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, MAY 17, 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 9:04 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

Board of Supervisors’ Agenda Items

|1. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| |TOPO LANE ROAD VACATION (VAC 02-009), LAKESIDE COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA |

|2. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| |VEDOVA TRUST LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT AMENDMENT 72-52, NUMBER 7136-4900-A (AP 72-52M1) |

|3. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| |GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 06-001: ITEM 1: COX GPA 05-002, REZONE R05-001 (DISTRICT: 2); ITEM 2: NICHOLS/WITMAN GPA 03-009, |

| |R03-019, AP 04-002 (DISTRICT: 5); ITEM 3: MONTIEL HEIGHTS GPA 04-07; R04-014, TM 5382 |

|4. |SET HEARING FOR 7/19/06 |

| |INTENTION TO INITATE PROPOSITION 218 COMPLIANT BALLOT PROCEEDINGS TO ESTABLISH PROPOSED LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT ZONE NO. 1 – |

| |PARKS MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT |

|5. |AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE AND AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE SAN ELIJO LAGOON BOARDWALK PROJECT |

| |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): DISTRICT 3 COMMUNITY PROJECTS FUNDS, DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION GENERAL FUNDS, AND FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004|

| |COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS] |

| |(4 VOTES) |

|6. |JURISDICTIONAL TRANSFER OF PARCELS FROM DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TO DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION AND NEW COOPERATIVE |

| |AGREEMENT FOR MANAGEMENT OF SAN ELIJO LAGOON |

|7. |SET HEARING FOR 7/19/06 |

| |PROPOSED SAN DIEGO COUNTYWIDE PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION NO. 1000, ZONE NO. 1016 – EL SERENO WAY IN THE VISTA AREA |

|8. |MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT – NEW GROUND LEASES WITH OLYMPIC RESORT JOINT VENTURE |

| |(4 VOTES) |

|9. |SET HEARING FOR 7/19/06 |

| |PROPOSED SAN DIEGO COUNTYWIDE PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION NO. 1000, ZONE NO. 1017 - RANCHITO ROADS IN THE ALPINE AREA |

|10. |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| |SECOND CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE: |

| |TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS |

|11. |CLOSED SESSION |

| |(CARRYOVER FROM 05/16/06, AGENDA ITEM NO. 29) |

| | |

|12. |PUBLIC COMMUNICATION |

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

| | |TOPO LANE ROAD VACATION (VAC 02-009), LAKESIDE COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA (DISTRICT: 2) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On April 26, 2006 (13), the Board directed the Clerk of the Board to set a public hearing for May 17, 2006 to consider the proposed road |

| |vacation. |

| | |

| |This is a request to vacate an easement for a future public road, Topo Lane, in the community of Lakeside. The portion to be vacated is |

| |the southern terminus located south of Mary Lane. Topo Lane is a non-Circulation Element roadway. (Thomas Guide, page 1212, B7) |

| | |

| |The portion of Topo Lane proposed for vacation is part of an easement that was dedicated to the County of San Diego and accepted for a |

| |future public road on March 9, 1948 as part of Subdivision Map No. 2462. The County does not maintain Topo Lane. It is considered excess|

| |right-of-way and is no longer needed for public use. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |N/A |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find the project as proposed is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section |

| |15305 of the CEQA Guidelines. |

| |Adopt the Resolution entitled Resolution Vacating A Portion of Topo Lane (VAC 02-0009). |

| |Direct the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to record this Resolution pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 8325. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board closed the Hearing and took action as recommended, on Consent, |

| |adopting amended Resolution No. 06-088 entitled: RESOLUTION VACATING A PORTION OF TOPO LANE (VAC 02-009). |

