State of California. San |

| |Pasqual Band opened their temporary Valley View Casino on April 18, 2001, and planned to construct a permanent Class III casino at a |

| |separate location close to the Escondido end of South Lake Wohlford Road on its tribal lands. On June 19, 2001 (1), the Board approved |

| |a Cooperative Agreement (Agreement) with San Pasqual Band for mitigation of traffic impacts. Subsequent to the 2001 Agreement, the Band |

| |changed its casino plans and now considers the temporary Valley View Casino to be its permanent casino. The Band plans to expand the |

| |casino by 56,360 square feet, including 31,640 square feet of additional gaming space, which results in a smaller permanent casino at a |

| |different location than was the basis of the 2001 Agreement. |

| |Because of the change in casino plans, impacts to roads in the unincorporated area have significantly changed, making a new Agreement |

| |necessary. This is a request to approve a new Cooperative Agreement with San Pasqual Band, to replace the 2001 Agreement, wherein the |

| |Band agrees to contribute $5,995,000 towards Valley Center Road Phase II improvements, which are currently part of the County’s Capital |

| |Improvement Program. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funding source for improvements discussed in this request will be San Pasqual Band of Mission Indian contributions of $5,995,000. |

| |Appropriations from these funds will be requested to be established when the project is brought to the Board for approval in FY 2004-05.|

| |No subsequent year costs are anticipated, and no additional staff years will be required. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find the following action is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review under Section 15601(b)(1) of CEQA |

| |Guidelines because it is not a project as defined in Section 15378. |

| |Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to execute four copies upon receipt of a Cooperative Agreement between the |

| |County of San Diego and San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians for Road Improvements Associated with Casino Development. |

| |Authorize the Director, Department of Public Works, to receive, file and execute any documents necessary to administer this Agreement. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Cox, the Board of Supervisors withdrew this item at the request of the Chief |

| |Administrative Officer, on Consent. |

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

| |

| |

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

| | |LUNDBERG TENTATIVE MAP TIME EXTENSION; TM 5132TE, NORTH COUNTY METROPOLITAN SUBREGIONAL PLAN AREA (DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |This is an appeal filed by the applicant of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the Tentative Map Time Extension. The Tentative |

| |Map Time Extension application proposes an extension of the expiration date for TM 5132. The project site is 6.64 acres and the |

| |Tentative Map proposes to subdivide the site into six single-family residential lots ranging in size from 0.69 to 1.85 acres. The |

| |approved Tentative Map expired on November 29, 2004, however, the applicant had submitted on that date an application requesting a Time |

| |Extension. The subject area is zoned RR1 (Rural Residential) and the General Plan Land Use Designation is (2) Residential. The site is|

| |located east of Via Conca D’Oro, between Emma Lane and Via Paradiso in the North County Metropolitan Subregional Plan Area. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |N/A |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |PLANNING COMMISSION: |

| |Deny the appeal and adopt the Resolution denying TM 5132TE (Attachment B) for the reasons included in the staff report. |

| | |

| |DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE: |

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

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Horn, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board of Supervisors closed the Hearing and granted a six-months |

| |extension to the applicant. |

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

| |

| |

|4. |SUBJECT: |REPEAL OF AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING METHANE TESTING ON PROJECTS WITH MASS GRADING (DISTRICTS: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On July 18, 2001 (7), the Board adopted the methane gas ordinance at Chapter 3 of Division 6 of Title 8 of the County Code. On March |

| |13, 2002 (20), the Board adopted amendments to the ordinance requiring methane gas testing countywide on projects with mass grading. |

| |The Board also directed the Chief Administrative Officer to return with a recommendation to repeal, modify, or continue the ordinance, |

| |based on the results of the methane gas testing. |

| |Since the methane-testing ordinance became effective, subsurface methane gas has been tested at projects in several areas of the County |

| |including Fallbrook, Vista, Escondido, Santa Fe Valley, San Dieguito, and Valle de Oro. In each of these occurrences, the subsurface |

| |methane gas exhibited very similar characteristics, including the following: 1) the gas was not under pressure; 2) the gas was found |

| |almost exclusively in engineered fill soils; 3) the gas was found only in small volume; and 4) the source of the subsurface methane gas |

