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, JULY 19, 2006, 9:00 AM
Board of Supervisors North Chamber
1600 Pacific Highway, Room 310, San Diego, California
MORNING SESSION: - Meeting was called to order at 9:01 a.m.
PRESENT: Supervisors Bill Horn, Chairman; Ron Roberts, Vice-Chairman; Dianne Jacob, Pam Slater-Price; also Thomas J. Pastuszka, Clerk.
ABSENT: Supervisor Greg Cox
Approval of Statement of Board of Supervisor’s Proceedings/Minutes for the Meetings of June 14, 2006 and June 21, 2006.
ACTION:
ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board of Supervisors approved the Statement of Proceedings/Minutes for the meeting of June 14, 2006 and June 21, 2006.
AYES: Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn
ABSENT: Cox
Board of Supervisors’ Agenda Items
|1. |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT NO 4515-1: INITIATE REVERSION TO ACREAGE PROCEEDINGS LOCATED IN JAMUL-DULZURA PLANNING GROUP AREA |
| |(CARRYOVER FROM 6/14/06, AGENDA NO. 1) |
|2. |RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS FOR THE SYCAMORE DRIVE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT |
| |(CARRYOVER FROM 6/14/06, AGENDA NO. 16) |
|3. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |
| |VACATION OF A PORTION OF HONEY HILL RANCH ROAD (FORMERLY SOUTH GRADE ROAD) (VAC 04-013) LOCATED IN ALPINE COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA |
|4. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |
| |FORMATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT FOR SOUTH SANTA FE AVENUE |
|5. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |
| |TO CONFIRM ASSESSMENTS IN THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT |
|6. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |
| |CONSIDERATION OF THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS FOR PROPOSED PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION NO. 1000, ZONE NO. 1016 – EL SERENO WAY IN VISTA AREA |
|7. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |
| |PROPOSED PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION NO. 1000, ZONE NO. 1017 – RANCHITO ROADS IN ALPINE AREA |
|8. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |
| |CONFIRMATION OF LEVIES FOR MOSQUITO, VECTOR AND DISEASE CONTROL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT AND MOSQUITO ABATEMENT AND VECTOR CONTROL |
| |SERVICE CHARGE |
| |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): VECTOR CONTROL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT] |
| |(4 VOTES) |
|9. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |
| |MAILED BALLOT PROCEEDING RESULTS AND FORMATION HEARING FOR PROPOSED SAN DIEGO COUNTY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT ZONE NO. 1 – |
| |PARKS MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT |
| |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT GROUP FUND BALANCE] |
|10. |FUNDING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AND A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT NORTH LAKE WOHLFORD ROAD AND VALLEY CENTER ROAD IN |
| |VALLEY CENTER |
| |(4 VOTES) |
|11. |GILLESPIE FIELD – NEW GROUND LEASE WITH FAMILY CHRISTMAS TREE FARM |
| |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): RENTAL PAYMENTS FROM LESSEE] |
| |(4 VOTES) |
|12. |FALLBROOK COMMUNITY AIRPARK – FIRST AMENDMENTS TO AVIATION AND NON-AVIATION LEASES WITH COLOR SPOT NURSERIES, INC. |
| |(4 VOTES) |
|13. |MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT – PALOMAR AIRPORT CENTER, LLC DBA PREMIER JET - SECOND AMENDMENT TO AVIATION LEASE, CONTRACT 75629R, THIRD|
| |AMENDMENT TO AVIATION LEASE CONTRACT 75628R |
| |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): RENTAL PAYMENTS FROM THE LESSEE ] |
| |(4 VOTES) |
|14. |SET HEARING FOR 8/2/06 |
| |FORMATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT ON CENTRAL AVENUE IN BONITA |
|15. |CONSULTANT AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE ARCHITECTURAL, ENGINEERING AND PLANNING SERVICES FOR COUNTY AIRPORTS ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS |
|16. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |
| |ACQUISITION OF 3.29 ACRES (PITCHFORD) FOR OPEN SPACE AND INCLUSION IN LOUIS A. STELZER COUNTY PARK, LAKESIDE |
|17. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |
| |SPRING VALLEY - PURCHASE OF PROPERTY ON ILDICA STREET FROM CALTRANS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK |
| |(4 VOTES) |
|18. |APPLICATIONS TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR ALLOCATIONS OF MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATES FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2006 THROUGH 2010 |
| |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): HOUSING AUTHORITY REAL ESTATE RESERVE] |
| |(Relates To Housing Authority Agenda No. 1) |
|19. |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |
| |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT NO. 4613-3 (RAMS HILL): APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO JOINT AGREEMENT TO IMPROVE SUBDIVISION (SUBSTITUTION OF |
| |PARTIES, SECURITY, EXTENSION OF TIME) LOCATED IN BORREGO SPRINGS COMMUNITY SPONSOR GROUP AREA |
|20. |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |
| |SECOND CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE: TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS |
|21. |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |
| |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT NO. 5384-1: APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP LOCATED IN LAKESIDE COMMUNITY PLAN AREA |
|22. |CLOSED SESSION |
| |(CARRYOVER FROM 07/18/06, AGENDA ITEM NO. 19) |
|23. |PUBLIC COMMUNICATION |
|1. |SUBJECT: |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT NO 4515-1: INITIATE REVERSION TO ACREAGE PROCEEDINGS LOCATED IN JAMUL-DULZURA PLANNING |
| | |GROUP AREA (DISTRICT: 2) |
| | |(CARRYOVER FROM 6/14/06, AGENDA NO. 1) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |On June 14, 2006 (1), the Board of Supervisors continued this item to July 19, 2006. |
| |This is a request to initiate Reversion to Acreage Proceedings for County of San Diego Tract No. 4515-1, Final Map No. 12662 consisting of |
| |14 single-family residential lots, and a total acreage of 30.57 acres. It is located in the Jamul area, on the southerly side of Campo Road,|
| |3,590 feet westerly from Steele Canyon Road. (Thomas Guide, Page 1292, B-1) |
| |On March 1, 2006 (3), your Board continued this item to allow staff time to work with the property owners. Staff has contacted the property |
| |owners several times since then, and has attempted to ensure security is provided. The property owners have taken no positive action to |
| |provide security and staff recommends moving forward with reversion to acreage. |
| |Subsequent to approval of the final map for the subdivision, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) acquired right-of-way |
| |within the subdivision for construction of State Route 94 (SR 94). Acquisition of right-of-way within the subdivision for SR 94 together |
| |with other conditions that have changed since the final map was approved over 15 years ago, make it infeasible to develop the subdivision in|
| |accordance with the approved final map. |
| |The Board is requested to initiate action to revert the subdivision to acreage in accordance with Section 66499.12 of the Subdivision Map |
| |Act. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |If approved, this request will have no fiscal or staffing impact. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |
| |Initiate, by motion, proceedings to revert County of San Diego Tract No. 4515-1, Final Map No. 12662 to acreage pursuant to Section 66499.12|
| |of the Subdivision Map Act. |
| |Direct Chief Administrative Officer to return with sufficient information for the Board to make findings required by Section 66499.16 of the|
| |Subdivision Map Act. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board withdrew the item, on Consent, at the request of the Chief |
| |Administrative Officer. |
| |AYES: Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |ABSENT: Cox |
|2. |SUBJECT: |RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS FOR THE SYCAMORE DRIVE IMPROVEMENT |
| | |PROJECT (DISTRICT: 5) |
| | |(CARRYOVER FROM 6/14/06, AGENDA NO. 16) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |The City of San Marcos is proposing improvements to Sycamore Drive near the boundary between the City and the County. The project |
| |improvements include widening Sycamore Drive from 24 to 42 feet and under-grounding existing overhead utilities. Construction of the |
| |proposed improvements may affect five properties located within the County’s unincorporated area. In accordance with California Streets and|
| |Highways Code, Section 1810, the City may acquire property outside its boundaries if necessary to connect or widen existing streets and if |
| |the County consents to the acquisition. |
| |This is a request for the Board of Supervisors to adopt a resolution authorizing the City of San Marcos to acquire property located in the |
| |unincorporated area of the County of San Diego for purposes of improving Sycamore Drive between Olive Street and the entrance to Walnut |
