COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS



STATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

REGULAR MEETING - PLANNING AND LAND USE MATTERS

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 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 9:09 a.m.

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

Approval of Board of Supervisors Statement of Proceedings/Minutes for meetings of March 5, 2003 and March 12, 2003.

ACTION:

ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board of Supervisors approved the Statement of Proceedings/Minutes for the meetings of March 5, 2003 and March 12, 2003.

AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater, Horn

ABSENT: Roberts

Public Communication - (No Speakers)

Board of Supervisors’ Agenda Items

|1. |CONTINUED NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| |OAKS AT DESCANSO, MAJOR USE PERMIT (P90-028) FOR AN 85 SPACE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK, CENTRAL MOUNTAIN SUBREGIONAL PLAN AREA |

| |(CARRYOVER FROM 3/5/03, AGENDA NO. 4) |

|2. |STREAMLINING PROCESSES FOR CUSTOMERS: ADOPTION OF NEW, COMBINED GRADING, CLEARING AND WATERCOURSES ORDINANCE |

|3. |AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO APPEALS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS |

|4. |STATUS OF THE COUNTY RESPONSE TEAM AND ITS INTEGRATION INTO THE OPERATIONAL AREA EMERGENCY PLAN |

|5. |SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF A MAMMAL ATLAS FOR SAN DIEGO COUNTY |

| |(4 VOTES) |

|6. |RESOLUTIONS SETTING FIRE MITIGATION FEE CEILINGS IN COUNTY SERVICE AREAS 107, 109, 110, 111, 112 AND 113 |

|7. |GILLESPIE FIELD DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL: SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND |

| |THE CITY OF EL CAJON |

|8. |AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO DIVESTITURE AGREEMENT WITH METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD, AND|

| |TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIMS |

|9. |COST SHARING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO FOR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS |

| |AND SAFETY LIGHTING SYSTEMS AT FOUR INTERSECTIONS |

| |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): GAS TAX] |

| |(4 VOTES) |

|10. |APPROVAL OF PEST DETECTION REVENUE CONTRACT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA |

| |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): PROGRAM-SPECIFIC REVENUE FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE WITH AN AUGMENTED |

| |FUNDING FROM THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE] |

| |(4 VOTES) |

|11. |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT NO. 5215-1: APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP AND SECURED AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED IN THE|

| |FALLBROOK PLANNING GROUP AREA |

|12. |CLOSED SESSION |

| |(CARRYOVER FROM 4/1/03 AGENDA ITEM NO. 16) |

|13. |PRESENTATIONS/AWARDS |

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

| | |OAKS AT DESCANSO, MAJOR USE PERMIT (P90-028) FOR AN 85 SPACE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK, CENTRAL MOUNTAIN |

| | |SUBREGIONAL PLAN AREA (DISTRICT: 2) |

| | |(CARRYOVER FROM 3/5/03, AGENDA NO. 4) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On March 5, 2003 (4), the Board of Supervisors at the request of the Chief Administrative Officer continued the Hearing to April 2, 2003 |

| |at 9:00 a.m. |

| | |

| |On February 21, 1996 (1) the Board of Supervisors approved Major Use Permit P90-028. The Major Use Permit authorized an 85 space |

| |Recreational Vehicle (RV) park which includes recreational facilities, caretaker’s dwelling, country store, maintenance and storage |

| |garage, meeting hall with kitchen and dining facility, and restrooms and laundry buildings. A single-family dwelling is also proposed. |

| |Active recreational facilities include a volleyball area, exercise yard, and swimming pool. Passive recreational uses incorporate a |

| |system of hiking trails and picnic areas. |

| | |

| |The subject property is 62.3 acres in size and located on the southeast side of State Highway 79, east of Riverside Drive within the |

| |Descanso Planning Area. The site is designated as Environmentally Constrained Area on the County’s Regional Land Use Map and (23) |

| |National Forest on the Central Mountain Subregional Plan. The site is zoned S92 (General Rural) Use Regulations. |

| | |

| |This project is coming back before the Board of Supervisors as a result of subsequent litigation, which required that the Major Use |