| |is associated with the natural degradation of organic materials within the engineered fill. |

| |Because the subsurface methane gas is not under pressure and is associated with small amounts of organic materials in engineered fills, |

| |the potential risks are much lower than with other situations when subsurface methane gas is present in larger amounts. This was |

| |confirmed with the completion of a computer modeling, which found that despite the numerous layers of conservatism built into the |

| |simulations, the model showed that potentially hazardous concentrations of methane would not accumulate on the interior of a structure, |

| |even under worst-case scenarios, including the absence of methane mitigation measures. Given this finding, methane mitigation measures |

| |for structures do not appear to be warranted. |

| |Therefore, this letter is a request to repeal the County’s ordinance requiring methane testing on mass graded sites. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

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

| |BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT: |

| |The repeal of mandatory methane mitigation requirements for enclosed structures on fill lots in all mass graded projects will result in |

| |a reduction in construction costs. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Adopt the Negative Declaration (Log #04-00-004) dated February 17, 2005, which found that there would be no significant environmental |

| |impacts resulting from the repeal of the ordinance requiring methane testing on projects with mass grading (Attachment A). |

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

| |AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 3 OF DIVISION 6 OF TITLE 8 OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATED TO METHANE GAS TESTING IN THE |

| |UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. (Attachment B) |

| |Submit the Ordinance for further Board consideration and adoption (second reading) on April 20, 2005. |

| |ACTION: |

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

| |Ordinance for further consideration on April 20, 2005. |

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

| |

|5. |SUBJECT: |AMEND TRANSNET LOCAL STREET AND ROAD PROGRAM OF PROJECTS AND COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ELEMENT OF THE REGIONAL |

| | |TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |This request deals with current TransNet and newly approved TransNet Extension Program revenue. The TransNet Local Street and Road |

| |Program of Projects (County TransNet Program) involves planned expenditure of anticipated revenues from TransNet, a 20-year, half-cent |

| |transportation sales tax approved by voters in 1987. Under the current program, revenue will cease in 2008. At that time revenue from |

| |the TransNet Extension, approved by the voters on November 2, 2004, will commence and will continue through 2048. |

| |On December 15, 2004 (5), your Board amended the TransNet Local Street and Road Program of Projects for County road and bridge projects |

| |using TransNet, State, or Federal monies. SANDAG included this local program in the adopted Regional Transportation Improvement Program.|

| |SANDAG (acting as duly authorized Regional Transportation Commission) submitted the adopted Regional Transportation Improvement Program |

| |to the California Transportation Commission for inclusion in the State Transportation Program. |

| |Since December 2004, estimated construction cost has increased on several projects and additional non-TransNet revenue has been |

| |allocated to one project. It is recommended the County’s TransNet Local Street and Road Program be amended to reflect current budgets |

| |and schedules. |

| |Early Action Program |

| |In January, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Board of Directors authorized an Early Action Program to "jump start" |

| |several projects identified in the TransNet extension. SANDAG has informed local agencies that it intends to debt finance high priority |

| |major highway and transit projects that were included in the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan under this Early Action |

| |Program. SANDAG has already programmed over $15 million for State Route 76 improvements in North County, which is a Caltrans project. |

| |SANDAG has requested that Local agencies submit a list of ready-to-construct Local Street and Road Program projects for inclusion in the|

| |TransNet Early Action debt-financing program by March 25, 2005. This is a request to add five ready-to-construct projects and authorize |

| |debt financing to fully fund the five added projects. |

| |Upon Board approval, the amended County TransNet Program, along with road and bridge projects receiving Federal and State funds, will be|

| |integrated into the County element of Regional Transportation Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2004-05 through Fiscal Year 2007-08 |

| |and submitted to SANDAG. The SANDAG Transportation Committee is scheduled to meet April 15, 2005, and is expected to approve an |

| |amendment to the Regional Transportation Improvement Program to incorporate the revised County TransNet Program. SANDAG Transportation |

| |Committee is expected to approve debt financing for the Early Action Program in May, then the SANDAG Board of Directors will consider |

| |the item in June 2005. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |There will be no current year fiscal impact as a result of adoption of this amendment. Transportation projects, along with offsetting |

| |revenues, will be presented in appropriate fiscal years in proposed Department of Public Works operational plans. The proposed |