| |Grove Park (Thomas Guide, Page 1108-J2). |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |There is no fiscal impact associated with this request. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |
| |1. Find, in accordance with Section 15096 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, that the County of San Diego,|
| |as a responsible agency under CEQA, has considered the environmental effects of the project shown in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND |
| |#05-729) adopted by San Marcos as the lead agency on April 19, 2006 and has reached its own conclusion to approve the project. |
| |2. Adopt the resolution entitled Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego Consenting to the Acquisition by the City|
| |of San Marcos of Property in the Unincorporated Area of San Diego County for the Purposes of Widening Sycamore Drive. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Horn, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board continued this item for 60 days. |
| |AYES: Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |ABSENT: Cox |
| |
|3. |SUBJECT: |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |
| | |VACATION OF A PORTION OF HONEY HILL RANCH ROAD (FORMERLY SOUTH GRADE ROAD) (VAC 04-013) LOCATED IN ALPINE COMMUNITY |
| | |PLANNING AREA |
| | |(DISTRICT: 2) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |This is a request to adopt a Resolution to Vacate a Portion of Honey Hill Ranch Road (Formerly South Grade Road). The portion of Honey Hill|
| |Ranch Road to be vacated is located east of the intersection of Honey Hill Ranch Road and Suncrest Vista Lane, in the Alpine Community |
| |Planning area (2005 Thomas Guide, Page 1234, D-6). On June 14, 2006 (15), the Board directed Clerk of the Board to set a public hearing for|
| |July 19, 2006 to consider the proposed road vacation. |
| | |
| |The portion of Honey Hill Ranch Road to be vacated is additional right of way not required for the future improvements of South Grade Road. |
| |The area proposed for vacation is no longer needed for public use. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |N/A |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |
| |Acting as the Board of Supervisors: |
| |Find the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305 (Minor Alterations |
| |in Land Use Limitations) of the CEQA Guidelines. |
| |Adopt a Resolution entitled Resolution to Vacate a Portion of Honey Hill Ranch Road (Formerly South Grade Road). |
| |Direct the Clerk of the Board to record the Resolution to vacate a portion of Honey Hill Ranch Road (Formerly South Grade Road) (Attachment |
| |B). |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board closed the Hearing and took action as recommended, on Consent, |
| |adopting Resolution No. 06-118 entitled: RESOLUTION TO VACATE A PORTION OF HONEY HILL RANCH ROAD (FORMERLY SOUTH GRADE ROAD) (VAC 04-013). |
| |AYES: Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |ABSENT: Cox |
| |
| |
|4. |SUBJECT: |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |
| | |FORMATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT FOR SOUTH SANTA FE AVENUE (DISTRICT: 5) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |The purpose of the Underground Utility District program is to improve the appearance of communities by undergrounding overhead utilities in |
| |areas of benefit to the general public. Board Policy J-17, Undergrounding of Existing Overhead Utility Facilities, establishes a policy and |
| |procedure for district formation and program administration. |
| |Establishing an Underground Utility District is a two-step process. This first step is adopting a resolution of intention and setting a |
| |date for a public hearing. The second step is to adopt an ordinance forming the district at close of the public hearing. This is a request |
| |to hold a hearing to form a new district, South Santa Fe Avenue, from Montgomery Drive to Smilax Road (Thomas Guide Pages 1108 B-2, B-3, |
| |C-3, C-4). At the close of the public hearing, adopt an Ordinance to form an Underground Utility District For South Santa Fe Avenue, |
| |Underground Utility District No. 101. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |Utility companies underground their overhead lines at their own expense. Funds for formation and administration of these districts are |
| |budgeted in Department of Public Works General Fund. If approved, this request will result in a $2,000 current year cost, and $1,000 |
| |subsequent year cost, and will require no additional staff years. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |
| |Find, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, that the requested actions are not |
| |subject to CEQA, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that they may have a significant effect on the |
| |environment. |
| |At the close of the public hearing, adopt AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 89.302 TO THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES TO FORM |
| |AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT FOR SOUTH SANTA FE AVENUE, UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 101. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board closed the Hearing and took action as recommended, on Consent, |
| |adopting Ordinance No. 9789 (N.S.) entitled: AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 89.302 TO THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES TO |
| |FORM AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT ON SOUTH SANTA FE AVENUE UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 101. |
| |AYES: Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |ABSENT: Cox |
| |
| |
|5. |SUBJECT: |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |
| | |CONFIRM ASSESSMENTS IN THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT (DISTRICT: ALL) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |The San Diego County Street Lighting District was formed by the Board of Supervisors on September 30, 1987 (3), under the Landscape and |
| |Lighting Act of 1972, as a replacement for Lighting Maintenance Districts. The District operates and maintains more than 9,700 public street|
| |lights throughout the unincorporated area of the County and is dedicated to providing quality street light service while maintaining a low |
| |cost to property owners. Funding for the District is through a portion of the one-percent property tax and through assessments charged to |
| |properties that benefit from the lights. Assessments are based on traffic generation with a single-family residence being assigned one |
| |benefit unit. |
| |Assessments are confirmed by the Board at an annual public hearing. The proposed assessment rate in Fiscal Year 2006-07 is $5.88 per single |
| |family home per year, which is a five percent increase over the Fiscal Year 2005-06 rate, reflecting increases in the cost of labor, |
| |materials and electricity. The voters have approved a maximum rate of $25.00 and the current proposed rate is less than 25% of the maximum. |
| |Among all street light district jurisdictions in the San Diego region, the County assessment rate remains the lowest. |
| |On June 14, 2006 (11), the Board accepted the Engineer’s Report and adopted a Resolution of Intention to Order Improvements for the San |
| |Diego County Street Lighting District, and set a hearing for July 19, 2006. The action requested today is to adopt a resolution confirming |
| |the assessments at the close of hearing. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |The Fiscal Year 2006-07 budget for the San Diego County Street Lighting District is $1.5 million and reflects the requested rate change. The|
| |requested rate change will generate approximately $28,300 additional revenue compared to Fiscal Year 2005-06. No additional staff years are |
| |required. |
| |BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT: |
| |This action will have no impact on business activity. The average small business will experience an increase of $ 3.20 annually typical |
| |residents will see an annual increase of .28 cent. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |
| |At close of public hearing, adopt a Resolution entitled Resolution Confirming Diagram and Assessments in the San Diego County Street |
| |Lighting District. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board closed the Hearing and took action as recommended, on Consent, |
| |adopting Resolution No. 06-119 entitled: RESOLUTION CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENTS IN THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT. |
| |AYES: Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |ABSENT: Cox |
| |
| |
|6. |SUBJECT: |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |
| | |CONSIDERATION OF THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS FOR PROPOSED PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION NO. 1000, ZONE NO. 1016 – EL SERENO |
| | |WAY IN VISTA AREA (DISTRICT: 5) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |On May 17, 2006 (7), the Board authorized a mailed ballot proceeding to owners of 19 parcels in the proposed Permanent Road Division Zone |
