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, FEBRUARY 7, 2007, 9:00 AM

Board of Supervisors North Chamber

1600 Pacific Highway, Room 310, San Diego, California

MORNING SESSION: Meeting was called to order at 9:07 a.m.

PRESENT: Supervisors Ron Roberts, Chairman; Greg Cox, Vice-Chairman, Dianne Jacob;

Pam Slater-Price; Bill Horn; also Thomas J. Pastuszka, Clerk.

A. Time Certain:

|Time |Item |Subject |

| | | |

|09:30 am |5. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| | |HARMONY GROVE VILLAGE: GPA 07-001; SP 04-003; R04-010; VTM 5365RPL2; S05-004; P04-012,|

| | |P04-013, P04-014, POD 06-007, GPA 04-004; NORTH COUNTY METROPOLITAN SUBREGIONAL PLAN |

| | |AREA |

| | | |

Public Communication: [No Speakers]

Board of Supervisors’ Agenda Items

|1. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| |ISSUANCE OF TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS BY THE CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ON BEHALF OF SADI, LLC FOR THE |

| |SPRINGBROOK GROVE APARTMENTS |

|2. |AUTHORIZE THE PREPARATION OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COUNTY CEDAR/KETTNER PROPERTY |

|3. |SAN PASQUAL ACADEMY VISIONARY PLAN: APPROVED MAJOR USE PERMIT MODIFICATION AND APPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS-NEGATIVE DECLARATION|

| | |

|4. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| |AMENDMENTS TO THE PARK LANDS DEDICATION ORDINANCE |

|5. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| |HARMONY GROVE VILLAGE: GPA 07-001; SP 04-003; R04-010; VTM 5365RPL2; S05-004; P04-012, P04-013, P04-014, POD 06-007, GPA 04-004; |

| |NORTH COUNTY METROPOLITAN SUBREGIONAL PLAN AREA |

| |(Time Certain: 9:30 a.m.) |

|6. |URGE THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION TO IMMEDIATELY ADOPT NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS |

|7. |HARMONY GROVE VILLAGE: ADOPT RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO FORM A SEWER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT |

|8. |TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS |

|9. |NORTH COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY DEED MODIFICATION |

|10. |CONSULTANT AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND INSPECTION SERVICES ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS |

|11. |CONSULTANT AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS |

| |(4 VOTES) |

|12. |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT NO. 4979-1: APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP AND SECURED AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED IN |

| |RAMONA COMMUNITY PLAN AREA |

|13. |ALlocation of District Two Community Project Funds |

| |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): FY 06-07 DISTRICT TWO COMMUNITY PROJECTS] |

|14. |AUTHORIZE UPGRADE OF LAKESIDE INTERCEPTOR SEWER USING RYAN COMPANIES US, INC. |

| |(RELATES TO LAKESIDE SANITATION DISTRICT AGENDA NO. 1) |

|15. |CLOSED SESSION |

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

| | |ISSUANCE OF TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS BY THE CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ON BEHALF|

| | |OF SADI, LLC FOR THE SPRINGBROOK GROVE APARTMENTS (DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The County has received a request from the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (the “Authority”) to conduct a public |

| |hearing as required by the Internal Revenue Code in order to issue tax-exempt revenue bonds (the “Bonds”) in an aggregate amount not to |

| |exceed $14 million on behalf of SADI, LLC (the “Borrower”). The Borrower will use the proceeds of the Bonds for the acquisition, |

| |construction, and development of a multifamily rental housing facility, commonly known as Springbrook Grove Apartments, located at 435 |

| |Alturas Road, Fallbrook in the unincorporated section of the County of San Diego (the “Project”). |

| | |

| |The Authority is a California joint exercise of powers authority, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, |

| |specifically the California Government Code Section 6500. Under the California Government Code, cities and counties are authorized to form|

| |by agreement a governmental entity that combines the powers of such entities to perform certain governmental functions specifically |

| |outlined in the Agreement. With respect to the Authority, over 460 California cities, counties and special districts have entered into and|

| |executed the Agreement to become a member of the Authority. The Authority is authorized to assist in the financing of multi-family housing |

| |projects. |

| | |

| |In order for the Authority to issue such Bonds, the County must (1) conduct a public hearing allowing members of the public to comment on |

| |the proposed Project, and (2) approve of the Authority’s issuance of Bonds. Although the Authority (not the County) will be the issuer of |

| |the tax-exempt revenue bonds for the Project, the financing cannot proceed without the County, as the governmental entity having |

| |jurisdiction over the site, approving the Authority’s issuance of indebtedness. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |If approved, this proposal will result in $1,000 of revenue to be used to fund the County’s Investor Relation Program as approved by the |

| |Board of Supervisors in the County’s Debt Management Policy (B-65). No additional staff years will be required. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND DEBT ADVISORY COMMITTEE |

| |Pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, hold a public hearing regarding the financing of the project. |

| | |

| |Adopt the resolution approving the Authority’s issuance of not to exceed $14,000,000 of tax-exempt obligations on behalf of SADI, LLC for |

| |the Springbrook Grove Apartments. |

| |ACTION: |

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

| |adopting Resolution No. 07-018, entitled: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS BY THE CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT |

| |AUTHORITY RELATING TO THE FINANCING OF THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE SPRINGBROOK GROVE APARTMENTS. |

