A development that VC residents thought the Board of Supervisors had killed last summer is returning this Monday night.
VC Planning Group (VCCPG) Chairman Oliver Smith has scheduled an extra meeting Aug. 24 to review the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for VC’s sector of the County’s General Plan Update.
But before that review there will be a report by county’s Dept. of Planning & Land Use Chief-Advanced Planning Devon Muto and the revival of the controversial Accretive development—nicknamed “Hornsville” by opponents—may turn what would ordinarily be a bland porridge into a red hot chili of the habañero variety.
The EIR, developed over the past 12 years of the long-running bureaucratic extravaganza originally known as “GP2020” (until it appeared possible that the work could extend past year 2020—so now it’s called the General Plan Update), must be certified by the Board of Supervisors before the new General Plan is adopted.
VC’s EIR review is spearheaded by planner Rich Rudolf and his VCCPG subcommittee, which will present recommendations to the full planning group at the Aug. 24 meeting, 7 p.m. at VC Community Hall.
“The public may also attend the final subcommittee meeting at 6 p.m. on Aug. 20 in the VC Library,” said Rudolf. “What’s important about the EIR is that it will tell you everything you ever wanted to know— and more—about Valley Center today, and in the distant future.”
Despite the long-term impact on the community, review of environmental documents would likely draw a “crowd” of four or five attendees, armed with sharp pencils, lined yellow pads and never having to fight for a seat in the Community Hall.
This time it may be different. On July 31, Muto asked Chairman Smith for three minutes’ time “and if you want to allow for some questions and feedback, then we can plan for 10–15 minutes total” to discuss DPLU’s “West Village Concept.”
Muto is proposing a “study area” covering the acreage—and more— owned and optioned by Accretive Investments, east of I-15 and south of West Lilac Road.
The locale was a hot topic in Valley Center last year, with the Accretive proposal for 3,000 homes popularly known as “Hornsville,” based on Supervisor Bill Horn’s support.
As background, on Aug. 2, 2006 Horn inserted a proposal for a Specific Plan Area (SPA) in the vicinity of Accretive's land holdings during discussions by the Supervisors on the General Plan. While Accretive was not named, Horn’s phrase was “willing property owners” and DPLU held talks for over two years solely with Accretive and admitted, in an e-mail last summer, that they had no plans to contact others.
The planning group was excluded during the two years’ talks but, on discovery, held several high-energy meetings objecting to the unvetted SPA, culminating in a day-long hearing at the Board of Supervisors on July 23, 2008.
The discussed, but not actually adopted SPA, was then de-listed by the board with its vote to “Remove the Road 3A SPA from the General Plan Update discussion completely, as it will proceed, if at all, on a separate track as a separate GPA [General Plan Amendment].”
Accretive started its new process toward a GPA June 12, 2009 with its consultant James Greco stating, “No design work has been undertaken at this time … it is the intent of the applicant to develop a concept plan …”
Following Accretive's meeting June 25 at DPLU with Muto and other County planning staff, Muto wrote Oliver Smith, “DPLU will be providing input on Accretive's proposal so that they have a complete application. This should not be interpreted that we support the proposal. We are charged with assisting applicants in meeting our requirements...”
Muto continued, “I know the General Plan Update subcommittee has been discussing some decreases in density for the north and south villages so this proposal has some relevance in that context.”
Accretive has claimed that it could decrease future traffic in central Valley Center by moving population to its “Sustainable Community" on the west side, despite the challenges of sewer limitations, which were reported earlier in The Roadrunner in an interview with VC Water District Gen. Man. Gary Arant.
Rudolf’s response to Accretive’s claim is, “The focus of the subcommittee has been to gain cooperation from the two main developers in the North Village to reduce density, and finding other places in both central villages where densities could be reduced. The committee believes that the County’s population targets are (a) arbitrary, and that (b) County-wide, are not binding on each planning area.”
Rudolf continued, “Accordingly, the removal of sufficient ‘proposed future population’ to improve traffic standards on the few minor road segments that would be considered ‘near-failing’ or ‘failing’ in future (level-of-service E or F) can be achieved, consistent with the County’s overall population growth, without any re-distribution within the Valley Center Community Planning Area.”
