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, SEPTEMBER 20, 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 9:06 a.m.

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

Approval of Statement of Board of Supervisor’s Proceedings/Minutes for the Meetings of July 26, 2006 and August 2, 2006.

ACTION:

Supervisor Jacob noted “In regard to Item 3 of the August 2nd Board Minutes, specifically as they relate to the community of Alpine, the Minutes reflect a direction to staff to re-look at those land uses Northeast of Tavern Road. What I meant was land uses Northwest of Tavern Road. I would request this change be made to the Minutes.” ; ON MOTION of Supervisor Cox, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board of Supervisors approved the Statement of Proceedings/Minutes for the meeting of July 26, 2006 and August 2, 2006 (as amended by Supervisor Jacob).

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

Public Communication: [No Speakers]

Board of Supervisors’ Agenda Items

|1. |CONTINUED NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

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

|2. |CITY OF SAN MARCOS – UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THE SYCAMORE DRIVE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE |

|3. |LEASE AGREEMENT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION – ADMINISTRATIVE HEADQUARTERS – 9150 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE |

| |(CARRYOVER FROM 8/2/06, AGENDA NO. 21) |

|5. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| |SILVER SAGE CONDOMINIUMS ZONE RECLASSIFICATION; R04-019, LAKESIDE COMMUNITY PLAN AREA |

|6. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| |TO VACATE A PORTION OF RAMS HILL ROAD, BORREGO SPRINGS |

|7. |CLEARING THE AIR - SMOKE-FREE COUNTY PARKS AND OPEN SPACE |

|8. |SET HEARING FOR 10/18/06 |

| |OLD STAGE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, FALLBROOK - CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY |

|9. |RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COORDINATION WITH NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT AND CITIES OF ESCONDIDO, OCEANSIDE, SAN MARCOS, AND VISTA FOR|

| |COMPLETION OF NORTH COUNTY PARKWAY PLAN PROJECTS |

|10. |LOAN REQUEST AND APPROPRIATIONS FOR PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION ZONE 1016 – EL SERENO WAY IN VISTA AREA |

| |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): COMBINATION OF PRIVATE BANK AND PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION INTERNAL SERVICE FUND] |

| |(4 VOTES) |

|11. |TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS |

|12. |SET HEARING FOR 10/18/06 |

| |TO VACATE TWO PORTIONS OF HIGHLAND VALLEY ROAD, RAMONA |

|13. |GILLESPIE FIELD -- MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION TO SUPERSEDE LEASES FOR NAVIGATION, |

| |COMMUNICATION, AND WEATHER AID FACILITIES |

| |(4 VOTES) |

|14. |RAMONA AIRPORT – MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH RAMONA AIR CENTER, LLC. |

|15. |GILLESPIE FIELD – GKN AEROSPACE CHEM-TRONICS, INC. – AMENDMENTS TO TWO INDUSTRIAL LEASES |

| |(4 VOTES) |

|16. |THIRD AMENDMENT TO JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE VALLEY CENTER PARKS AND RECREATION DISTRICT FOR RECREATIONAL FACILITY|

| |IMPROVEMENTS IN VALLEY CENTER |

| |(4 VOTES) |

|17. |APPROVE REPLACEMENT JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE VALLEY CENTER-PAUMA UNIFIED SCHOOL |

| |DISTRICT FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT VALLEY CENTER HIGH SCHOOL |

| |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): VALLEY CENTER PARK LAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE (PLDO) FUNDS AND PALA/PAUMA VALLEY PLDO FUNDS] |

| |(4 VOTES) |

|18. |SAN DIEGUITO RIVER VALLEY REGIONAL OPEN SPACE PARK JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY - APPROVAL OF PROPERTIES FOR FUNDING APPLICATION OR |

| |ACQUISITION |

|19. |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT NO. 5387-1, LOCATED IN NORTH COUNTY BONSALL COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA: APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP AND SECURED |

| |JOINT AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS |

|20. |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT NO. 5320-1, LOCATED IN NORTH COUNTY METROPOLITAN SUBREGIONAL PLAN: APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP AND SECURED |

| |AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS |

|21. |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| |SECOND CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE: TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS |

|22. |CLOSED SESSION |

| |(CARRYOVER FROM 09/19/06, AGENDA ITEM NO. 26) |

|23. |PRESENTATIONS/AWARDS |

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

| | |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. On May 17, 2006 (9), the Board authorized a mailed ballot proceeding to owners of 36 parcels in the proposed Permanent Road|

| |Division Zone No. 1017 – Ranchito Roads, in the Alpine area (Thomas Guide, Page 1253, H-1). The ballot proceeding has now reached |

| |completion, with today’s Board hearing being the last opportunity for ballots to be received. |

| | |

| |This request is to conduct a public hearing considering formation of the Zone, then continue this item to September 27, when |

| |results of the balloting will be reported and the Board will be asked to form, if ballots are in favor. |

| |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. If the district forms, a subsequent Board letter will request authorization to fund the budget based on a |

| |private bank loan of $233,600 and a Permanent Road Division Internal Service Fund loan of $58,400. There is no associated annual |

| |cost and no additional staff years are required. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

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

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

| |significant effect on the environment. |

| | |

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

| |acceptance of ballots. |

| | |

| |Close the public hearing and continue this item to September 27, 2006 to allow for ballot tabulation. |

| | |

| |Direct the Clerk of the Board to tabulate all valid ballots received, and present ballot results at the September 27, 2006 |

| |meeting. |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| |At continued meeting on September 27, 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: |

| |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. |

| | |

| |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. |

| |ACTION: |

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

| |Consent, continuing the item to September 27, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. |

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

| |

| |

|2. |SUBJECT: |CITY OF SAN MARCOS – UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THE SYCAMORE DRIVE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND REQUEST FOR |

| | |CONTINUANCE (DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On July 19, 2006 (2), the Board continued, for 60 days, a request by the City of San Marcos for the County to consent to the |

| |City’s acquisition of property to accommodate planned improvements to Sycamore Drive in San Marcos. The City is proposing road |

| |and other improvements to Sycamore Drive, between Olive Street and the entrance to Walnut Grove Park, near the boundary between |

| |the City and the County (Thomas Guide, Page 1108-J2). Construction of the proposed project improvements will affect five |

| |properties located within the County’s unincorporated area. In accordance with California Streets and Highways Code, Section |

| |1810, the City must obtain consent from the County prior to the acquisition of necessary right-of-way easements within the County.|

| |The action to acquire the property would be at the sole discretion of the City of San Marcos and subject to all necessary |

| |procedures for acquisition by purchase or eminent domain. |

| |The City is requesting a continuance for this matter until November 15, 2006 to allow sufficient time to respond to questions and |

| |concerns raised at the July 19, 2006 Board hearing. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

