This week The Roadrunner interviewed Al Stehly, owner of Stehly Grove Management, and the Farm Bureau’s sole representative on the County’s Interest Group, which is working to create “tools” to implement General Plan 2020’s land use recommendations.
Stehly was a founding member of the VC Fire Protection District board. He is a longtime board member and immediate past president of the San Diego County Farm Bureau. He was appointed to the Interest Group, he says, because he was absent the day the board made the appointment.
Q: What is the County Interest Group’s role in GP2020?
A: “To come up with some recommendations in the form of policies and maps for the Board of Supervisors. It’s on a parallel path with the Steering Committee, which is made up of all of the planning group chairs. The interest group is special interests.”
Q:What special interests?
A: “A builder group, an environmentalist group, the Farm Bureau (which I represent) is kind of in the middle. There’s a couple of professional organizations like architects and landscape architects. That’s about it.”
Q: Does any one group seem to be dominant?
A: “No. In fact, most of the votes we’ve taken have been overwhelming majority like 14-1 or 12-3. Usually it’s only a couple of nos. We’ve occasionally been unanimous. It’s very rare that we get a split vote.”
Q: Is there a great deal of pressure to achieve a consensus?
A: “No. I think everybody realizes that a split vote weakens our position. If we came up with a split vote on some key items it doesn’t hold as much weight when we forward it to the supervisors as a unanimous or near unanimous vote. So the pressure is put on us by ourselves and I think everybody wants to come to a consensus.”
Q: Explain the logic of the two processes going in tandem.
A: “The interest group was created after the first map, called Alt. 3, was taken to the supervisors, and which was universally lambasted by all sides. So I think the Interest Group was set up to say, ‘OK, here’s all the groups that opposed it. Let’s put you in a room and come up with a solution.’ ”
Q: What are some of the mechanisms being seriously proposed?
A: “Well, obviously there is going to be some downzoning and upzoning. It’s going from minimal parcel size planning to density-based. You won’t have two and four and ten acre minimum, you’re going to have a density given for the property. Where you put those residential units and how big a lot you put them will be up to you. There will be a minimum lot size, mostly based on sewer or septic.”
Q: Explain it a bit more, if you would.
A: “Let’s take 100 acre parcel right now in VC that has two acre zoning, so the guy who owns it has to break it up into 50 acre parcels. Take the same piece under the new density-based plan and say the density is one unit every two units, but you can cluster them in the front, leaving that in the middle as shared opened space. One reason it was opposed in the past is that it was thought the developer could go back and develop it later. But that’s not possible. The land would be held in common by all of the owners.”
Q: What’s to keep a developer from going back and reopening the open space to development?
A: No single developer can afford or be able to go in and get a general plan change, which is what would be required. It would take another general plan change, like GP2020 to alter that.”
Q: Won’t this create a process where people are pressured to put a lot of their personal property into “open space,” without compensation?
A: “Yes, there will always be pressure to put property into open space, but hopefully the density base will give you more options and trade-offs. The developer gets to cluster in return for dedicating open space. The Farm Bureau is in favor of clustering because it leaves more farmland undisturbed”
Q: You are the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with TDRs (transfer of development rights). Tell us about them and how likely they are to be part of the mix.
A: “The Farm Bureau’s position is that they have to be part of the mix or else we don’t support the 2020 plan. There’s going to be upzoning and downzoning to move some of the parcels closer to services. Our position is there has to be some equity mechanics and transfer of development rights.”
Q: Can you explain how TDRs work?
A: “If the landowner prior to 2020 had the ability to create 15 parcels and after has the ability to only create five, he has an asset of 12 development rights that he can sell. The theoretical buyer would be the places where property is upzoned. If a guy went from a minimum of ten residences up to 20 he has to buy that right to develop.”
Q: Just on its face, it would seem to create a paradise for trial lawyers for the next century.
