COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS



COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

REGULAR MEETING - PLANNING AND LAND USE MATTERS

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6, 2003, 9:00 AM

Board of Supervisors North Chamber

1600 Pacific Highway, Room 310, San Diego, California

MORNING SESSION: - Meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m.

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

Public Communication - (No Speakers)

Board of Supervisors’ Agenda Items

|1. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| |NORCROSS TENTATIVE MAP TIME EXTENSION APPEAL; TM 4950RPL1TE; NORTH COUNTY METROPOLITAN SUBREGIONAL PLAN |

|2. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| |VALLEY CENTER ROAD MITIGATION – ACQUISITION OF A PORTION OF ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 188-260-64 (JENSEN) |

| |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): TRANSNET REVENUE] |

| |(CARRYOVER FROM 7/9/03, AGENDA NO. 23) |

|3. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| |PIPELINING POLICIES FOR GENERAL PLAN 2020 |

|4. |GENERAL PLAN 2020 INTEREST GROUP MEMBERSHIP |

|5. |SET HEARING FOR 9/17/2003 |

| |ONDER OPEN SPACE VACATION, VAC 03-003, RAMONA COMMUNITY PLAN AREA |

|6. |TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS |

|7. |COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE PALA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH |

| |CASINO DEVELOPMENT |

| |(4 VOTES) |

|8. |APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE REQUEST FOR THE USE OF 22.85 ACRES OF THE COUNTY’S FIVE PERCENT COASTAL SAGE SCRUB LOSS ALLOTMENT BY THE CITY |

| |OF SAN MARCOS FOR FORECAST HOMES’ NEVADA YEI PROJECT |

|9. |APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT AGREEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND CONSTRUCTION SURVEY SERVICES FOR VALLEY CENTER ROAD SOUTH PHASE I |

| |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): TRANSNET] |

|10. |SOLE SOURCE PROCUREMENT OF DIGITAL LAB EQUIPMENT FROM NORITSU AMERICA CORPORATION |

|11. |PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE FOR JURISDICTIONAL CHANGES – ONYX RIDGE REORGANIZATION AND EXPANSION OF LATENT POWERS |

|12. |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT NO. 5224-1: APPROVAL OF A FINAL MAP AND SECURED AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED IN |

| |LAKESIDE COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA |

|13. |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| |SECOND CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE: LIFTING OF THE SOUTH CITRUS AVENUE SEPTIC SYSTEM MORATORIUM |

|14. |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| |SECOND CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE: APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES RELATING|

| |TO WATERSHED PROTECTION, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND DISCHARGE CONTROL |

|15. |CLOSED SESSION |

| |(CARRYOVER FROM 8/5/03 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9) |

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

| | |NORCROSS TENTATIVE MAP TIME EXTENSION APPEAL; TM 4950RPL1TE; NORTH COUNTY METROPOLITAN SUBREGIONAL PLAN |

| | |(DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |This is an appeal filed by the applicant of the Planning and Environmental Review Board decision denying the application for the |

| |Tentative Map Time Extension, TM 4950RPL1TE. Tentative Map 4950RPL1 and Administrative Permit, AD 90-139 were approved by the |

| |Planning and Environmental Review Board on March 4, 1993 for a division of 55.13 acres into 11 residential lots ranging in size |

| |from 1.3 to 9.78 net acres. The site is within the Estate Development Area (EDA) Regional Category of the General Plan and is |

| |subject to the General Plan Land Use Designation (17) Estate Residential (1 du/2 or 4 acres). The project site is zoned A70, |

| |Limited Agriculture (2 acre minimum) Use Regulation. Approval of the Time Extension would extend the expiration date to March 4, |

| |2004. |

| | |

| |The Planning and Environmental Review Board denied the application for the Tentative Map Time Extension because the previous |

| |environmental documents were not adequate and the circumstances under which the documents were prepared had changed. The Negative|

| |Declaration prepared for TM 4950RPL1 identified the presence of the California gnatcatcher and in 1993 the California gnatcatcher |

| |was listed as a threatened species under the Federal Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The applicant |

| |was given the option to proceed with the project and prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or withdraw the project and file|

| |a new, redesigned, Tentative Map application. To date, the applicant has not withdrawn TM 4950RPL1TE or notified the Department |

| |of the intent to proceed with the project by preparing an EIR. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |None. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW BOARD: |

| |Adopt the Resolution decision denying a Time Extension for the reasons included in the staff report. |