| |amendment increases future allocation on three projects by $3,812,000; provides $8,600,000 in funding for 5 new projects; funds |

| |preliminary engineering studies for future projects with $1,350,000; and reduces future allocation for two projects by $7,409,000. This|

| |net increase of $6,353,000 reflects an updated projection of total TransNet funding available. There is no County General Fund cost |

| |associated with any County TransNet projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find the following actions are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15276 of the State |

| |CEQA Guidelines, because CEQA does not apply to development or adoption of a Regional Transportation Improvement Program. |

| |Adopt a resolution entitled Resolution of the County of San Diego Amending the TransNet Local Street and Road Program of Projects for |

| |Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2007-08 and Certifying that Provisions of the TransNet Ordinance Will be Met. |

| |Adopt a resolution entitled Resolution of the County of San Diego Requesting SANDAG to Provide Advanced Funding Through Debt Financing |

| |for Improvements to Julian Avenue, Olive Vista Drive, Ramona Drive, East Mission Road, and Valley Center Road Medians in the Local |

| |Street and Road TransNet Program of Projects. |

| |Direct that projects in the amended TransNet Local Street and Road Program of Projects, along with road and bridge projects receiving |

| |Federal and State funds, be integrated into the County element of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program for Fiscal Year |

| |2004-05 through FY 2007-08, and authorize the Director, Department of Public Works, to submit the County’s amended TransNet Program and |

| |Resolution to SANDAG. |

| |ACTION: |

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

| |Resolution No. 05-52 entitled: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO REQUESTING SANDAG TO PROVIDE ADVANCED FUNDING THROUGH DEBT |

| |FINANCING FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO JULIAN AVENUE, OLIVE VISTA DRIVE, RAMONA DRIVE, EAST MISSION ROAD, AND VALLEY CENTER ROAD MEDIANS LOCAL |

| |STREET AND ROAD TRANSNET PROGRAM OF PROJECTS; and |

| |Resolution No. 05-53 entitled: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AMENDING THE TRANSNET LOCAL STREET AND ROAD PROGRAM OF PROJECTS |

| |FOR FISCAL YEARS 2004-05 THROUGH 2007-08 AND CERTIFYING THAT PROVISIONS OF THE TRANSNET ORDINANCE WILL BE MET. |

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

| |

|6. |SUBJECT: |EMERGENCY REMEDIATION OF STORMWATER DAMAGED DRAINAGE CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On February 2, 2005 (5), the Board ratified five sole-source emergency construction contracts, each in an amount not to exceed $250,000,|

| |to repair flood damage on County roads at various locations and upgrade drainage facilities protecting facilities within areas impacted |

| |by Firestorm 2003. On March 2, 2005 (5), and March 23, 2005 (13), the Board found the need to continue this emergency work to address an|

| |imminent threat to public safety, life, health and property. On March 23, 2005 (13), the Board also increased two of the contracts, |

| |each in an amount not to exceed $500,000. |

| |The contractors have completed repairs at seven County road locations and are working on five additional locations; completion is |

| |estimated to be end of April 2005. The Natural Resource Conservation Service has approved fund reimbursement for storm related work at |

| |13 home sites through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program. Work at these home sites will help control floodwater and silt |

| |discharges that could adversely affect County roads and drainage systems. Contractors have completed work on ten of these projects. |

| |This is a request to continue existing contracts for emergency remediation of storm damaged drainage conveyance systems. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |On February 2, 2005 (5), your Board established appropriations of $500,000 in the Department of Public Works Fiscal Year 2004-05 |

| |Detailed Work Program and $750,000 in the San Diego County Flood Control District for this work. On March 23, 2005 (13), your Board |

| |authorized an increase of appropriations for the San Diego County Flood Control District by $500,000 based on fund balance available in |

| |that fund. This will bring all contracts in both Road Fund and Flood Control District to $1,750,000 total current year cost. There will |

| |be no annual cost, and no additional staff years required. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find the proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15269 |

| |of the State CEQA Guidelines. |

| |Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22050(c), find that there is a need to continue existing contracts for the emergency |

| |remediation of stormwater damaged drainage conveyance systems without giving notice for bids to let a contract, and delegate authority |

| |to the Director of Public Works and the Director of Purchasing and Contracting to take such action. (4 VOTES) |