| |No. 1017 – El Sereno Way to determine if sufficient support exists to form a district to improve and maintain .14 mile of existing road |
| |(Thomas Guide, Page 1108, C-4). On that date the Board also adopted Resolution of Intention to Establish the Permanent Road Division Zone, |
| |approved the Engineer’s Report and set July 19, 2006 as the date for the required public hearing and to close acceptance of ballots. |
| | |
| |The purpose of today’s Public Hearing is to allow the public to comment on the proposed Permanent Road Division Zone, and for the County to |
| |accept any additional ballots. Permanent Road Division Law and Article XIIID of the State Constitution stipulate guidelines under which |
| |these kinds of assessment districts are formed. Proposition 218 provides for a minimum 45-day balloting period during which time property |
| |owners can support or reject the proposed assessment. Ballots for this proposed district were mailed May 25, 2006, to all property owners |
| |within the proposed district. The district cannot form if a weighted majority of the ballots returned opposes formation. At the conclusion |
| |of public comments for today’s hearing, it is requested the hearing and acceptance of ballots be closed to allow time for Clerk of the Board|
| |to tabulate all valid ballots received. It is also requested that results of the tabulated ballots be presented at the next Board meeting |
| |August 2, 2006. |
| |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 of $7,300. If the district forms, the money will be reimbursed by the new |
| |district. The proposed budget for the road improvement is $150,800 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. |
| |Conduct a public hearing to receive comments on proposed Permanent Road Division Zone No. 1016 – El Sereno Way and close acceptance of |
| |ballots. |
| |Close public hearing to allow for ballot tabulation. |
| |Direct the Clerk of the Board to tabulate all valid ballots received, and present ballot results at the next Board meeting August 2, 2006. |
| |At public meeting on August 2, 2006: |
| |5. Receive and confirm results of the ballot tabulation for the proposed Permanent Road Division No. 1000, Zone No. 1016 – El Sereno Way. |
| | |
| |If ballots in favor meet the passage criteria of State law: |
| |6. Approve Engineer’s Report for proposed Permanent Road Division No. 1000, Zone No. 1016 – El Sereno Way, on file in the Special Districts |
| |office of the Department of Public Works. |
| | |
| |7. Adopt Resolution entitled Resolution Establishing San Diego Countywide Permanent Road Division No. 1000, Zone No. 1016 – El Sereno |
| |Way. |
| | |
| |8. 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. 1016 – EL SERENO WAY. |
| | |
| |9. Adopt a resolution entitled Resolution Declaring El Sereno Way To Be A Public Road, Declaring Said Road Not County Highway And Not |
| |Accepted Into The County Maintained Road System. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent, continuing the Hearing to |
| |August 2, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. |
| |AYES: Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |ABSENT: Cox |
| |
|7. |SUBJECT: |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |
| | |PROPOSED PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION NO. 1000, ZONE NO. 1017 – RANCHITO ROADS IN ALPINE AREA (DISTRICT: 2) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |On May 17, 2006 (9), the Board authorized a mailed ballot proceeding to owners of 36 parcels in the proposed Permanent Road Division Zone |
| |No. 1017 – Ranchito Roads to determine if sufficient support exists to form a district to improve and maintain .69 mile of existing road |
| |(Thomas Guide, Page 1253, H-1). On that date the Board also adopted Resolution of Intention to Establish the Permanent Road Division Zone, |
| |approved the Engineer’s Report and set July 19, 2006 as the date for the required public hearing and to close acceptance of ballots. |
| | |
| |Proposition 218 provides for a minimum 45-day balloting period during which time property owners can support or reject the proposed |
| |assessment. Ballots for this proposed district were mailed May 25, 2006 to all property owners within the proposed district. After mailing,|
| |staff discovered an error on the ballot. Corrected ballots were mailed on June 27, 2006. This is a request to continue the public hearing to|
| |September 20, 2006, to allow the 45-day balloting period. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |This action will have no fiscal impact. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |
| |Continue public hearing for proposed Permanent Road Division Zone No. 1017 – Ranchito Roads to September 20, 2006. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent, continuing the Hearing to |
| |September 20, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. |
| |AYES: Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |ABSENT: Cox |
| |
| |
|8. |SUBJECT: |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |
| | |CONFIRMATION OF LEVIES FOR MOSQUITO, VECTOR AND DISEASE CONTROL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT AND MOSQUITO ABATEMENT AND |
| | |VECTOR CONTROL SERVICE CHARGE (DISTRICT: ALL) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |On July 13, 2005 (1), the Board approved the levy of assessments for the Mosquito, Vector and Disease Control Benefit Assessment following |
| |61.46% of voting property owners supporting the ballot measure. According to Article XIIID of the State Constitution (Proposition 218) |
| |approved by California voters in November 1996, property owners approve a benefit assessment through a ballot measure and in subsequent |
| |years the governing body approves the levy on properties. |
| |The recommended actions will approve the Engineers Report, confirm the assessment diagram and assessment, and order the levy of assessments |
| |for the Mosquito, Vector and Disease Control Benefit Assessment for Fiscal Year 2006-07 by adopting a resolution. The proposed single |
| |family equivalent rate is $6.36 which is $2.19, or 25%, less than the initial rate of $8.55 adopted for Fiscal Year 2005-06. The Board is|
| |also being asked to approve a resolution confirming the levy for Mosquito Abatement and Vector Control District Service Charge. The service|
| |charge for Fiscal Year 2006-07 will be levied within the authorized rate structure with no change in the rates of $3.00, $2.28, and $2.28 |
| |for Subregions 1, 2, and 3. |
| |Upon adoption, the Mosquito, Vector and Disease Control Benefit Assessment and the Mosquito Abatement and Vector Control Service Charge will|
| |be placed on the tax roll, so that property owners can pay the benefit assessment and service charge through their property tax bills. |
| |Also recommended is the authorization to pursue a lease or purchase of a building in North County for the co-location of Vector Control and |
| |Agriculture Weights and Measures pesticide handling operations. Authorization is also being requested for the purchase of a forklift for |
| |the more efficient transport of large amounts of larvicides. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |Recommendation 3 & 4: |
| |Funds for this request are budgeted in the Department of Environmental Health in the amount of $6,070,409 for Fiscal Year 2006-07. |
| |Assessments in subsequent years would depend on the Vector Control Program budget, and related assessment rates, approved annually by your |
| |Board. Approval of this request will require no additional staff years. |
| |Recommendation 5: |
| |There is no current year fiscal impact. It is expected that whether a building is leased or purchased, all costs will be covered using |
| |department resources and program revenue. If approved, this request carries no specific cost as any new lease or purchase agreement must be|
| |brought back to your Board for approval. |
| |Recommendations 6-8: |
| |Department of Environmental Health: Funds for this request are budgeted in the Department of Environmental Health. The funding source is |
| |the Vector Control Benefit Assessment. If approved, this request will result in a current year cost of approximately $33,480 ($31,165 |
| |forklift costs plus taxes and freight, and $2,315 in ISF costs for the equipment) and will require the addition of no staff years. |
| |Fleet Internal Service Fund: Funds for the purchase of a forklift are not budgeted. The funding source is an operating transfer and revenue |
| |from the Department of Environmental Health. If approved, this request will result in an estimated current year costs of $33,480, and |
| |subsequent year costs of $3,382, which will be included in the Fleet Services Internal Service Fund Spending Plan, and will require the |
| |addition of no staff years. |
| |BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT: |
| |Outbreaks of vector-borne diseases can materially and negatively impact economic activity. According to a study prepared for the Centers for|
| |Disease Control and Prevention, the outbreak of West Nile virus in Louisiana is estimated to have cost over $20 million in a single year. |