| |Permit and Certified Environmental Impact Report be vacated and that revisions to the Major Use Permit Findings and Environmental Impact |

| |Report be prepared. The Board is therefore requested to rescind the prior action approving the Major Use Permit and Findings dated |

| |February 21, 1996 and approve a new set of findings for the Major Use Permit. Included in the approval of the Major Use Permit decision |

| |is the recertification of the Environmental Impact Report and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |N/A |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE: |

| |Rescind the prior action approving the Major Use Permit and Findings for the Oaks at Descanso, P90-028, dated February 21, 1996 (1) and |

| |approve the new set of Findings for Major Use Permit P90-028. |

| |ACTION: |

| |Approving an additional Condition to be included within the Major Use Permit as follows: |

| | |

| |“Prior to any occupancy or use of the premises pursuant to this Major Use Permit, the applicant shall: |

| | |

| |12. Grant an easement to the United States Forest Service for the continued use of Fire Road 15S25 located on the project site. A gate |

| |shall be placed at the boundary between the subject site and National Forest System Land.” |

| | |

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

| | |

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

| |

| |

|2. |SUBJECT: |STREAMLINING PROCESSES FOR CUSTOMERS: ADOPTION OF NEW, COMBINED GRADING, CLEARING AND WATERCOURSES ORDINANCE |

| | |(DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The County currently maintains separate Ordinances to regulate grading, clearing, and work within a watercourse. The oldest of these is |

| |the Grading Ordinance, originally adopted over 35 years ago. These ordinances establish standards for compliance and provide a level of |

| |assurance that minimizes the impact from such operations. There have been over 20 amendments to these ordinances since being originally |

| |adopted to address specific issues, changes, or concerns. While these amendments resolved concerns, the fact they are separate can be |

| |confusing, inefficient, and inconsistent. Staff initiated a complete rewrite and consolidation effort, resulting in a proposed Ordinance |

| |that replaces all three existing ordinances. |

| | |

| |The consolidated Ordinance streamlines current processes, clarifies areas where confusion may exist and eliminates possible conflicts |

| |between the three separate but related ordinances. Enforcement provisions in this proposed ordinance have been strengthened and |

| |environmental review requirements better defined. |

| | |

| |This item is a request to approve the proposed Grading, Clearing and Watercourses Ordinance. Changes proposed in the new Ordinance |

| |provide clearer direction, better define expectations for private development grading or clearing projects and help ensure appropriate |

| |control over these operations. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Requested action will have no fiscal impact. |

| |BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT: |

| |Adoption of proposed Ordinance will streamline legal project grading and clearing through well-defined processes, and discourage |

| |non-permitted activities through increased enforcement authorities. Several provisions in the proposed Ordinance should reduce processing|

| |cost and time, while continuing to provide appropriate protections. Consolidation of three ordinances and elimination of redundant or |

| |conflicting sections will increase businesses’ understanding of permit requirements and reduce uncertainty. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find, on the basis of the whole record, that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the |

| |environment. Consider the Negative Declaration, together with comments received during public review, and adopt it, finding it reflects |

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

| | |

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

| | |

| |AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE, RELATING TO regulations, permits and procedures for grading, clearing and watercourses. |

| | |

| |Submit the Ordinance for further Board consideration and adoption (second reading) on April 9, 2003. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater, seconded by Supervisor Horn, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, directing the Chief |

| |Administrative Officer to report back to the Board in six months with a status report and introducing Ordinance for further consideration|

| |on April 9, 2003. |

| | |

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

| |ABSENT Roberts |

| |

| |

|3. |SUBJECT: |AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO APPEALS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |Recent state legislation amends the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub.Res. Code Sec. 21000 et seq.; “CEQA”), to require that the|

| |County provide for an appeal to the Board of Supervisors from environmental determinations made by nonelected County decision makers. |

| |(Chapter 1121 of the Statutes of 2002 (S.B. 1393 - Kuehl), amending Public Resources Code Section 21151(c), effective Jan. 1, 2003.) The|

| |environmental determinations which may be appealed include certification of environmental impact reports (EIRs), approval of a negative |