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

| |ABSENT: Cox |

| |

| |

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

| | |VEDOVA TRUST LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT AMENDMENT 72-52, NUMBER 7136-4900-A (AP 72-52M1) (DISTRICT: 2) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The proposed project is an amendment to a Williamson Contract for parcels under the Cleto and Edith Vedova Trust, within the Rancho Santa |

| |Ysabel Preserve Number 17. The amendment would allow for a reduction in the minimum parcel size for construction of accessory structures, |

| |from 160 acres to 80 acres. The amendment would also allow for a reduction in the minimum parcel size for subdivision from 600 acres, as |

| |specified in the Land Conservation Contract 72-52, Number 7136-4900-A (see Attachment C), to 80 acres. This is consistent with the Board |

| |Policy I-38 (see Attachment E). The land under contract is used as a cattle ranch (cattle grazing). The General Plan Regional Category is|

| |Environmentally Constrained Area (ECA) and the General Plan Land Use Designation is (20) General Agriculture (minimum lot size of 20 acres)|

| |and (23) National Forest and State Parks (minimum lot size of 8 acres based on slope). The site is Zoned A72, with a minimum lot size of |

| |40 acres in the northern portion of the site and 20 acres in the southern portion of the site. The subject parcels are located south of the|

| |junction of State Route 78 and State Route 79. (Thomas Bros. Guide: 409/B4) |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |N/A |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE |

| |Find that the contract amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as specified under Section 15305 of the State |

| |California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines for reasons detailed in the Notice of Exemption dated April 21, 2006. (Attachment D) |

| |Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to execute the First Amendment to Land Conservation Contract AP 72-52 Number |

| |7136-4900-A (Rancho Santa Ysabel Agricultural Preserve Number 17). (Attachment B) |

| |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 |

| |

| |

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

| | |GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 06-001: ITEM 1: COX GPA 05-002, REZONE R05-001 (DISTRICT: 2); ITEM 2: NICHOLS/WITMAN |

| | |GPA 03-009, R03-019, AP 04-002 (DISTRICT: 5); ITEM 3: MONTIEL HEIGHTS GPA 04-07; R04-014, TM 5382, (DISTRICT: 5). |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |This is the first proposed Amendment of the San Diego County General Plan Regional Land Use Element for 2006. It consists of three |

| |privately proposed amendments to the General Plan. |

| | |

| |Item 1 is the Cox GPA. It proposes to change the Land Use Designation from (1) Residential which allows density of 1 dwelling unit per |

| |acre to (5) Residential which allows density of 4.3 dwelling units per acre for a 1.21-acre site in the Lakeside Community Plan Area. This|

| |item also proposes a Rezone to change the RR1, Rural Residential Use Regulations with minimum lot size of 1 acre to the RS, Single-Family |

| |Residential Use Regulations with minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. A Tentative Parcel Map for three lots has been submitted and, |

| |pursuant to the Subdivision Ordinance, will be acted on by the Director of Planning and Land Use after the Board of Supervisors considers |

| |the General Plan Amendment. This project is located at 12672 Rodeo Drive, north of Los Coches Road, in the Lakeside Community Planning |

| |Area. (Thomas Bros. 1232/B5) |

| | |

| |Item 2 is the Nichols/Witman GPA. It proposes to change the Regional Category from Environmentally Constrained Area (ECA) to Estate |

| |Development Area (EDA) and the General Plan Land Use Designation from (20) General Agriculture to (17) Estate Residential on a 9.64-acre |

| |parcel in the Valley Center Community Plan Area. This item also proposes a Rezone to reduce the minimum lot size requirement from 10 acres|

| |to 2 acres, to change the density designator from 0.1 to 0.5 and to eliminate the Special Area Designator “A” for Agricultural Preserves. |

| |An alteration to the Anderson Agricultural Preserve #88 is also proposed to exclude the project site from the Preserve. A Tentative Parcel|

| |Map for three lots has been submitted and, pursuant to the Subdivision Ordinance, will be acted on by the Director of Planning and Land Use|

| |after the Board of Supervisors considers the General Plan Amendment. This project is located on the west side of West Lilac Road, about |

| |2,800 feet south of the intersection of Covey Lande and West Lilac Road in the Valley Center Community Planning Area. |

| |(Thomas Bros. 1069/D2) |

| | |

| |Item 3 is the Montiel Heights GPA. It proposes to change the Land Use Designation from (6) Residential, which allows density of 7.3 |

| |dwelling units per acre to (8) Residential which allows density of 14.5 dwelling units per acre on a 5.01 acre site in the North County |

| |Metropolitan Subregional Plan Area. This item also proposes a Rezone to change the RS4, Single-Family Residential Use Regulations with |

