February 8, 2006 - Top Stories
One Rincon reservation resident was among the three dead Friday evening in a deadly shoot-out on Morales Lane & Valley Center Road, near the casino.
Two of the four later arrested in connection with the violence were also injured.
As a result Sheriff’s deputies were on high alert in Valley Center on Monday.
“We’re out there in force,” Sheriff’s Lt. Sean Gerrity told The Roadrunner.
Security has also been beefed up at the local high school, where racial and cultural friction has, in the past, led to fights between rival groups.
School Supt. Lou Obermeyer told The Roadrunner: “We met on Sunday to discuss the situation and assess needs for each campus, knowing that the incident would have impacts on our sites for many reasons such as family and friends of the deceased and safety concerns for students and staff.”
Members of the Sheriff’s Dept. also attended that meeting and briefed educators on the situation and the extra patrol they had put in place.
“We've added security at our campuses and are working closely with the Sheriff's department. We are continuing to meet, assess needs so that we have safe campuses,” said Dr. Obermeyer.
The Rincon tribal council also held a special meeting on Monday to discuss issues relating to the violence.
The deceased victims were: David Edward Parada, 24, of Rincon; Steve Casioce Jr., 23; Cristino Antonio Gomez, 19, all local residents.
On Friday night the VC Sheriff’s substation received reports of the assaults. One of the victims had been taken to the substation, where he soon expired.
The other two were discovered in vehicles near the scene of the assaults. One subject was pronounced dead at that scene, while the other victim was transported by ambulance to a local ballfield awaiting Mercy Air where he was pronounced dead.
The two injured were treated for injuries at Palomar Medical Center and later released and then arrested.
Four suspects were arrested the following morning in connection with the shootings. All four were charged with three counts of murder, according to Sheriff’s homicide investigators. None are residents of the reservation.
They were scheduled to be arraigned in the Vista Court house on Tuesday of this week and are being held without bail.
The four suspects are Jose Manuel Gomez, 24; Alexandro Sibriano Moreno, 21; Esteban Avila, 21; Ray Lewis Janis, 20. They are all from the VC/Pauma Valley area, according to a spokesman for the Sheriff’s Dept.
Motives were unclear in the shooting, although early, unsubstantiated reports were that there had been a longtime conflict between the two groups.
There are often tensions on the reservation for a number of reasons, include rentals of units to non-reservation members.
Asked to elaborate on what measures the Sheriff’s Dept. is taking after the incident, Lt. Gerrity commented, “Yes, rumors of supposed retaliation (none substantiated) and other fears are running rampant resulting from this tragic, senseless incident that, in my opinion, is the end result of a callous, ridiculous and cowardly ‘hoodlum-mentality’ mind-set of a small, self-serving handful of people.
“I’m reasonably sure all of the persons actually responsible are in custody, although a long investigation is still in progress. As for those few people out there who may have bought into this ‘hoodlum’ mind-set, who truly represent nobody but themselves quite selfishly (they certainly don’t speak for or even closely represent anyone anywhere in this community), I am fed up with it.
“For this reason, I have pulled in personnel from other stations and significantly enhanced directed patrol in my command area, with one objective in mind: Zero tolerance for anyone with such a mind-set.
“Three people have died, and there are families and friends that are sadly in shock and mourning; families and friends that those responsible didn't even stop to consider- not even their own. This stupidly senseless incident will impact those families and friends for years to come,” said Lt. Gerrity.
Lt. Gerrity was asked if the killings were gang-related.
“I don't know,” he said. “Certainly there was more than one person involved, though.”
One of the suspects, Gomez, has been confirmed as being a documented gang member by the district attorney’s office.
A local daily paper also reported that some of the suspects have histories of violence, including assaults and stabbings.
Anyone with information about this incident is asked to call the Homicide Detail at (858) 974-2321/after hours at (858) 565-5200 or Crime Stoppers at (888) 580-TIPS(8477).
It’s 80 degrees, Santa Ana winds are blowing, and the treated water aqueducts serving the Valley Center Municipal Water District are off for maintenance, repairs and construction.
Though not in a “panic” mode, the folks at Valley Center Municipal Water District are concerned, let’s say very concerned.
Customers are advised to check the District’s website, www.vcmwd.org daily for information and the current status of the shutdown.
“Overall, the cooperation has been good, but some of our newer residential customers haven’t gotten the word or don’t understand the seriousness of the situation” Gary Arant, VCMWD General Manager told The Roadrunner on Monday.
In fact, the District has had to make over 700 phone calls to residents to remind them of the shut-down and that water use outside is prohibited in order to preserve the water in storage for domestic in-home use and fire protection. “Some have responded positively, some not so positive. We really want to avoid having to flow restrict meters,” Arant said.
