By DAVID ROSS
Work on Valley Center’s road widening on the grade is ahead of schedule and delays should be a thing of the past, according to the project manager, Brendan McNabb.
McNabb, Ruby Alejandria, public outreach consultant and Tom Mebane, lead inspector for the project, visited The Roadrunner last week to talk about the project’s progress.
“We are pleased with the way things are going so far and we hope they will continue to go that way. We have a very professional contractor on the job, and it shows,” said McNabb.
Motorists will have noticed by now that construction has moved from the east side of the road to the west side, thus beginning Phase B of Phase I.
According to McNabb, “This allows us to now concentrate on the east side of the road.” That work will include pavement, storm drains, and three wildlife crossings under the road.
The hardest part of the job is past, said McNabb. “The bulk of the dirt has been moved.”
The hardest part in terms of impact to the community is over as well. “From now on we won’t be stopping traffic for 60 second intervals to let the earth movers cross. Traffic will move faster now,” said McNabb.
Because the contractor is making such good progress, the County feels that the work on the grade will be done before the contractual end of October 2005. “It will probably be completed by next summer sometime,” said McNabb.
Phase II this Spring
The next phase of the widening, taking the road from just south of Woods Valley Road to Cole Grade Road, will begin next spring, he said.
Originally plans called for an 12 month period when work would be proceeding on both segments of the road simultaneously. However, it took longer than anticipated to acquire the 87 properties along VC Road. That process is still ongoing.
At the same time the first phase is moving faster than anticipated. So instead of a 12 month overlap, the two phases will overlap for about four months. One job will wind down while the other is winding up.
“In the big picture it’s good for the community because you don’t have two sets of contractors working at the same time,” said McNabb.
Although utilities are not being moved underground on the grade, McNabb assures the community that utilities will go underground for the second phase.
This should make considerable difference visually, he said. “Any community that experiences undergrounding really seems to find that it clean ups the community,” he said.
The project is also within its budget, he says.
There was an additional cost when the County acceded to the demands of community members to keep the k-rail divider in place. The k-rail restricts where dirt can be moved along the road.
This ended up costing $750,000.
On the plus side, fewer rocks needed to be dynamited, which saved time, although not necessarily money. Engineers had anticipated that 25% of the rock encountered would require blasting. The actual amount was considerably less than that.
We asked McNabb about the occasional residents who stops to take pulverized rock from the construction site.
“We don’t encourage people to take rock in a construction zone,” said McNabb. “There’s hazards and that’s why we don’t want them there. We don’t want someone getting hurt,” he said.
Obviously cars break down from time to time on the grade. This can pose a hazard when there’s only one lane going in a particular direction.
The contractor is very observant for that problem.
“We try to be as cooperative as possible with the public and get broken down vehicles off the road into a safe area,” said McNabb.
We asked if there is news about money that can be applied to a planted median. DPW has said that if the project came in under budget, the saved money could go towards a planted median.
“If the bid for Phase II comes came in lower than expected and there were enough funds identified to cover the median costs, then the median is included in the bid as an alternative that could be chosen,” said McNabb. “We’ll look at everything and if there’s enough money from all sources, we have it as an alternative that we could choose.”
If Phase I of the project comes in under budget funds saved will be applied to Phase II, he added.
Cooperative public
So far motorists have driven safely while within the construction zone. About five fender-bender type accidents have been recorded.
Ever since the construction was switched from east to west traffic has seemed to slow down, according to Mebane.
“I believe the traffic has reacted real well in observing our signs,” he said.
The speed limit is 40 mph in the construction zone. Fines for tickets issued in this zone are doubled.
Public Comments
According to Ruby Alejandria most public comments received on the road has been requests for updates. There have been some complaints about damage to cars from rocks and a call about the dust raised by the road work. Most calls have been requests for general project information.
McNabb said he was pleased with the success of the e-mail updates. If you want periodic updates on the progress of the road work call 619-232-2640 and be added to the list. You can get the information either by e-mail or Fax.
By DAVID ROSS
It’s a rare project that gets the unreserved support of both VC planners Craig Adams and Rich Rudolf.
Such a project is the VC Community’s Church’s plans for expansion. Over 100 church members Monday night crowding VC Community Hall asked for and got the unanimous support of the 11 planners for the church’s application for a major use permit.
Valley Center’s oldest church owns 20 acres off Cole Grade Road. It plans to build a main sanctuary that can seat 1200, a youth building, advent building and multipurpose building. It will have large areas suitable for picnics and outdoor weddings.
The church will take its access at Fruitvale & Cole Grade Roads. That access provided the one bit of controversy in the evening.