| | |

| |DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE: |

| |The Department concurs with the Planning and Environmental Review Board (PERB) recommendation. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Horn, the Board of Supervisors closed the Hearing and took action as |

| |recommended, on Consent, adopting Resolution No. 03-174, entitled: RESOLUTION OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DENYING A |

| |TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE MAP NO. 4950RPL1TE. |

| | |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Roberts, Horn |

| |ABSENT: Slater |

| |

| |

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

| | |VALLEY CENTER ROAD MITIGATION – ACQUISITION OF A PORTION OF ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 188-260-64 (JENSEN) |

| | |(DISTRICT: 5) |

| | |(CARRYOVER FROM 7/9/03, AGENDA NO. 23) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On July 30, 2002 (10), the Board of Supervisors approved the Department of Public Works 2002-2003 Operational Plan, including the |

| |Detailed Work Program for road improvement projects. The Valley Center Road Improvement Project is a part of that approved plan. |

| |The first phase of the project proposes to construct improvements from the east end of Escondido extending 2.5 miles up the Valley|

| |Center Road summit. The proposed construction is scheduled to begin in September 2003 and includes widening the right of way to |

| |accommodate four 12-14 foot wide lanes, a 14-18 foot wide painted center median, two 5-foot bike lanes and an unpaved shoulder |

| |varying between 5 to 10 feet wide. |

| | |

| |Prior to construction of improvements, the County must obtain various permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, the California |

| |Department of Fish and Game and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The permits require the County to mitigate the impacts |

| |of the road construction on existing wetland property by enhancing or creating other wetland areas on or near the project. |

| | |

| |County staff is working to meet this requirement, and has located several potential mitigation sites along the project. Staff has |

| |successfully negotiated the first mitigation property purchase. David and Glory Jensen have agreed to sell their property to the |

| |County and have signed a contract. On July 9, 2003 (25), the Board set a hearing to consider approval of the real property |

| |contract for the mitigation parcel (Thomas Guide page 1090, F2). The Board is requested to approve the real property contract. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for this proposal are budgeted. The funding source for the acquisition will be TransNet revenue and will result in a cost |

| |of $37,000 in Fiscal Year 2003-04, no additional subsequent year cost and will require no additional staff years. There will be |

| |no cost to the General Fund as a result of this action. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find that the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Valley Center Road Widening Project, SCH No. 1999021081, on file in the |

| |Department of Public Works has been completed in compliance with California Environmental Act (CEQA) and 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 reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Board of Supervisors. |

| | |

| |Find that there are no changes in the project or in circumstances under which it is undertaken which involve significant new |

| |environmental impacts which were not considered in the previously certified EIR, dated February 2000, or 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 was prepared. |

| | |

| |Approve the real property contract for a portion of Assessor’s Parcel Number 188-260-64 from David and Glory Jensen for $37,000. |

| | |

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

| |complete the purchase. |

| |ACTION: |

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

| |Chief Administrative Officer, on Consent. |

| | |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Roberts, Horn |

| |ABSENT: Slater |

| |

| |

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

| | |PIPELINING POLICIES FOR GENERAL PLAN 2020 (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |General Plan 2020 is a comprehensive update of the San Diego County General Plan, which will establish future growth and |

| |development patterns for the unincorporated areas of the county. In several areas of the County, General Plan 2020 proposes to |

| |change land use designations and densities from those in the existing General Plan. Because of this, some applications for |

| |General Plan Amendments or Tentative Maps that are currently in process based on the existing General Plan do not conform to the |

| |General Plan 2020 Working Copy of the Regional Land Use Distribution Map. |

| | |

| |To address this issue in a timely manner, on June 25, 2003 (1), the Board of Supervisors directed the Chief Administrative Officer|

| |to return in 30 days with a draft policy to resolve conflicts for applications that are currently in process. This issue is |

| |commonly referred to as “pipelining”. Because various types of development applications produce different impacts and are |

| |governed by different legal requirements, two separate policies are recommended; one for Plan Amendment Authorizations or Specific|

| |Plans, and one for Tentative Maps or Tentative Parcel Maps. If approved, the recommendations listed below would establish |

| |pipelining policies to be used in connection with General Plan 2020. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |N/A |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find that the proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as specified under sections 15061(b)(1) and |

| |15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines for the reasons detailed in the Notice of Exemption Form dated July 16, 2003, on file |