| |ACTION: |

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

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

| |

| |

|7. |SUBJECT: |PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION ZONES 1001 – CAPRA WAY DISSOLUTION; MOUNTAIN MEADOW – 102 PUBLIC ROAD DECLARATION |

| | |(DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |Permanent Road Division Zone No. 1001 – Capra Way in the Fallbrook area was formed March 23, 1999 (24) (Thomas Bros. 1028 C-1). The |

| |road project is now complete, the loan paid off and zone property owners have decided to dissolve the district and fund any future road |

| |maintenance without a district zone. Action requested today is approval of a resolution to dissolve the zone and repeal the Ordinance |

| |to collect the benefit charges within the boundaries of Zone 1001. |

| |Permanent Road Division Zone No. 102 – Mountain Meadow formed June 1, 1982 (157), located in the Escondido area, is requesting that |

| |Royal Rim Drive be declared public to allow the zone to fund improvement and maintenance of that road. (Thomas Bros. 1089-D2). This |

| |request, an administrative procedure, came from the Permanent Road Division Zone members by way of the chairperson and there is no |

| |increase or decrease in costs. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |There is no General Fund impact from this request. Permanent Road Division Zone No. 1001 – Capra Way’s small balance of less than |

| |$1,000 will be used to find final minor road maintenance and the district’s final audit. The inclusion of Royal Rim Drive in Permanent |

| |Road Division No. 102 is an administrative action, as there are no plans to improve the road at this time and therefore no fiscal |

| |impact. There is no associated annual cost and no additional staff years are required. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

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

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

| |on the environment. |

| |Adopt a Resolution entitled Resolution of the Board of Supervisors Ordering Dissolution of San Diego Countywide Permanent Road Division |

| |No. 1000, Zone 1001 – Capra Way Without an Election. |

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

| |AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL ORDINANCE NO. 9125 (NEW SERIES) WHICH PROVIDES A PROCEDURE FOR FIXING AND COLLECTING CHARGES ON THE TAX ROLL FOR |

| |ROAD SERVICES PROVIDED BY SAN DIEGO COUNTYWIDE PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION NO. 1000, ZONE 1001 – CAPRA WAY. |

| |Submit the Ordinance for further Board consideration and adoption (second reading) on April 20, 2005. |

| |Adopt a Resolution entitled Resolution Declaring Royal Rim Drive to be a Public Road, Declaring Said Road not a County Highway and Not |

| |Accepted into the County Maintained Road System. |

| |ACTION: |

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

| |Ordinance for further consideration on April 20, 2005 and adopting Resolution No. 05-54 entitled: RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF |

| |SUPERVISORS ORDERING DISSOLUTION OF SAN DIEGO COUNTYWIDE PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION NO. 1000, ZONE NO. 1001 – CAPRA WAY WITHOUT AN |

| |ELECTION; and |

| |Resolution No. 05-55 entitled: RESOLUTION DECLARING ROYAL RIM DRIVE TO BE A PUBLIC ROAD, DECLARING SAID ROAD NOT A COUNTY HIGHWAY AND |

| |NOT ACCEPTED INTO THE COUNTY MAINTAINED ROAD SYSTEM. |

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

| |

|8. |SUBJECT: |PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE RESOLUTION: DISCOVERY VALLEY EQUESTRIAN CENTER REORGANIZATION |

| | |(DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

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

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

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

| |Proposed by petition of the property owners is an annexation of five parcels that total approximately 25.29-acres to the City of San |

| |Marcos and a detachment from the Vista Irrigation District and annexation to the Vallecitos Water District of a 6.68-acre parcel. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |The proposal will result in a reduction of approximately $300 to the County’s share of property tax in the area, as well as a loss of |

| |service responsibility. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: |

| |Adopt a Resolution entitled: |

| | |

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

| |ACTION: |

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

| |Resolution No. 05-56 entitled: RESOLUTION REGARDING NEGOTIATED PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE RELATIVE TO JURISDICTIONAL CHANGES. |