Planning Chairman Sandy Smith had submitted a “minority report” disagreeing with the subcommittee assigned to the church project. Smith wanted to insist that the church provide an IOD (irrevocable offer to dedicate) for an easement for a road that would provide an east west connection from Cole Grade to Miller.
Minority Report
Mrs. Smith wrote: “This project plans to monopolize west-bound traffic at a traffic signal at the intersection of Fruitvale & Cole Grade Road, a significant intersection in the community. At some point over the next 30 or 50 years, there might be a need to connect the Cole Grade/Fruitvale intersection with a growing village to the southwest or to the northwest. This is the community’s only chance, for years to come, to put in place a matching IOD with the adjacent parcel to the north. Maybe the IOD will never be used. But now is our only chance to get it in place. At a minimum, the project should dedicate a 30 foot IOD along the northern boundary.”
The planning group has long supported an east west connection.
The church’s position was that a public road subdividing its property would ruin its usefulness.
“We don’t in any way intend to monopolize the traffic signal, but to use it,” Jon Walters, the project manager told the group.
“Our traffic engineer says there are alternatives to extending Fruitvale,” he said. “If Fruitvale is to be extended into the project, it could be the deathblow to the project because we have no desire to divide the property or to have 35 mph traffic going through it.”
In the year since the project first came before the planning group, the church made ten concessions to concerns raised by the group.
They agreed to lower the steeple from 48 to 42 feet. The church is about 20 feet lower than the adjacent property, so the tower will appear about 20 feet above the surrounding property.
They agreed to put in a public equestrian trail. They reconfigured the parking lot. They also tinkered with the sizes of the buildings.
Craig Adams, chairman of the subcommittee that reviewed the church’s plans, noted, “The church’s concept plans were approved a year ago at a 11-1 vote. The ten changes that were made reflect the changes and work that was made with the committee. There was a motion made and believe it or not I actually agreed with Rich Rudolf over there [at the other end of the table], to approve the motion.”
Rudolf added that he too agreed that other options exist to creating an east west road besides encumbering the church property with an easement. He urged a unanimous vote.
Planner Lael Montgomery agreed. “There are other solutions to the circulation problem that don’t cut into this project,” she said.
Adams’s motion was to approve the major use permit and that the extension of the Fruitvale Road not be a consideration.
Walters, who is also a church elder, pled for unanimity.
The County Dept. of Planning & Land Use has dug in its heels on the Fruitvale extension because several years ago the planning group was strong on it, but that was before this project. That is why the group’s full endorsement is so important to the church, said Walters.
Jo MacKenzie of the Mackenzie Group, land use consultants, said she was told by DPLU that if the planning group wanted to back off from its insistence of the Fruitvale extension, they would too.
The existence of an IOD, she said, would put a financial burden on the church. It would be required to put up a bond for the road, even if it is not built.
“Even though it’s a paper road the County will want to know the bonding number,” she said.
In the end, after making her point, Mrs. Smith joined the other planners in endorsing the plans.
She noted that the land on where the church will be built won’t be converted into houses. “It’s a real plus to take those residences out of development,” she said.
Oldest Church
The church, founded in 1879, has had two homes, including property next to the cemetery. The original adobe structure still stands south of the cemetery and is now a private home.
The church has been at its current home on VC Road across the street from the bank since 1946. The main part of the present sanctuary was a military chapel salvaged from the naval training center at Camp Elliott in San Diego.
It can seat 220, which has forced the church to have three services each Sunday.
County Staff to Host Meeting
As the church members were filing out of the door, Mrs. Smith urged them to show up at a special meeting that the County Dept. of Planning & Land Use has tentatively scheduled for July 27, 6:30 p.m. at the library.
Note: DPLU has not officially announced this meeting, so it is subject to change. Look for a legal advertisement from the County next week in the paper to confirm the time and location.
At this meeting, the County staff will give a presentation on the status of General Plan 2020 and related topics, including circulation and Valley Center’s “Village” and town center. It will be a high level overview of issues that are to be decided.
“The County has committed to work together with us, rather than work things out ahead of time and tell us what they are doing to us,” said Mrs. Smith optimistically. “This will be very important to the business community”
This is a meeting held by the county, not the planning group
Two years after narrowly failing to persuade voters to give it an independent funding mechanism, the VC Parks & Rec district is set to try it again.
July 22, 7 p.m., at VC Community Hall, the parks board will hold a hearing before voting on a resolution to ask voters to authorize raising $19/year/per parcel in property taxes.
A committee whose purpose is to go out and get those votes is being organized. It will hold its first meeting Monday, July 19, 7 p.m., upstairs at VC Community Hall. Volunteers, particularly those who can lead the charge for this vote, are needed.
