FW: PR-Cullea/Horn : County to Consider Purchasing More Property for San Luis Rey River Park

------ Forwarded Message
From: <char.ayers@att.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 18:29:10 +0000
To: Charlene Ayers <char.ayers@att.net>
Subject: PR-Cullea/Horn : County to Consider Purchasing More Property for San Luis Rey River Park

---

From: Culea, John [mailto:John.Culea@sdcounty.ca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Subject: County to Consider Purchasing More Property for San Luis Rey River Park

County of San Diego
 Bill Horn
Fifth District Supervisor

Media Advisory
April 8, 2008

                                                                                                                                    
County to Consider Purchasing More Property for San Luis Rey River Park

SAN DIEGO ˆ County Supervisors will be asked tomorrow at the regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors, to consider the acquisition of a 143-acre parcel of land located along the San Luis Rey River.  The parcel is within the proposed boundaries of the 9-mile, linear San Luis Rey River Park; a project spearheaded by Fifth District Supervisor Bill Horn.
 
„If the acquisition is approved, it will be a great moment for the people of San Diego County, especially those in North County,‰ said Horn.  „Ten years ago, it was my vision to create the San Luis Rey River Park, which would be the largest park project in the history of the County and at the same time make good on our promise to widen Highway 76.‰
 
The parcel to be considered is owned by the Vessels family and if acquired, would cost approximately $5 million.  The land features a southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest, with areas of mulefat scrub, southern willow scrub and coast live oak woodland.  The County currently owns 116.56 acres of open space purchased from San Luis Rey Downs in December 2005.  The area lies entirely within the draft North County Multiple Species Conservation Program boundaries.
 
The park will ultimately extend from Oceanside to Interstate 15 parallel to State route 76, along the San Luis Rey River.  Plans call for Highway 76 to be widened to four lanes from Mission to Interstate 15.
 
This will be the first hearing of the agenda item.  If approved, a second hearing will be May 14, 2008.
 
Media information: Meeting date, time, and location˜Wednesday, April 9, 2008, 9 a.m., 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335, San Diego 92101
 

Contact: John Culea ˆ Media and Communications Director
619 531-4709 Cell: 619 548-1765 Fax: 619 685-2662

 

------ End of Forwarded Message

FW: BOS-April 9, 2008: Purchase of Gildred Ranch and Oak Country II properties

------ Forwarded Message
From: <char.ayers@att.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 18:48:19 +0000
To: Charlene Ayers <char.ayers@att.net>
Subject: BOS-April 9, 2008: Purchase of Gildred Ranch and Oak Country II properties

7. SUBJECT: SET HEARING FOR 5/14/08: PURCHASE OF 1,372-ACRE GILDRED RANCH PROPERTY AND 480-ACRE HIGHLAND VALLEY-OAK COUNTRY II PROPERTY ˆ RAMONA (DISTRICT: 2)

OVERVIEW:
On November 1, 2000 (13), the Board directed the Chief Administrative Officer to work with The Grasslands Preservation Project to seek potential funding for acquisition of grasslands in the unincorporated community of Ramona, within the draft North County Multiple Species Conservation Program planning area.  Since that time the County has partnered with several nonprofit agencies to apply for and has successfully received several State and federal grants to acquire 460 acres of land with an additional 1,180 acres currently in escrow in the Ramona grasslands area.   In 2007, The Nature Conservancy acquired the 1,372-acre Gildred Ranch property.  Additionally, The Nature Conservancy has entered into a real property purchase and sale agreement with Highland Valley Partners, LLC for acquisition of the 480-acre Highland Valley-Oak Country II property.  The Nature Conservancy will purchase the property, and enter into an escrow transaction for the sale of the land in fee title to the County.  These properties are located near the Ramona Airport, west of Rangeland Road, adjacent to other grassland properties previously acquired by the County (Thomas Guide, page 1151, F, G , H, 1-7).  This request is to set a hearing for May 14, 2008 for the Board to consider, after hearing public testimony, approving purchase of the Gildred Ranch and Highland ValleyˆOak Country II properties from The Nature Conservancy, for a cost not to exceed $2,850,000 (Recommendations 3 through 5).  