| |declaration or mitigated negative declaration, and determination that a project is not subject to CEQA. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |The Board of Supervisors has determined that appeals in land use matters shall be processed with a flat fee of $500.00. The proposed |

| |ordinance retains this fee amount for the appeals of environmental determinations. This flat fee amount normally does not cover all |

| |County costs associated with appeals, but helps to assure that constituents have access to elected representatives. There is therefore a|

| |fiscal impact which results from implementation of the new legislation with the existing flat fee approach. The amount of this impact |

| |would depend upon the number of appeals which may be filed (which there is no reliable method to forecast). |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |PLANNING COMMISSION |

| |Find that the adoption of the Ordinance below is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act under Section |

| |15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. |

| | |

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

| | |

| |AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE, |

| |THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, |

| |RELATING TO APPEALS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS |

| | |

| |Submit the Ordinance for further Board consideration and adoption (second reading) on April 9, 2003. |

| | |

| |DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE |

| |The Department concurs with the Planning Commission recommendations. |

| |ACTION: |

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

| |introducing Ordinance for further consideration on April 9, 2003. |

| | |

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

| |

| |

|4. |SUBJECT: |STATUS OF THE COUNTY RESPONSE TEAM AND ITS INTEGRATION INTO THE OPERATIONAL AREA EMERGENCY PLAN (DISTRICT: |

| | |ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On March 19, 2002 (23) the Board, at the request of Supervisor Horn, directed the development of responses to a series of questions |

| |related to the coordination, partnership and seamless delivery of emergency services in the Fifth District. On June 12, 2002 (11), the |

| |Board directed the Chief Administrative Officer to establish a County Response Team, and designate a Coordinator in the Department of |

| |Planning and Land Use for damage assessment for Level I Activations of the San Diego County Operational Area Emergency Operation Center |

| |and for coordination of the County Damage Assessment Team. The Board also requested a report on the status of the County Response Team. |

| |On November 8, 2002 (2), your Board authorized the establishment of the San Diego County Office of Emergency Services (OES), formerly |

| |known as the Office of Disaster Preparedness, to bring into conformity the role of the office with emergency services business standards |

| |practiced by other California counties and state government. The four components of emergency management: preparedness, response, |

| |recovery and mitigation have been added to responsibilities and authorities for this new department. |

| | |

| |The emergency response roles of the Department of Planning and Land Use and the Office of Emergency Services have been delineated along |

| |the lines of the new responsibilities of the Office of Emergency Services. The County Response Team will be established and directed by |

| |the Office of Emergency Services. The Damage Assessment Team will be coordinated by the Department of Planning and Land Use as a subset |

| |of the County Response Team. The Office of Emergency Services and the Department of Planning and Land Use are working jointly on the |

| |development of the County Response Team and Damage Assessment Team. |

| | |

| |The Office of Emergency Services is in the process of revising the San Diego County Operational Area Emergency Plan. The plan describes |

| |a comprehensive emergency management system that provides for a planned response to disaster situations associated with natural |

| |disasters, technological incidents, and nuclear-related incidents. The County Response Team will be integrated into the revised San |

| |Diego County Operational Area Emergency Plan. |

| | |

| |The Board is requested to receive this status report. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |There is no fiscal impact associated with this item. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: |

| |Receive this report. |

| |ACTION: |

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

| | |

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

| |

| |

|5. |SUBJECT: |SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF A MAMMAL ATLAS FOR SAN DIEGO COUNTY |

| | |(DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The Department of Planning and Land Use is developing a Habitat Conservation Plan in the northern portion of San Diego County as part of |

| |the County’s Multiple Species Conservation Program. During the initial preparation of this plan, it became apparent that there is a lack|

| |of information, as well as an information gap regarding distribution of mammal species in the County. Scientists from the Conservation |

| |Biology Institute, the San Diego Natural History Museum, the Zoological Society of San Diego and San Diego State University have worked |

| |together with the Department of Planning and Land Use and the California Department of Fish and Game to obtain grant funding from the |

| |U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the development of a countywide mammal database and atlas to be used in the establishment of Habitat |

| |Conservation Plans. |

| | |

| |This is a request for authorization of a sole source contract with the Conservation Biology Institute, as prime contractor, in the amount|