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

| | |

| | | |

|2. |SUBJECT: |AUTHORIZE THE PREPARATION OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COUNTY CEDAR/KETTNER PROPERTY |

| | |(DISTRICT: 4) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The County of San Diego owns a 52,500-square-foot site bounded by Beech, Cedar, and Kettner Streets, and the Metropolitan Transit System |

| |railroad right-of-way. The site is two blocks from the County Administration Center and near the center of the Little Italy community. |

| |This site has in the past been identified for a number of potential uses including residential, retail, office, hotel, and parking uses. |

| | |

| |County staff has received recent inquiries from local development companies regarding the possible private development of this property. |

| |Development of this site provides the County the opportunity to maximize revenue by including residential and other mixed uses, as well as |

| |providing County employee parking and paid public parking to serve the local community. |

| | |

| |This action today requests the Board to authorize the preparation of a Request for Proposals for the County-owned Cedar/Kettner property |

| |that will maximize revenue for the County, provide as many as 750 parking spaces for County use, and possibly include other office, retail,|

| |or residential development. Including parking for County use at Cedar/Kettner as part of the Request for Proposals process is consistent |

| |with the County Administration Center Waterfront Park project’s Master Plan, approved in concept by the Board on June 18, 2002 (18). The |

| |Master Plan requires the provision of parking to support the Waterfront Park and administrative functions at the County Administration |

| |Center. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for consultant services and staff time needed to prepare the RFP are not budgeted, but will be paid for out of Community Services |

| |Group Management Reserves. If approved, this action will result in one-time current year costs of approximately $36,200 for the initial |

| |consultant services and staff time to prepare the RFP for issuance. No additional staff years are required for this request. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find, in accordance with Section 15262 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA), that the preparation of a |

| |Request for Proposals is exempt from CEQA in that it consists solely of planning and feasibility studies for possible future actions which |

| |currently have not been funded, do not have a legally binding effect on later activities and will not have a significant impact on the |

| |environment. |

| | |

| |Authorize the Director, Department of General Services to prepare a Request for Proposals for development of the Cedar/Kettner property to |

| |maximize revenue to the County, provide up to 750 parking spaces for County use, and for the potential inclusion of other office, retail, |

| |and residential uses. |

| | |

| |Transfer appropriations of $36,200 within the Community Services Group Office from Management Reserves for payments to Facilities |

| |Management ISF for service costs to prepare the Cedar/Kettner property Request for Proposal. |

| |ACTION: |

| |Requesting the Chief Administrative Officer to report to the Board on the appraised value and the highest and best use of the property as |

| |well as use of a long-term lease rather than as sale or exchange, ON MOTION of Supervisor Cox, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took|

| |action as recommended, on Consent. |

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

| | |

| | | |

|3. |SUBJECT: |SAN PASQUAL ACADEMY VISIONARY PLAN: APPROVED MAJOR USE PERMIT MODIFICATION AND APPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL |

| | |FINDINGS-NEGATIVE DECLARATION (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The San Pasqual Academy is an innovative, first-in-the-nation residential and educational campus designed to enhance the system of care for|

| |teen-age foster youth in San Diego County. After purchasing the San Pasqual Academy site in mid-2000, the County completely renovated the |

| |school and core campus residential facilities, and upgraded the roads and infrastructure and opened the campus to students in October 2001.|

| |In January 2003, the Department of Planning and Land Use approved modifications to the existing Major Use Permit, which allowed additional |

| |remodels and replacements. |

| | |

| |In late 2004, the County’s Health and Human Services Agency prepared a Visionary Plan for the Academy. That Plan recommended the |

| |development of new, regulation ball fields and a sports complex requiring environmental review. October 26, 2004 (1), the Board of |

| |Supervisors received the plan and directed staff to prepare appropriate environmental documents and return to the Board with the Visionary |

| |Plan when environmental review was completed. This action implements that directive. It also approves the San Pasqual Academy Visionary |

| |Plan as the guide for future development and build-out at the Academy. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |There are no fiscal impacts associated with these recommendations. |

| |BUSINESS IMPACT: |

| |Expenditures resulting from this action may create private sector jobs and economic opportunities in San Diego County. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find that the Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final Subsequent Negative Declaration dated|

| |October 2, 2006, on file with the Department of Planning and Land Use under Permit # P-74-006W3 and determined under California |

| |Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15162 through 15164 that no further environmental review is necessary for this action.|

| |(Attachment A) |

| | |

| |Approve the San Pasqual Academy Visionary Plan as a guide for future development and improvements for build-out at the San Pasqual Academy.|

| |(Attachment B) |

| |ACTION: |

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

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

| | |

| | |

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

| | |AMENDMENTS TO THE PARK LANDS DEDICATION ORDINANCE (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |In 1973, the Board of Supervisors adopted the Park Lands Dedication Ordinance authorizing the collection of fees from applicants for new |

| |residential development for the acquisition and development of active park facilities. Currently, the fees range from $400 per dwelling |

| |unit in the far eastern portion of the County to $1,000 per dwelling unit in the unincorporated community of San Dieguito. The fee in the |

| |remainder of the County is $800 per dwelling unit. All fees collected are used to acquire and/or develop community park facilities in the |

| |community in which the fees are collected. |

| | |

| |The fees in effect today were adopted in 1986. Since that time the cost to acquire and develop park and recreation facilities has |

| |increased significantly. The existing fee rates are not adequate to meet the standard of three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents |

| |established in the Park Lands Dedication Ordinance and the growing demand for park and recreation facilities. In order to provide adequate|

| |park facilities to meet the needs of the growing population of the unincorporated area it is necessary to adjust the fees to reflect |

| |current land values and construction costs. The proposed action would result in the adoption of new fee rates ranging from $2,684 per |

| |dwelling unit to $6,974 per dwelling unit. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |The proposed higher fees are not reflected in the Fiscal Year 2006-2008 Operational Plan. Adoption of the proposed ordinance amendments |

| |will result in the collection of increased park fees from applicants for residential development projects. Based on anticipated |

| |development activity, once the proposed fee adjustments are fully implemented, they will result in approximately $6.7 million annually in |