| |with the Department of Planning and Land Use. |

| | |

| |Determine that applications for new Plan Amendment Authorizations or new Specific Plans must be submitted and deemed complete by |

| |the Department of Planning and Land Use on or before July 23, 2003, in order to be processed under the provisions of the current |

| |General Plan. Applications for Specific Plans submitted after July 23, 2003, shall be governed by the General Plan in effect at |

| |the time the Specific Plan is approved. |

| | |

| |Determine that applications for Tentative Maps or Tentative Parcel Maps that are submitted and deemed complete by the Department |

| |of Planning and Land Use on or before August 6, 2003, will be processed under the provisions of the current General Plan. |

| |Applications for Tentative Maps or Tentative Parcel Maps that are deemed complete after August 6, 2003, shall be governed by the |

| |General Plan in effect at the time the Tentative Map or Tentative Parcel Map is approved or disapproved. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Horn, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board of Supervisors closed the Hearing; directed the Chief |

| |Administrative Officer to review the extent of the problems and inconsistencies that are posed by subdivisions and come back to |

| |the Board in 60 days with a report of possible solutions; changed dates reflected in the second recommendation to read August 6, |

| |2003, and took action as recommended. |

| | |

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

| |

| |

|4. |SUBJECT: |GENERAL PLAN 2020 INTEREST GROUP MEMBERSHIP (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |General Plan 2020 is a comprehensive update of the San Diego County General Plan, which will establish future growth and |

| |development patterns for the unincorporated areas of the County. The Interest Group is one of the two advisory groups established|

| |by the Board of Supervisors to provide input on the project. Members of the group have invested a significant amount of time and |

| |effort in an often contentious process to reach consensus on their recommendations. In part, because of their involvement, the |

| |project has been able to move forward with broad based support. |

| | |

| |On June 25, 2003 (1), the Board of Supervisors directed the Chief Administrative Officer to return in 30 days with a resolution to|

| |the conflict of purpose with some members of the Interest Group. This is a proposal to address possible conflict of interest |

| |issues on the General Plan 2020 Interest Group. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |N/A |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: |

| |Dismiss the individuals on the Interest Group who are found to have a conflict of purpose with the General Plan 2020 process. |

| |Appoint new individuals who have a similar background interest in order to maintain a balanced group. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Cox, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board of Supervisors filed the recommendation. |

| | |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater, Roberts |

| |NOES: Horn |

| |

| |

|5. |SUBJECT: |SET HEARING FOR 9/17/2003 |

| | |ONDER OPEN SPACE VACATION, VAC 03-003, RAMONA COMMUNITY PLAN AREA (DISTRICT: 2) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |This is a request to set a date for a public hearing to vacate a 0.087-acre portion of a 7.82-acre open space easement. The open |

| |space easement was required as condition of approval of Tentative Map 3325 for the San Diego Country Estates in Ramona recorded in|

| |October 1974 (Map 8031). The vacated potion of the open space easement is located adjacent to an existing 0.67-acre property |

| |situated at 15236 LaPlata Court within the boundaries of the San Diego Country Estates. The General Plan Land Use Designation is |

| |(3) Residential within the Ramona Community Plan. The zoning on the site is RR2 Rural Residential Use Regulations. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |N/A |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE: |

| |Direct the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to set a public hearing for September 17, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. to consider vacating the |

| |Onder Open Space Easement request. |

| | |

| |Direct the Clerk of the Board to provide the notice required by law. |

| |ACTION: |

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

| |setting Hearing for September 17, 2003, 9:00 a.m. |

| | |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Roberts, Horn |

| |ABSENT: Slater |

| |

| |

|6. |SUBJECT: |TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS (DISTRICTS 2 & 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

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

| |Twenty-two items were on the Committee's June 6, 2003, meeting agenda. The Committee recommends your action on twenty items, as |

| |two items were continued prior to the meeting. Item 2-B was continued at the request of the Lake Morena/Campo and Pine Valley |

| |Community Planning Groups and Item 5-A was continued at the request of the Rancho Santa Fe Association. All 20 remaining items |

| |are recommended for action, with one of these items recommended for continuance. |

| |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: |

| |District 2 |

| |2-A. Tavern Road and Arnold Way, ALPINE–Place this intersection on the County’s Traffic Signal Priority List. |

| |2-B. This item was continued prior to the meeting at the request of the Lake Morena/Campo and Pine Valley Community Planning |

| |Groups. |

| |2-C. La Posta Road at the Railroad Crossing, CAMPO–Do not establish stop controls. |