| |Such outbreaks and other public health threats can have a drastic negative effect on tourism, business, and residential activities. The |
| |proposed assessment will help to prevent the likelihood of such outbreaks. This is a benefit to business, agriculture, and residential |
| |properties. |
| |Tourism is a significant component of the economic and business base in San Diego County. The tourism and business industries in the County|
| |would benefit from reduced levels of harmful or nuisance mosquitoes and other vectors. Conversely, any outbreak of emerging vector-borne |
| |diseases such as West Nile Virus could also materially affect these industries. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |
| |Find in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) of the State of California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines that it can be seen with |
| |certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, not|
| |subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. |
| |Find in accordance with Section 21080(b)(3) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15273 of the California Environmental Quality Act |
| |Guidelines that this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, because it establishes a charge to meet the operating |
| |expenses of and to establish necessary financial reserves for an existing program, specifically the County Vector Control Program as |
| |described herein and in the Engineer’s report. |
| |Adopt a Resolution entitled A Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the San Diego County Vector Control Program Approving the Engineer’s|
| |Report, Confirming the Assessment Diagram and Assessment and Ordering the Levy of Assessments for Fiscal Year 2006-07 for the San Diego |
| |County Vector Control Program Mosquito, Vector and Disease Control Assessment. |
| |Adopt a Resolution entitled Resolution of the Board of Supervisors Exercising the Powers of the Mosquito Abatement and Vector Control |
| |District Adopting Service Charges and Confirming Reports Re: Levies to be Collected on the Tax Roll for Fiscal Year 2006-07. |
| |Authorize the Director of the Department of General Services to initiate a search to purchase or lease approximately 4,300 square feet of |
| |office/warehouse space in the North County to be shared by the Department of Environmental Health Vector Program and the Department of |
| |Agricultural, Weights and Measures Pest Control Program. |
| |Authorize the purchase of a forklift. |
| | |
| | |
| |Transfer appropriations of $33,480 from the Department of Environmental Health to the General Fund Contribution to Fleet Internal Service |
| |Fund to provide funding to the Fleet Services Internal Service Fund for the purchase of one forklift. |
| |Amend the Fiscal Year 2006-07 Fleet Services Internal Service Fund Spending Plan in the amount of $33,480 to provide funding for the |
| |purchase of one forklift ($31,165) and related vehicle depreciation ($2,315), based on an Operating Transfer from the Department of |
| |Environmental Health. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board closed the Hearing and took action as recommended, on Consent, |
| |adopting Resolution No. 06-120 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM APPROVING |
| |THE ENGINEER’S REPORT, CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 FOR THE|
| |SAN DIEGO COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM MOSQUITO, VECTOR AND DISEASE CONTROL ASSESSMENT, and Resolution No. 06-121 entitled: RESOLUTION OF |
| |THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS EXERCISING THE POWERS OF THE MOSQUITO ABATEMENT AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT ADOPTING SERVICE CHARGES AND CONFIRMING|
| |REPORTS RE: LEVIES TO BE COLLECTED ON THE TAX ROLL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-07. |
| |AYES: Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |ABSENT: Cox |
| |
| |
|9. |SUBJECT: |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |
| | |MAILED BALLOT PROCEEDING RESULTS AND FORMATION HEARING FOR PROPOSED SAN DIEGO COUNTY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT |
| | |ZONE NO. 1 – PARKS MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (DISTRICT: 2) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |On May 17, 2006 (4), the Board of Supervisors authorized a mailed ballot proceeding to owners of parcels within the proposed San Diego |
| |County Landscape Maintenance District Zone No. 1 – Parks Maintenance Assessment District. |
| | |
| |This hearing will provide the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed formation of the Parks Maintenance Assessment District which,|
| |if approved, would provide additional funding for maintenance of parks within County Service Area 26 – Rancho San Diego. Upon the close of |
| |the hearing, the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors will tabulate the results of the mailed ballot proceeding. The Landscape and Lighting |
| |Act of 1972 and Article XIIID of the State Constitution establish procedures under which these districts are formed. The proposed district |
| |cannot form if a weighted majority of the ballots returned opposes formation. Included in this action is a request to continue the public |
| |meeting until August 2, 2006, to allow for ballot tabulation. If the results indicate approval of district formation, the August 2, 2006 |
| |requested action will adopt a resolution to establish the San Diego County Landscape Maintenance District Zone No. 1 – Parks Maintenance |
| |Assessment District for Fiscal Year 2006-2007. The assessment may be continued annually based on a majority vote of the Board of |
| |Supervisors. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |Funding for this proposal is budgeted in the Department of Parks and Recreation. If the ballot proceeding is successful, it will result in |
| |a $9,000 current year cost to implement the process for the formation of the San Diego County Landscape Maintenance District Zone No. 1 – |
| |Parks Maintenance Assessment District (PMAD). The funding source would be Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Land Use and Environment Group Fund Balance|
| |allocated to the Department of Parks and Recreation on May 16, 2006 (21). If the ballot measure is not approved, the PMAD will not be |
| |formed and no additional costs are anticipated. This proposal requires no additional staff years. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |
| |Find in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines that the requested actions are not|
| |subject to the environmental review process because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that they may have a |
| |significant effect on the environment. |
| | |
| |Conduct a public hearing to receive ballots and public comment for the San Diego County Landscape Maintenance District Zone No. 1 – Parks |
| |Maintenance Assessment District, on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Rule on any challenges made at the public hearing to |
| |the validity of any ballots. |
| | |
| |After the conclusion of the public hearing, direct the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to tabulate all valid ballots received. |
| |Continue the public meeting on this matter until August 2, 2006 to allow for ballot tabulation. |
| | |
| |On August 2, 2006, the following recommendations will be considered: |
| | |
| |Accept and confirm the results of the proposed San Diego County Landscape Maintenance District Zone No. 1 – Parks Maintenance Assessment |
| |District. |
| | |
| |If the San Diego County Landscape Maintenance District Zone No. 1 – Parks Maintenance Assessment District passes: |
| | |
| |Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) entitled: Resolution of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors Approving Engineer’s Report, Confirming |
| |Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering Levy of the San Diego County Landscape Maintenance District Zone No. 1 – Parks Maintenance Assessment |
| |District for Fiscal Year 2006-2007. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent, continuing the Hearing to |
| |August 2, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. |
| |AYES: Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |ABSENT: Cox |
| |
| |
|10. |SUBJECT: |FUNDING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AND A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT NORTH LAKE WOHLFORD ROAD AND VALLEY |
| | |CENTER ROAD IN VALLEY CENTER (DISTRICT: 5) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |On February 1, 2006 (7), the Board authorized advertisement and award of a contract to construct intersection improvements and a traffic |
| |signal at Valley Center Road and North Lake Wohlford Road in Valley Center (TG 1091-C2). The Board authorized $855,000, including |
| |contingency, for construction of this contract. |
| |On June 15, 2006, construction bids were received and opened. The apparent low bid submitted was $916,600. The higher-than-anticipated bid |
| |is attributed to difficult traffic control, project phasing, and higher material costs. Public Works staff reviewed the bid and determined |
