By DAVID ROSS
When the merchants of the so-called “southern node” of the VC Country Town heard that the County proposed shifting the emphasis on growth to the northern node at their expense, they moved quickly.
According to Bill Lewis, the Del Mar architect who drafted the southern merchants’ counter proposal, “They heard about it in the middle of May. Six weeks later we had a plan.”
As presented at last week’s planning group, it calls for tree-lined roads, landscaped berms that will hide parking lots, walking and riding trails, and a lake in the middle of what is now Konyn Dairy.
The concept is for a walkable, self-contained village. Not a village that connects the two parts of the Country Town, but a self-contained unit.
“We want to make this a little town,” says Lewis. “It’s not a little town right now. Problem is you’ve got strip zoning which says that everyone has to have frontage.”
The way to solve that, he says, is to add commercial zoning to the back lot and allow for a small service road perhaps four blocks long. While expanding the commercial zone somewhat, he says, it would “more help them to be better merchants than an actual expansion.”
This, says Lewis, will “create a village center out of nothing.” Because it will be bounded by hills on all sides, it won’t be a village that runs on forever.
Lewis’s plan is to create a village where everything is within 15 minutes walking time of its epicenter, which is at the corner of Mirar De Valle & Valley Center Road.
They picked this epicenter, he says, because Mirar De Valle on County maps has the potential to connect to I-15, five miles away. That would give the village another road outlet, and hopefully diminish traffic on Valley Center Road, he says.
That road, says Lewis, “is key; and man, does that have to be done right.”
He envisions a double row of trees on either side.
“You can put parking lots behind the trees. It doesn’t matter because what you’ll see is trees. It makes a statement: Valley Center should be a place where you have trees!”
The four lanes of road would be narrowed and walking trails added on either side to “calm traffic.”
The proposed lake would be about ten acres. It would be next to a park. “It’s got to be big enough to be noticed,” says Lewis, because it will become a centerpiece for “the village.”
The lake would be in the flood plain created by Moosa Creek, and which can’t be built on in any case. According to Lewis, Moosa Creek defines this “Central Valley” by the path it takes and where its presence caused the growth of trees.
The lake would serve another purpose, as the storage pond for the group’s proposed additional sewer storage capacity, which they hope will be part of Woods Valley Ranch’s sewer treatment plant being built now, and which the Bell Alti property directly across the street from the dairy would use, as would the property owners on Charlan.
According to VC Municipal Water District Engineer Patric Jewell, any use of Woods Valley’s treatment capacity beyond that envisioned for the development would require an expansion of the plant. The Bell Alti investors have made a deposit to fund a further study, he said.
But if the lake becomes a reality, “all of a sudden we’ve picked up a feature of the valley that’s natural. People will never forget what they see in Valley Center,” says Lewis.
The major problem he says he is encountering is people saying, “Valley Center could never be that good. It’s hard to do because everybody at the County wants to do it ordinary and standard.”
When he hears people express this sentiment, Lewis responds. “You may be right if we don’t try it!”
The County’s motivation, he says, is different from the business owners’ motivation. “Their methods and what they are rewarded for is different.”
“We can do what we really want to do. We need to think beyond the box. If we let the County do this, we can’t. If you say to the County. You gotta have a plan that spells it out clearly and watch them when they execute it, otherwise they’ll mess it up.
“The fun of it for me is finding the unique features of the place and making something out of it,” he says.
Side benefits of the creation of the southern “village,” he says, are that it will increase property values in the area.
People on Charlan road, already next to a golf course, will see their prospects improve even more.
“Character of the zone would change. Rents would go up and soon the area will evolve,” he says.
Undeveloped lands owned by Bell and Konyn would just naturally flow into this development.
If Konyn wants to continue to operate a dairy, nothing will prevent that. But the land will also have a commercial future.
Lewis doesn’t feel that the northern node merchants should feel threatened by this proposal.
“Never have we talked about taking anything from them,” he says.
At the planning group meeting there was some talk of creating a County Service Area to help pay for the landscaping proposed for this segment of the road.