Arant said he understands that the people with new landscaping are concerned about damage or loss.
However, he and his staff are pointing out that even with the warm weather, plants and grasses are dormant this time of year, and while they may show signs of stress, it’s unlikely that there would be any long-term damage over a ten-day period.
Aqueduct shut-downs occur every several years for routine maintenance, inspection and minor construction.
“These periods are important for our wholesalers to inspect and find and fix small problems before they become big problems. If we have the normal weather you would expect for February, we have enough storage to get through these things pretty well. But, this is not normal, so we have to be more aggressive in enforcement this time,” said Arant.
He added, “We have been in communication with the Metropolitan Water District about the situation, and they are currently evaluating any possible ways to shorten the shut-down.”
The main purpose of the shut-down is to perform work which is a pre-requisite to the upcoming expansion of the Skinner Filtration Plant which serves Western Riverside and Northern San Diego County.
“Our customers need to understand that with our aqueducts down, whatever water we have in storage is what we have until the system comes back up. When it’s gone, it’s gone,” Arant emphasized.
“While we do care about the crops and landscaping, we are most concerned about having water for in-home domestic use and fire protection for our 25,000 residents, and, given the current unusual weather conditions, that is becoming a real concern,” Arant said.
Officially, the shut-down is scheduled through Feb. 16, though “we have been in communication with MWD, and we have been assured by their General Manager, Debra Man, that they are pulling all the stops to get this done as soon as possible and we are hopeful they can beat the advertised date,” Arant said.
“Just in case they do finish sooner and we can go back to normal operations,” Arant advised, “customers should check the District’s web site www.vcmwd.org for daily updates on the shut-down.”
The VC Municipal Water District Board Monday afternoon approved a wastewater policy that, while not perfect from the VC planning group’s viewpoint, is a lot closer than the original proposal.
The policy details how the water district will deal with requests for connections to the sewer plant being built on the Woods Valley Ranch development, and future sewering for parcels along the two Village nodes that run along Valley Center Road.
• The new policy emphasizes that sewer will be provided pretty much automatically to parcels that are within the two Villages.
• However, properties outside of that limit line will have to provide documentation from the County that they are entitled by County policy to be sewered.
“We’re tying our sewer planning to land use planning,” Gen. Mgr. Gary Arant commented.
“We’re saying to the property owners: ‘If you have a Village designation you have sewer, but if you are outside of it bring me something saying that your property qualifies for sewer.’ ”
In introducing the subject, Gen. Mgr. Gary Arant commented, “Not only did we receive a lot of really good input on the policy, we fielded a lot of really good questions and had an excellent dialogue.
“What came out of this dialogue is that there seems to be a divergence between the Department of Planning & Land Use (DPLU) and the planning group when it comes to sewer issues,” said Arant.
The policy draft first surfaced in September. It was the subject of much discussion between the district and the planning group. The group then devoted most of one of its meetings to debating the policy.
The controversy derives from the planning group’s desire to limit sewer service outside of the two “Village nodes.” Most planners perceive sewer as being growth-inducing.
The group passed a resolution last year stating: “Wastewater service should be available only to those within the 2005 Village Limit Lines as depicted on the June 2005 GP 2020 Village maps or the then current final and adopted GP2020 map.”
That position is at odds with DPLU staff, which sent two letters to the water district clarifying its position.
The second DPLU letter stated, “The most important point we would like to emphasize is that the wastewater policy should be used to implement the GP 2020 land use plan and the Valley Center Community Plan. Both documents restrict development that requires sewer service (2 dwelling units per acre or higher) to two nodes—called the northern and southern nodes. The provision of wastewater services with these two village nodes should be the primary goal of the the wastewater service policy.”
The County’s view is that if the net effect of a sewer does not increase the total number of density, the sewer is not growth-inducing.
The County prefers to control growth using density and zoning instead of by limiting sewer connections.
In trying to hew a middle ground between the two positions, water district staff crafted a policy that gave the planning group something less than a full loaf.
“We’re not going to put ourselves in the position of deciding which properties meet the County’s parameters,” said Arant. “We’re saying to the parcel owner, ‘Landowner, demonstrate to us that you are eligible for sewer service.’ ”
He noted that it would be difficult for the district to choose the planning group’s wishes over county policy since any applicant for sewer could then challenge its decision in court.
“I’m not an attorney but I see a problem in enforcing a planning group recommendation as opposed to enforcing a policy of the county of San Diego,” he said.
Keith Simpson, planning group chairman and Vice Chairman Larry Glavinic attended Monday’s meeting.
The limitation of sewer is “what gives Valley Center its character,” asserted Simpson, when asked by Director Merle Aleshire why the group cares whether certain areas get sewer, just so long as the net density does not increase.