| |2-D. Snyder Road and Alzeda Drive, MT. HELIX–Do not establish regulatory controls. |

| |2-E1. Jamacha Boulevard and Gillispie Drive, SPRING VALLEY–Legalize a newly constructed traffic signal. |

| |2-E2. Dehesa Road and Vista Grande Road, EL CAJON–Legalize a newly constructed traffic signal. |

| |2-E3. Tavern Road, east side, from a point 390 feet north of the north line of Administration Way northerly 50 feet, ALPINE–Amend|

| |an existing parking prohibition. |

| |2-E4. Mast Boulevard, north side, from the west line of Riverford Road westerly 150 feet, LAKESIDE–Continue to a future TAC |

| |meeting to allow staff the opportunity to research other alternatives. |

| |2-E5. Alpine Boulevard, both sides, segments between Dunbar Lane and West Willows Over-crossing, ALPINE–Amend eight existing |

| |parking prohibitions. |

| |2-E6. Lemon Crest Drive, north side, from the east line of Orange Crest Drive easterly 130 feet, LAKESIDE–Legalize an existing |

| |restriction of vehicles six feet or higher in height from parking or standing within 100 feet of the intersection. |

| |2-E7. Helix Street, west side, from a point 390 feet south of the south line of Kenwood Drive southerly 30 feet, SPRING |

| |VALLEY–Establish a parking prohibition. |

| |2-E8. Patrick Drive Bridge, over Harbison Canyon Creek, approximately 200 feet east of Harbison Canyon Road, HARBISON |

| |CANYON–Delete an existing Bridge Weight Limitation. |

| |2-E9. Old Julian Highway and Vista Ramona Road, RAMONA–Legalize the newly established stop control for southbound traffic on Old |

| |Julian Highway at Vista Ramona Road. Repeal the existing stop control resolution for northbound traffic on Vista Ramona Road at |

| |Old Julian Highway. |

| |2-E10. Fourth Street, east side, from the north line of Lanai Drive northerly 110 feet, EL CAJON–Establish a parking prohibition.|

| | |

| |2-E11. La Cresta Road from the east line of Greenfield Drive easterly 0.6 miles, EL CAJON–Re-certify the existing 45 MPH speed |

| |limit for the continued use of radar for speed enforcement. |

| |2-E12. Harbison Canyon Road from a point 1,900 feet south of Collier Way northerly to a point 650 feet north of Patrick Drive, |

| |HARBISON CANYON–Re-certify the existing 40 MPH speed limit for the continued use of radar for speed enforcement. |

| | |

| | |

| |District 5 |

| |5-A. This item was continued prior to the meeting at the request of the Rancho Santa Fe Association. |

| |5-B. El Caballo Avenue at Santa Cristobal, 4S RANCH–Legalize the existing stop controls for east and west bound traffic on El |

| |Caballo Avenue. |

| |5-C. Santa Cristobal Street and Paseo Allegria Avenue/ La Alberca, 4S RANCH– Legalize the existing all-way stop control. |

| |5-D1. Old Highway 395, both sides, from the north line of State Route 76 northerly to the south line of Mission Road, |

| |FALLBROOK–Legalize an existing parking prohibition. |

| |5-D2. La Tierra Drive/La Bonita Drive, south side, from a point 110 feet west of the west line of La Bonita Drive easterly 200 |

| |feet, LAKE SAN MARCOS–Legalize an existing parking prohibition. |

| |5-D3. La Bonita Drive, north side, from the east line of La Tierra Drive easterly 100 feet, LAKE SAN MARCOS–Legalize an existing |

| |parking prohibition. |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find, pursuant to Section 15301 (c) of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, that these regulatory traffic |

| |issues are minor alterations to existing streets that involve no expansion of an existing use. |

| |Concur with Traffic Advisory Committee's recommendations. |

| |Adopt, amend and/or delete the following Resolutions. |

| |No. 299 (Item 5-C) |

| |No. 301 (Items 2-E3, 2-E5, 2-E7, 2-E10, 5-D1, 5-D2 and 5-D3) |

| |No. 303 (Items 2-E1 and 2-E2) |

| |No. 304 (Items 2-E9 and 5-B) |

| |No. 1177 (Item 2-E6) |

| |Approve the introduction, read title and waive further reading (first reading) of the following Ordinances (Item 2-E8). |

| |AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 72.215.3. 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 August 13, 2003. |

| |ACTION: |

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

| |introducing Ordinance for further consideration on August 13, 2003 and adopting the following Resolutions: |

| |No. 03-175, entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2845 RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 299 RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF |

| |ALL-WAY STOP INTERSECTIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, |

| |No. 03-176, entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2846 RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF |

