|
Alpine demands answers
regarding SRPL undergrounding
By Susan Hogoboom
The Alpine Sun
ALPINE — Disappointed by the lack of
answers at the last Alpine Advisory Council meeting, local
representatives and community leaders met at the Alpine’s Woman
Club on Dec. 15 demanding answers — answers to questions
regarding the proposed undergrounding of the Sunrise Powerlink (SRPL)
along Alpine Boulevard.
Many believe the proposed SRPL will be a detrimental
project to local businesses and residents along the main street,
particularly to the hundreds of people who depend upon the
boulevard as their only means of ingress/egress.
Community leaders along the route, regardless of their
stand on the proposed project, were selected by SDG&E officials
to serve on an Alpine community council, including members of
the APG, Alpine Revitalization, Alpine Design Review Board, and
the Alpine Mountain Empire Chamber of Commerce.
Project Managers Laura MacDonald and Jose Lopez
reviewed the project details, debunked what they called “myths”
about the project, and fielded questions from attendees.
APG member George Barnett agreed with the potential
disruption to the community, referring to 2008’s fiber optic
cable installation along the boulevard as “terrible,” in regards
to the disruption of Alpine.
“SRPL would be the biggest project anybody could ever
imagine in our region,” he told Lopez and MacDonald.
Lopez cited the Otay-Metro Powerloop, considered by
Sempra to be a standard of success for underground powerlinks.
The 52 mile, 230 kilavolt transmission project, which completed
a loop around the city of San Diego, making its way
from, the heart of San Diego to San Diego Bay, included the
installation of about 8 miles of underground distribution lines.
The project was completed ahead of schedule and under budget.
Sempra claims there was no public opposition to the project.
“We have been in smaller communities,” said Lopez,
referring to the powerloop. “30th street is no different than
Alpine,” Lopez said, pointing out that the street involved in
Barrio Logan was “a lot narrower” than the boulevard.
Local community leaders see a lack of comparison
between the two projects. In fact, their concerns run much
deeper than potential disruption to traffic and businesses.
Many are concerned about other matters, including
water. According to MacDonald, a hydrolosis report is expected
to be filed with the county in the coming months. Such a report
would address concerns of water resources.
The county’s Department of Public Works and Department
of Planning and Land Use will also be compiling a Preliminary
Engineering Report for the project, which is expected to be
released soon.
MacDonald and Lopez acknowledged safety concerns from
the public, telling attendees, that while electricity at any
stage carries with it a potential hazard, SDG&E implements an
excellent safety program.
“We have a very safe record. Safety is number one for
us,” Lopez said. He said workers would take safety measures to
ensure trench plates are set properly, that pits would be
covered, that dust and rocks would be controlled, and that
paving would be done properly. Lopez said that there would be no
blasting and that community signage would be placed at the
construction site.
MacDonald said that the cables would not be placed in
close proximity to Alpine Elementary School. In fact, SDGE
officials claim that the burial distance under the boulevard
would exceed the distances for safety required by the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). MacDonald said that contrary
to popular belief, such lines may be buried more than 7 feet
deep. The depth of the Alpine Boulevard underground distribution
lines is yet to be determined.
During SRPL’s construction, there would be two trenches
traveling the length of Alpine Boulevard from approximately Star
Valley to Peutz Valley Roads, sized at 4 feet wide and 7 feet
deep that would house the conduits and copper cable for the
project. These materials would then be covered and backfilled with
concrete. Every several hundred feet there would be concrete
vaults, large rooms, connecting cables and serving as monitoring
and maintenance facilities. Images at the Dec. 15 meeting show
that the construction of these vaults will easily monopolize an
entire lane of Alpine Boulevard.
MacDonald and Lopez dispelled rumors that the boulevard
would be closed for two years. Lopez assured that public
accessibility would not be affected by the project.
“We’ll always have driveways available to business. We
will maintain access along Alpine Boulevard. At no time will we
be shutting down Alpine Boulevard. At no time will Alpine
Boulevard be closed,” he stressed, however admitting that there
would be times boulevard access would be restricted to the use
of one lane.
Lopez said the plan to ease construction effects would
include daily notifications, “Anywhere we’re diverting from,
we’d notify,” Alternative methods of transportation would be
available, including shuttles and golf carts, according to
MacDonald.
Lopez said the project would not serve as a disruption
to community events, such as parades, which make their way down
the Alpine Boulevard.
Participants raised concerns about the new GUHSD high
school project slated for the Lazy A Ranch. Lopez said that
officials are aware of the future construction of the new high
school, and this would be taken into consideration during the
project.
“We want to make sure construction isn’t going to be in
the way or be a nuisance,” he said.
Revitalization Steering Committee, Community Development
Subcommittee Co-chairs Joseph Forlenza raised concerns about the
effects on emergency services in Alpine. Lopez vowed to
coordinate with fire, sheriff, and the police department
regarding emergency response time.
As part of community outreach during the project, SDG&E
spokesperson Jennifer Ramp, said that officials will place an
SRPL operations center in Alpine on Tom Dyke’s property, located
at 1117 Tavern Road. SDG&E officials are also planning to
establish community outreach centers along the boulevard.
Although Lopez said the project is expected to take
between 18 and 20 months to complete, he added, “There are ways
to expedite this … We are open to working six days a week.”
Local representatives and some members of the community
have expressed concern over the lack of input and interest from
the community. Many business-owners along Alpine Boulevard are
unaware of the potential project and the extended disruption it
might pose.
MacDonald said that many in Alpine have been receptive
to the proposal, as has been the case along the route.
“We’ve been well received. Imperial Valley has been
very supportive. They see the economic benefits. We’re seeing
that in San Diego County,” MacDonald said. Lopez added that if
the project were to occur San Diego County may enjoy the same
economic benefits. Local contractors would be hired for the
project, but MacDonald admitted that the potential project does
have its nay-sayers, “I think we have people along the route
that want to support us and others that don’t.”
The Sunrise Powerlink project as a whole has been
hugely contested in many Back Country and East County areas that
will be affected. Community planning groups in Back Country
communities have banded together in opposition of the entire
line, and the project is also opposed by Second District
Supervisor Dianne Jacob. Lawsuits have been filed by various
agencies in an attempt to halt the giant powerlink project.
SDG&E maintains that it needs the SRPL to bring more
energy into the county from sources in the Imperial County.
“We still rely on one transmission line. We worry we’re
going to lose the southwest power line and San Diego’s going to
be dark,” MacDonald said. “It’s time for us to build a second
transmission line in San Diego County.”
 E-mail
the Editor
|