| |fee revenue for the 24 Local Park Planning Areas (LPPA) combined, an increase of approximately $5.5 million over the average annual amount |

| |received over the last three years. If approved, these additional fees will be used to acquire or construct park facilities in the LPPA in|

| |which the fees are collected. If fees are used to fund new park facilities, this action could potentially result in additional operations |

| |and maintenance costs for the completed projects. However, the fees can also be used for expansion and improvement of existing park |

| |facilities and these uses may not result in additional costs for operations and maintenance. Any additional costs related to operations |

| |and maintenance of completed projects would be addressed at the time of specific project approval. There are no additional staff years |

| |required by this action to adopt the ordinance revision. |

| |BUSINESS IMPACT: |

| |The proposed action will result in an increase in the amount of fees paid by applicants for new residential development. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find that proposed action is exempt from requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as specified in Section 15273(a) |

| |of the CEQA Guidelines. Approve the finding in Attachment A pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15273(c). |

| | |

| |Approve the Ordinance: |

| | |

| |“AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8, DIVISION 10, CHAPTER 1 OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES RELATING TO PARK LANDS |

| |DEDICATION OR PAYMENT OF IN LIEU FEES” |

| | |

| |3. Direct that the operative date of the above Ordinance be April 20, 2007. |

| |ACTION: |

| |Noting for the record that an Errata sheet for Attachment C has been submitted, ON MOTION of Supervisor Cox, seconded by Supervisor |

| |Slater-Price, the Board closed the Hearing and took action as recommended including the changes from the Errata sheet, adopting Ordinance |

| |No.9828 (N.S.) entitled: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8, DIVISION 10, CHAPTER 1 OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES |

| |RELATING TO PARK LANDS DEDICATION OR PAYMENT OF IN LIEU FEES with an operative date of April 20, 2007 |

| | |

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

| |NOES: Jacob |

| | |

| | | |

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

| | |HARMONY GROVE VILLAGE: GPA 07-001; SP 04-003; R04-010; VTM 5365RPL2; S05-004; P04-012, P04-013, P04-014, POD |

| | |06-007, GPA 04-004; NORTH COUNTY METROPOLITAN SUBREGIONAL PLAN AREA (DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |This is the first proposal to amend the County General Plan for the year 2007. The project site is located north and south of the |

| |intersection of Country Club Drive and Harmony Grove Road in the community west of Escondido known as Harmony Grove. It is comprised of |

| |approximately 468 acres and proposes the development of a new mixed-use rural village. The project includes changes to the Regional Land |

| |Use Element, the North County Metropolitan Subregional Plan, the Circulation Element and the Public Facilities Element. Other actions |

| |proposed to be taken concurrently include adoption of a Specific Plan that includes 742 residential units and two acres of commercial uses;|

| |a Rezone that is consistent with the provisions of the Specific Plan; a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and associated Site Plan; three |

| |Major Use Permits intended to implement and regulate the residential development area, the Wastewater Reclamation Facility and the |

| |Equestrian Ranch; and an amendment to the Resource Protection Ordinance to provide an |

| |exemption for project impacts to wetlands. For a more detailed description of these changes, please refer to the “Land Use Analysis” |

| |located at Attachment G of this report. [Thomas Guide Page: 1129, C5] |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |N/A |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |PLANNING COMMISSION |

| |1. Adopt the Resolution approving GPA 07-001, which makes the appropriate findings and includes those requirements and conditions necessary|

| |to ensure that the project is implemented in a manner consistent with State law and the County General Plan. |

| | |

| |2. Adopt the Form of Ordinance: |

| | |

| |AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE NORTH COUNTY METROPOLITAN SUBREGIONAL PLAN AREA |

| | |

| |3. Adopt the Resolution approving the Harmony Grove Village Specific Plan SP 04-003, which makes the appropriate findings and includes |

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

| |General Plan. |

| | |

| |4. Adopt the Resolution approving TM5365RPL2, which makes the appropriate findings and includes those requirements and conditions necessary|

| |to ensure that the project is implemented in a manner consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance and State law. |

| | |

| |5. Approve Site Plan S05-004 in accordance with Section 81.1206 of the County Subdivision Ordinance for the reasons included in the staff |

| |report. |

| | |

| |6. Grant Major Use Permits P04-012, P04-013 and P04-014 which make the appropriate findings and includes those requirements and conditions |

| |necessary to ensure that the project is implemented in a manner consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and State law. |

| | |

| |7. Adopt the attached Form of Ordinance entitled: |

| | |

| |AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND CODIFYING THE RESOURCE PROTECTION ORDINANCE |

| | |

| |DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE |

| |1. The Department concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation. |

| | |

| |2. Approve the Master Reclamation Plan for the Wastewater Reclamation Facility for the Harmony Grove Sewer Maintenance District. |

| |ACTION: |

| |Noting for the record that an Errata sheet has been submitted as part of Attachment B of the Board Letter, ON MOTION of Supervisor Horn, |

| |seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board closed the Hearing, took action as recommended including the changes from the Errata sheet, and |

| |finding that the 30-35 mile an hour road standard would severely harm the community, incorporated the following changes to TM5365RPL2 |

| |conditions: |

| |2.c. & 3.x. |

| |Where infeasible or inappropriate to meet the 40-mph design speed as specified in the Public Road Standards for a Rural Light Collector, |

| |the applicant may submit a design exception to consider a design speed of 35 mph or less to the satisfaction of the Director of Public |

| |Works. to the Director of Public Works a design exception that is in substantial conformance with the |

| |“Safety Enhancement Alternative” exhibit submitted to the Board of Supervisors February 7, 2007. |

| |15.c. |

| |With the First Final Map, dedicate, on-site and cause to be granted off site by separate document or on the Final Map, County Club Drive |