| |density of 4.3 dwelling units per acre to the RM14.5 Multiple-Family Residential Use Regulations with density of 14.5 dwelling units per |

| |acre and a Tentative Map for a one-lot condominium development of 70 units. This project is located at 1310 Montiel Road, northwest of the |

| |interchange of I-15 and Highway 78, in the North County Metropolitan Subregional Planning Area. (Thomas Bros. 1129/F2) |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |N/A |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |PLANNING COMMISSION |

| |Adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment B) approving General Plan Amendment (GPA) 06-001 which makes the appropriate findings and |

| |includes those requirements and conditions necessary to ensure that the project is implemented in a manner consistent with State law and |

| |the County General Plan. |

| | |

| |Adopt the attached Form of Ordinance (Attachment C): |

| | |

| |“AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE LAKESIDE, VALLEY CENTER, AND NORTH COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING|

| |AREAS” |

| | |

| |Adopt the Resolution approving TM 5382 (Item 3) that makes the appropriate findings and includes those requirements and conditions |

| |necessary to ensure that the project is implemented in a manner consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance and State Law (Attachment D). |

| | |

| |DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE |

| |The Department concurs with the Planning Commission recommendations. In addition, the Department recommends that the Board of Supervisors:|

| | |

| |Adopt the Resolution amending the Anderson Agricultural Preserve #88 (Item 2) for the reasons included in the staff report (Attachment E). |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board closed the Hearing and took action as recommended, adopting the |

| |following Resolutions and Ordinance: Resolution No. 06-089 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPTING |

| |GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 06-001; Resolution No. 06-090, entitled: RESOLUTION OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY APPROVING CONDITIONS FOR TENTATIVE |

| |MAP NO. 5382RPL; Resolution No. 06-091, entitled: RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ALTERING THE |

| |BOUNDARIES OF THE ANDERSON AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE NO. 88; and Ordinance No. 9778 (N.S.) entitled: AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING |

| |CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE LAKESIDE, VALLEY CENTER, AND NORTH COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREAS (REF: GPA 06-001). |

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

| |ABSENT: Cox |

| |

| |

|4. |SUBJECT: |SET HEARING FOR 7/19/06 |

| | |INTENTION TO INITATE PROPOSITION 218 COMPLIANT BALLOT PROCEEDINGS TO ESTABLISH PROPOSED LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE |

| | |DISTRICT ZONE NO. 1 – PARKS MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (DISTRICT: 2) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The Advisory Board of County Service Area 26 – Rancho San Diego has petitioned the County to conduct mailed ballot proceedings to levy a |

| |benefit assessment for parks maintenance pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Assessments would provide revenue to maintain|

| |existing and additional park and recreation facilities within the boundaries of County Service Area 26. |

| | |

| |In order to maintain current levels of service to these parks and future park improvements within this proposed Parks Maintenance |

| |Assessment District as desired by the area residents, the Department of Parks and Recreation proposes the establishment of a benefit |

| |assessment on properties in the geographic areas of County Service Area 26. |

| | |

| |During May through July 2005, property owners in and around the areas of County Service Area 26 – Rancho San Diego were asked to vote on |

| |the establishment of a Parks Maintenance Assessment District. On July 13, 2005 (9), the Board of Supervisors voted to terminate that |

| |ballot measure and restart the process to include only those properties within County Service Area 26 to be included in the proposed Parks |

| |Maintenance Assessment District Zone No. 1. This proposed Parks Maintenance Assessment District will only include parcels inside the |

| |County Service Area 26 boundaries. |

| | |

| |On May 18, 2005 (3), the Board of Supervisors adopted Board Policy J-37 to define priorities and criteria for formation of Landscape |

| |Maintenance Districts and zones utilizing Landscape and Lighting Act proceedings (Streets and Highways Code, Section 22500 et. seq.) for |

| |needs other than street lighting. This proposal is in compliance with Board Policy J-37. |

| | |

| |The requested action is to accept the Preliminary Engineer’s Report, adopt a resolution to initiate the formation of, and stating its |

| |intentions to establish a Parks Maintenance Assessment District, and approve a resolution adopting assessment ballot procedures. The |