In 1998 the Board of Supervisors certified a proposed future VC population of 33,000. But, as Muto stated Aug. 15: “In 2003 [DPLU] staff returned to the BOS [Board of Supervisors] with a working map and received endorsement from the BOS on the direction that map was taking. That map contained 38,300 in [future] population for Valley Center.”
Therein lies the conflict between local planners and the County. Note that DPLU received endorsement on “the direction” the map was taking. The board has not yet voted on the final GP Update map.
While the initial purpose of the Aug. 24 meeting is to thrash out details of the GP Update's EIR, that document will not be impacted by the proposed study area, Muto e-mailed: “A study area does not place density, it merely identifies an area for further study. Therefore, there is no additional environmental impact.”
Local planners are expected to challenge that assessment.
Muto continued, in his e-mail, “Environmental analysis would be conducted pursuant to CEQA [California Environmental Quality Act] once a development proposal for the land is brought forward.”
On July 31 VC planning chairman Smith wrote Muto, “ ... have you considered a study area looking at the full western edge of Valley Center instead of the more limited area currently being discussed ... to truly evaluate the possibilities, potentials and pitfalls of a western village concept?”
West-siders, in particular, are likely to crowd VC Community Hall Monday night, to hear the “the possibilities, potentials and pitfalls of a western village concept.”
(See also page 2 for Patsy Fritz's column, “Godzilla Returns.”)
The last time that the land owners in the Southern Village tried to put together a sewer assessment district in partnership with the Valley Center Municipal Water District (VCMWD), not enough people were willing to join with them to make it a viable project.
The amount per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) was too high. The fewer people who participate, the higher the cost per connection.
Now the developers, who include the Bell Alti properties, propose to apply to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) in order to fund the Woods Valley Ranch Water Reclamation Facility Phase II expansion.
The water board Monday voted to go forward with conceptual approval for such an application.
If the expansion is built it would allow Village Redevelopment LLC to build a Major Market and other commercial developments on land bordering Woods Valley Golf Club.
Because SRF funding comes with a very low interest rate, often as low as 3%, the proponents feel that they will get enough people interested in joining them to be able to fund a 350 EDU project.
It would be the responsibility of the developer to
• Design the expansion facility
• Acquire a seasonal storage site of about 4 acres
• Fund the water district soliciting additional participation in the project
• Fund the formation of an assessment district
The project would start out as a developer project, but once the loan is secured, would transition into a water district project.
The last time the district, at the behest of the Bel-Alti developers, solicited property owners who might be interested in the project, owners of 160 acres were interested, but only 80 were willing to go forward.
If the favorable interest rates generate more interest, as the Village Redevelopment people hope, the next step would be to form an assessment district.
The SRF loan would be paid back from annual assessments to the members of that district.
If the state reacts favorably to the request, it could fund all or part of the ultimate expense of the expansion of the plant.
The purpose of the SRF is to remove as many people from septic systems as possible, in order to promote water quality.
So the more people on septic systems can be removed from those systems, the more “points” will be awarded on the application, said VCMWD Gen. Mgr. Gary Arant.
The SRF process can take one to two years. There will be an initial look at the application and the district will get some indication whether the state will look favorably at the project.
Engineer Don Bunts, a private civil engineer hired by the proponents, is putting together the application to SRF.
Although the SRF has received some federal stimulus funds, they are all spoken for. So the money the group is applying for would be state money.
Water board Pres. Gary Broomell sounded skeptical that the state has the money.
However Bunts assured him that the SRF is funded by loans being paid back by borrowers.
Steve Flynn, who represents the Bell properties, added that he had been told that the project would only be eligible for stimulus funds if a previously approved project fell out of the process.
Bunts estimates that the low interest rate for such a loan could make the possible cost per EDU 60–70% less than it was when presented last year.
“A lot of people were scared away,” said Flynn. “We only had sixteen people representing eighty EDUs who showed up. We think if the interest rate was three percent we would have a decent chance of getting the other one hundred and fifty nine EDUs committed that we need.”
The Valley Center-Pauma Unified School District will be making do with $3 million less than it was counting on just three months ago.
As of last Thursday night’s board meeting, the revenues the school district will get from the state will be $22.3 million, Supt. Lou Obermeyer reported.
That compares to this time last year when the district had $28.6 million in state revenues.