| |(SC1375), within and along the project frontage north of Village Drive, in accordance with Public Road Standards for a Rural Light |

| |Collector to a right-of-way width of sixty feet (60’) or appropriate right-of-way identified in the “Safety Enhancement Alternative” |

| |submitted to the Board of Supervisors on February 7, 2007, together with right to construct and maintain slopes and drainage facilities to |

| |the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. |

| |16.c. |

| |With the First Final Map, cause to be granted off-site Country Club Drive (SC-1375) from the northerly project boundary at existing Country|

| |Club Drive to Kuana Loa Drive, in accordance with Public Road Standards for a Rural Light Collector to a right-of-way width of sixty feet |

| |(60’) or appropriate right-of-way identified in the “Safety Enhancement Alternative” submitted to the Board of Supervisors on February 7, |

| |2007, together with right to construct and maintain slopes and drainage facilities to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. |

| |and adopted the following Resolutions and Ordinances entitled: |

| |Resolution No. 07-019 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 07-001; |

| |Resolution No. 07-020 entitled: RESOLUTION OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN SP 04-003 HARMONY GROVE |

| |VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN; |

| |Resolution No. 07-021 entitled: RESOLUTION OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONDITIONALLY APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE MAP NO. |

| |5365RPL2; |

| |Ordinance No. 9828 (N.S.) entitled: AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE NORTH COUNTY METROPOLITAN |

| |SUBREGIONAL PLAN AREA; |

| |Ordinance No. 9829 (N.S.) entitled: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND CODIFYING THE RESOURCE PROTECTION ORDINANCE; |

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

| | |

| | |

|6. |SUBJECT: |URGE THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION TO IMMEDIATELY ADOPT NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD |

| | |RECOMMENDATIONS (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The County of San Diego owns and operates eight airports that provide commercial, business, and emergency service support to the region. |

| |Last year San Diego County supported over 1.3 million aircraft operations. However, all air traffic is under the sole authority and |

| |control of the Federal Aviation Administration. |

| | |

| |In February 2006, a fatal mid-air collision between two Cessna aircraft 3 miles south of Gillespie Field occurred. The pilots of both |

| |aircraft as well as one student pilot were killed. The investigation into this collision and other recent collisions have prompted the |

| |National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to request that the FAA adopt safety recommendations regarding upgrades to conflict alert |

| |systems within control towers at airports. |

| | |

| |Today’s action will direct the Chief Administrative Officer to draft a letter from the Board of Supervisors for the Chairman’s signature to|

| |support the safety recommendations outlined in the report by the National Transportation Safety Board and to urge the Federal Aviation |

| |Administration to immediately adopt them. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

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

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |SUPERVISOR JACOB |

| |Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to draft a letter from the Board of Supervisors, and signed by the Chairman, to support the safety |

| |recommendations outlined in the report by the National Transportation Safety Board and to urge the Federal Aviation Administration to |

| |immediately adopt them. |

| |ACTION: |

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

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

| | |

| | |

|7. |SUBJECT: |HARMONY GROVE VILLAGE: ADOPT RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO FORM A SEWER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT (DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |New Urban West Inc. (Developer) is in the process of developing Harmony Grove Village, a 468-acre rural community development in Harmony |

| |Grove west of the City of Escondido, where Harmony Grove Road meets Country Club Drive (Thomas Guide Page 1129-C6). |

| | |

| |Sewer Maintenance District |

| |Wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal for Harmony Grove Village will be provided by the proposed Sewer Maintenance District in |

| |accordance with Streets and Highways Code Sections 5820-5856. Developer has submitted a Master Reclamation Plan for the treatment facility |

| |and the Director of Public Works has reviewed for technical feasibility. The collection |

| | |

| |system and treatment facility will be constructed by Developer, but future operations and maintenance will be the responsibility of |

| |proposed Sewer Maintenance District. |

| | |

| |This is a request to initiate proceedings to establish the Harmony Grove Sewer Maintenance District, and to schedule a required public |

| |hearing for April 25, 2007. Approval of the Master Reclamation Plan is included in a Tentative Map Approval item for the Harmony Grove |

| |Village project on today’s agenda. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |County staff and consultant costs for forming the Sewer Maintenance District will be approximately $10,000. This cost will be funded by |

| |Developer Deposits. If the sewer maintenance district forms on April 25, 2007, staff will return to your Board with a proposed rate |

| |structures based on estimated Operational Plan for the District. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared which considers the sewer impacts of this project and will be acted upon as part of a |

| |consideration of the project on today’s agenda. |

| | |

| |Adopt a resolution entitled Resolution of Intention to Establish the Harmony Grove Sewer Maintenance District, which sets April 25, 2007, |

| |as the date of the required public hearing. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Horn, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, setting Hearing for April 25, 2007 at |

| |9:00 a.m., and adopting Resolution No. |

| |07-022 entitled: RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ESTABLISH THE HARMONY GROVE SEWER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT. |