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

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Continue this item until November 15, 2006. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Cox, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent, continuing the item |

| |to November 15, 2006. |

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

| |

| |

|3. |SUBJECT: |LEASE AGREEMENT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION – ADMINISTRATIVE HEADQUARTERS – 9150 |

| | |CHESAPEAKE DRIVE (DISTRICT: 4) |

| | |(CARRYOVER FROM 8/2/06, AGENDA NO. 21) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On August 2, 2006 (21), the Board of Supervisors, at the request of the Chief Administrative Officer, continued the item to |

| |September 20, 2006. |

| |The Board is requested to approve a new five-year lease, with two three-year options to extend, for 15,290 square feet of office |

| |space located at 9150 Chesapeake Drive in San Diego. The leased space will function as the headquarters for the Department of |

| |Parks and Recreation. The full service occupancy cost of $27,039 per month (approximately $1.77/sf) is within the range of recent|

| |comparable transactions in the Kearny Mesa area of San Diego. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for this request are included in the CAO’s approved Operational Plan for Fiscal Years 2006-07 for the Department of Parks |

| |and Recreation. If approved, the request will result in a current year cost of $216,312, FY 2007-08 cost of $338,068, and will |

| |require no additional staff years. The rent commencement date for the new lease is scheduled for November 1, 2006, following the |

| |completion of tenant improvements in the new space. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find, in accordance with Section 15301 (a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, that this project is |

| |exempt from the provisions of the Act, because it involves the lease of an existing facility and minor alterations of an existing |

| |privately owned structure. |

| | |

| |Approve and authorize the Director, Department of General Services to execute three originals of the lease, upon receipt, for the |

| |office space located at 9150 Chesapeake Drive, San Diego. |

| | |

| |Authorize the Director, Department of General Services to exercise the option(s) to extend the lease, prior to its expiration, if |

| |appropriate. |

| |ACTION: |

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

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

| |

| |

|4. |SUBJECT: |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| | |APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE CHURCH OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD; MAJOR USE PERMIT |

| | |MODIFICATION P56-020W1; SWEETWATER COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA (DISTRICT: 1) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |This is an appeal filed by William L. Jeremiah of the Planning Commission’s March 24, 2006 approval of Major Use Permit |

| |Modification P56-020W1. |

| | |

| |The request is for a Major Use Permit Modification. The project proposes to modify the existing facilities for the Church of the |

| |Good Shepherd in Bonita. A new, 325-seat, 6,027 square-foot, sanctuary with parking and utility improvements is proposed, as well|

| |as a cosmetic remodel to the existing facilities. In addition, a new, one-story with basement, 8,800 square-foot building to |

| |replace the existing 2,276 square-foot, southernmost classroom building is proposed. This building will be used as a classroom |

| |and for meetings and storage. Proposed uses of the site include religious studies, Sunday services, bible study, and special |

| |events. A height exception was included in the granting of this Major Use Permit. The height exception allows an increase in |

| |height of the cross that will be located on the sanctuary from 35 feet that is allowed by right to a maximum height of 45 feet |

| |pursuant to Section 4620(g) of the Zoning Ordinance. |

| | |

| |The 3.7-acre site is located at 3990 Bonita Road in the Sweetwater Community Planning Area. The property is zoned RR1, Rural |

| |Residential Use Regulation, which allows Civic Use Types: Religious Assembly with the approval of a Major Use Permit pursuant to |

| |Section 2185(b) of the Zoning Ordinance. The Major Use Permit Modification is required pursuant to Section 7378 of the Zoning |

| |Ordinance. The property is within the (1) Residential General Plan Designation. |

| | |

| |(Thomas Bros. Guide: 1310/4G) |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |N/A |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |PLANNING COMMISSION |

| |Approve Major Use Permit Modification P56-020W1 and adopt Form of Decision 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 San Diego County |

| |Zoning Ordinance and applicable State law. |

| | |

| |DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE |

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

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Cox, the Board, at the request of the Chief Administrative Officer, |

| |continued the Hearing for 120 days, on Consent. |

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

| |

| |

|5. |SUBJECT: |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| | |SILVER SAGE CONDOMINIUMS ZONE RECLASSIFICATION; R04-019, LAKESIDE COMMUNITY PLAN AREA (DISTRICT: 2) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The project proposes a zone reclassification to allow an 80-unit residential condominium complex on the 4.03-acre subject |

| |property. The project proposes to change the existing C36 General Commercial Use Regulations (which allows dwelling units only as|

| |a secondary use to principal commercial uses) to C34 General Commercial/Residential Use Regulations and proposes to change the |

| |height designator from “G” to “H” to allow for three stories instead of two, although the maximum height limit will remain at 35 |

| |feet. Family Residential is allowed as a primary land use in the C34 zone pursuant to Section 2342(a) of the Zoning Ordinance. |

| |The concurrent Tentative Map TM 5396 and Site Plan S04-054 associated with the project were approved by the Planning Commission on|

| |May 5, 2006. The subject property is designated (13) General Commercial by the Lakeside Community Plan. Thomas Guide: 1231, H/4 |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |N/A |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |PLANNING COMMISSION |

| |Adopt the attached Form of Ordinance (Attachment B) for the reasons included in the staff report: |

| |“AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE LAKESIDE COMMUNITY PLAN AREA” |

| | |

| |DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE |

| |The Department concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. |

| |ACTION: |

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

| |Consent, adopting Ordinance No. 9797 (N.S.) entitled: AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE |

| |LAKESIDE COMMUNITY PLAN AREA REF: R04-019. |

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

| |

| |

|6. |SUBJECT: |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| | |TO VACATE A PORTION OF RAMS HILL ROAD, BORREGO SPRINGS (DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On August 2, 2006 (9), the Board directed the Clerk of the Board to set a public hearing for September 20, 2006 to consider the |

| |proposed road vacation. |

| | |

| |Borrego Investors LLC, owners and operators of Rams Hill Development has requested that the County initiate proceedings to vacate |

| |a portion of Rams Hill Road between Yaqui Pass Road and Rams Hill Drive. The area is immediately adjacent to Assessor’s Parcel |