| |it is fair and reasonable. |
| |This is a request to increase funding appropriations by $199,090 to $1,054,090. This new amount will fund the construction contract, |
| |including 15% contingency. Upon Board approval, Department of Purchasing and Contracting will award a contract for construction to the low |
| |bidder. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |The Department of Public Works Fiscal Year 2006-07 Detailed Work Program currently includes appropriations of $855,000 for this project. |
| |If approved, this request adds appropriations of $199,090 for a total of $1,054,090 for construction based on unanticipated revenue from |
| |TransNet. This request will result in no subsequent year cost and will require no additional staff years. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |
| |Find that the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified under Section 15301 of the State |
| |CEQA Guidelines because it consists of minor alteration of existing public roads with no or negligible increase in capacity. |
| | |
| |Establish appropriations of $199,090 in the Department of Public Works Detailed Work Program for North Lake Wohlford Road Signal Project |
| |based on unanticipated revenue from TransNet funds. (4 VOTES). |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |
| |AYES: Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |ABSENT: Cox |
| |
| |
|11. |SUBJECT: |GILLESPIE FIELD – NEW GROUND LEASE WITH FAMILY CHRISTMAS TREE FARM (DISTRICT: 2) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |Gillespie Field is located just west of Magnolia Avenue and north of Bradley Avenue, about 2.5 miles northwest of downtown El Cajon. |
| |Gillespie Field conducts over 240,000 operations annually and provides facilities for 745 general aviation and corporate aircraft, aviation |
| |businesses, and the Sheriff’s Air Support to Regional Enforcement Agencies facility. |
| |On July 19, 2005, Gillespie Field Development Council recommended approval of a Request for Proposals process to lease the proposed |
| |premises, beginning on January 1, 2007. Based on the Airport Layout Plan and draft Land Use Compatibility Plan, it had been determined the |
| |existing use of the property, as a tree farm, is the best use. It provides an appropriate buffer area at the end of Gillespie Field’s |
| |primary runway, which is extremely important for safe operations at any airport. |
| |The Request for Proposals was issued and the current Tenant, Richard E. Gass and Judith E. Gass, d.b.a. Family Christmas Tree Farm, |
| |submitted the only response. County staff reviewed this proposal and determined it met all necessary requirements. As such, Family |
| |Christmas Tree Farm was selected as successful Proposer and lease negotiations were begun. |
| |This is a request to approve a new 20-year ground lease with Family Christmas Tree Farm that will increase monthly rent derived from this |
| |leasehold based on current market rent and will maintain a safe buffer zone at the end of the primary runway at Gillespie Field. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |If approved, this request will result in additional revenue to the Airport Enterprise Fund beginning Fiscal Year 2006-07. The funding source|
| |for additional revenue is rental payments from lessee under the terms of proposed new lease. Total revenue from this Leasehold will be |
| |$7,200 in current year and approximately $14,400 annually in subsequent years. The new lease will require no additional staff years. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |
| |Find, in accordance with Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, that proposed lease is categorically |
| |exempt from CEQA provisions as it involves continuation of an existing use. |
| |Approve and authorize Clerk of the Board to execute, upon receipt, new Ground Lease (three copies) with Family Christmas Tree Farm. (4 |
| |VOTES) |
| | |
| |Waive recommended minimum lengths of time between rental rate adjustments of Board Policy F-51, County Real Property Asset Management, with |
| |regard to proposed lease with Family Christmas Tree Farm. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |
| |AYES: Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |ABSENT: Cox |
| |
|12. |SUBJECT: |FALLBROOK COMMUNITY AIRPARK – FIRST AMENDMENTS TO AVIATION AND NON-AVIATION LEASES WITH COLOR SPOT NURSERIES, INC. |
| | |(DISTRICT: 5) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |Fallbrook Community Airpark is a 288-acre airport located on South Mission Road approximately 1.5 miles south of Fallbrook. The Airpark is |
| |equipped with runway lighting, hangars and tie-down areas. The Airpark is divided into two designated use areas. One area is designated |
| |for aviation use and the other for compatible non-aviation uses. |
| |On December 15, 1998 (32), the Board approved two new leases with Color Spot Nurseries, Inc., allowing them to lease approximately 46 acres |
| |of both aviation and non-aviation designated land. To comply with Federal Aviation Administration guidelines, which favor aviation uses at |
| |the Airpark, it is necessary to adjust the leasehold premises downward to approximately 37 acres total. Some of this conversion is necessary|
| |to accommodate the new Sheriff’s emergency helicopter pad constructed in 2004 and related facilities currently being constructed. Staff has |
| |negotiated a lease amendment with Color Spot to accommodate this change, which is now ready for your Board approval. |
| |This is a request to approve the First Amendments to aviation and non-aviation leases with Color Spot Nurseries, Inc. that will: (i) reduce|
| |the leased areas; (ii) proportionately adjust base monthly rent; (iii) update the defined Consumer Price Index; and (iv) correct section |
| |references as set forth in Sections 1.10 and 1.11 of the current leases. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |These lease amendments will result in Fiscal Year 2006-07 revenue of $70,210 to the Airport Enterprise Fund. This amendment will decrease |
| |annual revenue by $14,247 due to lands being converted to aviation use. In Fiscal Year 2007-08 and 2008-09, annual rent from both leases |
| |will be $70,210 plus cost of living adjustments. The proposed actions will not require additional staff years. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |
| |Find, in accordance with Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, that the proposed lease amendment is |
| |categorically exempt from CEQA provisions as it involves continuation of an existing use. |
| | |
| |Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board to execute, upon receipt, three copies of each the First Amendment to Lease Agreement Aviation |
| |Lease Property with Color Spot Nurseries, Inc. and the First Amendment to Lease Agreement Non-Aviation Use Property with Color Spot |
| |Nurseries, Inc. (4 VOTES) |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |
| |AYES: Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |ABSENT: Cox |
| |
|13. |SUBJECT: |MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT – PALOMAR AIRPORT CENTER, LLC DBA PREMIER JET - SECOND AMENDMENT TO AVIATION LEASE, |
| | |CONTRACT 75629R, THIRD AMENDMENT TO AVIATION LEASE CONTRACT 75628R (DISTRICT: 5) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |McClellan-Palomar Airport, located in Carlsbad, is a major gateway to and from San Diego’s North County and is one of the busiest single |
| |runway airports in the nation. It provides facilities and services to commercial, corporate, and general aviation communities and is home |
| |to 305 based aircraft. |
| |On December 11, 2002 (13), the Board approved five 30-year aviation leases with Palomar Airport Center, LLC dba Premier Jet (Premier Jet) |
| |for 14.82 contiguous acres at the airport. These leases allowed redevelopment to move forward, returned 1.17 acres to the County, provided |
| |a location for portable hangars, and enhanced airport security and safety. The leases were amended January 14, 2004 (4) to extend the |
| |construction completion incentive date to accommodate delays requested by the County. On April 5, 2006 (9), the Board approved amendments to|
| |adjust the rent to market rate and confirm the termination date. |
| |This is a request to approve the Second Amendment to Aviation Lease with Premier Jet for County Contract Number 75269R and the Third |
| |Amendment to Aviation Lease with Premier Jet for County Contract Number 75628R, to define processing fees and clarify the amount of |
| |additional rent the County will receive from long term prepaid subleases. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |This request will result in additional revenue to the County’s Airport Enterprise Fund. This revenue is not included in the CAO’s Proposed |
| |Operational Plan for Fiscal Years 2006-08. The funding source is rental payments from the lessee under terms of the amended lease |
| |agreements. If approved, this request will have no impact on the current fiscal year. It will result in approximately $561,149 (an |
| |estimated $539,981 in one time additional rent from the County’s percent of prepaid subleases, plus an estimated $21,168 annually from the |