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

| |No. 03-177, entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2847 RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF |

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

| |No. 03-178, entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2848 RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF |

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

| |No. 03-179, entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2850 RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF |

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

| |No. 03-180, entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2851 RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF |

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

| |No. 03-181, entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2852 RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF |

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

| |No. 03-182, entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2853 RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF |

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

| |No. 03-183, entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2854 RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF |

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

| |No. 03-184, entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2855 RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF |

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

| | |

| |No. 03-185, entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2856 RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF |

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

| |No. 03-186, entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2857 RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF |

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

| |No. 03-187, entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2858 RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF |

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

| |No. 03-188, entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2860 RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 303 RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF |

| |SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, |

| |No. 03-189, entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2861 RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 303 RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF |

| |SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, |

| |No. 03-190, entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2862 RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 304 RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF |

| |STOP INTERSECTIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, |

| |No. 03-191, entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2863 RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 304 RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF |

| |STOP INTERSECTIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, |

| |No. 03-192, entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2864 RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 304 RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF |

| |STOP INTERSECTIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, and |

| |No. 03-193, entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2865 RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 1177 RELATING TO THE RESTRICTION OF |

| |VEHICLES SIX FEET OR HIGHER IN HEIGHT FROM PARKING OR STANDING WITHIN 100 FEET OF CERTAIN INTERSECTIONS WITHIN THE COUNTY OF SAN |

| |DIEGO. |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Roberts, Horn |

| |ABSENT: Slater |

| |

| |

|7. |SUBJECT: |COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE PALA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS FOR ROAD |

| | |IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH CASINO DEVELOPMENT (DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The Pala Band of Mission Indians (Pala Band) is one of 12 Bands in the county that have signed a Tribal State Gaming Compact with |

| |Governor Gray Davis, which allows them to construct a Class III casino on their reservation. The Pala Reservation is in the |

| |northwestern area of unincorporated San Diego County, about five miles south of the Riverside County border. Pala Band opened a |

| |187,300-square foot Class III gaming and entertainment facility in April 2001, on State Route 76. Access to Pala Band’s facility |

| |is primarily from the I-15 via State Route 76, and secondarily from Pala Temecula Road and Valley Center Road. Pala Band is |

| |scheduled to open a 507-room hotel and 24,000 square feet of additional gaming and entertainment space, on August 19, 2003. |

| |Existing and future facilities impact State and County roads. |

| | |

| |This is a request to establish appropriations and approve the first Cooperative Agreement (Agreement) with Pala Band, where Pala |

| |Band will contribute toward necessary improvements to Pala Temecula Road and Valley Center Road, which are part of the County |

| |Maintained Road System. The Agreement will result in road improvement contributions totaling $1,553,000. |

| | |

| |For State Route 76, which is maintained by Caltrans, Pala Band has already constructed extensive frontage improvements and has an |

| |agreement with Caltrans that Pala Band will make fair-share contributions to future Caltrans improvements to State Route 76. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for this request are not budgeted. This request will add appropriations in the amount of $1,553,000 to the Department of |

| |Public Works Fiscal Year 2003-04 Detailed Work Program based on revenue from the Pala Band of Mission Indians. If approved, this |

| |request will result in $1,553,000 current year costs, no annual cost and will require no additional staff years. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find that approval of the Agreement is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review because it is not a |

| |project as defined in Section 15378. |

| | |

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

| |between the County of San Diego and Pala Band of Mission Indians. |

| | |

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

| |Agreement. |

| | |

| |Establish appropriations of $1,310,000 in the Department of Public Works, Detailed Work Program, for Road Maintenance based on |

| |unanticipated revenue from the Pala Band of Mission Indians. (4 VOTES) |

| | |

| |Establish appropriations of $243,000 in the Department of Public Works, Detailed Work Program, for the Valley Center Road South |

| |Phase I Project, based on unanticipated revenue from the Pala Band of Mission Indians.(4 VOTES) |

| |ACTION: |

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

| | |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Roberts, Horn |

| |ABSENT: Slater |

| |

| |

|8. |SUBJECT: |APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE REQUEST FOR THE USE OF 22.85 ACRES OF THE COUNTY’S FIVE PERCENT COASTAL SAGE SCRUB |