| |Numbers 200-271-04, 05, and 07 (Thomas Guide, Page 1098-F/3). |

| | |

| |Rams Hill is a 3,140 acre residential and golf community constructed in the early 1980’s. Borrego Investors is in the process of |

| |upgrading the entrance to their gated community. Rams Hill Road is an 800 foot County-maintained roadway that provides primary |

| |access from Yaqui Pass Road to Rams Hill Development and the adjacent Borrego Community Health Foundation, a medical facility. |

| |Borrego Investors is proposing to construct a more inviting and calming entrance. These plans include relocating the existing |

| |guardhouse and gate facility closer to Yaqui Pass Road. |

| | |

| |The purpose of this vacation is to relinquish the public interest in that portion of Rams Hill Road that will only serve the Rams |

| |Hill Development. Public access to the medical facility will be provided over a portion of Rams Hill Road that will not be |

| |vacated. The medical facility will continue to take access from the County maintained public segment of Rams Hill Road. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |There is no expected cost to the County. The applicant is paying the County’s cost to process the requested vacation. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find the project, as proposed, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines pursuant to|

| |Section 15305 because the proposed project is a road vacation in an area with an average slope of less than 20% which does not |

| |result in any changes to land use or density. |

| | |

| |Find that the proposed vacation conforms to the General Plan. |

| | |

| |Find that the portion of Rams Hill Road proposed for vacation is not needed for present or prospective public use and is not |

| |useful for a non motorized facility. |

| | |

| |Adopt the resolution entitled A Resolution Of The Board Of Supervisors Of The County Of San Diego To Vacate A Portion Of Rams Hill|

| |Road. |

| | |

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

| |ACTION: |

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

| |Consent, adopting Resolution No. 06-180 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TO VACATE A|

| |PORTION OF RAMS HILL ROAD EASEMENT. |

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

| |

| |

|7. |SUBJECT: |CLEARING THE AIR - SMOKE-FREE COUNTY PARKS AND OPEN SPACE (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The County of San Diego is dedicated to providing a healthy, safe and comfortable environment for residents. Smoking and exposure|

| |to secondhand smoke increases the risk of disease and decreases the enjoyment of public spaces for non-smokers. Furthermore, |

| |cigarettes have the potential to start fires, endangering people and property. |

| | |

| |Prohibiting smoking in County parks and open space areas will lessen these threats, and continue the County’s commitment to the |

| |health and safety of residents and protection of the environment. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

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

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |SUPERVISOR SLATER-PRICE |

| |Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to develop a Board of Supervisors Policy to ban smoking and smoking-related material of |

| |any kind in County parks and county-managed open space areas, including possession of lighted or burning tobacco products or |

| |tobacco-related products, including but not limited to cigars, cigarettes and pipes. |

| |Return to the Board within 60 days for review and adoption of the Board of Supervisors Policy. |

| |ACTION: |

| |Revising Recommendation 1 to read: Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to develop an Ordinance to ban smoking and |

| |smoking-related material of any kind in County parks and County-managed open space areas, including possession of lighted or |

| |burning tobacco products or tobacco-related products, including but not limited to cigars, cigarettes and pipes; ON MOTION of |

| |Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended. |

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

| |NOES: Horn |

| |

| |

|8. |SUBJECT: |SET HEARING FOR 10/18/06 |

| | |OLD STAGE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, FALLBROOK - CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY |

| | |(DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The Old Stage Road Improvement Project, in the community of Fallbrook, will widen the southbound lane of Old Stage Road from |

| |Aviation Road to Clemmens Lane. In addition to the road widening, a curb, gutter, and sidewalk will be added along the west side |

| |of Old Stage Road. The project will improve pedestrian safety and vehicular traffic flow. Construction is scheduled to begin in |

| |January 2007 and be completed in April 2007. (Thomas Guide, Page 1027, F-4). |

| | |

| |Construction of the planned improvements requires acquisition of temporary and permanent easement rights over nine properties |

| |along Old Stage Road. Appraisals for the required easement parcels were completed in May 2006 and an offer for appraised value |

| |has been made to eight of the nine property owners. One property owner, Rogelio Flores, is living out-of-state, and although an |

| |offer was mailed to his address of record, he does not reside at the address and cannot be located with reasonable diligence. |

| |Staff will continue to try to locate and contact this property owner. To date, six property owners have signed Real Property |

| |Contracts agreeing to sell the required easements to the County. Although negotiations with the three remaining unsigned owners |

| |are ongoing, the project schedule requires that the authority to commence an action in eminent domain be requested at this time. |

| |The eminent domain process will also allow the County to legally acquire the necessary easements from the out-of-state owner. |

| | |

| |The Board is requested to set a hearing for October 18, 2006, to consider adoption of a Resolution of Necessity to initiate an |

| |eminent domain action for the easement parcels required for the Old Stage Road Improvements Project. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |The total appraised value of the three easement parcels included in the Resolution of Necessity is $87,000. Funds for the |

| |acquisition of the parcels are budgeted in the Department of Public Works Detailed Work Program for Fiscal Year 2006-07. The |

| |proposal requires no additional staff years. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Declare your Board’s intention to consider adoption of a Resolution of Necessity to initiate an action in eminent domain; set a |

| |public hearing for October 18, 2006 to consider adoption of the Resolution of Necessity for the Old Stage Road Improvement |

| |Project, for the following parcels: 2006-0149-A, B (Star); 2006-0153-A, B (Veterans of Foreign Wars); 2006-0155-A, B (Flores). |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Cox, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent, setting Hearing for |

| |October 18, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. |

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

| |

| |

|9. |SUBJECT: |RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COORDINATION WITH NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT AND CITIES OF ESCONDIDO, |

| | |OCEANSIDE, SAN MARCOS, AND VISTA FOR COMPLETION OF NORTH COUNTY PARKWAY PLAN PROJECTS (DISTRICTS: 3 AND |

| | |5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The North County Parkway Plan was initiated in 2001 by the County of San Diego, the cities of Carlsbad, Del Mar, Encinitas, |

| |Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach and Vista, SANDAG, Caltrans, and the North County Transit District to cooperatively|

| |identify key roadway and interchange improvements to increase mobility and reduce congestion throughout the North County Parkway |

| |Plan area. Since that time, agency staff have met to review and evaluate potential projects and reached consensus. |

| | |

| |On March 24, 2006, agency representatives reviewed and approved the North County Parkway Plan, and Project Screening and |