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

| | |

|8. |SUBJECT: |TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS (DISTRICT: 1, 2 & 5 ) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The Traffic Advisory Committee meets every six weeks to review proposed changes or additions to regulatory traffic controls. Twenty-four |

| |items were on the Committee's |

| |December 8, 2006, meeting agenda. The Committee recommends your action on all 24 items, with two items (5-F and 5-H) requesting |

| |continuances to a future Traffic Advisory Committee meeting. |

| |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: |

| |District 1 |

| |1-A. Briarwood Road, west side, from the north line of Sweetwater Road northerly 450 feet, BONITA-Establish a parking prohibition. |

| |1-B1. Corral Canyon Road, between the Chula Vista City Limit and Central Avenue (a distance of 1.2 miles), BONITA-Recertify the existing |

| |35 MPH speed limit for the continued use of radar for speed enforcement. |

| |District 2 |

| |2-A. Parkside Street, both sides, from the west line of Maine Avenue westerly 150 feet, LAKESIDE-Establish two-hour time limit parking |

| |every day from 8 am to 6 pm. |

| |2-B. El Capitan Real Road from Broad Oaks Road southerly to Robledo Real Road, (a distance of 1.14 miles) BLOSSOM VALLEY-Raise the existing|

| |40 MPH speed limit to 45 MPH. Recommend the Board of Supervisors direct the proposed 45 MPH speed limit be certified for the use of radar |

| |for speed enforcement. |

| |2-C. Valle Vista Road, from Lakeside Avenue northerly to Vista Camino (a distance of 0.77 miles), LAKESIDE-Recertify the existing 40 MPH |

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

| |2-D. Tavern Road from Arnold Way northerly to Victoria Park Terrace (a distance of 0.6 miles), ALPINE-Establish a 35 MPH speed limit. |

| |Recommend the Board of Supervisors direct the proposed 35 MPH speed limit be certified for the use of radar for speed enforcement. |

| |2-E. Thing Road, north side, from a point 150 feet east of State Route 188 easterly 300 feet from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through |

| |Friday and south side, from a point 150 feet east of State Route 188 easterly 300 feet, TECATE-Establish parking prohibitions. |

| |2-F1. Kenwood Drive, both sides, from the south line of Kenora Drive southwesterly to a point 250 feet west of Helix Street, SPRING |

| |VALLEY-Establish a parking prohibition. |

| |2-F2. Lemon Crest Drive, south side, from a point 690 feet east of the east line of Prospect Avenue easterly 350 feet, LAKESIDE-Establish |

| |a parking prohibition. |

| |2-F3. Central Avenue, east side, from the south line of Lamar Street southerly 40 feet, SPRING VALLEY-Delete an existing parking |

| |prohibition. |

| | |

| |2-F4. Buckman Springs Road (north/south) and Buckman Springs Road (west leg), CAMERON CORNERS-Delete an existing stop control resolution. |

| |2-F5. Arena Drive, west side, from a point 30 feet south of the south line of Couna Way northerly 50 feet, RAMONA-Establish a parking |

| |prohibition. |

| |District 5 |

| |5-A. Mac Tan Road and Fruitvale Road, VALLEY CENTER-Do not establish an all-way stop control. |

| |5-B. Circle R Drive and West Lilac Road, VALLEY CENTER-Establish a yield control, instead of a stop control, for westbound traffic on West|

| |Lilac Road approaching Circle R Drive. |

| |5-C. Summit Avenue and Elder Street, FALLBROOK-Do not establish an all-way stop control. |

| |5-D. Wisconsin Avenue and Fallbrook Street, FALLBROOK-Establish a stop control. |

| |5-E. Bear Valley Parkway, from the Escondido City Limit northerly to State Route 78 (a distance of 0.73 miles), ESCONDIDO-Recertify the |

| |existing 50 MPH speed limit for the continued use of radar for speed enforcement. |

| |5-F. Felicita Road, from Via Rancho Parkway northerly to the Escondido City Limit (a distance of 1.16 miles), ESCONDIDO-Continue the radar|

| |recertification along this roadway to a future TAC meeting to allow Mr. Wilson, a concerned citizen, an opportunity to comment and present |

| |documented evidence of a higher than normal pedestrian presence along this roadway. |

| |5-G. Gum Tree Lane, from Stage Coach Lane easterly to Hamilton Lane (a distance of 0.76 miles), FALLBROOK-Recertify the existing 35 MPH |

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

| |5-H. Lago Lindo, from Avenida de Acacias northeasterly to El Montevideo, (a distance of 0.8 miles), RANCHO SANTA FE-Continue the radar |

| |recertification along this roadway to a future TAC meeting to determine the appropriate speed limit posting on Lago Lindo in its entirety, |

| |from Via de la Cumbre to El Camino del Norte. |

| |5-I1. Alvarado Street, from Stage Coach Lane easterly to Lie Oak Park Road (a distance of 1.27 miles), FALLBROOK-Recertify the existing 35|

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

| |5-I2. Via Cuatro Caminos, from Del Dios Highway southerly to the End (a distance of 0.68 miles), RANCHO SANTA FE-Recertify the existing 35|

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

| |5-I3. Winter Haven Road, north side, from Clearcrest Lane westerly 40 feet, FALLBROOK-Establish a parking prohibition. |

| | |

| |5-I4. El Apajo, south side, from a point 90 feet west of San Dieguito Road westerly 290 feet, FAIRBANKS RANCH-Amend an existing parking |

| |prohibition-tow away zone to 8 am to 9 am and 2 pm to 3 pm. |

| |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, amend and/or delete the following Resolutions: |

| |No. 301 (Items 1-A, 2-E, 2-F1, 2-F2, 2-F3, 2-F5, and 5-I3 ) |

| |No. 304 (Items 2-F4 and 5-D) |

| |No. 306 (Item 5-B) |

| |No. 667 (Item 5-I4) |

| |Approve the introduction, read title and waive further reading of the following Ordinances (Items 2-A, 2-B, and 2-D). |

| |AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 72.148.5. TO THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO |

| |AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 72.169.57.4. OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO |

| |AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 72.169.88.1. TO THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO |

| |Submit for further Board consideration and adoption (second reading), on |

| |February 28, 2007. |

|8.1 |ACTION: |

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

| |5-C, introducing Ordinances for further consideration and adoption on February 28, 2007, and adopting the following Resolutions entitled: |

| |Item 1-A, Resolution No. 07-023 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 3031, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO THE |

