Item 9 - Acceptance of Public Improvements Latter Day Saints Poway ChapelFROM: James L. City Mana
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant Cit Manager~l ~
ark S. Weston, Director o ng neerin~Services/)/Y~
avid Siminou, Senior Civi ng neer ~
oger A. Free, Associate C v 1 ngineer~.~j'
esse Q. Tano, Assistant C v 1 ngineer I~
DATE: May 16,1995
SUBJECTI~: Acceptance of Public at Twin Peaks Road and Espola Road,
Improvement Plan Number 801-04-226; Latter Day Saints Poway Chapel,
lo,
A
The public required for this project have been completed. Staff
recommends acceptance of the public imp
EN
This action is not subject to C.E.Q.A. review.
iPACT
None.
None.
)AT1
It is recommended that the City Council accept the public improvements and direct the
City Clerk to release the $65,400 performance bond, the $209,000 grading permit bond,
and waive the requirement for a payment bond and warranty bond because the improvements
Lave been completed, opened, and used by the public for over two years without any
claims.
ACTION
MAY161995 ITEM 9
-AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF POWAY
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
(-~
James L. Bowersox, City Man~)
FROM:
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant C t' M nager
Mark S. Weston, Director o ng neeringuService~z)y~'
Javid Siminou, Senior Civi ng neer
Roger A. Free, Associate C v 1 ngineer~y~7
Jesse Q. Tano, ' C v 1 n§ineer I X~/
DATE: April 4, 1995
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Public Improvements at Twin Peaks Road and
Espola Road, Improvement Plan Number 801-04-226; Latter Day
Saint Develo
BACKGROUND:
his project is located at the southeast corner of Twin Peaks Road and Espola
oad {Attachment 1). The public improvements required for this project were
nstallation of sidewalk, curb and gutter, pavement, storm drain, street
ights, sewer and water
FINDINGS:
The Engineering Services Department has reviewed the public facilities and
found them to be complete and ready for
~T:
None.
tTAL IHPACT:
This action is not subject to C.E.Q.A. review.
rICAT] CORRESPONDENCE:
None.
ACTION:
~ nc ~ )/AY161995 rTlmM 9
Acceptance of Public I -~'ovements at Twin Peaks Road ar-Zspola Road,
I L Plan Number 801-04-226; Latter Day Saints Poway Chapel, Developer
May 16, 1995
Page 2
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Accept the public ' and direct the City Clerk to release
the $65,400 performance bond {Grant-Hatch and Associates Bond No.
8126 81 68).
2. Direct the City Clerk to release the $209,000 grading permit bond
{Grant-Hatch & Associates Bond No. 8126 8! 70}.
3. Waive the requirement for a payment bond and warranty bond because
the improvements have been completed, opened, and used by the public
for over two years without any claims.
JLB:JDF:MSW:JS:RAF:JQT:bw
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Vicinity Map
MAY 1 6 1995 ITEM 9
x SITE
PEA --
.
SCALE: NTS
- /
CITY OF POWAY
ITEM: 'P,,VIN AND
.AN NO. 801-04-226, LDS POWAY CHAPEL,
TITLE: VICINITY MAP
ATTACHMENT 1
~AY3-61995 ITEM 9
Ver. ion ded by the JPA Ad th)e Committee on May 8, 1995
PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION POLICY
The San Diegulto River Valley Regional Open Space
Park Joint Power~ Authority, a agency without land use authority, respects
private property rights and has pledged not to infringe upon those rights to Implement its
goals and objectives. To ensure that private property fights are respected, lhe JPA has
adopted the following specific guidelines for private property fights protection:
The JPA has never condemned property. The JPA will never
~1 nor participate in a hostile condemnation. By law, when it acquires propex~y the
JPA must compensate property owners for the fair market value of their property. It is the desire
of the JPA to retain 'friendly' condemnation for tax purposes, an important benefit to property
owners desiring to sell their property.
The JPA may not acquire property without the approval of the
member agency within whose jurisdiction the property lies (page 4 of Joint Powe_rs
Agreement). When property is offered for sale to the ~A, that approval can be made by the
City Manager or Ad ' ' ~'that jurisdiction delegates that authority to its City Manager or
Ad ' ' By law, the .IPA must pay full fair market value as determined by a certified
apl: ~uired by state law, unless the property the land at a below marl/et
- price for tax purposes.
: The J'PA is not an agency with land use authority and cannot
regulate or impose private property owners in the focused planning area of
the San Dieguito River Park. The focused planning area for the San Dieguito River Park is a
regional park planning boundary.. Both private and public land is included within the focused
pi Some of the private land may be acquired for the park in the future fi.om willing
property, owners if the land is needed for park purposes.
: The JPA has adopted design and development standards which appb,.'
ONLY to park-initiated projects on public land (page 100 of Concept Plan). The JPA
cannot adopt design and development standards ~vhich are binding on private propertj' owners.