| |County’s percent of monthly sublease rents and management expenses) in revenue in FY 2006-07. It will result in approximately $21,168 in |
| |revenue annually in subsequent years. It will result in no additional staff years. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |
| |Find, in accordance with Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, that the proposed lease amendments are|
| |categorically exempt from CEQA review as they involve continuation of an existing use. |
| |Approve and authorize Clerk of the Board to execute, upon receipt, three copies of the Second Amendment to Aviation Lease with Palomar |
| |Airport Center, LLC, County Contract Number 75629R. (4 VOTES) |
| |Approve and authorize Clerk of the Board to execute, upon receipt, three copies of the Third Amendment to Aviation Lease with Palomar |
| |Airport Center, LLC, County Contract Number 75628R. (4 VOTES) |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |
| |AYES: Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |ABSENT: Cox |
| |
| |
|14. |SUBJECT: |SET HEARING FOR 8/2/06 |
| | |FORMATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT ON CENTRAL AVENUE IN BONITA. (DISTRICT: 1) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |The purpose of the Underground Utility District program is to underground overhead utilities to benefit communities. Board Policy J-17, |
| |Undergrounding of Existing Overhead Utility Facilities, establishes a policy and procedure for district formation and program |
| |administration. |
| |This is a request to set a hearing for August 2, 2006, to form a new district, Central Avenue Phase 2 (Thomas Guide pages 1310 J-2; 1311 |
| |A-1) to underground existing overhead electrical, telephone and cable facilities. Establishing an Underground Utility District is a |
| |two-step process. This first step is to adopt a resolution of intention and set a date for a public hearing. The second step will be to |
| |adopt an ordinance forming the district at close of the public hearing. |
| |Construction will be coordinated with construction of the Central Avenue Flood Control Project approved by your Board on May 10, 2006 (1). |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |Utility companies underground their overhead lines at their own expense. Funds for formation and administration of these districts are |
| |budgeted in Department of Public Works General Fund. If approved, this request will result in a $2,000 current year cost, and $1,000 |
| |subsequent years cost. 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, that the requested actions are not |
| |subject to CEQA, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that they may have a significant effect on the |
| |environment. |
| |Adopt a resolution entitled Resolution of Intention to Form Underground Utility District No. 102, Central Avenue Phase 2, setting a public |
| |hearing for August 2, 2006 |
| |At the close of the public hearing on August 2, 2006, adopt AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 89.303 TO THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY |
| |ORDINANCES TO FORM AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT FOR CENTRAL AVENUE UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 102. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent, adopting Resolution No. |
| |06-122 entitled: RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO FORM UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 102 CENTRAL AVENUE PHASE 2, introducing Ordinance for |
| |further consideration and adoption, and setting Hearing for August 2, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. |
| |AYES: Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |ABSENT: Cox |
| |
|15. |SUBJECT: |CONSULTANT AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE ARCHITECTURAL, ENGINEERING AND PLANNING SERVICES FOR COUNTY AIRPORTS ON AN AS-NEEDED|
| | |BASIS (DISTRICT: ALL) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |County Airports has need for a consultant to perform architectural, engineering, and planning services, including studies, surveying and |
| |mapping, comprehensive planning, program management, design, soils engineering, plan checking, construction support and other related |
| |services. Use of a consultant will enhance Airports’ ability to complete planning and construction projects in a timely manner. |
| |Public agencies in California must use a Qualifications Based Selection method to contract for consultant services. This method requires |
| |such services be engaged on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications for the 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, a solicitation was conducted and four respondent consultant firms were interviewed. Wadell |
| |Engineering Corporation, of Burlingame, California, was selected as the most qualified firm to perform required services. |
| | |
| |This is a request to approve a consultant agreement with this firm to provide as-needed architectural, engineering, and planning services |
| |for total compensation not to exceed $950,000, with a term ending June 30, 2011. The agreement authorizes the Director, Department of |
| |Public Works, to extend the termination date until funds are exhausted or services no longer required, and to adjust allowable billing rates|
| |on an annual basis to mutually agreed upon fair and reasonable rates. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |Funding sources for this request is the Airport Enterprise Fund. Projects are eligible for reimbursement from future Federal Aviation |
| |Administration and State grant funding. If approved, this request will result in costs of $950,000 on an as needed basis over the next five |
| |years, through June 30, 2011. Expenditures in each year will vary according to the workload levels. No additional staff years will be |
| |required and there will be no impact to the General Fund. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |
| |Find proposed action is exempt from 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 contractor than by persons employed in |
| |the Classified Service. |
| |Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board to execute, upon receipt, an original agreement with Wadell Engineering Corporation to provide |
| |architectural, engineering, and planning services on an as-needed basis for compensation not to exceed $950,000. Agreement will terminate |
| |June 30, 2011. The agreement shall allow the Director, Department of Public Works, to extend the termination date until funds are exhausted|
| |or services are no longer required, whichever shall occur first, and to adjust allowable billing rates on an annual basis to mutually agreed|
| |upon fair and reasonable rates. |
| |Designate the Director, Department of Public Works, as County Officer responsible for administering the agreement. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |
| |AYES: Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |ABSENT: Cox |
| |
| |
|16. |SUBJECT: |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |
| | |ACQUISITION OF 3.29 ACRES (PITCHFORD) FOR OPEN SPACE AND INCLUSION IN LOUIS A. STELZER COUNTY PARK, LAKESIDE |
| | |(DISTRICT: 2) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |On June 14, 2006 (7), the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, on Consent, setting Hearing for July 19, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. |
| |The purchase of the 3.29-acre Pitchford property in Lakeside is part of an ongoing acquisition program to assemble and preserve important |
| |habitat lands identified in the County of San Diego’s Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan, Metro-Lakeside-Jamul Segment. |
| |This property is located on Wildcat Canyon Road in Lakeside, and is proposed to be added to Louis A. Stelzer County Park (Thomas Guide, Page|
| |1232-C1). |
| |The Board is requested to set a hearing for July 19, 2006 to consider the purchase of this 3.29-acre parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number |
| |392-050-20) from Andre and Alma L. Pitchford for the appraised fair market value of $75,000. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |Should the Board approve the purchase of the property for $75,000 on July 19, 2006, funds for the purchase will be provided by existing |
| |budgeted funds available in Capital Project 1000012 – Multiple Species Conservation Program/Open Space Acquisitions. If approved, there |
| |will be a current year cost of $79,300 ($75,000 for the acquisition, $4,300 for escrow and Real Estate Services staff costs to complete the |
| |acquisition.) In addition there would be an annual cost of $170 estimated for Special Tax Assessments which will be paid from existing |
| |budgeted funds in the Department of Parks and Recreation. No additional staff years will be required. Management of the acquired property |
| |will be funded with existing budgeted resources in the Department of Parks and Recreation. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |
| |Find, in accordance with Section 15325 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, that the purchase of Assessor’s Parcel|