| |resolution sets the date of July 19, 2006, as the date of the required public hearing. Approval of this request will initiate the ballot |

| |proceedings in order for property owners to vote on the benefit assessment. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funding for this proposal is budgeted in the Department of Parks and Recreation and will result in a $49,000 current year cost to fund the |

| |ballot proceedings process for formation of a Parks Maintenance Assessment District (PMAD). If the ballot measure is approved, it will |

| |result in an estimated additional $130,000 in annual revenue for maintenance of parks located within County Service Area 26 (CSA 26). This|

| |additional revenue will be combined with the current annual revenue of $230,500 that is funded by a fixed charge from CSA 26 residents. In|

| |addition, if approved, the County will be paying its share of the PMAD assessment fees on assessable properties owned within the proposed |

| |district. The County’s portion of the proposed fees is estimated at $600 annually and would be paid by the department managing each |

| |parcel. If approved, the PMAD assessment fees could increase a maximum of 3% annually, which is based on the Consumer Price Index – Urban |

| |(CPI-U). |

| | |

| |The new parks maintenance assessment is being requested because the current CSA 26 revenue source does not generate sufficient funding to |

| |provide the level of park maintenance desired by the users of the parks in CSA 26. 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 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 CEQA. |

| |Accept the Preliminary Engineer’s Report (Attachment A) entitled: County of San Diego Landscape Maintenance District Zone No. 1, on file at|

| |the County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation located at 5201 Ruffin Road, Suite P, San Diego, California 92123. |

| |Adopt a resolution (Attachment B) entitled: Resolution of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors Initiating Formation and Stating its |

| |Intention to Establish an Assessment District Pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 and Directing Actions with Respect |

| |Thereto. |

| | |

| |This resolution sets July 19, 2006 as the date of the required public hearing. |

| | |

| |Adopt a resolution (Attachment C) entitled: Resolution of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors Adopting Assessment Ballot Procedures |

| |Pursuant to Article XIIID of the State Constitution and Implementing Legislation. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent, adopting Resolution No. |

| |06-092 entitled: RESOLUTION OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS INITIATING FORMATION AND STATING ITS INTENTION TO ESTABLISH AN |

| |ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTNG ACT OF 1972 AND DIRECTING ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO; and |

| |Resolution No. 06-093 entitled: RESOLUTION OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPTING ASSESSMENT BALLOT PROCEDURES PURSUANT TO|

| |ARTICLE XIIID OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION AND IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION and setting Hearing for July 19, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. |

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

| |ABSENT: Cox |

| |

| |

|5. |SUBJECT: |AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE AND AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE SAN ELIJO LAGOON BOARDWALK PROJECT (DISTRICT: |

| | |3) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The San Diego County Department of Parks and Recreation manages the 900-acre San Elijo Lagoon Ecological Reserve, which is located within |

| |several municipalities in North County including Encinitas, Solana Beach, and Escondido. (Thomas Bros. Map Page 1167, E4). The main |

| |public access to the reserve is provided by way of a paved parking lot south of Manchester Avenue, west of Interstate 5. A small nature |

| |center and a roughly 1,800 foot-long loop hiking trail are accessed from this parking lot. |

| | |

| |The loop trail begins at the parking area and extends along a portion of the nearby lagoon shoreline. Half of this trail was previously |

| |improved to allow disabled access. The second half currently consists of an approximately ten-foot wide unimproved path which is not fully|

| |accessible to persons with disabilities. |

| | |

| |The Department of Parks and Recreation is proposing to build an elevated boardwalk along a 500 foot-long section of the unimproved portion |

| |of the trail described above. The remaining unimproved trail sections of approximately 400 feet would also be improved to make the entire |

| |loop trail accessible to persons with disabilities. |

| | |

| |This request is to authorize the Director of the Department of Purchasing and Contracting to advertise and award a construction contract, |

| |estimated at $300,000, including 10% contingency, for the trail improvements project. If approved, work is expected to start in the summer|

| |of 2006 and project completion is anticipated in the fall of 2006. A portion of the funding for this proposal is budgeted in the Capital |