FISCAL IMPACT:
If approved, this request will result in one-time current year cost not to exceed $2,850,000 for the land purchase.  Funding for this request in the amount of $2,850,000 is included in the Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Operational Plan.  The funding source is General Fund budgeted in Capital Project 1000012 ˆ MSCP Acquisitions.  In addition, budgeted funds in the Capital Project of $1,566,300 are available for related costs, including $7,800 for title insurance and escrow costs, $8,500 for staff costs to complete the purchase, and one-time costs of $1,550,000.  These one-time costs are associated with the creation of the preserve‚s Resource Management Plan including Area Specific Management Directives which includes site specific field surveys ($600, 000), a Trails Master Plan ($450,000) and associated environmental review ($150,000), as well as initial stewardship costs such as fencing and signage ($350,000).  The requested action will result in a total current year cost of not to exceed $4,416,300.  In addition, there will be an annual cost of $10,520 for Fixed Charge Assessments on both properties, including water standby fees and vector control charges, which will be paid from the Department of Parks and Recreation‚s Annual Operational Plan.  The Department of Parks and Recreation will seek funding in the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Operational Plan budget process for ongoing costs related to operation and maintenance of the preserve.  Ongoing MSCP stewardship and monitoring are estimated at $277,800 per year for both properties.  The County will assume the responsibilities and requirements of the grant agreements, and/or deed restrictions which encumber the properties at the time of purchase.
RECOMMENDATION:
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER At the April 9, 2008 hearing: 1.          Direct the Clerk of the Board to publish the required Notice of Intention to Purchase the Gildred Ranch and Highland ValleyˆOak Country II properties in accordance with Government Code Sections 25350 and 6063.  2.          Set a hearing for May 14, 2008 at which time the Board of Supervisors may approve the purchase of the 1,372-acre Gildred Ranch property from The Nature Conservancy for $1,250,000 and the purchase of the 480-acre Highland Valley-Oak Country II property from The Nature Conservancy for a cost not to exceed $1,600,000 (total price not to exceed $2,850,000).  At the May 14, 2008 hearing, and after public testimony, consider: 3.          Finding, in accordance with Section 15325 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, that the County‚s purchase of the Gildred Ranch and Highland Valley-Oak Country II properties are categorically exempt from CEQA as these transactions involve the transfer of ownership of land to preserve open space and natural habitat.  4.          Approving the Purchase/Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions Agreement (Agreement) for the purchase of the Gildred Ranch property (Assessor‚s Parcel Numbers 276-041-06, 276-050-04, 05, 07, 08, 09, 26, 27, 28, 276-060-04, 276-101-03, 276-110-02, 09, 10, 11, 12, 276-111-02, 03, 06, 07, 276-121-01, 21, 22, 280-010-05) and Highland Valley-Oak Country II property (Assessor‚s Parcel Numbers 277-050-31, 277-111-53 and 277-121-14) from The Nature Conservancy for  $1,950,000.  5.          Approving the Purchase/Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions Agreement (Agreement) for the purchase of the Gildred Ranch property (Assessor‚s Parcel Numbers 276-041-06, 276-050-04, 05, 07, 08, 09, 26, 27, 28, 276-060-04, 276-101-03, 276-110-02, 09, 10, 11, 12, 276-111-02, 03, 06, 07, 276-121-01, 21, 22, 280-010-05) and Highland Valley-Oak Country II property (Assessor‚s Parcel Numbers 277-050-31, 277-111-53 and 277-121-14) from The Nature Conservancy for  $2,850,000.  6.          Directing the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to execute two originals of the Purchase/Sale Agreement described in either Recommendation 4 or 5 above as specified by the Director of General Services after The Nature Conservancy determines whether it can use a $900,000 grant for the purchase of the Oak Country II property.  Direct the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to mark the Purchase/Sale Agreement that is not executed as „void.‰   7.          Authorizing the Department of General Services Director, or designee, to execute all escrow and related documents necessary to complete the transaction, including execution of a conservation easement.