A: “This is done all over the country. The guy we have tagged as the consultant, Rick Pruetz, is the author of Saved By Development: Preserving Environmental Areas, Farmland and Historic Landmarks With Transfer Of Development Rights (available in the Valley Center Library).”
Editor’s Note: For a discussion of TDR’s by Pruetz, check out the link on The Roadrunner’s website at: www.valleycenter.com
“There’s a lot of examples of where it’s done all over the country and in California. To make it defensible it has to be uniform. You can’t be arbitrary. You can’t say we’ll only facilitate farmers who actually have crops and we won’t facilitate farmers who don’t have crops. It has to cover them all equally and then it’s defensible. It’s been tested legally.
“The easiest thing for the County would be to downzone without TDRs, but politically that’s not attainable. Most of the board in public meetings has endorsed some kind of equity mechanism.”
Q: What do you see as a possible downside of TDRs?
A: “If it works, there’s no downside other than the objection that some people are being forced into a downzone. If you accept that as a foregone conclusion and have to work with it and you want to find the best way to protect the landowners this is it.
“What could make TDRs fail? A million things could. The size of the program or the receiving areas not agreeing to increase density.
“We’re eyes wide open that it’s a huge project. It would be the biggest in the United States but California has always been a leader in these kinds of programs. At the Farm Bureau our guys understand it and support the idea, so at least the Farm Bureau is united on this.”
Q: Do you like the logic of “smart growth,” or is this even part of what your group is wrestling with?
A: “I think smart growth has become cliche. Depends on how you define it. The groups at our table define it different, the enviros define it different from the builders who define it different from the staff, but there are some consensus points. Such as putting your residences close to transit, putting some of you residences were they will be affordable to serve by transit, and closer to where they want to shop. Those things make good sense. Those concepts I support.”
Q: But how much does any of that apply to Valley Center?
A: “Obviously we’re not a walking community or a transit-oriented community. But one of the principles of smart growth is to keep rural areas rural as long as possible. How it applies to us is that the Country Town area would increase in density and the outlying area would become less dense the further you get away from the Country Town.”
Q: Where are we at and where is the process going? When can people comment?
A: “People can comment at any stage. Right now we are at the draft density map stage. The first map of the density map has been drawn and comments have been received and now will be implemented in the second draft.
“The ‘map’ is actually a computer model. Before it comes back out again, it will be run through a transit model, tested against the existing map and proposed roads to see if we have under-densified or over-densified in the areas. I guess you could say that it’s in the transit stage.
“Then it will go back for comment to the different groups and then to the Board of Supervisors and then to the environmental impact report stage.”
Q: How would you address criticism made by some, including this newspaper, that the GP 2020 process has pretty much been preordained by staff and that it will reach an inevitable result, no matter what public input it receives?
A: Well, obviously everyone has their own opinion going into this what the outcome should be, but I think for staff to orchestrate their own view through all their iterations and public comment and the steering committee and interest groups would be almost impossible.
“In our interest group very rarely does staff comment that what we are proposing is not workable or unattainable. Usually the comments are that it’s not legally defensible and we tweak it a little bit. But they are not leading us around. The one thing that has been predestined and not for discussion is whether it would be density-based rather than parcel-based.”
Q: How do you feel about that?
A: “It’s easier and makes more sense. I happen to think that this density thing makes sense. This way they can model for roads and decide whether to spend public money or developer money. There’s a lot of deferred capital improvement out there. You are going to find a lot of places where the roads are substandard. We know that to be true in Valley Center.”
Q: Given what you know of the process so far, where do you see our community at the end of the year 2020?
A: “If we go with the 2020 map, our community, in my opinion, would look better, because I personally don’t like two acre lots. It will obviously be bigger, as will every community. We might end up with some more affordable housing in Valley Center because we’ll get some pockets of increased density. That’s a big might, because there are other issues on density that preclude us, like construction defect lawsuits. We’re not going to get any condos. We might get some apartments.”
Q: Do you think this plan is going to adequately provide for our young people entering society?