| |Outlay Fund; remaining funds needed for the project will be provided by Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Community Development Block Grant funds. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds in the amount of $122,858 are budgeted in Capital Project 1000172 – San Elijo Parking Lot and Trail Improvements. The funding |

| |sources are District 3 Community Projects funds, Department of Parks and Recreation General Funds, and Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Community |

| |Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Funding in the amount of $18,453 is requested for transfer from two completed Capital Projects in |

| |this action ($8,870 from 1004981 and $9,583 from 1000164), for a total of $141,311 in currently budgeted funding for this proposal. In |

| |addition, $175,000 of Fiscal Year 2006-2007 CDBG funds will be budgeted in the 2006-2007 Capital Improvement Budget, pending Board approval|

| |of the Final CDBG Funding Plan, which was scheduled for May 9, 2006 at the time of docket of this Board letter. Contract will not be |

| |awarded until all the funding is available. If this Board action and the Final CDBG Funding Plan are approved, a construction contract |

| |will be awarded at an estimated cost of $300,000, including 10% contingency, for the project. Remaining project funds of approximately |

| |$16,311 will be used for project management, site inspections, and materials testing. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find in accordance with Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines that the San Elijo Lagoon Boardwalk |

| |project is categorically exempt from CEQA because the project involves improvements to an existing trail to make it accessible to persons |

| |with disabilities. |

| |Cancel appropriations and related Operating Transfer from the General Fund of $8,870 in the Capital Outlay Fund for Capital Project 1004981|

| |– Felicita Park Playground Improvements, to provide funds for the San Elijo Parking Lot and Trail Improvements project. |

| |Cancel appropriations and related Operating Transfer from the General Fund of $9,583 in the Capital Outlay Fund for Capital Project 1000164|

| |– Los Penasquitos Parking Lot and Trail Improvements, to provide funds for the San Elijo Parking Lot and Trail Improvements project. |

| |Establish appropriations of $18,453 in the Capital Outlay Fund for Capital Project 1000172 – San Elijo Parking Lot and Trail Improvements, |

| |based on an Operating Transfer from the General Fund. (4 VOTES) |

| |Authorize the Director of the Department of Purchasing and Contracting to take any action authorized by Section 401 et seq. of the |

| |Administrative Code, with respect to contracting for the San Elijo Lagoon Boardwalk project. |

| |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 |

| |

| |

|6. |SUBJECT: |JURISDICTIONAL TRANSFER OF PARCELS FROM DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TO DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION AND NEW |

| | |COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR MANAGEMENT OF SAN ELIJO LAGOON (DISTRICTS: 3 AND 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The County of San Diego owns three parcels totaling 8.97 acres that were mitigation for biological impacts for the Rancho Santa Fe Road |

| |Bridge constructed by the Department of Public Works. The parcels are identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 259-191-29, 259-191-33 and |

| |266-041-07 The parcels are located in Rancho Santa Fe, near the City of Encinitas, and are adjacent to the San Elijo Lagoon Ecological |

| |Reserve. The Department of Parks and Recreation, California Department of Fish and Game, and the San Elijo Lagoon Conservancy jointly |

| |manage the reserve. |

| |Thomas Guide: 1167/J-1 and J-2. |

| | |

| |This action will approve a resolution authorizing the jurisdictional transfer of the parcels from the Department of Public Works to the |

| |Department of Parks and Recreation for inclusion in the reserve. The parcels will continue to be used to preserve open space and natural |

| |habitat. |

| | |

| |On May 12, 1981 (1), the Board approved a cooperative agreement among the State of California, the County of San Diego, and the San Elijo |

| |Lagoon Conservancy for the operation and maintenance of the San Elijo Lagoon Ecological Reserve which expires on June 30, 2006. These |

| |entities desire to enter into a new cooperative agreement that would expire on June 30, 2030, for the rehabilitation, development, |

| |operation, and maintenance of the property, protection and enhancement of the lagoon’s natural resources, and for the provision of |

| |appropriate recreational opportunities. This action will also authorize the Director of Parks and Recreation to negotiate and execute a |

| |new cooperative agreement among the same three entities. The parcels described above will be added to the approximately 962-acre San Elijo|