------ End of Forwarded Message

FW: BOS-April 9, 2008: 2nd Assessment Ballot for Jesse Martin Park (Julian)

------ Forwarded Message
From: <char.ayers@att.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 19:00:50 +0000
To: Charlene Ayers <char.ayers@att.net>
Subject: BOS-April 9, 2008: 2nd Assessment Ballot for Jesse Martin Park (Julian)

Charlene Sez:  Remember this was not approved on the first ballot so the County locked the gates to the park to make a point.  Jacob got a $300,000 well drilled because the water district would not agree to provide the amount of water needed for the park from their aquifer, a possible threat to their customers.
 
The Julian News for April 2, 2008, is reporting that this time the assessment was approved:  52.7% yes. 47.3% no.
 
2. SUBJECT: CONTINUED NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: SECOND MAILED ASSESSMENT BALLOT PROCEEDING RESULTS AND FORMATION HEARING FOR PROPOSED SAN DIEGO COUNTY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT ZONE NO. 2 ˆ JULIAN (JESS MARTIN PARK) (DISTRICT: 2)

OVERVIEW:
On January 30, 2008 (5), the Board of Supervisors authorized a second mailed assessment ballot proceeding to owners of parcels within the proposed San Diego County Landscape Maintenance District Zone No. 2 ˆ Julian (Jess Martin Park).  At a public hearing on March 26, 2008 (5) the public was provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed formation of the Landscape Maintenance District for Jess Martin Park and ballots were collected.   The public meeting was continued until April 9, 2008, to allow for ballot tabulation.  Following the close of the March 26, 2008 hearing, the ballots were tabulated under the direction of the assessment engineer.  Today‚s action is to confirm and approve ballot results.  If the results indicate majority support of district formation and the Board authorizes the new district, the requested action will adopt a resolution to establish the San Diego County Landscape Maintenance District Zone No. 2 ˆ Julian (Jess Martin Park) for Fiscal Year 2008-2009.  If the ballot measure passes, the new District would become operational on July 1, 2008.  

FISCAL IMPACT:
Funding for this request is budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Operational Plan.  If approved, the costs for consultant services in the current fiscal year are encumbered in the original contract and total approximately $25,000.  If the ballot measure passes there will be future costs and revenue related to operations and maintenance of Jess Martin Park which will be provided by Department of Parks and Recreation staff and funded by the proposed Landscape Maintenance District (LMD).    The current total annual maintenance budget for the proposed District is approximately $100,000.  The recommended assessment district does not include indexing for future cost increases including inflation.  With passage of the ballot measure, approximately 90% of the budget would be provided by the assessments levied on property owners within the District boundaries.  Assessment law prohibits the collection of fees for services and/or improvements that benefit properties outside the District.  This would require the County to pay the remaining 10% or $10,000 of the proposed maintenance budget.  If the be nefit assessment fails, there is no plan to continue to operate Jess Martin Park in its current condition.  The County of San Diego may be required to repay certain grant funds and incur other costs related to closure.  
RECOMMENDATION:
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 1.           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.   2.           Accept and confirm the ballot results of the proposed San Diego County Landscape Maintenance District Zone No. 2 ˆ Julian (Jess Martin Park).   If the San Diego County Landscape Maintenance District Zone No. 2 ˆ Julian (Jess Martin Park) passes:   3.           Adopt the resolution entitled Resolution of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors Approving Engineer‚s Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, Ordering Levy of the San Diego County Landscape Maintenance District Zone No. 2- Julian (Jess Martin Park) for Fiscal Year 2008-2009. (Attachment B)   4.           Authorize the Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation to re-open Jess Martin Park on July 1, 2008.   5.           In accordance with Board Policy A-74, Citizen Participation in County Boards, Commissions and Committees, direct the Chief Administrative Officer to coordinate the formation of an Advisory Committee whose members will be nominated by Supervisor Jacob and approved by the Board.  The Committee will serve as an advisory body by providing input to the Department of Parks and Recreation regarding annual operations and maintenance budget for Landscape Maintenance District Zone No. 2 ˆ Julian (Jess Martin Park).    If the San Diego County Landscape Maintenance District Zone No. 2 ˆ Julian (Jess Martin Park) fails:   6.           Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to return to the Board with options for the parcel‚s future and associated costs.  