The tax election would be held in November, in conjunction with the national election.
Last time the district asked for $14/ parcel. Note: This is not a per acre assessment, but a per parcel assessment.
There are about 23,000 parcels in the district. The new assessment would raise about $400,000 a year.
This would be predictable income that wouldn’t fluctuate, as most district revenue sources, such as leases and user’s fees, do.
This is funding that the state could not take away. Unlike property taxes that the state previously confiscated and which Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state legislature threaten to do again for two years to help stanch the state’s bleeding deficit.
Parks Gen. Mgr. Joyce Johnson told The Roadrunner this week that she and the board feel they didn’t educate the public enough the last time.
“We didn’t get out the word in time to get to the absentee ballots. That’s one of the reasons we lost,” she said. “A lot of people don’t know that we run the ballpark, and Aerie Park and Adams Park. More new residents moving into Valley Center don’t know about us. We need to let them know what we do.”
They also feel that the vote didn’t pass last time because of confusion among voters as to whether the assessment was for parcels or acres.
“They thought that if they had 115 acres they would be taxed on the 115 acres, whereas that many acres might be just a few parcels. You need to know how many parcels you have before you can figure out how much this tax will mean to you,” said Mrs. Johnson.
The money will be used to build a new community center, probably on district land at Lilac & VC Road (next to the fire station) and to pay for maintaining district facilities.
Currently the district relies on about $77,000 in property taxes, with the possibility of having that reduced to $53,000 for the next two years.
“We feel we’ve outgrown our facilities here,” said Mrs. Johnson.
Because facilities are limited, the district often has to turn away prospective revenue.
“We need a larger place to serve more banquets and parties. We turn people away because we don’t have such a large facility.”
The district also wants to have a place to provide for area senior citizens, said Mrs. Johnson.
“We’d eventually like to have the Chamber of Commerce office here, as it used to be years ago,” she added.
Of course, the district gets hundreds of thousands of dollars from developer fees, called Park Land Development Ordinance (PLDO) fees, but they can only be used for capital improvements, not maintenance.
“Our solid base is the tax revenue,” said Mrs. Johnson. “To run seven facilities on $77,000 a year is pretty difficult. To be able to offer the current services and accommodate a growing community is even harder. Land won’t always be available for parks as the town develops. To exist and survive in the future we need some solid income.
Even if most people in the Valley support the new tax, it’s still an uphill battle since 2/3 majority is needed to approve the levy.
Last time 58% of the voters came out, and 61.4% voted for the tax.
Design Review board member John Ruggieri Wednesday challenged the ethical bona fides of board Pres. Robert Hancock and director Leon Schwartz to vote on the design of the Weston shopping center.
Weston’s project manager Gary Wynn, the architect, and consultant Jim Chagala were prepared to make a presentation to the five-member board when Ruggieri made the objection. He said Hancock and Schwartz might have potential conflict of interest violations.
Ruggieri’s objection was seconded by board member Lael Montgomery.
Ruggieri brought up the objection about possible conflicts of interest without mentioning any names at first.
“I suppose you guys are talking about me,” commented Hancock.
“I want to make sure that we have a clean house here,” said Ruggieri.
Hancock said he previously phoned the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) and was told that he could vote on the matter. Although his business is within 500 feet of the proposed center, the design aspects of it would not affect him materially. During that same consultation with the FPPC, Hancock had been advised that he should recuse himself from voting on the shopping center when it came before the VC planning, which he has done.
“At design review we are talking about what it looks like, not whether it should be done,” said Hancock.
Dr. Montgomery said that County Council has said that planning groups and design review boards are the same when it comes to what conflict of interest rules govern them.
Ruggieri added, “Right now we have a couple of opinions,” and said he would like to get them resolved.
“That’s why I went to the FPPC,” said Hancock. “When I talk to County Counsel they refuse to give me an opinion. They said to talk to the FPPC because it’s a personal decision.”
Schwartz, who was included in the challenge, said that he couldn’t possibly be affected by a shopping center going in next to the property that he leases to the post office.
“I won’t gain a thing. I have a long term lease,” he said.
Someone in the audience pointed out that the shopping center plans calls for putting a road through the post office property, which would affect Schwartz’s interests.
Hancock complained that he had joined the planning groups and design review because he had wanted to be involved in decisions that affected the community, but it seems that I can’t be involved in the most important decision that affects the community.”
Wynn asked if the board couldn’t hear the presentation and vote on it, and then, if it was determined that the two members’ votes were invalid, bring the item back.