| |Lagoon Ecological Reserve and will be covered by the proposed new cooperative agreement. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |There is no direct fiscal impact resulting from this action. The Department of Parks and Recreation currently manages and maintains the |

| |San Elijo Lagoon Ecological Reserve as open space. This requested action will add three parcels, currently being managed by the Department|

| |of Public Works, to the land being managed by the Department of Parks and Recreation. The Department of Public Works will avoid |

| |approximately $3,400 annually in maintenance and monitoring costs. Operations and maintenance of the entire reserve will be managed by |

| |existing budgeted resources in the Department of Parks and Recreation as part of the larger open space area and will require no additional |

| |staff years. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find that the proposed new cooperative agreement is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines|

| |Section 15301 because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. |

| |Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) entitled: Resolution of the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors Authorizing the Jurisdictional |

| |Transfer of Land from the County of San Diego Department of Public Works to the County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation for |

| |Inclusion in the San Elijo Lagoon Ecological Reserve. |

| |Authorize the Director of Parks and Recreation to negotiate and execute a new three-party agreement among the County, State (Department of |

| |Fish and Game), and San Elijo Lagoon Conservancy for the joint operation and maintenance of the San Elijo Lagoon, and any amendments that |

| |do not significantly increase the County’s obligations. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent, adopting Resolution No. |

| |06-094 entitled: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AUTHORIZING THE JURISDICTIONAL TRANSFER OF LAND FROM THE |

| |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TO THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION FOR INCLUSION IN THE SAN ELIJO|

| |LAGOON ECOLOGICAL RESERVE. |

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

| |ABSENT: Cox |

| |

|7. |SUBJECT: |SET HEARING FOR 7/19/06 |

| | |PROPOSED SAN DIEGO COUNTYWIDE PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION NO. 1000, ZONE NO. 1016 – EL SERENO WAY IN THE VISTA AREA |

| | |(DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

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

| |Property owners in the Vista area have filed petitions requesting a mailed ballot proceeding to determine sufficient support to form a |

| |Permanent Road Division Zone to improve and maintain .14 mile of El Sereno Way (Thomas Guide, Page 1108, C-4). |

| | |

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

| |Engineer’s Report so that staff can proceed with the mailed ballot proceeding required by State law. The district, which would include 19 |

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

| |proposed district. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

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

| |current year processing cost charged to the formation expense 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. |

| | |

| |Accept the petitions for El Sereno Way, on file in the office of Special Districts Administration, requesting authorization for a mailed |

| |ballot proceeding that could result in the formation of a Permanent Road Division Zone to improve and maintain El Sereno Way. |

| |Adopt the resolution entitled Resolution of Intention to Establish San Diego Countywide Permanent Road Division No. 1000, Zone No. 1016 – |

| |El Sereno Way, which sets July 19, 2006, as the date of the required public hearing. |

| |Preliminarily 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. |

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

| |boundary of the proposed Permanent Road Division No. 1000, Zone No. 1016 – El Sereno Way. |

| |At noticed public hearing on July 19, 2006: |

| |Conduct a public hearing to receive comments on proposed Permanent Road Division Zone No. 1016 – El Sereno Way and close acceptance of |

| |ballots. |

| |Continue the public hearing until August 2, 2006 to allow for ballot tabulation. |

| |Direct the Clerk of the Board to tabulate all valid ballots received, and present ballot results at continued public hearing. |

| |At continued public hearing on August 2, 2006: |

| |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: |

| |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. |

| |Adopt Resolution entitled Resolution Establishing San Diego Countywide Permanent Road Division No. 1000, Zone No. 1016 – El Sereno |

| |Way. |

| |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. |

| |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, adopting Resolution No. |

| |06-095 entitled: RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ESTABLISH SAN DIEGO COUNTYWIDE PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION NO. 1000, ZONE 1016 – EL SERENO WAY, |

| |and setting Hearing for July 19, 2006, 9:00 a.m. |

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

| |ABSENT: Cox |

| |

|8. |SUBJECT: |MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT – NEW GROUND LEASES WITH OLYMPIC RESORT JOINT VENTURE (DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |McClellan-Palomar Airport, located in Carlsbad, is a major gateway to and from San Diego’s North County and one of the busiest single |