------ End of Forwarded Message

FW: Really correct website: Correct website: SOLV???

------ Forwarded Message
From: <char.ayers@att.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:38:03 +0000
To: Charlene Ayers <char.ayers@att.net>
Cc: <Dahvia.Lynch@sdcounty.ca.gov>, <Jimmy.Wong@sdcounty.ca.gov>
Subject: Really correct website: Correct website: SOLV???

Charlene Sez:  Sorry.  I put an extra "s" in it.  From google:
 
Save Our Land Value <http://www.saveourlandvalue.com/>
Oct 20, 2007 ... About Save Our Land Values · Meetings for SOLV Memebers. Archives. October 2007 · March 2006. Categories ... Directors. Gary Piro. Meta ...
www.saveourlandvalue.com/ - 8k - Cached <http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:2OHWOmRzVzEJ:www.saveourlandvalue.com/+%22Save+Our+Land+Values%22+Piro&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;cd=2&amp;gl=us> <http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:2OHWOmRzVzEJ:www.saveourlandvalue.com/+%22Save+Our+Land+Values%22+Piro&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;ct=clnk&amp;amp;cd=2&amp;amp;gl=us>   - Similar pages <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=related:www.saveourlandvalue.com/> <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;amp;q=related:www.saveourlandvalue.com/>  
 
 

-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
From: xxxxxx
To: <char.ayers@att.net>
Subject: RE: Correct website: SOLV???
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 15:20:23 +0000

Charlene ˆ I got „server not found‰ at both addresses.

---

From: char.ayers@att.net [mailto:char.ayers@att.net]
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 5:24 PM
To: Charlene Ayers
Subject: Correct website: SOLV???


Charlene Sez:  I sent this correction to Wong in a follow up email.  Since they do no vetting, I suspect that it was not looked at.



The current SOLV website is:  http://www.saveourlandvalues.com <http://www.saveourlandvalues.com/>      Not much happening there.



***************



Jimmy...



Last October someone forwarded an email to me which was from Gary Piro.  He was contacting people to tell them that SOLV (Save Our Land Values) was up and running again.



I contacted Piro to ask him who SOLV intended to represent, and I never heard back from him.



I just found a website for the newly reconstituted SOLV which does not offer any information except for the names of a few officers, Piro included:  http://www.saveourlandvalues.org <http://www.saveourlandvalues.org/>



I see that Dave Shibley is the SOLV rep to the Interest Group.



Is SOLV a viable group?  



Who do they speak for?   



How many members do they have?  Can that be verified?



When Jack Orr was the SOLV spokesmouth, he bundled several of his political consultant email lists together, and submitted those names at a BOS as evidence of a large membership.  Five of them were dead guys.



Even though Piro, Stedt, and Shibley were SOLV reps to the Interest Group in the past, is this current iteration of SOLV worthy of "stakeholder" status?   



Should they be there at the Interest Group at all?



Charlene


__________ NOD32 3010 (20080408) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/>


------ End of Forwarded Message

FW: BlogOfSD-Flannery: A clear message from the SEC. 04/07/08

------ Forwarded Message
From: <char.ayers@att.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 23:37:34 +0000
To: Charlene Ayers <char.ayers@att.net>
Subject: BlogOfSD-Flannery: A clear message from the SEC. 04/07/08

-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
From: "Pat Flannery - Blog" <pat@blogofsandiego.com>
To: "'Pat Flannery'" <pat@blogofsandiego.com>
Subject: A clear message from the SEC. 04/07/08
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 23:33:29 +0000

 
 
Click here <http://www.blogofsandiego.com/> for the latest „Blog of San Diego‰ by Pat Flannery

 
 
 


------ End of Forwarded Message

FW: SDDT-Elias: Wikileaks case a First Amendment 'home run'

------ Forwarded Message
From: <char.ayers@att.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 23:30:33 +0000
To: Charlene Ayers <char.ayers@att.net>
Subject: SDDT-Elias: Wikileaks case a First Amendment 'home run'

Wilileaks case a First Amendment 'home run'
By THOMAS D. ELIAS
Friday, April 4, 2008
 
In the beginning, it looked like an utter disaster for the First Amendment, whose guarantees of freedom of speech and press have protected Americans from prior restraint since the Bill of Rights was adopted almost 230 years ago.
 