| |of $263,000, for the development of a Mammal Atlas for the County of San Diego. The funding for the project comes from a grant awarded |

| |by the U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. The approved grant proposal specified that the head of the team |

| |developing the mammal atlas would be Dr. Wayne Spencer, Conservation Biologist at Conservation Biology Institute. The Department of |

| |Planning and Land Use also requests $40,000 in appropriations and revenue for the current fiscal year. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for this request are not budgeted in the Department of Planning and Land Use. If approved, this request will result in an |

| |estimated $40,000 current year cost and revenue, $160,000 cost and revenue in FY03-04, $40,000 cost and revenue in FY04-05, and $23,000 |

| |cost and revenue in FY05-06. These funds will be included in the CAO Proposed Operational Plan for the Department of Planning and Land |

| |Use for those years. This request is fully revenue offset, will result in zero net County cost, and will result in the addition of 0 |

| |staff years. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: |

| |Find that in accordance with Section 15307 that this action is categorically exempt because it is taken to enhance a natural resource as |

| |part of a regulatory process intended to protect the environment. |

| | |

| |In accordance with Board Policy A-87, Competitive Procurement, approve and authorize the Director, Purchasing and Contracting, to enter |

| |into negotiations for a sole source contract with Conservation Biology Institute for the development of a Mammal Atlas for the period of |

| |March 1, 2003 through March 31, 2006, including an option to extend for one year to March 31, 2007; and, subject to successful |

| |negotiations, to award a contract to Conservation Biology Institute. Waive the advertising requirement of Board Policy A-87. |

| | |

| |3. Establish appropriations of $40,000 in the Department of Planning and Land Use for the development of a countywide mammal atlas based |

| |upon unanticipated revenue from the U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. (4 VOTES) |

| |ACTION: |

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

| | |

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

| |

|6. |SUBJECT: |RESOLUTIONS SETTING FIRE MITIGATION FEE CEILINGS IN COUNTY SERVICE AREAS 107, 109, 110, 111, 112 AND 113 |

| | |(DISTRICT: 2, 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The Fire Mitigation Fee Program provides financing for projects such as station construction and expansion and purchase of additional |

| |fire or emergency apparatus to allow fire departments to provide adequate protection to areas impacted by new growth and development. On |

| |January 29, 2003 (3), the Board approved each County Service Area fire district’s five-year capital facilities and equipment plan. |

| | |

| |On January 28, 2003 (8), the Board approved the current Fire Mitigation Fees, which are effective July 1, 2003. The basis of the fee |

| |schedule is the Construction Cost Index. In order to participate in the Fire Mitigation Fee Program, each fire district must demonstrate |

| |that it is unable to obtain sufficient funding through other sources to accommodate increased need for fire protection due to new |

| |development. On an annual basis, staff presents Resolutions to the Board for adoption resolving that the districts are in need of this |

| |funding source. This year, all six districts would need 100 percent of any fees made available by development in their areas. |

| | |

| |This is a request to adopt new resolutions to set the ceilings at 100 percent, and to implement the program as required by the Fire |

| |Mitigation Fee Ordinance. Resolutions were last adopted March 13, 2002 (7). |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |No expenditures will be made as a result of actions requested. If approved, the six volunteer fire agencies will remain in the County’s |

| |Fire Mitigation Fee program. Because the funding source is developer fees, actual revenue collected depends on development activity. If|

| |approved, this request will require no additional staff years. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, the requested action is not a project as |

| |defined in Section 15378. |

| |Adopt Resolutions Making Required Findings and Setting Percentage of Fire Mitigation Fee Ceiling in County Service Areas No. 107 - Elfin |

| |Forest; No. 109 - Mount Laguna; No. 110 - Palomar Mountain; No. 111 - Boulevard; No. 112 - Campo and No. 113 - San Pasqual, for Fiscal |

| |Year 2003-04. |

| |ACTION: |

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

| |Resolutions: |

| | |

| |No. 03-049, entitled: RESOLUTION MAKING REQUIRED FINDINGS AND SETTING THE PERCENTAGE OF FIRE MITIGATION FEE CEILING IN COUNTY SERVICE |