“Obviously density is the most obvious way to control population but the thing that has made Valley Center the way it is is unavailability of sewer,” said Simpson. “Even though we recognize that it’s an imperfect device we are very keen on keeping sewer policy that will support the community plan.”
Aleshire asked if the issue was “uncontrolled growth” and Simpson replied “Yes.”
However, he added, “Based on my reading of this document it seems to me that the district does understand our concerns.”
He added, “There’s also another big piece: During the GP2020 process it was our understanding that there would not be city services provided to areas outside of the Village Limit Line.
“So now as we near the end of the process it’s like the rug being pulled out from under us. What we are concerned about is that we are going to have lots of density within the limit line, but the trade-off was less density outside of the limit line,” said Simpson.
“But isn’t that the way it’s always going to be that the Board of Supervisors can change density whenever they want to?” asked Aleshire.
Simpson conceded that was true.
“Would you care as long as you increased density whether you are connected to a sewer or a septic?” asked Aleshire.
Glavinic stepped in to note that many people are sensitive about sewers. Since the County is increasing density in the Villages and, as a balance, decreasing it in the periphery, the planning group wants to make sure that density creep doesn’t occur outside of the Villages.
“Once you start to allow the boundaries to change it basically offends a lot of people,” said Glavinic. “If the county had stayed with the old plan it would have been OK.”
Simpson asserted, “What’s driving the planning group is the concept of community character. If there was a possibility of getting sewer outside of the Village Limit Line it would be very compelling for a property owner to come up for reasons to be included.”
He added that the group would be a little happier with the policy if it emphasized that the water district will require documentation from the County that applicants may be sewered.
He requested changing the last paragraph of the policy so that “a proponent would need to come to the County to get that written authorization, and then come before our group.”
Arant didn’t have a problem inserting that. “It’s just more specific than what we have but that is what we meant,” he said.
“We want to avoid a property owner using the availability of sewer to increase density.”
That point may be moot because Arant doubts that the district could actually sewer all of the density that the County has set aside for the Villages.
“We are limited by discharge rules and storage in how large a sewer we can have,” he said. “Treatment capacity is not the controlling issue, storage capacity is the controlling issue.”
“We can only accommodate so many EDUs (equivalent dwelling units) and I’m assuming that in terms of priority you would start in the center,” he said.
However, not every property that qualifies for sewer wants it.
“There are a lot of properties along Valley Center Road that you would assume would want sewer who have never responded [to district inquiries],” said Arant.
While not going so far as to say that he liked the new policy, planning Chairman Keith Simpson told The Roadrunner Monday after the vote that it was “incrementally better,” than the draft proposal.
The planning group will review the new policy at its meeting next Monday, Feb. 13, 7 p.m. at VC Community Hall.
This year the Dos Valles Garden Club’s Civic Beautification program and awards will include private homes in addition to the normal business frontage competition, which is being run by the garden club as usual.
The beautification committee members this year are Dick Kraus, Maggie Ferber and Chairman, Marianne Stone.
The home landscaping contest will be handled by the Valley Roadrunner.
Awards and prizes will be presented at the garden club’s annual picnic in Adams Park in June.
See future editions of The Roadrunner for a more complete explanation of the total program.
In the meantime, start thinking how you can make your business or home more attractive and perhaps win recognition of your efforts.
“Just imagine how much beauty will be added to Valley Center if all two divisions improve their landscaping,” commented Mrs. Stone.
The garden club will give letters outlining the program to local businesses.
This week The Roadrunner interviewed Keith Simpson, recently elected chairman of the VC Planning Group. This is a position which many regard as “unofficial mayor of Valley Center,” (not to be confused with Honorary Mayor).
Q: You come to the job of chairman after a very successful year as secretary, with much acclaim on your very accurate reporting. What insights, if any, have you gained from keeping track of the minutia of the group over a year?
A: I didn't come to the job of secretary with extensive knowledge about the County or about the planning process, so I have learned a lot about how upcoming plans will impact our community and about how the county operates. I have also learned, again, that we have keen Planning Group members, who watch over me and help me keep the details correct.
Q: What are the most important issues facing Valley Center this year? Are there any bullets that we need to dodge?
A: I believe that the most important immediate issue facing us (and the bullet we need to dodge) is the Orchard Run development.
After much deliberation and hard work, especially by those in the Orchard Run Subcommittee, the Planning Group rejected that development for a number of reasons including housing densities, open space, traffic impacts and questions about whether or not the project is in compliance with its SPA (Specific Plan Area). Plus, it is a large project that will put about 300 residential units on 118 acres, so it has the potential to set the stage for other similar SPAs that may come our way.
I especially want the community to know that their Planning Group took a reasonable position here, at least in my opinion. We did not vote to reject Orchard Run for peripheral or incremental reasons.