| |Number 392-050-20 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the Guidelines as it involves the transfer of ownership of land to preserve|
| |open space and natural habitat. |
| |Approve the Real Property Contract and authorize the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to execute two originals of the contract. |
| |Authorize the Director of the Department of General Services, or designee, to execute all escrow and related documents necessary to complete|
| |the purchase. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board closed the Hearing and took action as recommended, on Consent. |
| |AYES: Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |ABSENT: Cox |
|17. |SUBJECT: |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |
| | |SPRING VALLEY - PURCHASE OF PROPERTY ON ILDICA STREET FROM CALTRANS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK |
| | |(DISTRICT: 2) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |On June 14, 2006 (8), the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, on Consent, setting Hearing for July 19, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. |
| | |
| |The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has completed construction of State Route 125 in the Spring Valley community and has |
| |determined that a 22,338-square-foot parcel in the project area is excess to its needs. The parcel is located at the northeast corner of |
| |Ildica Street and Sweetwater Road in Spring Valley and is identified as Caltrans excess land parcel DD32172-01-01 (Thomas Guide, page |
| |1290-J1). In accordance with California Government Code Section 54222, whenever a public agency determines a parcel of land is excess to |
| |its needs, it must first offer the land to local agencies for low-income housing and/or park purposes. The County Department of Parks and |
| |Recreation would like to acquire the Ildica Street parcel for future development of a neighborhood park and has identified funding to |
| |purchase the parcel. |
| | |
| |The Board is requested to set a hearing date for July 19, 2006 to consider the purchase of excess land parcel DD32172-01-01 from Caltrans |
| |for the appraised value of $236,000. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |Should the Board approve the purchase of the property for $236,000 on July 19, 2006, funds for the purchase will be provided by Proposition |
| |12 Roberti-Z'berg-Harris grant funds ($141,000) and Spring Valley Park Land Dedication Ordinance (PLDO) funds ($100,000) being appropriated |
| |in this action. The total funding of $241,000 will allow for the purchase and escrow, title, and County administrative costs related to the|
| |acquisition of the property. In addition, there would be an annual estimated cost of $310 for Special Tax Assessments which will be paid |
| |from existing budgeted funds in the Department of Parks and Recreation. There will be no additional staff years associated with this action.|
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |
| |Find that the proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Article 5, Section 15060(c)(3) of the |
| |State CEQA Guidelines because it is not a project as defined by Section 15378. |
| |Adopt the resolution entitled Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego Approving the Purchase of Caltrans Excess |
| |Land Parcel DD32172-01-01 on Ildica Street in Spring Valley. |
| |Approve the Purchase and Sale Agreement for Caltrans excess land parcel DD32172-01-01 (County Parcel No. 2005-0216-A) and authorize the |
| |Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to execute two originals of the agreement upon receipt. |
| |Authorize the Director, Department of General Services, or designee, to execute all escrow and related documents necessary to complete the |
| |purchase. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board closed the Hearing and took action as recommended, on Consent, |
| |adopting Resolution No. 06-123 entitled: RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF |
| |CALTRANS EXCESS LAND PARCEL DD32172-01-01 ON ILDICA STREET IN SPRING VALLEY. |
| |AYES: Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |ABSENT: Cox |
| |
|18. |SUBJECT: |APPLICATIONS TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR ALLOCATIONS OF MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATES FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2006 |
| | |THROUGH 2010 (DISTRICT: ALL) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |This action will authorize the Director of the Department of Housing and Community Development to submit applications to the California Debt|
| |Limit Allocation Committee for annual allocations of mortgage credit certificates for the continued operation of the San Diego Regional |
| |Mortgage Credit Certificate Program through calendar year 2010. |
| | |
| |This action also requests the San Diego County Housing Authority Board of Commissioners’ approval for the use of Housing Authority Real |
| |Estate Reserves of up to: 1) $35,000 for the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee application filing fees; 2) $150,000 for the |
| |County’s proportionate share of the San Diego Regional Mortgage Credit Certificate Program operating costs; and 3) $100,000 to be |
| |temporarily held on deposit for each application’s “performance guarantee” required by California Debt Limit Allocation Committee. This |
| |action will allocate sufficient financing to submit applications to California Debt Limit Allocation Committee for annual allocations of |
| |mortgage credit certificates and the continued operation of the Mortgage Credit Certificate Program through calendar year 2010. |
| | |
| |Each year, local jurisdictions are provided with the opportunity to apply to California Debt Limit Allocation Committee for one or more |
| |allocations of mortgage credit certificates. The County of San Diego serves as the lead agency and applicant for 14 cities. The federally |
| |funded Mortgage Credit Certificate Program is a home purchase assistance program that enables low- and moderate-income first-time homebuyers|
| |to increase their purchase power and qualify for a larger conventional loan. In the pursuit of providing an increased benefit to first-time|
| |homebuyers in San Diego County, the Department of Housing and Community Development requested permission from the California Debt Limit |
| |Allocation Committee to increase the Mortgage Credit Certificate credit rate from 15% to 20%. As a result, Mortgage Credit Certificate |
| |Program participants now receive a federal tax credit equal to 20% of the interest paid on their mortgage loan. The tax savings result in |
| |increased net income, which allows the homebuyer to qualify for a larger first mortgage loan. |
| | |
| |The County of San Diego has participated in this program since 1994, resulting in a cumulative total exceeding $198 million in mortgage |
| |credit certificate allocations for the region. These allocations have assisted more than 1,769 first-time homebuyers in San Diego County. |
| |In addition, the program benefits local realtors, lenders, builders, and other businesses involved in the housing industry. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |Funds for this request are budgeted. The funding source is Housing Authority Real Estate Reserve. If approved, this request will result in|
| |annual application filling fee costs of up to $7,000 resulting in a total of up to $35,000 for calendar years 2006 through 2010 to pay for |
| |the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee application filing fees; annual operating costs of up to $30,000 resulting in a total of up |
| |to $150,000 for calendar years 2006 through 2010 to pay for the County's proportionate share of the program operating costs; and up to |
| |$100,000 in current year costs to be temporarily held on deposit by the County to meet the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee |
| |performance guarantee requirement for each annual allocation through calendar year 2010. This request has no impact on the County’s General|
| |Fund and will result in no additional staff years. |
| |BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT: |
| |The San Diego Regional Mortgage Credit Certificate Program assists homebuyers in the purchase of their first home. These home sales |
| |transactions provide a positive impact to those in the business community involved in real estate activities, including brokers, lenders, |
| |title insurance, and escrow companies. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |
| |Acting as the Board of Supervisors |
| |Approve the County's participation in the San Diego Regional Mortgage Credit Certificate Program. |
| |Authorize the Director of the Department of Housing and Community Development, as lead agency, to submit applications through calendar year |
| |2010 to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee for annual allocations of mortgage credit certificates for the San Diego Regional |
| |Mortgage Credit Certificate Program. |
| |Authorize the Director of the Department of Housing and Community Development to certify that the County has $100,000 on deposit to meet the|