| |Evaluation Criteria. Possible improvement projects are ranked by SANDAG for federal funding based on a point system which uses |

| |criteria such as level of service and existing or proposed right of way facilities. Evaluation criteria allows for additional |

| |points on potential projects to be undertaken in collaboration with other jurisdictions. Most of the roadways listed include |

| |significant portions within several jurisdictions, and will require close coordination and cooperation between them. |

| | |

| |This is a request to adopt a resolution authorizing staff to coordinate with the North County Transit District and cities of |

| |Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, and Vista on the following potential projects: |

| | |

| |Districts 3 and 5: |

| |Bear Valley Parkway widening from Las Palmas Avenue to Boyle Avenue (Thomas Guide page 1130: C7-5; D4-2) |

| |Citricado Parkway widening and extension from Andreasen Drive to Interstate 15 (Thomas Guide page 1129: E4-6, F-G6, H6-7) |

| |District 5: |

| |Cannon Road extension from +/- 30 feet southwest of Oceanside / County border to State Route 78 (Thomas Guide page 1107: G3, H3-2,|

| |J2) |

| |East Vista Way widening from State Route 76 to Vista city limits (Thomas Guide pages: 1067: H5, J6-7; 1068: A7; 1088: A1) |

| |South Santa Fe Avenue widening from Montgomery Drive to Bosstick Road (Thomas Guide page 1108: B2-3, C3-4) |

| |Buena Creek Road widening from South Santa Fe Avenue to Twin Oaks Valley Road (Thomas Guide page 1108: C3-2, D2-D1, E1-J1) |

| |Deer Springs Road improvements from Twin Oaks Valley Road to Interstate 15 (Thomas Guide pages 1108: J1; 1088: J7; 1089: A7-C7) |

| |Las Posas Road extension as a two-lane road from San Marcos City limits to Buena Creek Road (Thomas Guide page: 1108: E3-E1) |

| | |

| |Each potential project will conform to the newly accepted circulation element for General Plan (GP) 2020 and will be subject to a |

| |Preliminary Engineering Report that will further analyze right of way issues and design options. Each potential project will be |

| |discussed in detail at meetings with appropriate planning/sponsor groups at the early stages of design to reach consensus. |

| | |

| |Approval of the resolution will increase each potential project’s competitive ranking points for federal funding. Potential |

| |projects approved by SANDAG for funding will be added to the Department of Public Works Detailed Work Program in future years when|

| |federal funding becomes available and local matching funds are identified. Department of Public Works staff will coordinate |

| |execution of our North County Parkway Plan projects with North County Transit District and other cities with the goal of |

| |maximizing traffic relief benefits. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |This request will result in no fiscal impact, but will enhance the County’s competitiveness for future federal funding. This |

| |request will result in no current year cost, no subsequent year cost and revenue, and no additional staff years. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find, in accordance with Section 15060(c)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines that the resolution is |

| |not subject to CEQA review because the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines. |

| | |

| |Adopt a resolution entitled Resolution Authorizing Coordination with North County Transit District and Cities of Escondido, |

| |Oceanside, San Marcos, and Vista for Completion of North County Parkway Plan Projects. |

| |ACTION: |

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

| |No. 06-181 entitled: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING COMPLETION OF NORTH COUNTY PARKWAY PLAN PROJECTS IN COORDINATION WITH NORTH COUNTY |

| |TRANSIT DISTRICT AND CITIES OF ESCONDIDO, OCEANSIDE, SAN MARCOS, AND VISTA. |

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

| |

| |

|10. |SUBJECT: |LOAN REQUEST AND APPROPRIATIONS FOR PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION ZONE 1016 – EL SERENO WAY IN VISTA AREA |

| | |(DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On August 2, 2006 (16), the Board authorized formation of Permanent Road Division Zone 1016 – El Sereno Way, in the Vista area |

| |(Thomas Guide, Page 1108, C-4). This Zone was formed for the purpose of improving and maintaining roads, and the property owners |

| |have approved borrowing money to fund their work program. Two loan programs available are the Permanent Road Division Internal |

| |Service Fund and the Bank Loan Program. |

| | |

| |Actions requested today include authorization to establish appropriations and transfer loan funds from the Permanent Road Division|

| |Internal Service Fund on behalf of this Zone, and for the Clerk of the Board to execute upon receipt, a Loan Agreement on behalf |

| |of Permanent Road Division Zone 1016 – El Sereno Way. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for this request are not currently budgeted. The funding source will be a combination of private bank and Permanent Road |

| |Division Internal Service Fund loans with a five year term. The loans will be repaid by annual assessments placed on property tax|

| |bills of parcels within the district Zone. If approved, these actions will result in current year cost of $148,000, no annual |

| |costs and no additional staff years. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find that the administrative action recommended is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review in accordance |

| |with 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty there is no possibility it may have a significant effect on the |

| |environment. |

| | |

| |Adopt a resolution entitled Transfer Of Money To San Diego Countywide Permanent Road Division No. 1000, Zone No. 1016 – El Sereno |

| |Way And Schedule For Repayment To County. |

| | |

| |Authorize the Clerk of the Board to execute upon receipt, a Loan Agreement between Security Business Bank of San Diego and the |

| |County of San Diego on behalf of Zone No. 1016 – El Sereno Way of San Diego Countywide Permanent Road Division No. 1000. |

| | |

| |Establish appropriations of $148,000 in Permanent Road Division Zone 1016 – El Sereno Way based on a private bank loan of $118,000|

| |and a loan of $30,000 from Permanent Road Division Internal Service Fund. (4 VOTES) |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Cox, the Board continued this item to October 18, 2006, at the request of |

| |the Chief Administrative Officer, on Consent. |

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

| |

| |

|11. |SUBJECT: |TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS (DISTRICT: ALL ) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

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

| |Fourteen items were on the Committee's July 14, 2006, meeting agenda. This is a request for action on nine items. One item (5-B) |

| |was continued prior to the meeting by staff. Items 5-C and 5-D were continued at the request of the Rancho Santa Fe Association. |

| |Items 5-E and 5-H were removed from the agenda by staff. All nine remaining items are recommended for action, with one item (5-A) |

| |requesting a continuance to the next TAC meeting. |

| |This report also includes Item A requesting adoption of finalized Guidelines for Prohibition of Long-Term Parking of Specified |

| |Vehicles on Designated Residential County Roads. On June 21, 2006 (6) your Board granted a continuance in order to allow community|

| |planning/sponsor groups an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed guidelines. The Valle de Oro, San Dieguito, |

| |Jamul-Dulzura and Spring Valley Community Planning Groups provided comments. All except the Jamul-Dulzura Community Planning Group|

| |expressed support for adoption of the guidelines. Although a motion to support failed at the Jamul-Dulzura Community Planning |

| |Group, there is no indicated opposition. The action to support and finalize the guidelines is consistent with the TAC’s |

| |recommendation. Your Board also requested this matter be forwarded for adoption on September 20, 2006. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