The project simply is not compatible with our community character. It is my personal hope the Department of Planning and Land Use (DPLU) and/or the Board of Supervisors requires D.R. Horton to redesign this development. Let's get projects like this corrected, before it’s too late.
Q: You say that the project doesn’t conform to community character or the community plan, yet it has been part of the community plan for a dozen years as an SPA. Isn’t that a problem with your reasoning?
A: Yes, I see the point, at least from a technical point of view. The Orchard Run SPA has been incorporated into the community plan for some time, but that doesn't mean that it fits the rest of the community plan or that it will enhance Valley Center in the long run.
Q: Since the planning group basically has no authority, no staff, and no ability to enforce anything, why should the community care about what it does?
A: Great question, but do you have to rub it in? (Smiling). There are two equal and opposite misconceptions concerning the Planning Group. Some think that we have the authority to approve or reject projects. That’s wrong. We forward our recommendations to the DPLU and the Board of Supervisors, who are the final decision makers. The other misconception is that the Planning Group doesn't have an impact, which is also wrong.
Planning Group members—who are community volunteers—dedicate much time working with the county to shape projects during the application/approval process. The bottom line is that we—that is all of us who live here and love Valley Center—must explore ways to gain more local control over our future.
Q: When you look at the things that the planning group does, what gives you the greatest sense of satisfaction?
A: The people involved here are great. There is energy, enthusiasm and a love of community, so getting to know everyone during my involvement has been very satisfying. Also, as mentioned before, we are able to help shape road plans, developments and other aspects of our town, which is a nice feeling.
Q: What gives you the greatest sense of frustration?
A: I get frustrated knowing that we don’t have enough control over our own community and that state and county authorities don't really seem to care about preserving what is good about Valley Center.
I’d better clarify something. There are lot's of good folks in the County who do a wonderful job serving the County and helping us, so I’m not casting any stones at any individuals here.
The truth of the matter, however, is that our County government is a huge bureaucracy that has different concerns than we do.
Developers are good people too, but they don’t always care about the long term impacts of poorly planned projects.
Our local Indian tribes have been very generous in a number of ways, but they have other priorities. So, at the end of the day, the Planning Group is the voice for Valley Center, but our voice often is eclipsed and that’s sad.
Q: The planning group has set up a subcommittee to deal with its dissatisfactions with county staff and GP2020. Could you explain what complaints your group has about county planning staff?
A: Well, as mentioned before, I don’t have a problem with any particular staff members, and there are a number of folks down there who I am very grateful are around. It’s the way the process is working that is the problem. Let’s look at GP2020.
I like many aspects of that plan, but it’s been over a year since we provided specific input regarding village densities, equity mechanisms and traffic impacts and there is no tangible response yet.
Concerning the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians’ rezoning request, which would allow permanent casino parking next to the Middle School, the Planning Group weighed in decisively against that over a year ago, but there is no resolution yet.
I’ve already discussed the issues we have with Orchard Run, which have been known for some time, but it looks like the County is going forward with that project. So, our grievances have a common theme: the County needs to listen to the community better or grant us more control . . .
Q: What do you see the planning group doing in the next two years?
A: Here’s something fun. We will be forming a Web site soon, which will help us communicate with the community better. We will be able to receive emails and perhaps solicit specific input regarding projects and other related issues. (Don't worry, we won't do news!)
Another big task we will be finishing up in the next few months will be finalizing our input regarding future circulation (road) plans for the community.
Q: What would you like to accomplish during your tenure as chairman?
A: Aside from the routine duties, I would like to establish better communications between the community and the Planning Group, a task that I’m hoping The Valley Roadrunner can play a big part in. As mentioned before, I would also like to get the aforementioned Web site on line.
Mostly, I would like to help the community understand where the real lines of authority are, so that we, as a community, can better focus and maximize our influence.
Q: What do you like best about Valley Center? What should we fight hardest to preserve and what is really “window dressing?”
A: I've always had a love for oak trees and that’s still what I love about our town. In my own mind, we should work to preserve our open space and keep our overall density as low as possible.
As far as window dressing . . . hmmm, perhaps we shouldn't get so wrapped up in limiting the number or widths of roads. I know there are other worthwhile opinions about this, but if we can build more roads with good landscaping and trails, that would reduce congestion on Valley Center and Cole Grade Roads and help us all feel a little more like we're still in the country.
Q: The planning group appears to have trouble keeping members this year? Why do you think that is?
A: I have discussed that with some of the other members and don't have a clear sense at this point. It could be that the Planning Group does require additional work and sacrifice, which is hard for families to spare, but I'll use this as a plug, though, for any willing residents.
Please get involved. We always need good folks, especially in our subcommittees, which do an incredible amount of work.
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 © 2006, 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.