| |AREA NO. 107 – ELFIN FOREST, |

| | |

| |No. 03-050, entitled: RESOLUTION MAKING REQUIRED FINDINGS AND SETTING THE PERCENTAGE OF FIRE MITIGATION FEE CEILING IN COUNTY SERVICE |

| |AREA NO.109 – MT. LAGUNA, |

| | |

| |No. 03-051, entitled: RESOLUTION MAKING REQUIRED FINDINGS AND SETTING THE PERCENTAGE OF FIRE MITIGATION FEE CEILING IN COUNTY SERVICE |

| |AREA NO.110 – PALOMAR MOUNTAIN, |

| | |

| |No. 03-052, entitled: RESOLUTION MAKING REQUIRED FINDINGS AND SETTING THE PERCENTAGE OF FIRE MITIGATION FEE CEILING IN COUNTY SERVICE |

| |AREA NO. 111 - BOULEVARD, |

| | |

| |No. 03-053, entitled: RESOLUTION MAKING REQUIRED FINDINGS AND SETTING THE PERCENTAGE OF FIRE MITIGATION FEE CEILING IN COUNTY SERVICE |

| |AREA NO. 112 - CAMPO, and |

| | |

| |No. 03-054, entitled: RESOLUTION MAKING REQUIRED FINDINGS AND SETTING THE PERCENTAGE OF FIRE MITIGATION FEE CEILING IN COUNTY SERVICE |

| |AREA NO. 113 – SANPASQUAL. |

| | |

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

| |

| |

|7. |SUBJECT: |GILLESPIE FIELD DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL: SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE |

| | |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE CITY OF EL CAJON (DISTRICT: 2) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |Gillespie Field, located within the City of El Cajon, is the oldest and largest County-owned airport. There are approximately 800 based |

| |aircraft that fly approximately 175,000 annual flight operations at this 775-acre general aviation airport, which is also categorized as |

| |a reliever airport for San Diego International Airport. Twelve (12) fixed base operators provide aviation services to the flying public,|

| |including aircraft hangars, aviation fuel, charter flights, aircraft maintenance, aircraft rental and flight training. The airport is a |

| |valuable community resource, providing a variety of local services and business opportunities through a unique mixture of land uses. |

| |There are approximately 270 businesses operating on airport property employing over 3,000 employees. |

| | |

| |On March 19, 1974 (70), the Board approved the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the County of San Diego and the City of El |

| |Cajon creating the Gillespie Field Development Council. Since that time, the Gillespie Field Development Council has been responsible |

| |for assisting in implementing the Master Plan for Gillespie Field and has been instrumental in promoting the industrial and economic |

| |development of the Airport. The Joint Powers Agreement has been amended five times. The current Agreement expired on March 18, 2003. |

| | |

| |An Airport Layout Plan and Narrative Update will be completed and submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the spring of|

| |2003. It will update current aviation activity, forecast future aviation demands and guide development of this airport over the next 20 |

| |years. It will have a significant impact on development of the airport as the largest portion of currently undeveloped airport land |

| |becomes available for development in the near future. |

| | |

| |This is a request to approve the sixth amendment to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement to extend the term until July 11, 2010. This |

| |will permit the Gillespie Field Development Council to provide advice to staff and recommendations to the Board and City regarding |

| |implementation of the Airport Layout Plan and Narrative Update. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |This request will have no fiscal impact and will require no additional staff years. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

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

| |certainty there is no possibility the following action may have a significant effect on the environment. |

| | |

| |Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board to execute the Sixth Amendment to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the County |

| |of San Diego and the City of El Cajon creating the Gillespie Field Development Council extending the term of the Gillespie Field |

| |Development Council to July 11, 2010. |

| |ACTION: |

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

| | |

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

| |

| |

|8. |SUBJECT: |AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO DIVESTITURE AGREEMENT WITH METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT |

| | |DEVELOPMENT BOARD, AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIMS |

| | |(DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On February 13, 2002 (5), the Board of Supervisors approved an Agreement to divest County Transit System to the Metropolitan Transit |

| |Development Board effective June 28, 2002. The Board also authorized the Director, Department of General Services, to divest Oceanside |