| | |LOSS ALLOTMENT BY THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS FOR FORECAST HOMES’ NEVADA YEI PROJECT (DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |Listing of the California gnatcatcher as threatened in 1993 required that a Federal Endangered Species Act Section 10(a) (16 |

| |U.S.C. §1539) or Section 7 permit be acquired before any Coastal sage scrub can be legally cleared. Under the Natural Communities|

| |Conservation Planning program, in conjunction with the 4(d) rule of the federal Endangered Species Act, a loss of up to five |

| |percent of Coastal sage scrub is allowed provided that the jurisdiction in which the take is occurring is enrolled in actively |

| |developing a Natural Communities Conservation Plan, such as the County’s Multiple Species Conservation Program. |

| | |

| |Policy I-122 establishes procedures for other jurisdictions, such as those participating in the Multiple Habitat Conservation |

| |Program, to request use of a portion of the County’s five percent Coastal sage scrub loss allotment. The Policy includes |

| |requirements under which requests can be granted and compensation options. |

| | |

| |This is a recommendation that the Board of Supervisors approve and authorize a request by the City of San Marcos for Forecast |

| |Homes’ Nevada Yei project for use of 22.85 acres of the County’s five percent Coastal sage scrub loss allotment that meets the |

| |requirements of Policy I-122. Compensation is offered as the transfer of 68.6 credits to the County of San Diego at the Heights |

| |of Pala Mesa Conservation Bank located in District 5. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |The proposed action would have no direct impact on the County General Fund. A sum of $5,000 was deposited with the County on May |

| |14, 2003, to offset the County staff costs associated with this request (WN-7165). Although there is biological value in |

| |ownership of mitigation bank credits, the credits will have no fiscal impact. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: |

| |Find that in accordance with Section 15307 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines that the requested action is |

| |exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and will not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental |

| |resource as it assures the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the regulatory process involves |

| |procedures for protection of the environment and concurrently find that the proposed action is categorically exempt from the |

| |California Quality Act under Section 15313 (Acquisition of Lands for Wildlife Conservation Purposes). |

| | |

| |Approve and authorize the use of 22.85 acres of the County’s five percent Coastal sage scrub loss allotment by the City of San |

| |Marcos for Forecast Homes’ Nevada Yei project. |

| | |

| |Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board to accept 68.6 credits in the Heights at Pala Mesa Conservation Bank located in |

| |Fallbrook as compensation for the use of 22.85 acres of the County’s five percent Coastal sage scrub loss allotment. |

| | |

| |Approve and authorize the Director of the Department of Planning and Land Use to notify the City of San Marcos and the Wildlife |

| |Agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game) that 22.85 acres of habitat will be |

| |deducted from the County’s five percent Coastal sage scrub loss allotment upon completion of the compensation requirement. |

| |ACTION: |

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

| | |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Roberts, Horn |

| |ABSENT: Slater |

| |

| |

|9. |SUBJECT: |APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT AGREEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND CONSTRUCTION SURVEY SERVICES FOR VALLEY|

| | |CENTER ROAD SOUTH PHASE I (DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |This project involves the widening of a two mile portion of Valley Center Road beginning one half mile south of the Escondido City|

| |limits and terminating approximately one mile south of Banbury Drive (Thomas Guide: 1110-F4 to 1090-E7). This is the first phase |

| |of a $30 million, 5.5-mile Valley Center Road improvement project. On April 30, 2003 (10), the Board approved the advertisement |

| |and subsequent award of a contract to construct the first phase of Valley Center Road. In order to provide adequate construction |

| |inspection and construction survey services on a project of this magnitude it is necessary to use both County staff and |

| |professional engineering consultants. |

| | |

| |Public agencies in California must use a Qualifications Based Selection method to contract for consultant services. This method |

| |requires such services be engaged on basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications for types of services to be performed at |

| |a fair and reasonable cost. Board Policy F-40 (Procuring Architectural, Engineering and Related Professional Services) describes |

| |the County’s method for Qualifications Based Selection. The policy requires a countywide solicitation for individual consultant |

| |contracts exceeding $250,000. In accordance with provisions of the policy, countywide solicitations were conducted for the |

| |required engineering services. Following review of Statement of Qualifications from respondent firms and interviews with the more|

| |qualified, two firms from San Diego were selected as the most qualified to perform required services for this project. Project |

| |Design Consultants, of San Diego, was selected to provide construction survey services; and Harris & Associates, of San Diego, was|

| |selected to provide construction inspection services. |

| | |

| |This is a request to approve consultant agreements for construction survey services from Project Design Consultants for |

| |compensation not to exceed $400,000, and construction inspection services from Harris and Associates for compensation not to |

| |exceed $700,000. These services will be used for the Valley Center Road South Phase I project, with contracts to terminate June |

| |30, 2006, or when consultant services are no longer needed, whichever comes first. The agreements authorize the Director, |

| |Department of Public Works to extend the termination date if necessary to complete project services and to adjust allowable |