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

| | |

| | |

| |Item 2-E, Resolution No. 07-024 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 3032, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO THE |

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

| |Item 2-E, Resolution No. 07-025 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 3033, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO THE |

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

| |Item 2-F1, Resolution No. 07-026 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 3034, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO THE |

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

| |Item 2-F2, Resolution No. 07-027 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 3035, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO THE |

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

| |Item 2-F3, Resolution No. 07-028 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 3036, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO THE |

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

| |Item 2-F5, Resolution No. 07-029 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 3037, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO THE |

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

| |Item 5-I3, Resolution No. 07-030 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 3038, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 301 RELATING TO THE |

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

| |Item 2-F4, Resolution No. 07-031 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 3039, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 304 RELATING TO THE |

| |ESTABLISHMENT OF STOP INTERSECTIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; |

| |Item 5-D, Resolution No. 07-032 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 3040, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 304 RELATING TO THE |

| |ESTABLISHMENT OF STOP INTERSECTIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; |

| |Item 5-B, Resolution No. 07-033 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 3041, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 306 RELATING TO THE |

| |ESTABLISHMENT OF YIELD RIGHT-OF-WAY INTERSECTIONS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; and |

| |Item 5-I4, Resolution No. 07-034 entitled: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 3042, RESOLUTION AMENDING TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 667 RELATING TO THE |

| |ESTABLISHMENT OF NO PARKING-TOW AWAY ZONES IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO |

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

|8.2 |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Cox, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board continued Item 5-C to May 16, 2007 at the request of the Chief |

| |Administrative Officer, on Consent. |

| | |

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

| | |

| | |

|9. |SUBJECT: |NORTH COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY DEED MODIFICATION (DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The North County Resource Recovery Facility was a component of the County’s 1997 sale of solid waste assets to Allied Waste Industries. |

| |The facility is located on a site adjacent to the closed San Marcos Landfill in the City of San Marcos (Thomas Bros 1128-D7). To control |

| |land use compatibility between the facility and the landfill, the County imposed a “Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions” |

| |on the 15 acres of the facility site that restricts use of the property to only solid waste related uses. The Declaration of Covenants, |

| |Conditions and Restrictions can only be modified by action of your Board. |

| |In Fiscal Year 2003-04, Allied Waste Industries processed a general plan amendment, zoning change, specific plan amendment and a |

| |Conditional Use Permit from the City of San Marcos in order to sell the property to a film production studio company, but that transaction |

| |did not close escrow. In 2005 Allied Waste Industries sold the property to Questhaven Pacific View, LLC and La Paz Sunset, Inc., subject |

| |to the County restrictions and with the City of San Marcos approvals in place. In 2006 a third partner, Loma Marcos, LLC, acquired a 72% |

| |controlling interest. The property is now owned by a group of companies, collectively referred to as Loma Marcos. |

| |Loma Marcos plans to utilize the property and buildings as a film production studio. The Department of Public Works manages the San Marcos|

| |Landfill; its staff, along with County Counsel, reviewed the proposed use and have determined that it is an acceptable use at this |

| |location. Development of this property would benefit the County and the City of San Marcos through enhancements in land use and employment|

| |benefits from the development of the site, which will begin within 6 months of this approval. |

| |This is a proposal to modify the deed restriction to permit the specific uses proposed by Loma Marcos for the property. Loma Marcos is |

| |aware of the ongoing impacts and operations associated with recent installation of the permanent closure cover system and landscaping, and |

| |ongoing maintenance of the San Marcos Landfill. Approval of the specific deed restriction modifications will allow the proposed use of the|

| |property to proceed. |

| |Department of Public Works and County Counsel have prepared the proposed modification to the deed restrictions with indemnification |

| |provisions from Loma Marcos to minimize risk to the County of consenting to the modifications. The County will retain both the deed |

| |restrictions for |

| |any different future uses, and its existing perpetual easement for access to the property for regulatory compliance purposes. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |If approved, these actions will result in no current year costs, no annual costs and no additional staff years. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find, in accordance with section 15096 of the State CEQA Guidelines, that the County of San Diego, as a responsible agency under CEQA, has |

| |considered the environmental effects of the project as shown in the mitigated negative declaration prepared by the City of San Marcos, |

| |dated February 11, 2003, and has reached its own conclusions on whether and how to approve the project. Find that there are no changes in |

| |the project or in the circumstances under which it is undertaken which involve significant new environmental impacts which were not |

| |considered in the previously adopted mitigated negative declaration, or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified |

| |significant effects, and that no new information of substantial importance has become available since the negative declaration was |

| |prepared. |

| | |

| |Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to execute, for recording with the San Diego County Clerk, a First Amendment to the Declaration of |

| |Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the San Marcos North County Resource Recovery Facility property in the form approved by County |

| |Counsel, and signed by the property owners. The First Amendment will be executed and recorded upon confirmation of Loma Marcos reaching an|

| |agreement on payment of mitigation fees to the City of San Marcos, as required under the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit approval.|

| |ACTION: |

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

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

| | |

| | |

|10. |SUBJECT: |CONSULTANT AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND INSPECTION SERVICES ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS|

| | |(DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The Department of Public Works has a need for consultant services on an immediate and temporary basis for construction contract |

| |administration and inspection services for various capital improvement projects. Use of consultants will be necessary to complete the |

| |construction phase of projects in a timely manner. |

| | |

| |In accordance with Board Policy F-40 (Procuring Architectural, Engineering and Related Professional Services), staff conducted countywide |

| |solicitations for the required construction engineering services. Following review of Statement of Qualifications from respondent firms |

| |and interviews with the more qualified applicants, Mendoza & Associates from San Diego was selected to perform required services for the |

| |Capital Improvement projects. |

| | |

| | |

| |This is a request to approve an agreement with Mendoza & Associates to provide as-needed construction contract administration and |