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

| |

| |

|9. |SUBJECT: |SET HEARING FOR 6/15/2005 |

| | |PROPOSED SAN DIEGO COUNTYWIDE PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION NO. 1000, ZONE NO. 1015 – LANDAVO IN THE ESCONDIDO AREA |

| | |(DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The Permanent Road Division program is available to unincorporated area property owners as a means to improve and maintain their roads. |

| |Property owners in the Escondido area of unincorporated San Diego County have filed petitions requesting a mailed ballot proceeding to |

| |determine sufficient support to form a Permanent Road Division Zone to improve and maintain .86 mile of Landavo Drive, Landavo Rancho |

| |Road, Vladic Lane, Viletta Drive and Idaho Lane (Thomas Guide 1130 C-3, C-4.) |

| |This request is to accept the petitions, adopt the Resolution of Intention to Establish the Permanent Road Division Zone, and approve |

| |the Engineer’s Report so that staff can proceed with the mailed ballot proceeding required by State law. The district, which would |

| |include 63 benefiting parcels, will not be formed unless a weighted majority of the ballots received by the County are in favor of |

| |forming the proposed district. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

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

| |current year processing cost charged to the formation expense for Landavo of $7,350. If the district forms, the money will be reimbursed|

| |by the new district. The proposed budget for the road improvement for Landavo is $197,000, which will be financed by loans and repaid |

| |through benefit assessments. There is no associated annual cost and no additional staff years are required. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

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

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

| |on the environment. |

| |Accept the petitions, on file in the office of Special Districts Administration, requesting authorization for a mailed ballot proceeding|

| |that could result in the formation of a Permanent Road Division Zone to improve and maintain Landavo Dr., Landavo Rancho Road, Idaho |

| |Lane, Vladic Lane and Viletta Drive. The mailed ballot will include Verla Lane, which was added to the project after the petitions were |

| |filed with the office of Special Districts Administration. |

| |Adopt the resolution entitled Resolution of Intention to Establish San Diego Countywide Permanent Road Division No. 1000, Zone No. 1015 |

| |– Landavo, which sets June 15, 2005, as the date of the required public hearing. |

| |Approve the Engineer’s Report for proposed Permanent Road Division Zone No. 1015 – Landavo, on file in the Special Districts office of |

| |the Department of Public Works. |

| |Direct staff to prepare and conduct a mailed ballot proceeding stipulated by State law for the owners of property located within the |

| |boundary of the proposed Permanent Road Division Zone. |

| |At close of public hearing on June 15, 2005: |

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

| |Adopt Resolution entitled Resolution Establishing San Diego Countywide Permanent Road Division No. 1000, Zone No. 1015 – Landavo. |

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

| |SAN DIEGO COUNTYWIDE PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION NO. 1000 – ZONE NO. 1015 – LANDAVO. |

| |Adopt a resolution entitled Resolution Declaring Landavo Drive, Landavo Rancho Road, Idaho Lane, Vladic Lane, Verla Lane and Viletta |

| |Drive To Be Public Roads, Declaring Said Roads Not County Highways And Not Accepted Into The County Maintained Road System. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Horn, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, setting Hearing for |

| |June 15, 2005 and adopting Resolution No. 05-57 entitled: RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ESTABLISH SAN DIEGO COUNTYWIDE PERMANENT ROAD |

| |DIVISION NO. 1000, ZONE NO. 1015 – LANDAVO. |

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

| |

| |

|10. |SUBJECT: |AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO A CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR THE SAN ELIJO LAGOON VISITOR CENTER PROJECT (DISTRICT: 3) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The San Elijo Lagoon Visitor Center is located on County-owned land in the San Elijo Lagoon Ecological Reserve and is operated by the |

| |County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation. The Department owns and manages much of this reserve, with assistance from the |

| |California Department of Fish and Game and the San Elijo Lagoon Conservancy. |

| |The visitor center is small and consists of two open-air pavilions over an assembly/seating area, restrooms, and a small office/storage |

| |area for staff. The current facility lacks the exhibit and interpretive space necessary to properly serve as an educational center and |

| |public attraction. |

| |The Department of Parks and Recreation is proposing to replace the existing facility with a larger, two-story structure with modern |

| |exhibits and displays, showcasing the unique ecology and history of the lagoon environment. Upgrades to the existing parking lot and |

| |entrance are also anticipated. The goal is to provide a high quality Americans with Disabilities Act compliant facility for public |