| |runway airports in the nation. The airport provides facilities and services to commercial, corporate, and general aviation communities and|

| |is home to 305 based aircraft. |

| |Olympic Resort Joint Venture, along with its predecessor companies, has been leasing land adjacent to McClellan-Palomar Airport since 1982.|

| |Olympic Resort is a full-service hotel that includes eighty guest rooms, a fitness center and spa, swimming pools, practice golf |

| |facilities, tennis courts, a restaurant, central meeting rooms and banquet facilities, offices, shops, and other related facilities. |

| |This is a request to approve two new ground leases with Olympic Resort that will replace and supersede their existing 16.09-acre lease. |

| |The proposed leases are the result of splitting the existing leasehold into two new parcels. The hotel parcel will consist of 5.918 acres |

| |and the sports facilities parcel will consist of 10.149 acres. New 55-year leases will allow Olympic Resort to begin a redevelopment |

| |project on both leaseholds to meet current and future economic demands. Olympic Resort is planning to make a significant investment |

| |updating their hotel, restaurant, athletic club and sports facilities. Monthly base rent will be increased with opening of the new |

| |restaurant and percentage rent will be applied to both leases. Funds from leases of airport property are placed into County’s Airport |

| |Enterprise Fund, which is used to operate, maintain and improve safety and security at County Airports. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |If approved, this request will result in additional revenue to Airport Enterprise Fund beginning Fiscal Year 2006-07. Revenues for Fiscal |

| |Year 2005-06 of $114,600 will not be impacted. Funding source for additional revenue is rental payments from lessee under terms of the new|

| |lease agreements. Total lease revenue for both proposed leases will be $114,600 plus additional percentage rent in next Fiscal Year |

| |2006-07, with anticipated annual revenues of $186,600 plus additional percentage rent projected in subsequent years. Proposed new leases |

| |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 the proposed leases are |

| |categorically exempt from CEQA provisions as they involve continuation of an existing use. |

| |Approve and authorize Clerk of the Board to execute, upon receipt, two new Ground Leases (three copies of each) with Olympic Resort Joint |

| |Venture. (4 VOTES) |

| |Waive competitive procurement requirements and recommended minimum lengths of time between rental rate adjustments of Board Policy F-51, |

| |County Real Property Asset Management, with regard to proposed leases with Olympic Resort Joint Venture. |

| |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 |

| |

|9. |SUBJECT: |SET HEARING FOR 7/19/06 |

| | |PROPOSED SAN DIEGO COUNTYWIDE PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION NO. 1000, ZONE NO. 1017 - RANCHITO ROADS IN THE ALPINE AREA |

| | |(DISTRICT: 2) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

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

| |Property owners in the Alpine area have filed petitions requesting a mailed ballot proceeding to determine sufficient support to form a |

| |Permanent Road Division Zone to improve and maintain .69 mile of Ranchito Lane, Ranchito Court and Ranchito Vista (Thomas Guide, Page 1253,|

| |H-1). |

| | |

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

| |Engineer’s Report so that staff can proceed with the mailed ballot proceeding required by State law. The district, which would include 36 |

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

| |proposed district. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

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

| |current year processing cost charged to the formation expense of $6,500. If the district forms, the money will be reimbursed by the new |

| |district. The proposed budget for the road improvement is $292,000 which will be financed by loans and repaid through benefit assessments. |

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

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

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

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

| |environment. |

| | |

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

| |ballot proceeding that could result in the formation of a Permanent Road Division Zone to improve and maintain Ranchito Lane, Ranchito |

| |Court and Ranchito Vista. |

| | |

| |Adopt the resolution entitled Resolution of Intention to Establish San Diego Countywide Permanent Road Division No. 1000, Zone No. 1017 – |

| |Ranchito Roads, which sets July 19, 2006, as the date of the required public hearing. |

| | |

| |Preliminarily approve Engineer’s Report for proposed Permanent Road Division No. 1000, Zone No. 1017 – Ranchito Roads, on file in the |

| |Special Districts office of the Department of Public Works. |

| | |

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

| |boundary of the proposed Permanent Road Division No. 1000, Zone No. 1017 – Ranchito Roads. |