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

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE |

| |Consider and file report including the following recommendations: |

| |All Districts |

| |A. Guidelines for Prohibition of Long-Term Parking of Specified Vehicles on Designated Residential County Roads, COUNTYWIDE-Adopt|

| |the finalized guidelines with the understanding their implementation will be a joint responsibility between the California Highway|

| |Patrol and the Department of Public Works. |

| |District 2 |

| |2-A. Third Street/Old Julian Hwy from SR-78 southerly to a point 2,700 feet east of Keyes Road (a distance of 1.3 miles) |

| |RAMONA-Recertify the existing 45 MPH speed limit for the continued use of radar for speed enforcement. |

| |2-B. Greenfield Drive from the El Cajon City Limit (west of Second Street) westerly to the El Cajon City Limit (east of Mollison |

| |Avenue) (a distance of 0.74 miles) EL CAJON-Recertify the existing 35 MPH speed limit for the continued use of radar for speed |

| |enforcement. |

| |2-C1. Central Avenue, east side, from the south line of Lamar Street southerly 60 feet, SPRING VALLEY-Establish a parking |

| |prohibition. |

| |2-C2. Ninth Street, east side, from the south line of G street southerly 160 feet, RAMONA-Establish a parking prohibition. |

| |2-C3. Sweetwater Road from the Lemon Grove City Limit southerly to the north line of Paradise Valley Road (a distance of 2.6 |

| |miles) SPRING VALLEY-recertify the existing 45 MPH speed limit for the continued use of radar for speed enforcement. |

| |District 5 |

| |5-A. Valley Drive from the Vista City Limit northerly to Sunrise Drive (a distance of 0.5 miles) VISTA-Continue this matter to |

| |the next TAC meeting. |

| |5-B. This item was continued prior to the meeting by staff. |

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

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

| |5-E. This item was removed from the agenda. |

| |5-F. Gopher Canyon Road from Spa Haven Way westerly to East Vista Way (a distance of 1.8 miles) BONSALL-Recertify the existing |

| |45 MPH speed limit for the continued use of radar for speed enforcement. |

| |5-G. Brooke Road from Stage Coach Lane southerly to Winter Haven Road (a distance of 0.72 miles) FALLBROOK-Recertify the existing |

| |45 MPH speed limit for the continued use of radar for speed enforcement. |

| |5-H. This item was removed from the agenda. |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find that the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified under Section 15301 of |

| |the State CEQA Guidelines. |

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

| |Adopt the following Resolutions: |

| |No. 301 (Items 2-C1 and 2-C2). |

|11.1 |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Cox, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent, with the exception of|

| |Item 2-C2, adopting Item 2-C1, Resolution No. 06-182 entitled: RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO THE |

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

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

|11.2 |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Slater-Price, the Board took action as recommended, on Item 2-C2, adopting |

| |Resolution No. 06-183 entitled: RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NO STANDING OR |

| |PARKING ZONES IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, and further directed the Chief Administrative Officer to work with the School District, |

| |Montessori School, Montecito High School, and Planning Group in regard to traffic safety issues and additional safety measures. |

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

| |

| |

|12. |SUBJECT: |SET HEARING FOR 10/18/06 |

| | |TO VACATE TWO PORTIONS OF HIGHLAND VALLEY ROAD, RAMONA (DISTRICT: 2) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |Spirit of Joy Lutheran Church and the Department of Public Works have requested that the Department of General Services initiate |

| |proceedings to vacate two portions of Highland Valley Road in the vicinity of the intersection of Highland Valley Road and Highway|

| |67 in the Ramona area. The area is immediately adjacent to Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 283-021-02, 283-022-02, 283-051-08 and |

| |283-054-03 (Thomas Guide, Page 1172-B2, 3). This vacation will affect three property owners of which Spirit of Joy Lutheran Church|

| |is one. The other two property owners have been notified of this request and have no objections to the action. |

| | |

| |Highland Valley Road was originally dedicated to and accepted by the County of San Diego in 1925. The easterly portion of this |

| |vacation was rededicated for a wider width in 1938. In 1991, a realignment of Road Survey 381 (Road Survey 381-1) superseded Road|

| |Survey 381 in the areas proposed to be vacated. |

| | |

| |The purpose of this vacation is to relinquish the public interest and maintenance responsibilities for the two segments of roadway|

| |which would only serve the adjoining property owners. This is a request to take the necessary action in accordance with Streets & |

| |Highways Code Section 8320, et seq., to set and notice a hearing at which the proposed vacation may be considered. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |There is no expected cost to the County. The applicant is paying the County’s cost to process the requested vacation. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Adopt the resolution entitled Resolution of Intention to Vacate Portions of Highland Valley Road Easement, which sets a public |

| |hearing for October 18, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. on the proposed vacation of portions of Highland Valley Road. |

| |ACTION: |

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

| |No. 06-184 entitled: RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO VACATE TWO PORTIONS OF HIGHLAND VALLEY ROAD EASEMENT and setting Hearing for |

| |October 18, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. |

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

| |

| |

|13. |SUBJECT: |GILLESPIE FIELD -- MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION TO SUPERSEDE |

| | |LEASES FOR NAVIGATION, COMMUNICATION, AND WEATHER AID FACILITIES (DISTRICT: 2) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |Gillespie Field is located just west of Magnolia Avenue and north of Bradley Avenue, about 2.5 miles northwest of downtown El |

| |Cajon. Gillespie Field conducts over 240,000 operations annually and provides facilities for general aviation and corporate |

| |aircraft, aviation businesses, and the Sheriff’s Air Support to Regional Enforcement Agencies facility. |

| | |

| |The Federal Aviation Administration owns and operates several types of aircraft navigational equipment at Gillespie Field and the |

| |surrounding area. This equipment provides radio and visual landing aids to assist pilots in performing safe, precise landings in |

| |various flight conditions. This landing aid equipment is essential for safe operation of the airport, and is currently the |