But on Tuesday Steve Flynn, chairman of the Valley Center Country Town Property Owners Assn. told The Roadrunner that it is unlikely that the businesses would vote to tax themselves to pay for landscaping.
While several business have said they would help pay for the median strip landscaping, support for a taxing plan is thin, he said.
“If we eventually do get access to a sewer we would be the first to pay to beautify things,” he said.
He adds that the group’s plan is not aimed at hurting the north.
“Our plan for southern part in no way affects the north. It’s not us vs. them. The proposal that the county put forth really didn’t do anything to the people in the north, but it did do something to us. We think our plan is good for the north and all of Valley Center.”
The one month filing period opened this week for various board vacancies in Valley Center and Pauma Valley.
Candidates have until Friday, Aug. 9, 5 p.m. to file their papers with the Registrar of Voters office.
VC-P School Unified District
Three seats are up for election on the VC-Pauma Unified School District board. All three incumbents, Lori Johnson, Barbara Rohrer and Henry Van Wyk, have indicated that they plan to run for reelection.
VC Planning Group
On the Valley Center Community Planning Group, seven seats are open. The incumbents are Eric Laventure, Todd Ruth, Bruce Johnson, Larry Glavinic, Dick Kraus, Mel Schuler, and Robert Hancock.
VC Fire Board
Three openings are available on the Valley Center Fire Protection District Board. Incumbents are Mike Pacheco, Mel Schuler and Dan Thornton.
VC Parks & Rec
Three seats are up on the Valley Center Parks & Recreation (formerly Community Services District) board. Incumbents are Fran DeWilde, Eric Jockinsen and Greg Marcon.
VC Municipal Water District
On the VC Municipal Water District board, seats on three divisions will be up for election. Only residents who live within a particular division may run for that seat. The seats are, Div. 2, where Scott Haskell is the appointed incumbent; Div. 3, where Gary Broomell is the incumbent and Div. 5, where Merle Aleshire is the incumbent.
Yuima Municipal Water District
This water district, which serves much of Pauma Valley, has two seats open: Div. 1, whose incumbent is Christine Brearton, and Div. 4, whose incumbent is W.D. “Bill” Knudson.
Deers Springs Fire Dist.
On the Deer Springs Fire Protection District, three seats are open. Incumbents are Carol Fleisher, Donald G. Copp and Robert A. Winje.
Updates on who has filed will be available daily on the Registrar’s website until the Aug. 9 deadline.
That address is: http://www.sdvote.com
Although candidates for the school district and planning groups must obtain applications in person at the Registrar of Voters, candidates for special districts (water, fire and parks & rec) can obtain papers at the special district offices.
The only fee involved is if you wish to include a ballot statement. Charges for each district vary, depending on how many voters there are.
* * *
You may visit the County Registrar of Voters at: 5201 Ruffin Rd., Ste. I, San Diego, CA 92123 or write them at POB 85656, San Diego, CA 92186-5656.
For general information call 858-565-5800 or call toll free at 800-565-5800 or email them at rovmail@rov.co.san-diego.ca.us
Christy Bensch, who moved to Valley Center about a year ago, is convinced that Valley Center’s fire and safety net has holes in it, and that it’s the County’s responsibility to patch it.
She has done a study that she says backs up her contention that while the County is charged in its own general plan to “adequately maintain” fire, emergency, medical and law enforcement needs in VC, that “we are, at this very moment not ‘adequately staffed,’ in these areas for the size of our population and specific rural needs!”
She plans to present that study to the fire district board at Thursday’s meeting.
Bensch, who has been working with the citizens’ subgroup assigned to Public Facilities for General Plan 2020, was asked to prepare a study of whether Valley Center was being adequately covered by its fire and emergency services agencies, including the fire district, Sheriff’s deputies and California Highway Patrol.
She obtained voluminous reports from the fire district and other agencies. Her report, just completed, was not done in time to be able to be included in the current document being worked on by the public facilities subcommittee, but it was authorized by the group.