A: That’s a good question that comes up at almost every meeting. This plan as it’s drafted will provide us with a 30 year supply of housing, which is ten years more than 2020. But I don’t know at what cost.”
By DAVID ROSS
The Valley Center Parks & Recreation District Thursday voted to throw the dice and see if they come up 14 ($14 per year per parcel, that is).
“We’re going to the people!” said board Pres. Eric Jockinsen.
Directors unanimously approved putting an initiative on the November ballot that would add a permanent $14 per year tax on every parcel within the district.
Note: To read the full report on the tax proposal prepared by the district, visit our website at: www.valleycenter.com
Two-thirds of the voters would be required to approve this measure, which will put an estimated $330,000 per year into the district’s budget, and possibly twice that much as new homes are built.
Jockinsen pointed out that, contrary to some reports, “This issue is not the same as a bond measure. We don’t have to sell bonds. This is a legislative action that allows special districts such as ours to go to its constituents and say we’d like you to support. This is an opportunity for the residents of Valley Center to do something for themselves. The money is not going to leave Valley Center.”
$1.16 Per Month
Jockinsen added, “To make this as fair to the taxpayer as possible, we went out and asked for $14 per year per parcel, no matter how large the parcel. That’s $1.16 a month.”
That number was arrived by figuring backwards from the amount, $300,000 that the board figured it needed annually.
“When we saw that we could do it for $14 per parcel,” said Director John Scibilia, “we thought, “Wow! That’s an awesome amount and won’t hurt anybody.”
Of course, those with many parcels will be hit harder than those with just one parcel, he said.
The money raised will grow each year as Valley Center grows and new parcels are created.
The tax base will give VCP&R something to borrow against to buy property, do maintenance of the district’s eight facilities and fund building for new ones.
None of these things are possible with the current $60,000 property tax base.
Most of the rest of the district’s budget comes from user fees on facilities, said Jockinsen.
Most of its money comes whenever a building permit is pulled. This money is called PLDO (Parklands and Development Ordinance) funds. It gets $800 per house.
“That money allows us to go out and buy property and equipment, but not to maintain it,” said Jockinsen. We can’t use a dime of that to mow the lawn or paint the building. It’s a tough, tough position that we’re in. We have to get more parklands in the Valley to keep what most of us moved to Valley Center for. We are attempting to do that and we are attempting to get the voters’ help.
“There’s no smoke and mirrors and no hidden agendas,” said Jockinsen, who asked rhetorically, “Do you want housing tract after housing tract and strip malls? We want to go out and buy large tracts of land and convert them to passive use parks, multiple use parks and ballparks. This is a very desirable place to live. What we are asking to do is ask the voters to help us at $1.16 a month.”
None Spoke Against
About 20 people attended the public hearing, and, while none spoke against the proposal, Hidden Meadows resident Merle Aleshire, said that the board’s biggest challenge will be convincing the voters in his community to support the measure.
Also attending was attorney Warren B. Diven of Best Best & Krieger, who helped the board prepare the taxing election.
Diven’s firm also helped the VC Fire Protection District board with its tax election two years ago.
Director Greg Marcon told the audience, “We have one-tenth of the land we should own for a community our size. Right now if we do own property we have to build something on it to generate income.”
Two Thirds Required
Prop. 218, passed by the voters of California in 1996 placed limits on how special districts raise taxes. Prior to 218 assessments could be levied for maintenance with a majority vote. Now districts are required to get 66.67% of the voters to authorize a tax increase.
This same restriction applies to school, fire and water districts.
District Tried Before
The parks district in November 1986 unsuccessfully put Prop. Z before the voters, and were asked to approve $12 per year/parcel for three years.
The measure garnered 1522 votes yes and 924 no, or 4% shy of the needed votes. In that year the organized opposition came from voters living in Lawrence Welk Village.
Timing is All
“This is a good time to go because no other districts are on the ballot asking for anything,” said Jockinsen.
He noted that the district has $500,000 in PLDO funds collected from new building, which must be used to buy land or other capital purchases.