So goes the process of living with the California budget process.
And more cuts are possible.
“These are still the soft numbers,” Dr. Obermeyer commented. “The County Office of Education is still analyzing the state budget. So this could change.”
Probably not for the better.
That works out to each student in the district being cut $395 for the year. Of that $250 is a one-time cut, while $145 will be permanent.
With federal revenues (including $2 million in stimulus funds that the district got this year and which it expects to get next year) thrown in the district will have revenues of $35.9 million, but with expenditures of $36.9 million.
That means it will be forced to dip into the Declining Enrollment reserve of $3.2 million and the 3% Economic Uncertainty reserve of $1.8 million.
“This gives us the money to make it this year and two years out,” Dr. Obermeyer told her board on Thursday.
To meet the declining revenues, this year’s budget includes seven fewer staff members, increases in K–3 classroom sizes to one teacher per 23 or more students, with five staff positions being cut each of the next two years.
“We know that we will have to make some adjustments and most likely have larger classes,” she said.
“We will continue to spend reserves and making cuts further out. We will continue to look at ways to do differently and cut so that we can continue to decrease expenses.”
Dr. Obermeyer added, “This is not something that the school districts have done to themselves. It is happening in California and nationwide. This is not something that our district had happen to us because we weren’t watching what was going on.”
She noted that while education is 40% of the state budget, that 48% of the cuts in the budget were to education. “That is why districts are having such drastic cuts,” she said.
Dr. Obermeyer has been meeting with the various schools’ principals to discuss ways to economize.
“Our principals are very aware of what’s happening and on board to do things that are not going to cost money. We do have reserves. We will make it through the year. It’s not good news for our district or for any district.”
School board Pres. Don Martin observed wryly, “I guess I’m supposed to say thank you for that report!” but he did thank her for “keeping us on an even keel financially.”
Last week a 240 foot tower crane went up over the construction site of Valley View Casino’s hotel project.
Working with Swinerton Builders, the contractor for the hotel construction project, the casino has erected the crane that will be used to fly formwork for concrete and the exterior skin of what will be a 12-story building—the casino’s four star hotel that is scheduled to open in mid-2011.
“We are elated at this completion of the next step of our hotel project,” said Joe Navarro, president and CEO of the San Pasqual Casino Development Group, Inc., the casino’s development arm. “Now every day we are truly raising the excitement for the construction of what will be Southern California’s finest casino hotel.”
The 240 foot crane has a 262 foot radius. It took three days to construct the crane
It took 22 different trucks to bring the pieces of the crane to the casino for construction.
The crane will remain in place through the completion of the exterior of the casino, through next summer.
Designed by JMA Architecture Studios, the hotel will feature 161 suites, including 16–1,000 square foot luxury suites and one 2,000 square foot penthouse suite; a 5,000 square foot spa; 3,500 square foot fitness center; infinity edge pool with cabana service; a new lobby bar and lounge; gift shop; event center and a new Asian concept restaurant.
The hotel will serve as an adult playground for the 21-and-up set with its adults-only policy.
The California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is scheduled to rule Sept. 11 on the San Diego Gas & Electric Co.’s (SDG&E) controversial Emergency Power Shut-Off (EPSO) plan—which is due to be implemented beginning Sept. 1.
At the same time about 2,300 Valley Center customers (i.e. meters) in the Lilac and Old Castle Road areas will probably be removed from EPSO around Sept. 1, according to Stephanie Donovan, spokesman for the power company.
This is a result of work SDG&E has been doing for several months along Lilac and Old Castle roads, including installing steel power poles and undergrounding some power lines.
However, that still leaves the great majority of VC in the shut-off area.
Recently the administrative law judge and the PUC commissioner who had jointly been holding hearings on the proposal each issued rulings that will be forwarded to the PUC before it issues its ruling. Both decisions were issued on Aug. 11.
Commissioner Timothy Alan Simon’s proposed decision was on the order of “Yes,” but with conditions.
Administrative Law Judge Timothy Kenney’s proposed decision was more like a definitive: “No.”
On Monday the Valley Center Municipal Water District (VCMWD) one of several water districts suing to prevent EPSO from happening, formally took a position opposing the plan, and forwarded its vote to the PUC.