| |annual performance guarantee requirement for applicants of mortgage credit certificate allocations through calendar year 2010. |
| | |
| |Authorize the Director of the Department of Housing and Community Development to negotiate and execute, with County Counsel concurrence, |
| |Cooperative Agreements, including any amendments, between the County of San Diego and each city participating in the San Diego Regional |
| |Mortgage Credit Certificate Program through calendar year 2010. |
| | |
| |Relates to Housing Agenda No. 1 |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |
| |AYES: Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |ABSENT: Cox |
| |
| |
|19. |SUBJECT: |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |
| | |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT NO. 4613-3 (RAMS HILL): APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO JOINT AGREEMENT TO IMPROVE SUBDIVISION |
| | |(SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES, SECURITY, EXTENSION OF TIME) LOCATED IN BORREGO SPRINGS COMMUNITY SPONSOR GROUP AREA |
| | |(DISTRICT: 5) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |This project is a subdivision consisting of 16 single family residential lots and 1 golf course lot. There is a total of 21.73 acres. It |
| |is located at the south end of Roadrunner Drive South in the Borrego Springs area. (Thomas Guide 1098, G5). |
| |This project is being brought before the Board for approval of Amendment to Joint Agreement to Improve Major Subdivision County of San Diego|
| |Tract No. 4613-3, (Substitution of Parties, Security, Extension of Time), Final Map 14716. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |N/A |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |
| |Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board to execute the Amendment to Joint Agreement to Improve Major Subdivision Tract No. 4613-3 |
| |(Substitution of Parties, Security, Extension of Time), Final Map 14716 (Attachment B). |
| |Authorize the Clerk of the Board to release the existing security (cash deposit) to Western United Life Assurance Company, A Washington |
| |Corporation (Previous Owner). |
| |Extend to December 3, 2007, the performance completion date for County of San Diego Tract No. 4613-3, Final Map 14716. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |
| |AYES: Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |ABSENT: Cox |
| |
| |
|20. |SUBJECT: |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |
| | |SECOND CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE: TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS (DISTRICTS 2 AND 5) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |On June 21, 2006 (6), the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended introducing ordinance for further consideration and adoption on |
| |July 19, 2006. |
| |The Traffic Advisory Committee (TAC) meets every six weeks to review proposed changes or additions to regulatory traffic controls. Sixteen |
| |items were on the Committee's April 21, 2006, meeting agenda. The Committee recommends your action on 14 items, as two items were continued |
| |prior to the meeting. Item 5-L was continued by staff. Item 5-M was continued at the request of the Twin Oaks Valley Community Sponsor |
| |Group. All 14 remaining items are recommended for action, with one item (5-C) requesting a continuance to the August 25, 2006 TAC meeting. |
| |This report also includes a request for continuance of a discussion item pertaining to guidelines for prohibiting long-term parking of |
| |recreational vehicles on certain county-maintained roadways in residential areas. The TAC recognizes this is a far-reaching and complex task|
| |that can affect the character and ambiance of a neighborhood. It became apparent to the TAC that since this is a quality of life issue, the |
| |respective community planning and sponsor groups should participate in addressing this issue. The TAC has provided all the community |
| |planning and sponsor groups with draft guidelines for their review. The TAC’s goal is to work with all the planning and sponsor groups to |
| |implement a program that addresses the needs of all neighborhoods in the county. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |Funds for this proposal are budgeted in the Department of Public Works Road Fund. |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |
| |1. Adopt Ordinance entitled: |
| |AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 72.161.42. OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO |
| |2. Continue discussion item pertaining to establishing guidelines for prohibiting long-term parking of recreational vehicles on certain |
| |county-maintained roadways in residential areas to September 20, 2006. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent, adopting Ordinance No. 9790|
| |(N.S.) entitled: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 72.161.42. OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN|
| |DIEGO and continuing discussion item pertaining to establishing guidelines for prohibiting long-term parking of recreational vehicles on |
| |certain county-maintained roadways in residential areas to September 20, 2006. |
| |AYES: Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |ABSENT: Cox |
|21. |SUBJECT: |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |
| | |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT NO. 5384-1: APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP LOCATED IN LAKESIDE COMMUNITY PLAN AREA (DISTRICT: 2) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |This project is a subdivision consisting of one future condominium lot with 14 dwelling units and a total of 0.89 acres. It is located in |
| |the Lakeside area along Persimmon Avenue between First Street and Oro Street. (Thomas Guide, Page 1251, H-3) |
| | |
| |This project is being brought before the Board for approval of the final map. |
| |FISCAL IMPACT: |
| |N/A |
| |RECOMMENDATION: |
| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |
| |Approve this map. |
| |ACTION: |
| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |
| |AYES: Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |
| |ABSENT: Cox |
| |
| |
|22. |SUBJECT: |CLOSED SESSION |
| | |(CARRYOVER FROM 07/18/06, AGENDA ITEM NO. 19) |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code section |
| |54956.9: (Number of Cases – 1) |
| |B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Government Code section 54956.9) County of San Diego v. National|
| |Quarries; Superior Court No. GIN 052066 National Quarries v. County of San Diego; Superior Court No. GIN 052383 National Quarries v. County|
| |of San Diego; Superior Court No. GIN 052843 |
| |C. 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) |
| | |
| |D. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS |
| |(Government Code section 54956.8) Property: County-owned property in Santee – portion of APN 38105058 and further identified as County |
| |Parcel No. 2005-004-A |
| |Negotiating Parties: |
| |County Negotiators: John McTighe and John Kross |
| |Other Parties: The Ryan Companies US, Inc. |
| |Under Negotiation: Price and Terms |
| |E. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION |
| |(Subdivision (a) of Government Code section 54956.9) County of San Diego v. Walter E. Wallace, et al.; San Diego Superior Court No. GIN |
| |041748-1 |
| |ACTION: |
| |In closed session following the public agenda of Tuesday, July 18, 2006, the Board of Supervisors took the following reportable action: |
| |Item 22A: By vote of all five Board members present and voting “Aye”, the Board authorized County Counsel to initiate action, the |
| |substance and particulars of which shall be disclosed, upon inquiry, in the manner provided by Government Code section 54957.1 subsection |
| |(a) (2). |
| |
|23. |SUBJECT: |PUBLIC COMMUNICATION |
| |OVERVIEW: |
| |Joe Sterling spoke to the Board concerning Readiness for the Pandemic Flu. |
| |ACTION: |
| |Heard, referred to the Chief Administrative Officer |
There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 9:33 a.m. in memory of William Graack and Palmer Svalstad.
THOMAS J. PASTUSZKA
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
County of San Diego, State of California
Consent: Kellogg
Discussion: Andoh
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.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- federal communications commission the united states of
- state bar court of california
- staff report for stationary diesel atcm
- california courts home
- county of san diego board of supervisors
- introduction california
- message from the src chair california department of
- california event matrix california department of
- filed 12 2 03 opinion following second remand from u
Related searches
- san diego gs pay scale
- uchs san diego bell schedule
- san diego writer s conference 2020
- university high school san diego ca
- city of new haven board of education
- san diego city high school
- san diego high schools
- san diego county high schools
- san diego writers conference
- preliminary change of ownership san diego ca
- san diego county retirement association
- 2019 san diego county fair