| |education, complete with certified green technology and registered with the U.S. Green Building Council. |

| |On September 17, 2003 (19), the Board approved $300,000 of District 3 Community Projects funds for design of a new visitor center at San|

| |Elijo Lagoon. This request seeks authorization to award a consultant contract, estimated at $350,000, for the design of the visitor |

| |center. In addition, this request will result in the appropriation of $275,000 of Proposition 40 Per Capita grant funds to supplement |

| |design costs and provide for contract administration, environmental review and permitting, and other project related costs. Any |

| |remaining funds will be used to supplement future construction costs. Funding to complete construction of the proposed visitor center |

| |will be requested at a later date with the request to award a construction contract. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds of $300,000 for this request are budgeted in Capital Project 1000285. Funds in the amount of $275,000 are being appropriated in |

| |this action. The funding sources are District 3 Community Projects funds ($300,000) and Proposition 40 Per Capita grant funds |

| |($275,000), for a total of $575,000. If approved, this request will result in the award of a consultant contract estimated at $350,000 |

| |for design of the San Elijo Lagoon Visitor Center. The requested funding appropriation will supplement existing budgeted project funds |

| |for the contract, and provide for staff costs to administer the contract and other project related costs. Any remaining funds will be |

| |used to supplement future construction costs. Funding to complete construction of the proposed visitor center will be requested at a |

| |later date with the request to award a construction contract. |

| |If this request is approved, there will be future costs associated with maintenance and operation of the new facilities. These costs |

| |are likely to be above the current level of funding to maintain the existing facility, however, they are unknown at this time and will |

| |be addressed prior to construction of the visitor center. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Establish appropriations of $275,000 in the Capital Outlay Fund for Capital Project 1000285 – San Elijo Lagoon Visitor Center Expansion,|

| |based on awarded Proposition 40 Per Capita grant funds. (4 VOTES) |

| |In accordance with Board of Supervisors Policy F-40, Procuring Architectural, Engineering, and Related Professional Services, authorize |

| |the Director of the Department of Purchasing and Contracting to negotiate with a consultant (to be selected under the F-40 process) and,|

| |subject to successful negotiations and determination of a fair and reasonable price, execute a contract in the amount of up to $350,000,|

| |for design services related to the preparation of construction drawings for the new San Elijo Lagoon Visitor Center. |

| |ACTION: |

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

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

| |

| |

|11. |SUBJECT: |AGREEMENTS WITH FOUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING FIRMS TO PROVIDE SERVICES ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The Department of Public Works has a need for consultant services on an immediate and temporary basis for environmental studies. These |

| |consultants may also be used for environmental studies for other County departments. Use of these consultants will enhance the |

| |Department’s ability to complete environmental reviews and mitigation requirements in a timely manner. |

| |Four consultant firms, EDAW, Inc; LSA Associates, Inc.; Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.; and RECON Environmental, Inc., were selected in|

| |accordance with provisions of Board Policy F-40, Procuring Architectural, Engineering and Related Professional Services. Public |

| |agencies in California must use a Qualifications Based Selection method to contract for architectural, engineering, environmental and |

| |other professional services. This method requires such services be engaged on basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications for |

| |the types of services to be performed at a fair and reasonable cost. Board Policy F-40 describes the County’s method for Qualifications|

| |Based Selection. In accordance with provisions of the policy, the selection committee interviewed consultant firms from the Joint |

| |County/City/Port of San Diego consultant list for Environmental Services. The firms selected were ranked highest among firms |

| |interviewed for this project. |

| |This is a request to approve four separate agreements with individual firms to provide environmental services for fees not to exceed |

| |$250,000 each, with these agreements ending March 31, 2008, or when funds are exhausted or services are no longer required, whichever |

| |shall occur first. The agreements authorize the Director, Department of Public Works, to extend the termination date and to adjust |

| |billing rates on an annual basis to mutually agreed upon fair and reasonable rates. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for this request are included in the Fiscal Year 2004-05 Department of Public Works Detailed Work Program. Costs will be offset |

| |as they are incurred by various funding sources within the Road Fund, such as TransNet, Federal Highway Administration, and Gas Tax. If |

| |approved, this request will result in Fiscal Year 2004-05 cost of approximately $300,000 and approximately $350,000 annually over the |

| |next two years. There are no additional staff years required. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find that the proposed action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified under Section 15060(c)(3) |