| |Transit Center and Escondido Transit Center properties, leases and other related assets to the North County Transit District. |

| | |

| |Negotiations regarding this have now been successfully concluded, including a phase-out plan for payment of ongoing maintenance costs. |

| |This is a request to approve Amendment No. 2, which includes North County Transit District as a party to the Divestiture Agreement and |

| |formalizes North County Transit District’s acceptance of ownership, as well as maintenance and operations responsibilities, for the two |

| |transit centers. This also requests authorizing Transportation Development Act claims to fund a phase-out of the County’s ongoing |

| |operations and maintenance costs associated with Oceanside Transit System and Escondido Transit Center. |

| | |

| |Transportation Development Act funds continue to be allocated to the County for unincorporated areas outside Metropolitan Transit |

| |Development Board and North County Transit District jurisdiction. In accordance with the Divestiture Agreement, the Metropolitan Transit |

| |Development Board is authorized to claim these Transportation Development Act funds to operate Rural Bus service and maintain |

| |non-advertising bus shelters in Lakeside. |

| | |

| |County Transit System Commuter Express bus service transitioned to Metropolitan Transit Development Board as part of the Divestiture |

| |Agreement. A small portion of the route, operating outside the Metropolitan Transit Development Board area, has been historically funded |

| |with County Transportation Development Act funds. Action recommended would authorize the Metropolitan Transit Development Board to submit|

| |a Transportation Development Act claim on behalf of the County for its share of Commuter Express Bus Service funding. |

| | |

| |Recommendations also enable the County to receive reasonable, appropriate Transportation Development Act pass-through funding for |

| |administrative staff support costs associated with public transit issues and functions. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |The County no longer has a Transit Fund. All transit costs will be claimed by transit agencies to which services are divested. Phase-out |

| |payments for ongoing maintenance and operations costs for the Oceanside Transit Center and Escondido Transit Center will be funded using |

| |County Non Transit Board area Transportation Development Act funds claimed directly by North County Transit District. |

| | |

| |County Rural Bus services, bus shelter maintenance and Commuter Express service expenses are eligible for Transportation Development Act |

| |funding. In accordance with the Divestiture Agreement, the Metropolitan Transit Development Board carries these rural bus and shelter |

| |maintenance services within its budget and the County authorizes the Metropolitan Transit Development Board to claim these funds on the |

| |County’s behalf. |

| | |

| |This action will also ensure that any County staff costs associated with public transit functions can be reimbursed from Transportation |

| |Development Act funds through an invoicing system established with Metropolitan Transit Development Board. This will ensure any on-going |

| |staff expenses do not impact the General Fund. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, that this action is exempt form CEQA |

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

| |Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board to execute, upon receipt, Amendment Number 2 to Agreement between County of San Diego, |

| |Metropolitan Transit Development Board and North County Transit District for Transition of County Transit System Facilities and Services.|

| |Approve and authorize the North County Transit District to claim County of San Diego Transportation Development Act Non-Board area funds |

| |of $1,000,000 in FY 2002-03 and $1,000,000 in Fiscal Years 2003-04, for operation and maintenance of Oceanside and Escondido Transit |

| |Centers. |

| |Approve and authorize the Metropolitan Transit Development Board to submit the following FY 2003-04 Transportation Development Act, |

| |Article 4 Claims to the San Diego Association of Governments on behalf of the County of San Diego. |

| |$1,400,438 for operation of County Rural Bus System services. |

| | |

| | |

| |$5,000 for maintenance and repair of non-advertising shelters located in the suburban unincorporated community of Lakeside. |

| |Approve and authorize the Metropolitan Transit Development Board to submit an FY 2003-04 Transportation Development Act, Article 8 claim,|

| |in an amount not to exceed $129,924, to the San Diego Association of Governments on behalf of the County of San Diego for Commuter |

| |Express Bus Services. |

| |Approve and authorize the Metropolitan Transit Development Board to claim $50,000 in FY 2003-04 Transportation Development Act Article 4 |

| |funds for pass through to the County for administrative staff support costs associated with public transit issues and functions. |