By DAVID ROSS
For the first time the VC planning group Monday took up the “broad brush” issues of the General Plan 2020 draft map, first unveiled May 25.
But planners weren’t prepared to commit themselves to much yet.
Although Chairman Larry Glavinic has said repeatedly in recent weeks that few people are happy with the map, his seemed to be a minority voice among the group at this meeting.
Most were unready to disagree with the map.
But there was a definite jeering section among the 80 plus people who attended the meeting at the VC Middle School.
For the first time, a group of property owners deeply unhappy with the map publically raised their heads: Land owners around Hellhole Canyon Preserve, where the County proposes major downzones in order to balance.
Most of the over 100 protests with the map that have been filed with the County are from the area near Hellhole.
Because the GP2020 process is driven by the goal to keep the ultimate build-out population of VC at 33,000, that means that if density is increased in one part of town, it must be matched by a decrease in density in some other part of town.
Unlike the subgroups that have crafted the general plan under the eye of the County, the planners (most of them), are elected, as the group’s chairman, Larry Glavinic, pointed out.
“Planners are your elected officials. They will be held accountable at the ballot box in November,” he said.
“You guys were elected to take a position. we’ve had a lot subgroup work, but I think we need to give them some indication of where we are going. Are we done? I don't think we are done, we have a lot of work left to do.”
Glavinic said he has heard comments from both extremes.
“Some people say that property rights don’t exist. Others say there’s enough open space in the county already.” Most people will fall in the middle of those two extremes, he said.
Curt Gonzales, the senior planner in charge of VC’s plan, explained how the County came up with its draft map.
The Dept. of Planning & Land Use has gotten close to 140 public input requests and they are still coming in, he said.
They will be processed. Staff will determine whether it supports the requests and then give them to the planning group to vote on.
The planning group is not the final voice. That belongs to the Board of Supervisors.
“The general plan,” said Gonzales, “is a blueprint for development in this county. “
It designates maximum allowable density, provides guidance for more specific land use regulations and is the basis for infrastructure and services.
Zoning, while related to the general plan, is more specific. It will be applied once the general plan is adopted.
“A lot of people in the community are concerned with the deficit in service. This general plan is attempting to address that issue . . head on,” he said.
The difference between the existing general plan and the new one is that the current plan is not density based, it is parcel based.
• Parcel based planning sets minimum parcel sizes
• Density based planning sets maximum dwelling units per acre.
State law, adopted since the last general plan update, now requires density base planning,taking into account not just how many people there are, but how they are distributed, and the ability of the land to sustain development.
The unincorporated area of the county had a population in 2000 of 440,000. Existing target for ultimate build-out is 779,500.
Based on consultations with the various planning groups the County lowered that ultimate population goal to 660,000.
This explains the apparent paradox of the County expecting 1.5 million people in the next 20 years, but lowering the density in communities all over the County.
The County has also adopted a policy called “smart growth,” which emphasizes higher densities in the core of towns and cities, and decreased densities the further away from the core you go.
Many planning concepts incorporated into the draft map, said Gonzales, were developed by the so-called “Interest Group,” that includes members from the Sierra Club, building industry, Realtors, and the Farm Bureau.
One concept that group developed was that all future growth be concentrated within the County Water Authority line, i.e. the line where imported water is delivered. Most of VC, except for the Paradise Mountain area, is within this line.
The group also proposed that development be near present or proposed infrastructure, such as water, sewer, electricity and roads.
The preservation of “significant” biological habitat and steep slopes has also been factored into the land use regulations.
The interest group has also been working on a concept called transfer of development rights (TDRs) which would allow a property owner who is downzoned to sell his right to develop to a land owner who is upzoned. This concept has not yet been applied to the draft map, but it will probably be introduced later.
All of the above concepts were used in formulating the draft map, said Gonzales.
The land in the map is divided into four categories:
Village Core: having 10.9 to 29 units per acre.
Village: having 2-7.3 units/acre.
Semi-Rural: having one unit per ten acres. Most of VC is in this designation, which includes many small farms. Under the existing map most of Valley Center has one unit per two acres.