But the unified defense of an obscure Internet site by mainstream media and other free-press advocates instead turned around a case that could have set a pernicious precedent for squashing information governments and corporations don't want the public to see.
 
This case became dangerous when a federal judge in San Francisco last month ordered the shutdown of a U.S. Web site called Wikileaks.org, which claims to have posted 1.2 million leaked government and corporate documents to the Internet, all tending to expose unethical or illegal behavior. Among items it has exposed are copies of a 2003 operations manual for the U.S. terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
 
The Web site ran afoul of Judge Jeffrey White after the Swiss-based Bank Julius Baer & Co. filed a lawsuit claiming a disgruntled executive fired for "misconduct" stole documents and posted them on Wikileaks, exposing the bank's operation in the Cayman Islands to allegations of money laundering and helping tax evasion schemes.
 
That, of course, seemed plausible because many other proven tax evasion schemes have laundered money through the Cayman Islands and other Caribbean and Swiss points.
 
The incredibly credulous White ordered Wikileaks shut down by his hosting company, San Mateo-based Dynadot, and Dyandot said it would comply. His injunction sought to impose prior restraints on both Wikileaks and Dynadot, something U.S. appeals courts have almost never upheld outside times of declared war since the Revolution. Prior restraints imposed by the British on colonial newspapers and pampleteers, in fact, were one cause of the Revolution. They come when a government orders material suppressed before publication, whether it knows what might be published. Valid remedies for publication of false or malicious information, of course, are post-publication libel and slander actions, not fishing expeditions aimed at stopping embarrassing news stories.
 
Free-press groups and activists did not meekly accept White's injunction, even though Wikileaks is hardly a part of the traditional media associated in many minds with First Amendment protections.
 
"Wikileaks' silencing was sought by antidemocratic governments worldwide -- including China, whose censors work mightily to block all access to the site," said Peter Scheer of the California First Amendment Coalition. "Wikileaks' plug was pulled, ironically, (not in China) but by a federal judge in San Francisco."
 
From Indianapolis came an outcry from the Society of Professional Journalists, which quickly submitted a friend of the court brief opposing the injunction along with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Scripps Howard Newspapers, The Associated Press, the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Gannett Co. (publishers of USA Today and more U.S. newspapers than any other firm) and the Newspaper Association of America. The challenge, thus, came from virtually the entire newspaper industry.
 
It was clear to most lawyers from the moment Judge White issued his injunction that the order would not stand long. Apparently, it didn't take the judge long to realize this, either.
 
For less than a week after he issued his prior restraint order shutting down Wikileaks, the Web site was back up with the Bank Julius Baer documents as its lead links. The site declares upfront that it is "developing an uncensorable system for untraceable mass-document leaking and public analysis."
Just what governments and many corporations don't want and just what the public often needs.
 
In response to all the motions and friend of court briefs filed by the media and public interest coalition aroused by his ruling, White reversed field and lifted his injunction before any appeals court got the chance to do it for him.
 
He acknowledged in open court that his order had led to questions about "a possible violation of the First Amendment." As a teenager might put it, "Well, duh."
 
The real question here is how an American judge -- any American judge -- could be blind enough to believe the interests of a foreign bank (or any domestic government or business, either, for that matter) could possibly trump the force and power of the First Amendment. It's a question that raises serious doubts about this judge's own judgment.
 
The judge also saw that his injunction, even if had stood, was essentially useless. Other Web sites -- some based outside this country -- quickly picked up Wikileaks' materials and re-posted them, making the order moot almost as quickly as it came down.
 
"This was a home run for the First Amendment," said Matt Zimmerman, attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil rights group focusing on Internet liberty.
 
So a potentially disastrous curtailing of freedom of information has been turned into a triumph for openness and a valuable lesson for other judges who might share the warped sense of values that led to White's original injunction.

---

Elias is author of the best-selling book "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government's Campaign to Squelch It." His email address is tdelias@aol.com.


------ End of Forwarded Message

The next homicide

When will it be?