| |ACTION: |

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

| | |

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

| |

| |

|9. |SUBJECT: |COST SHARING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO FOR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION|

| | |OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING SYSTEMS AT FOUR INTERSECTIONS (DISTRICT: 3 AND 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The County of San Diego and City of Escondido each have roads approaching the intersections of Bear Valley Parkway at Las Palmas Avenue, |

| |Bear Valley Parkway at Sunset Drive/Ranchito Drive, West El Norte Parkway at Nordahl Road/Nutmeg, and West El Norte Parkway at Rees Road.|

| |The traffic signals and safety lighting systems installed at these intersections were built as conditions of separate private |

| |developments prior to 1993. The City has approached the County asking for a fair share agreement for operations and maintenance because |

| |County roads approach the intersections. |

| | |

| |This is a request to approve a cost sharing agreement between the County and City for operation and maintenance of the traffic signals |

| |and safety lighting systems. If approved, the County would pay one-quarter of the costs for two systems, and one-half of the costs for |

| |the other two systems, based on the number of County-maintained road segments entering the intersections. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for this request are budgeted in the Department of Public Works Detailed Work Program. The funding source is Gas Tax. If |

| |approved, this request will result in a current year estimated cost not to exceed $1,500, an estimated annual cost of $3,000, and will |

| |require the addition of no staff years. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, that it can be seen with certainty |

| |that there is no possibility that this activity may have a significant effect on the environment. |

| | |

| |Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board to execute the Agreement for Sharing Maintenance Costs of the City of Escondido Electrical |

| |Facilities with County of San Diego between the County of San Diego and the City of Escondido. (4 VOTES) |

| |ACTION: |

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

| | |

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

| |

| |

|10. |SUBJECT: |APPROVAL OF PEST DETECTION REVENUE CONTRACT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures is requesting the Board of Supervisors to approve a revenue contract with the |

| |California Department of Food and Agriculture for pest detection trapping activities throughout the entire county. This contract provides|

| |funding for the Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures staff to place, inspect, and service traps for the detection of exotic |

| |insect pests not know to occur here and considered hazardous to agriculture and to the economy of California. |

| | |

| |Because of San Diego County’s unique situation in relation to its proximity to the Mexican border and different ports of entry, the |

| |Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures was able to successfully negotiate a substantial increase in funding for Fiscal Year |

| |2002-03 in the amount of $1,107,148. The increased funding is for the placement of additional traps throughout the populated portions of |

| |San Diego County. Although this change increases last year’s contract of $936,384 to $2,043,532, the amount that was actually budgeted |

| |in the Department of Agriculture Weights and Measures Fiscal Year 2002-03 Adopted Budget reflects an estimated amount of $1,890,730, |

| |which is $152,802 lower than actual. Therefore this proposal appropriates the difference to be used towards fuel, vehicle maintenance, |

| |and improvements needed to assure compliance with stormwater regulations. |

| | |

| |In addition to being one of the major components of the Pest Prevention System established throughout California, Pest Detection is also |

| |considered to be the second line of defense used to find exotic pests before they become established. San Diego County’s $1.25 billion |

| |agricultural industry is particularly vulnerable to exotic pest invasion due to San Diego’s temperate climate, rapid population growth, |

| |geographic location, cultural diversity, and thriving commerce. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |This Proposal is partially funded in the Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures Fiscal Year 2002-03 Adopted Budget in the amount|

| |of $1,890,730. The proposed action will result in the appropriation of $152,802 for a total contract amount of $2,043,532. The funding |

| |source is program-specific revenue from the State of California Department of Food and Agriculture with an augmented funding from the |

| |United States Department of Agriculture. The proposed agreement requires no additional staff years. |

| | |

| |Because of this year’s protracted pest detection contract negotiation process, a final proposed contract was not received until the |

| |second quarter of Fiscal Year 2002-03. However, the Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures submitted a proposal, which was |

| |accepted by the California Department of Food and Agriculture and received a letter of intent from the California Department of Food and |

| |Agriculture to reimburse the County for all the work performed during Fiscal Year 2002-03 according to the terms of the proposed |

| |contract. |

| |BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT: |

| |Fruit flies and other exotic pests continue to be a threat to San Diego and California’s economy. The economic impacts of infestations |