Rural: having from one unit/20 acres up to one unit/40 acres.
Gonzales said the County tries to achieve “a diversity of parcel sizes,” and to gradually transition between areas of high density and areas of lower density.
So, while a piece of land might not have extensive slopes, it still could have a low density in if it is in an area of slopes.
“We can't apply it to individual parcels, we need for it to make sense from a broad brushed perspective,” said Gonzales.
He explained the County’s reasoning for some of the specific densities.
Areas of Keys Creek, for instance, are zoned one unit per 20 acres, not because of slopes, but because the land is near the center of flood plain and the County doesn’t want to have high density areas near flood plains.
The group will need to decide specific issues such as:
• Whether one unit per acre could be applied to some parts of Lilac and Old Castle roads.
• Whether higher density should be applied to lands near the freeway.
In answering the petition by the southern node commercial owners, Gonzales said the question needs to be answered whether the town can support two country towns.
“The County supports the proposal in concept, but what we have concerns with is its implantation. It's one thing to have concepts and designs, the other thing is to take it to the step of getting it implemented,” he said.
He said it is his understanding that the community wants to keep the two country towns separate.
“If the community says to look at increasing depth in the Country Town by allowing increased density, and you want this to be your vision, let us know.”
In justifying the downzoning of property next to Hellhole Canyon Preserve, Gonzales said that while there are existing densities of one unit per two acres in that area, that its surrounded on one side by the preserve, and on another by Guejito Ranch (which has a density of one unit per 160 acres). That’s why the remaining properties are being given densities of one unit/40 acres. Property around Lake Wohlford has a density of one unit/40 acres.
However, most requests for changes are coming from Hellhole he said. “They are telling us that “one acre per 40, doesn’t work.”
“It’s not an isolated area and we are not apply the density in a vacuum. The question is does one unit per two acres come up to the boundaries of Guejito or do you need a buffer. If 1/40 is not appropriate what is?”
Glavinic told Gonzales and the group, “I have trouble with the implementation of the whole damn map.”
One of his main objections was changing areas in the Country Town from one unit/two acres to 7.3 units per acre.
“I don’t know how that happened. To me it’s a pipe dream.”
There was a dispute between Glavinic and group Sec. Rich Rudolf on whether this was done with or without the planning group’s approval.
Rudolf said that at a meeting attended by seven members that it was said that southern node was dying and that the County carried out those wishes.
“I think there ought to be a dialogue with the County as where those boundaries go instead of suddenly just appearing on the map,” said Glavinic.
The planners made a range of comments on the map. Most planners seem, in general to support the current map.
Some, like Sandy Smith, feel that the 7.3 density in the Country Town is too much, too soon, and would be more suited to 50 years from now, rather than 18.
Others, like Chris Preston, supports lower density for the property areas surrounding Hellhole.
“You are getting increased densities elsewhere. Where are you going to reduce? Hellhole is the perfect spot.”
During public comment, several residents from that area expressed their frustration over being downzoned.
Diane Moores commented, “I don't want to be downzoned in order to allow more density in the country town.”
Vicki Sheehy, a property owner in in Hellhole, commented, “Some people have bought large properties so they could have land to leave their children.”
She said that most of the people who support downzoning Hellhole’s residents don’t leave there. “If they would work on the canyon and make it more family oriented instead of making it where nobody would want to go there, instead of taking our land away from us, it would be a lot better.”
Mary Meade, who lives “a stone’ throw,” from Hellhole, supports the change.
“I have mixed feelings, one one hand I really support the preserve and recognize the need for management, not only of the preserve, but for the land surrounding the preserve . . . I think we need to look at how we can best implement saving the majority of that property.”
Planners weren’t ready to vote on anything Monday.
When Glavinic said, “I think we could get some consensus that we should decrease the northern node and add to the southern,” planner Eric Laventure said, “Noooo!
By DAVID ROSS
The County Dept. of Public Works has made concessions on several points involving safety and aesthetics to a subcommittee of the VC planning group that was appointed to work with it.