With the new tax base VCP&R could borrow an additional $3.5 million.
“We envision that most of the money raised will be used to buy land. The other will be put into a high interest account and be used for salaries. As that grows and you don’t use it all, it will be self-sufficient and you won’t need to raise the taxes anymore,” he said.
Directors think it’s important to acquire parklands now before all open spaces are snatched up and developed.
“What Valley Center doesn’t have is passive parks and we ought to get that,” said Marcon.
Diana Sourbeer, president of the VC Trails Assn., said that her group will be enthusiastic about this tax because it might help fund riding and walking trails.
Organizing
Thursday’s vote was followed by a seat-of-the-pants, organize an election committee on the fly meeting.
Although directors can campaign for the proposition individually, they can’t spend district money to promote it.
Directors listened while community members fielded ideas for how to sell the tax to voters.
Jockinsen suggested organizing phone banks and said that as president of the board, he will visit all of the clubs in town to educate them about the tax.
“It’s not so much a factor of figuring out who’s for you as who is against you. . .” he said. “I’m not a big fan of taxes either but we’ve tried everything and we just don’t have the income to make it happen.”
Those who might be inclined to support the measure are members of the various athletic clubs that use district facilities.
Another group is seniors.
“We have a large number of seniors in Valley Center,” said the district’s Gen. Mgr., Joyce Johnson, “and we can’t do a lot of the things we’d like to do to service them. The senior group is going to be very important in this.”
* * *
District boundaries can be confusing. While it does include Hidden Meadows and Champagne Village, it does not include the Paradise Mountain area.
If you are uncertain whether you are in the district, and don’t want to wait for a sample ballot, you can call the district at 749-8852 and give them your parcel number, and they can tell you if you are in the district.
A beauty salon and Christian bookstore are still closed and the VC library remains half-closed six weeks after a devastating water main break on Valley Center Road on June 16.
Martha & Don Bozulich are the owners of the Old Town Center which was devastated by the water main break.
“Right now we are in the process of completing the work that needs to be done on the Christian bookstore and Shear Pleasure beauty salon,” Martha Bozulich told The Roadrunner on Monday.
This work includes painting, texturing the walls and floors, bathrooms. The extent of the work was increased considerably when clean-up crews found extensive mold inside of the walls.
It took a long time to treat and eradicate the mold, said Mrs. Bozulich.
“We couldn’t get started on the final repairs until last week.
She estimated that flooring on the beauty salon could begin this week and possibly be ready by the middle of next week.
“We’re hoping to get things ready as soon as possible,” she said.
“The book store has picked out the flooring that they wanted as did the beauty salon. We’ll have that carpet in by Monday or Tuesday of next week,” she said.
The work is costing about $25,000 she said. Most of the damages are being paid by the water district’s insurance company. The water district wasn’t able to provide an up-to-date figure for how much it has paid in damages caused by the flooding.
Nonie Noordman, manager of Valley Center Christian Books, told The Roadrunner, “Valley Center Christian books is down, but we’re far from out!”
The bookstore, she says, has moved its entire contents to the VC Community Church sanctuary. They’ve inventoried, cleaned, packed up, stacked up and now await the news that their store will be restored.
The bookstore is a ministry of the VC Community Church and is staffed by volunteers, who are at home and calling often to see when they may return to work.
“The hours that these 20 volunteers spend in the bookstore are very special to them, and the absence of their four hour shifts are missed immensely,” said Mrs. Noordman.
The bookstore has a sign above its window that reads: “Life Is Hard But God is Good . . . and He Does Keep His Promises.”
Note: a poem written by book-store volunteer entitled “God’s Dream,” will be posted this week on The Roadrunner website: www.valleycenter.com
The bottom half of the VC Library, except for its office and storage closet, will remain closed until a new tenant moves in.
Sandy Puccio, VC branch librarian told The Roadrunner that the County Library has decided not to attempt to reopen the bottom section of the library since only a few weeks remain until the brand new branch library opens.