| |inspection services for fees not to exceed $500,000 for countywide capital improvement projects, with a term ending June 30, 2010. Mendoza |

| |& Associates will provide specialized construction contract management of airport related projects and independent stormwater quality |

| |assurance monitoring on various Capital Improvement projects. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funding for this request is included in the Fiscal Year 2006-07 and 2007-08 Department of Public Works Detailed Work Program. The contract|

| |will be funded by TransNet, Airport Enterprise Fund, Sanitation Districts Funds, Flood Control District Funds and Road Fund. If approved, |

| |this request will result in Fiscal Year 2006-07 cost of approximately $100,000, Fiscal Year 2007-08 cost of approximately $400,000, no |

| |annual cost, and will require no additional staff years. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find that the proposed action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified under Section 15060(c)(3) of |

| |the State CEQA Guidelines because it is not a project as defined by Section 15378 of the Guidelines. |

| | |

| |Find that the services can be provided more economically and efficiently by the proposed independent contractors than by persons employed |

| |permanently in the Classified Service. |

| | |

| |Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board to execute, upon receipt, three originals of agreement with Mendoza & Associates to provide |

| |construction inspection and contract administration services on an as-needed basis for Countywide Capital Improvement Projects with |

| |compensation not to exceed $500,000. Agreement will terminate June 30, 2010, or when funds are exhausted or services are no longer |

| |required, whichever shall occur first, with option to extend termination dates by written mutual agreement if original funding remains |

| |available. |

| | |

| |Designate the Director, Department of Public Works, as County Officer responsible for administering the agreement. |

| |ACTION: |

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

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

| | |

| | |

|11. |SUBJECT: |CONSULTANT AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The Department of Planning and Land Use has a need for consultant services on an immediate and temporary basis for environmental planning |

| |work. Use of this consultant will enhance the Department’s ability to complete the processing of discretionary land use applications in a |

| |timely manner. |

| | |

| |In accordance with Board Policy F-40 (Procuring Architectural, Engineering and Related Professional Services), Department of Public Works |

| |staff conducted a countywide solicitation for the required environmental services. Following review of Statement of Qualifications from |

| |respondent firms and interviews with all qualified applicants, Project Design Consultants from San Diego was selected as one of the most |

| |qualified to perform required services for Regulatory Planning Division projects. |

| | |

| |This is a request to approve an agreement with Project Design Consultants to provide as-needed environmental services for fees not to |

| |exceed $500,000 for Regulatory Planning projects, with a term ending June 30, 2012. Project Design Consultants will provide as needed |

| |assistance to staff for the processing of discretionary land use permits and environmental planning work. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for this request are not included in the FY 2006-08 Department of Planning and Land Use Operational Plan. If approved, this request |

| |will result in $40,000 in Fiscal Year 2006-07 and $115,000 annually over the next four years for a total cost of $500,000 and requires the |

| |addition of 0.0 staff years. All costs for this request are funded by unanticipated revenue from fees for services provided to property |

| |owners. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find that the proposed action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act as specified under Section 15060 (c) (3) of the |

| |State CEQA Guidelines because it is not a project as defined by Section 15378 of the Guidelines. |

| | |

| |Find that the services can be provided more economically and efficiently by the proposed independent contractors than by persons employed |

| |in the Classified Service. |

| | |

| |Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board to execute three originals, upon receipt, of an Agreement with Project Design Consultants to |

| |provide environmental services on an as-needed basis with compensation not to exceed $500,000. Agreement will terminate June 30, 2012, or |

| |when funds are exhausted or services are no longer required, whichever shall occur first, with option to extend termination dates by |

| |written mutual agreement if original funding remains available. |

| | |

| | |

| |Designate the Director, Department of Planning and Land Use, as County Officer responsible for administering the agreements. |

| | |

| |Establish appropriations of $40,000 in the Department of Planning and Land Use for an as needed contract for discretionary permit |

| |processing based on unanticipated revenue from fees for services provided to property owners. (4 VOTES) |

| |ACTION: |

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

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

| | |

| | |

|12. |SUBJECT: |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| | |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT NO. 4979-1: APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP AND SECURED AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE |

| | |IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED IN RAMONA COMMUNITY PLAN AREA (DISTRICT: 2) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |This project is a subdivision consisting of 9 residential lots for a total of 72.87 acres. It is located in Ramona, on the south side of |

| |Bandy Canyon Road east of Ysabel Creek Road (Thomas Guide, Page 1151-C2). |

| | |

| |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. |

| | |

| |Reject on behalf of the Public the access rights from Lots 1 and 7 in and to Bandy Canyon Road (SA 600) as relinquished and waived on said |

| |map except at Access Opening No. 1. |

| | |

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

| |and monumentation (Attachment B). |

| | |

| |Approve and authorize Clerk of the Board to execute Lien Contract (Attachment C) and Holding Agreement No. 1082-0283-00 (Attachment D). |

| | |

| | |

| |Upon approval of the above documents by the Board, and execution by the Clerk of the Board, the documents shall be forwarded to the County |

| |Recorder for recordation of the Lien Contract (Attachment C), Holding Agreement (Attachment D), and Grant Deed |

| |(Attachment E). |

| | |

| |Authorize the Chairperson to execute the Lien Contract Certification on Sheet 1 of the map, and authorize the Clerk of the Board of |

| |Supervisors to acknowledge this signature on Sheet 1 of the map. |

| |ACTION: |

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

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

| | |

| | |

|13. |SUBJECT: |Allocation of District Two Community Project Funds (district: 2) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |Several organizations in East County have demonstrated a need for improvements to their community and/or recreational facilities, and have |

| |shown that they are prepared to work together with other jurisdictions and community members to provide these opportunities. This action |