| |subject of six separate leases. |

| | |

| |To streamline both agencies’ administration of these leases, the Federal Aviation Administration and County Airports propose |

| |replacing the six existing land leases with a single Memorandum of Agreement. This is a request to approve a new Memorandum of |

| |Agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration that covers all current and possible future Gillespie Field sites housing |

| |Federal Aviation Administration navigational equipment. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |The proposed Memorandum of Agreement will not affect Fiscal Year 2006-07 total lease revenue, as the Federal Aviation |

| |Administration does not pay rent for these sites. No additional staff years would be required. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find, in accordance with Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, that the proposed Memorandum|

| |of Agreement is categorically exempt from CEQA review because it involves the continuation of existing uses. |

| | |

| |Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board to execute, upon receipt, four copies of Memorandum of Agreement No. |

| |DTFAWP-06-L-00049 with the Federal Aviation Administration. (4 VOTES) |

| |ACTION: |

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

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

| |

|14. |SUBJECT: |RAMONA AIRPORT – MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH RAMONA AIR CENTER, LLC. (DISTRICT: 2) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |Ramona Airport serves the community of Ramona, as well as surrounding East County communities (Thomas Guide Page 1152 A-C/6-7). |

| |Ramona Airport is home to 214 aircraft. There were over 140,000 flight operations in 2005. |

| | |

| |Ramona Air Center owns land adjacent to Ramona Airport. This land is immediately adjacent to a 62-acre parcel owned by the County|

| |that is part of the Ramona Airport footprint. Due to environmental constraints, the only access from the 62-acre parcel to the |

| |airport runway is through the adjacent parcel owned by Ramona Air Center. |

| | |

| |Ramona Air Center has discussed a possible public private partnership whereby it would develop aviation related facilities on both|

| |parcels. The County would benefit from payment of rent via a standard airport ground lease for use of County owned land, as well |

| |as additional payment for allowing access to the airport from the private parcel. Ramona Air Center would bear the cost for |

| |the required environmental assessment for the conceptual project. |

| | |

| |This is a request to approve Memorandum of Understanding between the County and Ramona Air Center, LLC, to negotiate agreements |

| |for a joint development at Ramona Airport. The proposed agreement provides assurances to Ramona Air Center, LLC that the County |

| |will pursue exclusive negotiations on the needed agreements while the developer is investing in the cost of environmental |

| |assessment. The proposed agreement also provides assurances to Ramona Air Center, LLC that the County will provide technical |

| |assistance in the preparation of an environmental document in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |This request will result in additional revenue to County’s Airport Enterprise Fund. Funding source for additional revenue is a |

| |non-refundable deposit from developer under terms of the Memorandum of Understanding as consideration for providing Ramona Air |

| |Center, LLC the opportunity to enter into the proposed agreements. If approved, this request will result in a current Fiscal Year|

| |revenue increase of $10,000. This request will result in no annual cost and require no additional staff years. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find that the proposed action is not subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because|

| |the approval of the Memorandum of Understanding is not a project within the meaning of Section 1560(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. |

| | |

| | |

| |Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board to execute, upon receipt, three original copies of the proposed Memorandum of |

| |Understanding between the County and Ramona Air Center, LLC. |

| | |

| |Waive competitive procurement requirements of Board Policy F-51, County Real Property Asset Management, to the extent it applies |

| |to the possible leasing or use of County property in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding with Ramona Air Center, LLC. |

| |ACTION: |

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

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

| |

| |

|15. |SUBJECT: |GILLESPIE FIELD – GKN AEROSPACE CHEM-TRONICS, INC. – AMENDMENTS TO TWO INDUSTRIAL LEASES (DISTRICT: 2) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The County of San Diego operates Gillespie Field, a general aviation airport in El Cajon. The airport accommodates various |

| |aviation businesses providing facilities and services to the aviation community and traveling public. The non-aviation portion of|

| |Gillespie Field includes three industrial parks occupied by diverse industrial tenants. |

| | |

| |GKN Aerospace Chem-tronics, Inc. (Chem-tronics), an East County manufacturing business, owns approximately 10 acres south of |

| |County-owned land at Gillespie Field and has four land leases in the Gillespie Field Industrial Park. Two of these leases (over |

| |10 acres combined) are due for periodic rental adjustments. |

| | |

| |This is a request to approve amendments for these two Chem-tronics leases. The proposed amendments will increase rent to fair |

| |market value, modify frequency and method of rental adjustments, revise several lease provisions to incorporate updated standard |

| |lease language, and redefine lease term for one of the leases. Revenues from leases on airport property are placed into County’s |

| |Airport Enterprise Fund, a fund used to improve safety and security at County Airports. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |If approved, this request will result in additional revenue to the Airport Enterprise Fund of $749,134 in the current year. This |

| |amount represents a three-year total rent increase for both leases implemented retroactively to July 1, 2004. Funding source for |

| |additional revenue is rental payments from Lessee under terms of amended lease agreements. Proposed lease amendments will result |

| |in approximately $447,484 in future annual revenue from two leases combined, and 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 lease |

| |amendments are categorically exempt from CEQA review as they involve continuation of existing leases without any change of |

| |existing uses. |

| | |

| |Approve and authorize Clerk of the Board to execute, upon receipt, three copies of First Amendment to Industrial Lease (County |

| |Contract Number 71871R) with Chem-tronics. (4 VOTES) |

| | |

| |Approve and authorize Clerk of the Board to execute, upon receipt, three copies of Third Amendment to Industrial Lease (County |

| |Contract Number 70619R) with Chem-tronics. (4 VOTES) |

| |ACTION: |

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

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

| |

| |

|16. |SUBJECT: |THIRD AMENDMENT TO JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE VALLEY CENTER PARKS AND RECREATION |

| | |DISTRICT FOR RECREATIONAL FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN VALLEY CENTER (DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On December 13, 1994 (79), the Board of Supervisors approved a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the County of San Diego |

| |and the Valley Center Community Services District in the amount of $486,350, for construction of recreational facilities at Cole |

| |Grade Park, Robert Adams Park, Aerie Park, and the Valley Center Community Center and ballfields. These parks are all operated by|

| |the Valley Center Community Services District, which is now known as the Valley Center Parks and Recreation District. |

| | |

| |Subsequently, two amendments to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement totaling $1,190,000 were approved by the Board to |

| |supplement costs for acquisition of park land and construction of additional improvements to the four parks. These amendments |

| |were funded by a combination of Valley Center Park Land Dedication Ordinance funds and Proposition 12 Roberti-Z’berg-Harris grant |