| | |

| |At noticed public hearing on July 19, 2006: |

| |Conduct a public hearing to receive comments on proposed Permanent Road Division Zone No. 1017 – Ranchito Roads and close acceptance of |

| |ballots. |

| | |

| |Continue the public hearing until August 2, 2006 to allow for ballot tabulation. |

| | |

| |Direct the Clerk of the Board to tabulate all valid ballots received, and present ballot results at continued public hearing. |

| | |

| |At continued public hearing on August 2, 2006: |

| |Receive and confirm results of the ballot tabulation for the proposed Permanent Road Division No. 1000, Zone No. 1017 – Ranchito Roads. |

| | |

| |If ballots in favor meet the passage criteria of State law: |

| |Approve Engineer’s Report for proposed Permanent Road Division No. 1000, Zone No. 1017 – Ranchito Roads, on file in the Special Districts |

| |office of the Department of Public Works. |

| | |

| |Adopt Resolution entitled Resolution Establishing San Diego Countywide Permanent Road Division No. 1000, Zone No. 1017 – Ranchito Roads. |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| |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. 1017 – RANCHITO ROADS. |

| | |

| |Adopt a resolution entitled Resolution Declaring Ranchito Lane, Ranchito Court and Ranchito Vista To Be Public Roads, Declaring Said Roads |

| |Not County Highways 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, adopting Resolution No. |

| |06-096 entitled: RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ESTABLISH SAN DIEGO COUNTYWIDE PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION NO. 1000, ZONE NO. 1017 – RANCHITO |

| |ROADS and setting Hearing for July 19, 2006, 9:00 a.m. |

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

| |ABSENT: Cox |

| |

| |

|10. |SUBJECT: |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

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

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On May 10, 2006 (5), the Board adopted Resolutions: Item 5-J1, Resolution No. 06-075 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 3008, RESOLUTION |

| |MENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NO STANDING OR PARKING ZONES IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, Item 5-I, |

| |Resolution No. 06-076 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 3009, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 306 RELATING TO THE |

| |ESTABLISHMENT OF YIELD RIGHT-OF-WAY INTERSECTIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; and further directed the Chief Administrative Officer to |

| |establish a no-passing zone in front of the school which includes a double yellow line, and signage and install flashing yellow lights in |

| |front of the school on the condition that the school is in support of the installation, and introduced Ordinances for further Board |

| |consideration and adoption on May 17, 2006. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

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

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Adopt Ordinances titled: |

| |AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 72.169.77.3. OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO |

| |AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 72.169.77.4. OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO |

| |AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 72.243.1.1. OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO |

| |ACTION: |

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

| |Ordinances: |

| |Item 2-A: Ordinance No. 9779 (N.S.) entitled: AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 72.169.77.3. TO THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC |

| |REGULATIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; |

| |Item 2-B: Ordinance No. 9780 (N.S.) entitled: AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 72.169.77.4 TO THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC |

| |REGULATIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; and |

| |Item 5-B1: Ordinance No. 9781 (N.S.) entitled: AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 72.243.1.1. TO THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE DESIGNATING ROADWAYS |

| |POSTED 25 MILES PER HOUR OR LESS FOR JOINT USE BY GOLF CARTS. |

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

| |ABSENT: Cox |

| |

|11. |SUBJECT: |CLOSED SESSION |

| | |(CARRYOVER FROM 05/16/06, AGENDA ITEM NO. 29) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS |

| |(Government Code section 54957.6) |

| |Designated Representatives: Carlos Arauz and Susan Brazeau |

| |Employee Organizations: All |

| |ACTION: |

| |No reportable matter. |

| |

|12. |SUBJECT: |PUBLIC COMMUNICATION |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |Mr. Ian Trowbridge spoke to the Board concerning ethics within the County of San Diego. |

| |ACTION: |

| |Heard, referred to the Chief Administrative Officer |

There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 9:30 a.m. in memories of Leonard R. Richardson, John Barson, Edward Brown, Eric Allen Shearer, and Jim McCargo.

THOMAS J. PASTUSZKA

Clerk of the Board of Supervisors

County of San Diego, State of California

Consent: Francia

Discussion: Hall

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

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download