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

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for this request are budgeted in the Department of Public Works Fiscal Year 2003-04 Detailed Work Program. The funding |

| |source is TransNet. If approved, this request will result in $1,100,000 current year costs, no annual cost and will require no |

| |additional staff years. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated June 14, 2000, State Clearinghouse Number 1999021081, on file in the |

| |Department of Public Works was completed in compliance with CEQA and state and County CEQA guidelines, that the decision-making |

| |body has reviewed and considered the information contained therein prior to approving the project, that the EIR reflects the |

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

| | |

| |Find that there are no changes in the project or in the circumstances under which it is undertaken which involve significant new |

| |environmental impacts which were not considered in the previously certified EIR, or a substantial increase in the severity of |

| |previously identified significant effects, and that no new information of substantial importance has become available since said |

| |EIR was prepared. |

| | |

| |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, upon receipt, three originals for each of the following consultant |

| |agreements: |

| |Agreement with Project Design Consultants, of San Diego, for construction survey services associated with the Valley Center Road |

| |South Phase I project for compensation not to exceed $400,000, terminating June 30, 2006, or when consultant services are no |

| |longer needed, whichever comes first. |

| |Agreement with Harris & Associates, of San Diego, for construction inspection services associated with the Valley Center Road |

| |South Phase I project for compensation not to exceed $700,000, terminating June 30, 2006, or when consultant services are no |

| |longer needed, whichever comes first. |

| |ACTION: |

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

| | |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Roberts, Horn |

| |ABSENT: Slater |

| |

|10. |SUBJECT: |SOLE SOURCE PROCUREMENT OF DIGITAL LAB EQUIPMENT FROM NORITSU AMERICA CORPORATION (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The Department of Public Works, Cartographic Services Section provides film processing support to all County of San Diego |

| |departments and agencies. Customers include the Watershed Protection Program, Sheriff’s Department Crime Lab, District Attorney |

| |Investigations, Public Defender, Probation and County Counsel. These requestors have stated major reasons for using our services |

| |are costs, convenience and quality output. Another reason is processing of sensitive, crime-related photography within the County|

| |ensures security concerns are minimized. |

| | |

| |All County departments have begun to utilize digital photography in lieu of traditional film. Use of digital cameras is expected |

| |to increase dramatically. A digital lab is urgently needed by Cartographic Services to continue providing the required support to|

| |County agencies as their use of digital photography increases. Cartographic Services currently utilizes Noritsu equipment for |

| |other parts of the photo process. Purchase of a Noritsu digital lab will enable compatibility with existing Noritsu equipment. |

| |After completing a market survey, Department of Public Works found that no other vendor meets the combination of needs for |

| |operating the new digital lab system. |

| | |

| |This request is to approve a sole source agreement with Noritsu America Corporation to upgrade the Department’s Photo Lab |

| |capabilities. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for this request are budgeted in the Department of Public Works Internal Service Fund. If approved, this will result in a |

| |current year cost of $200,000 with no subsequent year costs and no additional staff years will be required. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requested action is not subject|

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

| |effect on the environment. |

| | |

| |In accordance with Board Policy A-87, Competitive Procurement, approve and authorize the Director, Department of Purchasing and |

| |Contracting to enter into negotiations with Noritsu America Corporation and, subject to successful negotiations and determination |

| |of a fair and reasonable price, award a contract to acquire High Performance Digital Lab and necessary peripheral devices |

| |including installation, training and maintenance for a period not to exceed ten years, subject to approval of the Director, |

| |Department of Public Works. Waive advertising requirements of Board Policy A-87. |

| |ACTION: |

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

| | |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Roberts, Horn |

| |ABSENT: Slater |

| |

| |

|11. |SUBJECT: |PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE FOR JURISDICTIONAL CHANGES – ONYX RIDGE REORGANIZATION AND EXPANSION OF LATENT |