| |will provide funds to several organizations to improve community and/or recreational facilities in East County. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |The fiscal impact of these recommendations is $120,945. The funding source is FY 06-07 District Two Community Projects. This action will |

| |result in the addition of no new staff years and no future costs. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |SUPERVISOR JACOB |

| |Allocate $40,000 from the District Two Community Project Fund to the Eastern San Diego County Junior Fair to purchase new aluminum |

| |bleachers. |

| |Find that the allocation to the Olaf Wieghorst Museum and Western Heritage Center is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections |

| |15301 and 15304. |

| |Allocate $75,000 from the District Two Community Project Fund to the Olaf Wieghorst Museum and Western Heritage Center to complete an |

| |extensive underground drainage and irrigation system and purchase slump block and wrought iron fencing to be used at the museum located in |

| |El Cajon. |

| |Allocate $5,945 from the District Two Community Project Fund to Fletcher Hills Little League to assist with the purchase of two new |

| |scoreboards. |

| |Authorize the Chief Financial Officer to execute a grant agreement with the organizations listed above establishing terms for receipt of|

| |the funds described above. |

| |Find that these grant awards have a public purpose. |

| |ACTION: |

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

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

| | |

| | |

|14. |SUBJECT: |AUTHORIZE UPGRADE OF LAKESIDE INTERCEPTOR SEWER USING RYAN COMPANIES US, INC. (DISTRICT: 2) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The Lakeside Sanitation District (District) owns a 27-inch diameter trunk sewer situated in an east/west alignment on the Edgemoor property|

| |south of the San Diego River (Thomas Guide Page 1231-C6). The District operates and maintains this pipeline and is responsible for its |

| |rehabilitation and maintenance costs. The property is within the area where Ryan Companies US, Inc. (Ryan) is developing the Santee |

| |Mixed-Use Development as described in the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with the County of San Diego. This agreement is |

| |managed by the Department of General Services. |

| | |

| |On January 15, 2007, a five-foot portion of the sewer line was damaged during the grading operations adjacent to the Santee Mixed-Use |

| |Development Site. Lakeside Sanitation District staff inspected the pipe immediately after receiving report of the damage. Ryan accepted |

| |responsibility for the damage and has agreed to repair the five-foot broken portion of the line. The damaged section has been temporarily |

| |secured against overflow, is being protected from public access and poses no immediate hazard to the environment. |

| | |

| |After reviewing a new videotape of the damaged sewer pipe at the office park site, numerous cracks due to age and material fatigue, |

| |unrelated to the grading damage, were found within a 900-foot section of the reinforced fiberglass pipeline. While there were no leaks |

| |present, there is a risk that, if left in this condition, sewage in the pipeline could leak into the adjacent soil and groundwater. This |

| |pipe, which was installed in 1975, was scheduled for upgrade within the next three to four years as part of the Districts’ 10-year Capital |

| |Improvement Project Plan. However, based upon the condition of the pipe, it is recommended that the 900-foot section within the office park|

| |site be replaced now. This work will include the five-foot section damaged by Ryan. |

| | |

| |Ryan’s development project provides opportunity to replace approximately 900-feet of the sewer pipe concurrently with the repairs. If |

| |Ryan’s contractor does the work now, the District will gain economy of scale and avoid future costs of realigning and replacing this |

| |segment of pipe, avoid significantly higher future costs associated with initiating an independent project, and avoid disruptions to the |

| |residential and commercials segments of the development. Time being of essence, it would be to the District’s advantage to have Ryan’s |

| |contractor, who is currently mobilized at the site and fully qualified, to complete the Districts’ sewer line replacement project |

| |concurrently with the development project work. |

| | |

| |The fastest approach to repair/replace the sewer line is to contract with Ryan through the Department of General Services to engage its |

| |contractor to design and construct the sewer line. The absence of any major facilities on the site at this time makes design and |

| |construction of the project relatively simple. It is estimated that the design and construction of the sewer line could be completed within|

| |three months. Funds are available in the Lakeside Sanitation District Reserves. |

| | |

| |This is a request to establish appropriations of $1,100,000 from Lakeside Sanitation District Reserves available to the project and |

| |authorize the Director, Department of General Services to amend the contract to include engineering, design and construction work to be |

| |completed by Ryan for the sewer line upgrade of Lakeside Interceptor Sewer. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |This request establishes appropriations in the amount of $1,100,000 based on fund balance available in the Lakeside Sanitation District. |

| |If approved, this request will result in $1,100,000 current year cost, no annual cost, and will require no additional staff years. There |

| |will be no fiscal impact to the County General Fund |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Acting as the Board of Supervisors: |

| |Approve and authorize the Director, Department of General Services, to execute an amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement |

| |(DDA), upon receipt, with Ryan Companies US, Inc., for the replacement of the sewer trunk line. |

| | |

| |(Relates to Lakeside Sanitation District Agenda No. 1) |

| |ACTION: |

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

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

| | | |

| | | |

|15. |SUBJECT: |CLOSED SESSION (district: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

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

| |Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code section 54956.9: (Number of Cases – 1) |

| |ACTION: |

| |County Counsel reported that by the vote of four members of the Board of Supervisors present and voting “Aye” with District 1 absent, the |

| |Board of Supervisors authorized the commencement of the lawsuit, the particular of which will be made available upon inquiry after the |

| |action has actually been commenced. |

| | | |

There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 12:14 p.m. in memory of

Russell Franklin Wilson, Dr. Leon J. Thal, Raymond Peters, and Dr. Merl Ledford Jr.

THOMAS J. PASTUSZKA

Clerk of the Board of Supervisors

County of San Diego, State of California

Consent: Santos

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.

-----------------------

REVISION 1

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download