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

| |Find that the services can be provided more economically and efficiently by the proposed independent contractors than by persons |

| |employed in the Classified Service. |

| |Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board to execute following agreements: |

| |An Agreement with EDAW, Inc. to provide environmental services for compensation not to exceed $250,000. Agreement to terminate March |

| |31, 2008, or when funds are exhausted or services are no longer required, whichever shall occur first, with option to extend termination|

| |date by written mutual agreement if original funding remains available. |

| |An Agreement with LSA Associates, Inc to provide environmental services for compensation not to exceed $250,000. Agreement to terminate|

| |March 31, 2008, or when funds are exhausted or services are no longer required, whichever shall occur first, with option to extend |

| |termination date by written mutual agreement if original funding remains available. |

| |An Agreement with Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. to provide environmental services for compensation not to exceed $250,000. Agreement |

| |to terminate March 31, 2008, or when funds are exhausted or services are no longer required, whichever shall occur first, with option to|

| |extend termination date by written mutual agreement if original funding remains available. |

| |An Agreement with RECON Environmental, Inc. to provide environmental services for compensation not to exceed $250,000. Agreement to |

| |terminate March 31, 2008, or when funds are exhausted or services are no longer required, whichever shall occur first, with option to |

| |extend termination date by written mutual agreement if original funding remains available. |

| |Designate the Director, Department of Public Works, as County Officer responsible for administering the agreements. |

| |ACTION: |

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

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

| |

| |

|12. |SUBJECT: |OPEN SPACE SUBVENTION ACT REIMBURSEMENTS |

| | |(DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The Open Space Subvention Act provides for the partial replacement of local property tax revenue foregone as a result of participation |

| |in the California Land Conservation (Williamson) Act and other enforceable open space restriction programs. In order to receive these |

| |reimbursement funds, each local agency is required to file an annual application with the California Department of Conservation. New |

| |instructions from the Department of Conservation require the Board of Supervisors to adopt a resolution authorizing a representative for|

| |the County to file the annual application for subvention funds. To address the requirements of the Department of Conservation, the |

| |Department of Planning and Land Use is proposing that the Board of Supervisors authorize the Chief Administrative Officer to prepare and|

| |file the annual Open Space Subvention Act Program application. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Upon annual filing of the Open Space Subvention Act Program application, the County will be reimbursed approximately $92,000 from the |

| |State. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Approve the Resolution authorizing the Chief Administrative Officer or his/her designee to prepare and file the Open Space Subvention |

| |Act Program application for the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 and for all subsequent fiscal years (Attachment A). |

| |ACTION: |

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

| |Resolution No. 05-58 entitled: RESOLUTION OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DESIGNATING AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE TO |

| |PREPARE AND FILE THE OPEN SPACE SUBVENTION ACT APPLICATION FOR SAN DIEGO COUNTY. |

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

| |

| |

|13. |SUBJECT: |OUT OF COUNTRY BUSINESS FOR AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER/ SEALER TO ATTEND ANNUAL MEETING OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS|

| | |ORGANIZATION-COMMITTEE ON CONSUMER POLICY (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |This is a request to approve out-of-country travel for Kathleen Thuner, the County Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer of Weights & |

| |Measures, to attend the annual workshop and plenary of the International Standards Organization-Committee on Consumer Policy in Toronto,|

| |Ontario, Canada from May 22 through May 27, 2005. Attendance at this meeting by representatives from the United States plays a key role |

| |in international standardization by identifying priorities for consumers and encouraging the participation of consumer interests in |

| |standards development work. The Commissioner/Sealer is a member of the Board of Directors of the American National Standards Institute |

| |(ANSI), an official representative to the International Standards Organization. The Commissioner/Sealer has been asked to serve as a |

| |rapporteur for the session, “Providing Security of Essential Public Services.” |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for this proposal, estimated to cost $525, are included in the Fiscal Year 2004-05 Operational Plan for the Department of |

| |Agriculture, Weights & Measures. Expenditures included are for meals and incidentals. This includes meals estimated at $44 per day or |

| |$264 for six days, airport parking, transportation from the airport to the hotel and return, taxi or other transportation costs, phone |