| |funds. |

| | |

| |On May 25, 2006, the Valley Center Community Planning group recommended $500,000 of additional Park Land Dedication Ordinance |

| |funds be added to the agreement to complete improvements at these parks. |

| | |

| |This proposed action will result in approval of the Third Amendment to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement in the amount of |

| |$500,000 to complete improvements to Cole Grade, Robert Adams, and Aerie Parks, and the Valley Center Community Center and |

| |ballfields (Thomas Bros. page 1090, F-1). An additional $7,000 of available Park Land Dedication Ordinance funds will be used for|

| |staff costs to administer the amendment. Once completed, operations and maintenance of the newly constructed facilities will be |

| |the responsibility of the Valley Center Parks and Recreation District. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |The request is to amend an existing agreement to add $500,000 for additional park improvements, for a total cost (original |

| |agreement and all amendments) of $2,176,350. Funds for this request are not budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Operational |

| |Plan. If approved, this request will result in $507,000 current year cost to 1) fund the amendment ($500,000), and 2) provide for|

| |administration costs related to the proposed amendment ($7,000), no annual cost, and will require the addition of no staff years. |

| |The funding source is Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Fund Balance available in the Valley Center Park Land Dedication Ordinance (PLDO) |

| |fund. Once completed, operations and maintenance of the newly constructed facilities will be the responsibility of the Valley |

| |Center Parks and Recreation District. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find in accordance with Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines that the proposed project is |

| |categorically exempt from CEQA as it involves additional improvements to existing facilities. |

| |Establish appropriations of $500,000 in the Valley Center Park Land Dedication Ordinance (PLDO) fund (Contributions to Other |

| |Agencies), to fund an amendment to an agreement for park improvements at four parks in Valley Center, based on Fiscal Year |

| |2005-2006 Fund Balance available in the Valley Center PLDO fund. (4 VOTES) |

| | |

| |Establish appropriations of $7,000 in the Valley Center PLDO fund (Internal Agreements), to provide for administration costs |

| |related to the proposed amendment, based on Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Fund Balance available in the Valley Center PLDO fund. (4 |

| |VOTES) |

| | |

| |Approve the Third Amendment to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Between the County of San Diego and the Valley Center Parks |

| |and Recreation District to add $500,000 for park improvements at Cole Grade, Robert Adams, and Aerie Parks, and Valley Center |

| |Community Center and ballfields. Authorize the Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation to sign the agreement and any |

| |future amendments that do not significantly increase the County’s obligations. |

| |ACTION: |

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

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

| |

| |

|17. |SUBJECT: |APPROVE REPLACEMENT JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE VALLEY |

| | |CENTER-PAUMA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT VALLEY CENTER HIGH SCHOOL (DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On May 4, 1993 (20), the County of San Diego and the Pauma School District, presently known as the Valley Center-Pauma Unified |

| |School District, entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement in the amount of $100,000 for construction of park and |

| |recreation improvements at Pauma School. The Board subsequently approved an amendment to the agreement in the amount of $13,500 |

| |for construction of fencing improvements at the school. The agreement and amendment were funded with Pala/Pauma Valley Park Land |

| |Dedication Ordinance funds. |

| | |

| |The original agreement is now outdated, in part, because it does not reflect the new legal name of the school district and the |

| |facilities for which this additional funding is proposed. The requested action is to approve a replacement agreement which has |

| |been updated to include the new name of the school district. The proposed agreement rescinds the prior agreement and pays for a |

| |portion of the new Performance Arts Center. |

| | |

| |This proposed action will result in approval of a replacement Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement in the amount of $75,000 to fund |

| |a portion of the construction costs of the Performance Arts Center at Valley Center High School (Thomas Bros. page 1070, F-1). |

| |Funding for the proposed agreement is provided by Park Land Dedication Ordinance funds consisting of $50,000 from the Valley |

| |Center Local Park Planning Area and $25,000 from the Pala/Pauma Valley Local Park Planning Area. An additional $2,000 of |

| |available Park Land Dedication Ordinance funds will be used for staff costs to administer the agreement. Once completed, |

| |operations and maintenance of the newly constructed facility will be the responsibility of the Valley Center-Pauma Unified School |

| |District. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for this request are not budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Operational Plan. If approved, this request will result in |

| |$77,000 current year cost to 1) fund the agreement ($75,000), and 2) provide for administration costs related to the proposed |

| |agreement ($2,000), no annual cost, and will require the addition of no staff years. The funding sources are Valley Center Park |

| |Land Dedication Ordinance (PLDO) funds ($50,000 for agreement), and Pala/Pauma Valley PLDO funds ($25,000 for agreement and $2,000|

| |for contract administration). Upon completion, operations and maintenance of the newly constructed facility will be the |

| |responsibility of the Valley Center-Pauma Unified School District. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find in accordance with Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines that the proposed project is |

| |categorically exempt from CEQA as it involves additional improvements to an existing facility. |

| | |

| |Establish appropriations of $50,000 in the Valley Center Park Land Dedication Ordinance (PLDO) fund (Contributions to Other |

| |Agencies), to fund an agreement for park improvements to Valley Center High School, based on Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Fund Balance |

| |available in the Valley Center PLDO fund. (4 VOTES) |

| | |

| |Establish appropriations of $25,000 in the Pala/Pauma Valley PLDO fund (Contributions to Other Agencies), to fund an agreement for|

| |park improvements at Valley Center High School, based on Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Fund Balance available in the Pala/Pauma Valley |

| |PLDO fund. (4 VOTES) |

| | |

| |Establish appropriations of $2,000 in the Pala/Pauma Valley PLDO fund (Internal Agreements), to provide for administration costs |

| |related to the proposed agreement, based on Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Fund Balance available in the Pala/Pauma Valley PLDO fund. (4 |

| |VOTES) |

| | |

| |Approve the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement in the amount of $75,000 Between the County of San Diego and the Valley |

| |Center-Pauma Unified School District to fund a portion of the construction costs for the new Performance Arts Center at Valley |

| |Center High School, and authorize the Director of Parks and Recreation to sign the agreement, and any future amendments that do |