Previously the County had voted to oppose the plan, but on Monday state regulators allowed the County to join the water districts’ lawsuit.
However, thousands of residences will potentially remain subject to their electricity being shut off when humidity is low, winds are high, and the area is subject to a Red Flag alert. SDG&E claims that this type of event will only happen once or twice a year, and only affect a few thousand people at a time.
Simon’s decision would grant SDG&E’s application, with conditions, some of which are:
• SDG&E provides notice and communicates with Cal Fire and the San Diego County Office of Emergency Services 12 hours before shutting off power. If either of them object, it can’t shut the power off.
• Instead of giving customers six hours notice of a shut-off, it would have to give a minimum of 12 hours.
• The pilot ESCO project would only remain in effect until Dec. 31, 2009, and be reevaluated after that time.
• The commission would form an oversight committee with representatives from SDG&E and various emergency, police, water and other interested groups to evaluate the effectiveness of the program in preventing wildfires. It would also try to address concerns of school districts and water districts regarding ESCO.
• Shut-offs would be limited to 24 hours.
Kinney’s decision, on the other hand, is shorter. It “denies, without prejudice, [SDG&E’s] application to shut off power to certain areas when hazardous fire conditions are present. SDG&E has not met its burden to demonstrate that the benefits of shutting off power outweigh the significant costs, burdens, and risks that would be imposed on customers and communities in the areas where power is shut off.”
* * *
To find out if your house is located within San Diego Gas & Electric’s Emergency Power Shut-Off Area (EPSO) follow this link and type in your address:
www.sdge.com/safety/fireprep/fireMapIntro.shtml
It’s just another day in the pot fields for Narcotics Task Force (NTF) agent Steve Reed.
And that’s certainly a big pile of marijuana sitting on the asphalt in the parking lot of the Sheriff’s substation! Maybe a thousand pounds or more. It is part of a haul of perhaps 15,000 plants, worth about $21 million, or four big truckloads that Reed and about ten other agents ripped out late last week.
As I look at it the pile is wilting, just hours after being cut off from its water supply. Pot is a very water intensive plant, I’m told, requiring seven gallons a week per plant. It starts to dry out almost immediately in this weather.
I had been invited to come take a picture of the stuff, which, when allowed to grow this big, stands about nine feet tall and looks like some version of bamboo. It certainly doesn’t look like the stylized representations of the pot plant that you see occasionally on the cover of magazines such as High Times.
It’s a hot, humid day as I stand next to that pile. I note, for the sake of science, that I’m not getting the famous “contact high” from the pile. I guess it has to be burning.
However, one of the Sheriff’s senior volunteers in one of his crisp white uniforms smiles at me as he observes, “You wouldn’t pass a drug test now unless you changed your clothes.”
Yeah, and I probably shouldn’t try to pet one of those drug sniffing dogs, either.
NTF agent Reed looks like one of the people that he occasionally arrests. He’s, unshaven, unshorn, dirty and dusty from a day of messing up the crop—and presumably the week—of absentee farmers who operate hidden pot farms on the sides of Palomar Mountain.
They try to hide the plants, but Reed’s 22 years in the business has given him an eagle eye for ferreting out the stuff. He can fly over an expanse of land and tell from the color and texture of the plants below that he’s looking at marijuana.
He’s like a veteran fisherman, who just knows, from the ripples in the water, that the big bass is down there. “It’s kind of an instinct, I guess,” he says. “I see green real well.”
It’s far easier in the summer to identify the plants from the air because they are greener from being watered, while the plants around them are drying out.
So, if you think that growing pot on the slopes of Palomar Mountain in the Cleveland National Forest is a victimless crime, consider this: the pot farmers have to tap some private person’s water supply. A farm of this many plants takes about 105,000 gallons a week. At the current cost of water that’s $338 per week.
And to the people who live on the mountain, that’s a dagger aimed at their watershed.
The Valley Roadrunner
P.O.B. 1529, Valley Center, CA 92082
Tel. 760.749.1112 Fax 760.749.1688
Website: www.valleycenter.com
Email: editor@valleycenter.com
Copyright © 2009, Palomar Community Newspapers, dba Valley Roadrunner. All rights reserved. This content may not be archived, retransmitted, saved in a database, or used for any commercial purpose without the express written permission of the Valley Roadrunner.