| |and resulting quarantines not only affect local growers but also the agriculture-related job market and the economy which agriculture |

| |supports. A study by a U.C Berkeley economist found that if key foreign trade partners embargoed California produce because of a fruit |

| |fly infestation present anywhere in the state, the immediate costs would be a decrease in the Gross State Product of $1.4 billion and the|

| |elimination of 14,000 jobs. Related industries such as trucking, packing, food processing, retail, and shipping would also be affected. A|

| |long-term embargo would devastate California agriculture, and severely impact related industries. This would have a devastating toll on |

| |San Diego County’s $1.25 billion agricultural industry as well as on the California economy. |

| | |

| |From the food supply to produce prices to backyard gardening to the job market and the economy, the impact of a fruit fly infestation |

| |and/or establishment has a rippling effect that can be felt throughout California. This is why so much effort is put into the early |

| |detection and rapid eradication of exotic pests before they become established. Studies have estimated an annual impact of $1.33 to |

| |$1.863 billion to California’s economy, due to trade embargoes, loss of jobs, increased pesticide use and direct crop loss if a species |

| |of fruit fly becomes established. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find that the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines pursuant to Section 15321 of the|

| |State CEQA Guidelines. |

| |Waive Board Policy A-91, Mid-Year Budget Changes, to allow for the appropriation of California Department of Food and Agriculture funding|

| |in the Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures current year budget. |

| |Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to execute the revenue agreement with the California Department of Food and |

| |Agriculture in the amount of $2,043,532 for the period of July 1, 2002, to June 30, 2003, and any amendments, renewals, or extensions |

| |thereof that do not significantly increase the cost to the County. |

| |Establish appropriations of $152,802 in the Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures budget for costs associated with field |

| |operations based on contract revenue from the State. (4 VOTES). |

| |ACTION: |

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

| | |

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

| |

| |

|11. |SUBJECT: |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| | |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT NO. 5215-1: APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP AND SECURED AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE |

| | |IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED IN THE FALLBROOK PLANNING GROUP AREA (DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |This project is a subdivision consisting of 17 single-family residential lots, and a total of 3.78 acres. It is located in the Fallbrook|

| |area, at the southwest corner of the intersection of Alvarado Street and Barhaven Lane. (Thomas Guide, Page 1027, H-2, 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 the portion of Alvarado Street, together with the right to extend and maintain |

| |drainage facilities and excavation and embankment slopes beyond the limits of the right of way, as dedicated on said map. |

| | |

| |Accept the access rights from Lots 1, 14 and 15 in and to Alvarado Street, as relinquished and waived on said map. |

| | |

| |Accept the access restriction easement and the noise protection easement, both as granted on said map. |

| | |

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

| |improvements, drainage facilities, sewer and water facilities, and setting of final monuments. (Attachment B). |

| |ACTION: |

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

| | |

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

| |

| |

|12. |SUBJECT: |CLOSED SESSION (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| | |(CARRYOVER FROM 4/1/03 AGENDA ITEM NO. 16) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

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

| |Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code section 54956.9 |

| |No. of Potential Cases – 1 |

| | |

| | |

| |B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS |

| |Designated Representatives: Carlos Arauz and Mike Kolb |

| |Employee Organizations: Deputy District Attorneys’ Association |

| |Public Defender Association |

| |ACTION: |

| |County Counsel reported the following action: |

| | |

| |On Item 12. A, by vote of all 5 Board members present and voting Aye, the Board authorized County Counsel to initiate litigation, the |

| |particulars of which shall, once formally commenced, be disclosed to any person upon inquiry. |

| |

| |

|13. |SUBJECT: |PRESENTATIONS /AWARDS |

| |Chairman Greg Cox presented a proclamation honoring Southwest High School Academic Decathlon Team to Principal John Devore and members of|

| |the Academic Decathlon Team. |

| |Chairman Greg Cox presented a proclamation honoring National Wildlife Refuge System 100th Anniversary to Mendel Stewart, Project Leader |

| |for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Complex. |

There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 11:50 a.m. in memory of Cecil Hamand.

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