Hancock said that might be a bad idea. “You might have a flip flop vote. You might walk out with an approval and find out later that you don’t have it.”
“We have this in front of us,” said Ruggieri. “At the same time we have a legal question. I think it would behoove us to get a legal opinion to see whether we can proceed.”
Hancock said he had contacted FPPC for that very reason.
Ruggieri, who is a landscape architect, questioned Hancock’s reasoning that architectural matters don’t affect the values of surrounding properties. “The board is not just looking at architecture, but at how the guidelines are being applied. This could materially improve one property at the expense of another property. It is an issue where our decisions could affect property values.”
“We could call FPPC right now,” said Hancock. “Let’s do it!”
They were unable to get through to the commission. The board decided to listen to the presentation, and even make comments. However, the board determined not to take action until an opinion in writing comes from the FPPC.
“I apologize. We should have thought of this before,” said Ruggieri.
Second in a series
(Much of the information in this series is courtesy of the VC Municipal Water District’s historical files).
* * *
Last week’s article chronicled how the formation of the San Diego County Water Authority in 1944, and completion of the 1st San Diego Aqueduct in the late 1940’s provided arid Valley Center an opportunity to secure a water supply from the Colorado River via the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to supplement its limited ground water and intermittent stream flows.
The water was there. It was up to individuals with vision and initiative to lead their community on a path to securing the benefits and taking on the challenges which came with an imported water supply.
In 1966, as the water district entered its 11th year, the local Escondido Times Advocate ( now the North County Times) reported that the largest crop was citrus with over 7,000 acre planted. VCMWD receives a $50,000 interest free loan from the federal government to begin planning for the next round of capital improvements.
In that same year, the district was awarded the American Water Works “Murdock Advancement Award” for the progress made in securing voter approval of the bonds necessary to construct a community water system.
In June of 1966 the board adopted a fiscal year 1966-1967 Budget of $1,045,366.50. Compare that to this year’s budget of over $40 million.
In November voters, by a 77% approval margin, approved a $2.8 million bond issue for water system improvements, including construction of a 2,000 acre foot reservoir (Lake Turner) which “would meet the District's needs for one month.”
In November of 1967 the board approved Annexation No. 3, bringing the District service are to roughly 62,000 acres or 102 square miles.
Rapid Expansion
Agriculture drove the need for rapid system expansion. Even with three General Obligation Bond Issues and the formation of 12 “U” Districts, the rapid expansion of agricultural plantings pushed the board and staff to find the resources to expand its strained water delivery system.
VCMWD turned to the federal government for assistance under the Bureau of Reclamation PL 984 Loan Program, and the PL 660, Clean Water Act.
Applications were made and after numerous trips by local water officials to Washington DC and Denver Colorado (regional headquarters for the Bureau of Reclamation), in excess of 13 million in grants and loans were secured from the federal government.
The “984” monies, amounting to over $10 million, were used to construct Turner Dam, the Betsworth Forebay and Pumping Station, Cool Valley Reservoir, several major transmission mains and other improvements which vastly expanded the systems storage and delivery capacity.
The PL 660 grant was used to construct the Lower Moosa Water Reclamation Facility (or “Moosa”), located on Circle R Drive, just east of Old 395. When completed in the early 1970’s, Moosa replaced the three small package wastewater treatments plants which were serving the Meadows, Welk’s and the Circle R developments.
August 14, 1970, with 600 people attending, including the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, the district broke ground on the 1,600 acre foot Turner Dam and Reservoir. It was finished by the summer of 1971.
Struggling with drought
In the midst of rapid system expansion, Valley Center and all of California was hit with the impacts of 1976-1977 drought.
Given the mandate to reduce supplies, VCMWD imposed mandatory conservation ordinances and a system to limit meter size based on land area irrigated.
As Valley Center experienced ag growth, its residential population grew, bringing other issues, such as fire protection and additional waste water treatment needs.
With passage of Prop. 13 in 1978, came a sharp reduction in County funding for rural fire protection. Citizens approached VCMWD as possible vehicle to fund and operate a local fire agency.
Ultimately, the independent Valley Center Fire Protection District was formed, but for several years prior, VCMWD provided administrative and manning support of the VC Volunteer Fire Dept..
Though the Moosa Plant would take care of the I-15 Corridor wastewater treatment needs for many years to come, there were growing concerns about high ground water and the need for a wastewater treatment system for the Valley Center Central Valley Area.
By the end of the 1970’s, options were being explored by the VCMWD as to how to solve that issue.
In May 24, 1976, the VCMWD Board held hearings on the proposed Central Valley Sewer Improvement District.
TO BE CONTINUED
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 © 2002, 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.