| | |POWERS (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 (LAFCo) can process a proposal for jurisdictional change. |

| | |

| |The proposal is the detachment of 21.33 acres of vacant territory from County Service Area 107 (Elfin Forest) and concurrent |

| |annexation to the Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District. Separately proposed is an expansion of the Olivenhain Municipal Water|

| |District's latent powers for sewer service to include the same area. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |The proposal will result in a small reduction (approximately $9) of the County’s share of annual tax increment in the area. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Adopt the Resolution entitled: |

| | |

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

| |ACTION: |

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

| |adopting Resolution No. 03-194, entitled: RESOLUTION REGARDING NEGOTIATED PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE RELATIVE TO JURISDICTIONAL |

| |CHANGES. |

| | |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Roberts, Horn |

| |ABSENT: Slater |

| |

|12. |SUBJECT: |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| | |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT NO. 5224-1: APPROVAL OF A FINAL MAP AND SECURED AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC AND |

| | |PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED IN LAKESIDE COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA (DISTRICT: 2) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |This project is a subdivision consisting of 36 single-family residential lots, and a total acreage of 3.12 acres. It is located |

| |in the El Cajon area on the west side of Winter Gardens Boulevard, approximately 250 feet north of Pepper Drive. (Thomas Guide, |

| |Page 1251, J1, 2003 Edition) |

| | |

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

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |N/A |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Approve this map and accept on behalf of the public, subject to improvements, a portion of Winter Gardens Boulevard (SF1399) |

| |together with the right to extend and maintain drainage facilities, excavation and embankment slopes beyond limits of the |

| |right-of-way, for use as a street as dedicated on said map. |

| | |

| |Accept access rights from Lot 37 in and to Winter Gardens Boulevard (SF1399) as relinquished and waived on said map. |

| | |

| |Accept access restriction easement as granted on said map. |

| | |

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

| |includes street improvements and drainage facilities, sewer facilities, water facilities, and setting of final monuments. |

| |(Attachment B). |

| |ACTION: |

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

| | |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Roberts, Horn |

| |ABSENT: Slater |

| |

| |

|13. |SUBJECT: |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| | |SECOND CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE: LIFTING OF THE SOUTH CITRUS AVENUE SEPTIC SYSTEM |

| | |MORATORIUM (DISTRICTS: 3 AND 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On July 30, 2003 (15), the Board introduced Ordinance for second consideration and adoption on August 5, 2003. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Adopt Ordinance entitled: |

| | |

| |AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE, SECTIONS 51.0004, 68.330.3, AND 81.108.12, AND AMENDING SECTION 68.309, ALL RELATING|

| |TO THE CITRUS AVENUE SEPTIC SYSTEM MORATORIUM |

| |ACTION: |

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

| |adopting Ordinance No. 9588 (N.S.), entitled: AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE, SECTIONS 51.0004, 68.330.3, AND |

| |81.108.12, AND AMENDING SECTION 68.309, ALL RELATING TO THE CITRUS AVENUE SEPTIC SYSTEM MORATORIUM. |

| | |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Roberts, Horn |

| |ABSENT: Slater |

| |

| |

|14. |SUBJECT: |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| | |SECOND CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE: APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COUNTY CODE OF |

| | |REGULATORY ORDINANCES RELATING TO WATERSHED PROTECTION, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND DISCHARGE CONTROL |

| | |(DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On July 30, 2003 (10), the Board introduced Ordinance for second consideration and adoption on August 5, 2003. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Adopt Ordinance entitled: |

| | |

| |AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES RELATING TO WATERSHED PROTECTION, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND |

| |DISCHARGE CONTROL |

| |ACTION: |

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

| |adopting Ordinance No. 9589 (N.S.), entitled: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES RELATING TO |

| |WATERSHED PROTECTION, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND DISCHARGE CONTROL. |

| | |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Roberts, Horn |

| |ABSENT: Slater |

| |

| |

|15. |SUBJECT: |CLOSED SESSION (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| | |(CARRYOVER FROM 8/5/03 AGENDA NO. 9) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION |

| |Title: County Counsel |

| | |

| |B. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION |

| |Title: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors |

| |ACTION: |

| |No reportable matters. |

There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 12:10 p.m. in memory of Phil Norman, Ellen Stephenson, and Bernard Fayak.

THOMAS J. PASTUSZKA

Clerk of the Board of Supervisors

County of San Diego, State of California

Notes by: Randolph

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