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

| |ACTION: |

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

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

| |

| |

|18. |SUBJECT: |SAN DIEGUITO RIVER VALLEY REGIONAL OPEN SPACE PARK JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY - APPROVAL OF PROPERTIES FOR |

| | |FUNDING APPLICATION OR ACQUISITION (DISTRICTS: 2, 3, 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |Board of Supervisors Policy I-120, San Dieguito Joint Powers Authority – Acquisition and Disposal of Real Property Within the |

| |Unincorporated Area of the County, was implemented |

| | |

| |to outline procedures for the Joint Powers Authority to obtain Board of Supervisors' approval prior to pursuing land acquisitions |

| |in the unincorporated area, through grant funds or other means, and land disposals. |

| |  |

| |On July 12, 2005, the Joint Powers Authority submitted a list of properties proposed for funding application or acquisition in the|

| |unincorporated area in Fiscal Year 2005-2006 to the Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation. This list was approved by|

| |the Board on September 21, 2005 (11) and included the addition of no new properties. |

| | |

| |On May 24, 2006, the Joint Powers Authority submitted its list of properties proposed for funding application or acquisition in |

| |the unincorporated area to the Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 for review and |

| |approval by the Board of Supervisors. The updated list adds no new potential acquisitions. The Board’s previous approval of |

| |these parcels authorized the Joint Powers Authority to pursue acquisition of the properties, expanding the San Dieguito River |

| |Valley Regional Open Space Park, and increasing the public's enjoyment of this open space area. The requested action is to |

| |approve the Joint Powers Authority’s list of properties for Fiscal Year 2006-2007. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

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

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Approve the parcels listed in the letter dated May 24, 2006, (Attachment A), which are proposed for funding application or |

| |acquisition by the San Dieguito River Valley Regional Open Space Park Joint Powers Authority. |

| |ACTION: |

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

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

| |

| |

|19. |SUBJECT: |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| | |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT NO. 5387-1, LOCATED IN NORTH COUNTY BONSALL COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA: APPROVAL |

| | |OF FINAL MAP AND SECURED JOINT AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS (DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |This project is a subdivision consisting of one future condominium lot with a maximum of 12 dwelling units, and a total of 1.734 |

| |acres. It is located in the Bonsall area, southeasterly of Camino Del Cielo and northeasterly of Via Casitas (Thomas Guide, Page |

| |1048, B-7, 2005 Edition). |

| | |

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

| |improvements. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |N/A |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Approve this map. |

| |Accept access rights from Lot 1 in and to Camino Del Cielo except at access opening No. 1, all as relinquished and waived on said |

| |map. |

| |Accept the Noise Protection Easement as granted on said map. |

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

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

| |(Attachment B) |

| |ACTION: |

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

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

| |

| |

|20. |SUBJECT: |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| | |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT NO. 5320-1, LOCATED IN NORTH COUNTY METROPOLITAN SUBREGIONAL PLAN: APPROVAL OF |

| | |FINAL MAP AND SECURED AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS (DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |This project is a subdivision consisting of 6 single-family residential lots, and a total of 7.20 acres. It is located in the |

| |Vista area, on the north side of Huntalas Lane and approximately 700 feet east of Starhaven Lane. (Thomas Guide, Page 1088, D-6, |

| |2005 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. |

| | |

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

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

| |ACTION: |

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

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

| |

| |

|21. |SUBJECT: |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| | |SECOND CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE: TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS (DISTRICT: |

| | |ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On August 2, 2006 (7), the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended introducing Ordinance for further consideration and |

| |adoption on September 20, 2006. |

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

| |Twenty-three items were on the Committee's June 2, 2006, meeting agenda. The Committee recommends your action on 19 items, as four|

| |items were continued prior to the meeting. Items 2-D and 2-E were continued by staff. Items 5-E and 5-F were continued at the |

| |request of the Rancho Santa Fe Association. All 19 remaining items are recommended for action, with one item (A) requesting a |

| |continuance for the proposed Guidelines for Prohibition of Long-Term Parking of Recreational Vehicles on Certain County Roadways |

| |to the next TAC meeting. Community input and involvement is essential for the guidelines’ to be effective, therefore a continuance|

| |will allow community planning/sponsor groups an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed guidelines. This matter is |

| |scheduled to be finalized |

| |by the Board on September 20, 2006. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Adopt Ordinance entitled: |

| |AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 72.162.38. 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 Cox, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent, adopting Ordinance |

| |No. 9798 (N.S.) entitled: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 72.162.38. OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS |

| |IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. |

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

| |

|22. |SUBJECT: |CLOSED SESSION (DISTRICTS: ALL) |

| | |(CARRYOVER FROM 09/19/06, AGENDA ITEM NO. 26) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION |

| |(Subdivision (a) of Government Code section 54956.9) |

| |County of San Diego v. Crystal Lakeside, et al.; San Diego County Superior Court No. GIC 843645-1 |

| |B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION |

| |(Subdivision (a) of Government Code section 54956.9) |

| |United States v. 127.60 Acres of Land, et al.; United States District Court, Southern District, No. 06-CV-1670-W (NLS) |

| |C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of |

| |Government Code section 54956.9: (Number of Potential Cases – 1) |

| |D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION |

| |(Subdivision (a) of Government Code section 54956.9) |

| |Bertha Washington v. County of San Diego; United States District Court, Southern District, No. 02-CV-0143 LAB (JMA) |

| |E. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION |

| |Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Government Code section 54956.9: (Number of Potential Cases – |

| |1) |

| |F. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS |

| |(Government Code section 54957.6) Designated Representatives: Carlos Arauz and Susan Brazeau Employee Organizations: All |

| |G. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION |

| |(Government Code section 54957) Title: Chief Administrative Officer |

| |ACTION: |

| |In closed session following the public agenda on Tuesday, September 19, 2006, the Board of Supervisors took the following |

| |reportable action: |

| |Item 22A: County of San Diego v. Crystal Lakeside, an eminent domain action, by vote of all 5 members of the Board of Supervisors|

| |present and voting “Aye,” authorized settlement of this action by payment of $107,093 plus statutory interest and costs, subject |

| |to the right of Crystal Lakeside to appeal from a separate ruling of the Superior Court regarding their claimed right to recover |

| |greater severance damages. |

| |

| |

|23. |SUBJECT: |PRESENTATIONS/AWARDS |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |Chairman Bill Horn and Vice Chairman Ron Roberts presented a proclamation declaring Friday, September 22, 2006, Friar Friday |

| |throughout the County of San Diego. |

There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 12:03 p.m. in memory of Gordon Luce, Pearl

Lawrence, John Futrell and Lance Vollmer.

THOMAS J. PASTUSZKA

Clerk of the Board of Supervisors

County of San Diego, State of California

Consent: Kellogg

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