| |calls and other minor county approved expenditure. Hotel accommodations and air transportation costs to the meeting will be directly |

| |reimbursed to the Commissioner/Sealer by American National Standards Institute (ANSI). |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |In accordance with Board Policy D-7, Out of County Business and Related Guidelines and Processes, approve travel to Toronto, Ontario, |

| |Canada, for the period May 22-27, 2005 for the County Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer to represent the American National Standards |

| |Institute, Consumer Interest Forum at the annual workshop and plenary of the International Standards Organization-Committee on Consumer |

| |Policy. |

| |ACTION: |

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

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

| |

| |

|14. |SUBJECT: |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| | |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20549: APPROVAL OF JOINT SECURED AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE |

| | |IMPROVEMENTS IN ALPINE COMMUNITY PLAN AREA (DISTRICT: 2) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |This project is a minor subdivision consisting of 3 single-family residential lots, and a total of 2.32 acres. It is located in Alpine, |

| |on the north side of Eltinge Drive, across from the intersection with Eltinge Place (Thomas Guide, Page 1234, C-7, 2005 Edition). |

| | |

| |The project is being brought forward for approval of joint secured agreement for public and private improvements. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |N/A |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

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

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

| | |

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

| |ACTION: |

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

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

| |

|15. |SUBJECT: |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| | |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT NOS. 4828-8, 4828-9 AND 4828-10: APPROVAL OF FINAL MAPS AND JOINT SECURED AGREEMENTS |

| | |FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS IN SPRING VALLEY (DISTRICT: 2) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |This project is three units of the same subdivision, and consists of 106 single-family residential lots and a total of 80.35 acres. It |

| |is located in Spring Valley along Pointe Parkway, west of Jamacha Boulevard, south of the southerly terminus of S. Barcelona Street |

| |(Thomas Guide, Page 1291, D-1, 2005 Edition). |

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

| |improvements. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |N/A |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Approve final maps for County Tract TM 4828-8, County Tract TM 4828-9 and County Tract TM 4828-10. |

| |Accept on behalf of the public, subject to improvements, Sangamon Avenue and a portion of Jacoby Road for use as streets as dedicated on|

| |County Tract TM 4828-10. |

| |Accept open space easement over all of Lots 28 and 29 as granted on County Tract TM 4828-8. |

| |Accept open space easement over all of Lots 48 and 49 as granted on County Tract TM 4828-9. |

| |Accept pedestrian and equestrian trail easement as dedicated on County Tract TM 4828-8. |

| |Approve and authorize Clerk of the Board to execute separate Joint Agreements to Improve Major Subdivision for County Tract TM 4828-8, |

| |County Tract TM 4828-9 and County Tract TM 4828-10, which include street and drainage improvements, sewer and water facilities, and |

| |setting of final monuments (Attachments B, E and H). |

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

| |ACTION: |

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

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

| |

|16. |SUBJECT: |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| | |SECOND CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE: TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS (DISTRICTS: 1, 2 & 5)|

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On March 23, 2005 (10) the Board of Supervisors introduced Ordinance for further Board consideration and adoption on April 13, 2005. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: |

| |Adopt Ordinance entitled: |

| | |

| |AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 72.161.17.4 TO THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO |

| |ACTION: |

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

| |Ordinance No.9711 (New Series) entitled: AN ORDINANCE ADING SECTION 72.161.17.4 TO THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC |

| |REGULATIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. |

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

| |

|17. |SUBJECT: |CLOSED SESSION (DISTRICTS: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

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

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

| |San Diego County Employees Retirement Association v. County of San Diego; San Diego County Superior Court No. GIC 845430 |

| |B. 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: |

| |No reportable items |

|18. |SUBJECT: |PUBLIC COMMUNICATION |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |Chad Enniss addressed the Board regarding Lakeside Design Review Board. |

| |ACTION: |

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

| |

There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 3:38 p.m. in memory of Vernon Leroy Kelley.

THOMAS J. PASTUSZKA

Clerk of the Board of Supervisors

County of San Diego, State of California

Consent: Tosh

Discussion: Hall

NOTE: This Statement of Proceedings sets forth all actions taken by the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors on the matters stated, but not necessarily the chronological sequence in which the matters were taken up.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download