Several months ago, at the urging of community activist Jon Vick and others, the planning group voted on revisiting its support of the widening of Valley Center Road.
The planning group reiterated its longstanding support for road widening, but as a salve for those who had fought for a kinder, gentler VC Road, it appointed a group to work with the County.
Their marching orders were to come up with suggestions that would not add cost to the $11 million road widening budget for VC Road between Woods Valley and Cole Grade roads, nor add delays.
Planner Todd Ruth was appointed chairman of the subcommittee.
At the July 8 meeting DPW senior official Doug Isbell presented a list of concessions that the department is willing to support, entitled, “Valley Center Road Traffic Calming Recommendations.”
DPW feels that these recommendations “may be feasible without significantly delaying the project, requiring additional right of way, or requiring additional environmental mitigation.”
The planning group voted to support the recommendations.
Among the recommendations:
• Reduced Lane width as a traffic calming measure. The inside lane would be reduced from 12 feet to 11 feet and the outside lane from 14 feet to 12 feet. Turn lanes would be reduced from 14 feet to 12 feet in commercial areas.
This would reduce pavement in non-business areas from 78 feet to 72 feet and reduce pavement in the business area from 78 feet to 70 feet. Potential construction costs savings are estimated at $300,000.
• Relocate multi-use pathway. DPW recommends shifting the road alignment seven feet to the east/south between Lilac Road and Miller Road to allow for a multi-use pathway 8 feet to 14 feet wide made of decomposed granite.
• No on street parking in business areas. This had been proposed by Ruth’s committee as a traffic calming measure.
• Not saving the big oak tree at Valley Center Oil. The subcommittee had wanted to preserve the tree. DPW felt this would block left turn access to and from Calle De Vista and block left turn access from VC Oil.
DPW recommended relocating the oak to the Corral Liquor site, if feasible. A rough cost estimate to do this is $150,000-$250,000.
• Raised landscape medians. DPW recommended making the planted medians 14 feet wide and planted with native plants and trees of mature trunk diameter of less than six inches. Construction is contingent upon obtaining funding to pay for longterm maintenance. Medians are proposed for the non-business areas but could be extended to business areas with property owner concurrence to the restricted left turn access.
• Relocating Oaks. DPW is willing to work to relocate as many as possible of existing oaks. It does not support relocating oaks to the planted medians.
• Bicycle Lanes. Six foot bike lanes will be constructed with the possibility of pigmented asphalt being used, contingent upon available funding.
• Roundabouts, circular intersections that allow for traffic entering and leaving at will, although pressed by the subcommittee, was not supported by DPW. “It is recognized that roundabouts do provide some degree of traffic calming. However, to incorporate roundabouts in the VC North Project at this time would require a major re-design of the intersections and approach roads, additional right-of-way including loss of existing structures, environmental reassessment, and potential project cost increase,” DPW commented.
• Business district speed posting. DPW did not support the group’s proposal to lower the speed limit in the business district to 25 mph. “The result would be a wider than normal range in speeds which could increase the potential for accidents.” Once construction is complete an engineering and traffic survey will be conducted to assess the impact of the changed roadway conditions. This survey might then justify the 25 mph speed zoning or a different lowered speed limit.
At the end of the presentation Ruth commented, “I think we did really well for just having two months.”
Isbell complimented the subcommittee. “I think we identified a lot of potential alternatives and we had to recognize that narrower lanes and side friction caused by medians and bike lanes slows people down. It is a major road that will someday have to carry 50,000 per day but DPW was open to trying to build a major road to carry that kind of volume but to carry it at 40-45 mph speed because that’s what people feel comfortable driving.”
Isbell committed to having the DPWs engineers do a re-design see if it’s all feasible.
“The devil is in the details,” he said.
Planning Group Chairman Larry Glavinic asked, “Would it help, knowing we have a finite budget, for us to prioritize these things?”
Isbell said that it would be helpful when DPW goes to bid.
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 © 2000, 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.