“The County decided that since we had to take everything out for repairs that they didn’t want to move it back in since it would then have to be packed away again for the move,” said Puccio.
The VC Library will close the first of September to prepare for the move. The new library will open probably in November, she said.
Most of the fiction at the library is already packed up although the best sellers are still out and available for checking out, said the branch librarian.
“We are looking for another tenant for the library space,” said Mrs. Bozulich.
The flood was caused when a 30 inch section of main first laid in 1955, corroded to the thickness of paper, just “rolled up” under pressure of 200 pounds per square inch. An estimated 640,000 gallons, about an acre foot, were lost.
The congregation of St. Francis Episcopal Church in Pauma Valley is saying goodbye to Rector James Estes this month, and the only thing that eases the pain is knowing that the rector and his wife, Virginia, will continue to live in Escondido.
The rector talked this week about his 17 years at the parish, which, when he arrived, was a mission with about a dozen members.
“In terms of the congregation we have moved to a younger generation. I think the average age when I came was something like 65 and there were two children” he says.
“Now, if we take all the children into account, we are an average age of around 50. That’s something I feel good about. It gives the congregation a future.”
Pastor Estes is also proud of the impact that the small congregation of about 100 adult members has had on the surrounding community.
“We’ve had an incredible record for outreach,” he says. “We’ve had a literacy program of 11 years and a lot of people, mostly women, have come through that program and a number of them are gainfully employed in Pauma. I see one woman working at the clinic, I see another helping at the post office. A number of them are in the club, the grounds crew and dining area. A lot of domestics have held onto and improved their status because they have a little more English to talk to their employers. We didn’t put all that much money into the program but a lot of people put in a lot of time.”
Most recent of the church’s accomplishments has been its support of Mountain Valleys Clinic.
“The clinic to a certain extent, grew out of the literacy program. We became aware that these young mothers had to catch the bus to Escondido and spend most of the day before they could come back. We’ve had a lot of people in St. Francis put time and money into the clinic. We are committed to an annual pledge of $5000.
“It’s a success story and I think people feel good about it.”
When the Estes family came to Pauma Valley, the rector knew this would be the last stage of his career. He arrived as the vicar of a mission but retires as the rector of a parish.
He had previously served as a missionary in North Borneo, which he had to cut short because of asthma, and a chaplain and teacher of a secondary school in Hong Kong, and ten years in Carlsbad, New Mexico, a career that he calls, “a fascinating, interesting and largely rewarding experience.”
“St. Francis Church is in the country,” he says, “but its people include a lot of retired CEOs, well-traveled and well-educated people. The fact that we have been able to move from a very small mission to a parish that is larger and younger and pretty well-endowed financially makes its future quite certain, shall we say. It’s on a much stronger footing than when I came. I can kind of relax and say, this thing is going to go and thrive. So I personally feel good about this last phase of my 41 plus years as a priest.”
At his retirement dinner Sunday at Pauma Valley Country Club, attended by over 140 friends and members of the parish, Rector Estes, his voice often breaking with emotion, said he had been given several “red flags” over the past few months that indicated it was time to retire.
“First is the weakening of the lungs, second was a weakening of the knees, but the real red flag is that I have begun to grow into a Franciscan haircut and if I stay much longer I’ll be completely bald.”
He concluded, “I want to thank God for the opulence of the experiences we have had. He couldn’t have designed it in a more interesting way. I have done my things, seen more places and loved and been loved by more people than I could even have dreamed of 40 or 50 years ago.”
His parish will start the process of replacing him in September.
What will he do in retirement.
“For awhile I really want to sit back and read, work on a few family projects like a family history that has been sitting on the back burner. Later on I will make myself available if really needed.
“I might want to try my hand at some writing. It’ll be a new adventure.”
His advice for his successor? “Be sure that you love this kind of area. If you do then it will be very easy to love these people and whoever it is will be just as blessed as I have been.”
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.