The adopted Concept Plan includes in an appendix a compilation of possible guidelines
developed by other agencies which are not part of the Plan. These types of guidelines could only
be adopted and implemented by the member agencies which have land use authority. The
Count>' or' San Diego has not adopted design standards for the t area within the
FPA.
The JPA has the right only of advisory review and comment on private
development proposals. The JPA cannot limit private property owners rights. Thc JPA is
authorized to review and comment on private development proposals submitted to its member
agencies which arc within or haxe an impact on thc San Dicguito River Park (pg 4 of Joint
10
Powcrs Agrccmcnt). Such rcvicw and commcnt ia advisory in nature only, similar to any
planning group tlr private individual~ cxcrcising t~c speech. Dcci.~ions regarding land use,
including zoning, discrctionary and ministcrial pcrmits and othcr rcgulations arc made by the
Jl)A's member agencies, which have complete land usc authority. 'Fha JPA will rcvicw and
comment only on discretionary projects such as subdivision or usc permits. The JPA will not
review and : projects, remodels, single family home building permits, or
othcr uses permitted by right such as agricultural uses.
Trails: Trail planning and impl of park imp will be focused on
publicly owned land located west of Lake Sutherland. The Coast to Crest Trail will not be
implemented on privately owned land without the property owner's consent; however, if
the properly owner seeks a d' permit (such as a major subdivision) to develop
his/her property, the County or CiD' may utilize its right to require a trail as a condition of
approval. Trail alignments will be developed in cooperation with landowners and leaseholders
in order to minimize impacB to existing uses, such as farming, cattle ranching and private
residences (pg 37 of Concept Plan). When determining where a specific trail should be loc~ated,
consideration shall be given to surrounding uses, both existing and planned for the area, in an
adopted land use plan (pg 37 of Concept Plan). In order to minimize impacts to adjoining
properties and uses, trails shall be adequately separated from ex/sting uses through setbacks,
significant elevational separation, and/or fencing (pg 37 of Concept Plan). Signage shall be
provided along the trail to inform / on the trail and respect adjoining private property
(pg 37 of Concept Plan). The JPA will establish a volunteer patrol program supervised by a park
ranger to ensure that park regulations arc observed (pg 37 of Concept Plan). When a private
property owner seeks a discretionary permit to develop his or her property., the J-PA will work
with member agency staff and the property owner to identify appropriate trail al' '1 to
support trail dedications ONLY when a land usc agency under its ov,~ policies would normally
require a trail dedication (such bdivision) (pg 37 of Concept Plan). Segments of the
Coast to Crest Trail may h :1 outside of the San Dicgulto R/ver Park focused planning
area because of topo~m'aph.ical or to avoid properE,.' owner conflicts. Due to
topographic, sensitive resource or other the bike path portion of the Coast to Crest
Trail places have to be located along existing streets (,pg 36 of Concept Plan).
: The J'PA strongly supports the continued use of private property
for farming and ranching purposes. The adopted Concept Plan as the
predominant use in the San Pasqual Valley and continued ranching in the Santa Ysabel Valley
(pages 63 and 73 of the Concept Plan). The JPA has not and wile not interfere with a property
owner's rights or ability to farm. However, there is nothing in the Concept Plan or in the powers
of the JPA that would require a property owner to farm or ranch his propcrD.', if the underlying
zoning or' thc land usc agency permits other uses. The JPA will not put a trail across active
grazing land.
1 1 2
SUMMARY OF NOTICED MEETING WITH PROPERTY OWNERS
(Held May 3, 199fl)
BACKGROUND
At the JPA Board's request a noticed meeting for property owna.s was held on
Wednesday, May 3rd. Approximately 625 notices were mailed to prol~rty owners
within the focused planning area. The purpos~ of the metning wu to listen to the
property owners' concerns regarding the San Dieguito Riva' Park and to discuss ways
in which these concerns have been or could be addressed. Approximately twenty
people attended. Those individuals who signed in are presented below.
Mr./Mrs. Harold Brothers St,tn Yalof
D.P. McWhirter -- Mr./Mrs. John Farkash
· -.Jack M. Gibson Byron White
H. Michael Collins Herb Turner
Mary-Ellen Gausewitz 'William Chilvers
... Arthur Schmitz Mr./Mrs. Ben Hillebrecht
John E. Geis Bruce L. Cavanaugh
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
The following is a surnm~'y of the major issues discussed at the meeting:
Desi es:
Some of those present understood that the JPA does not have land use authority, and
that the Concept Plan did not include "design standards" which would be imposed on
them by the IPA. However, all were concerned that the member agencies would do
whatever the IPA asked them to do when a project is reviewed, and further that the
member agencies would adopt design standards which would even apply to single
family building permits. There was also some concern that the/PA could dictate when
and if agricultural crops could be planted. It was stated that the J'PA has no such
authority. The basis for this concern was unclear, although felt that the goal
to protect sensitive biological resources could be interpreted as opposing new
agricultural uses.
Having a list of which specific types of projects the JPA can and cannot review and
comment on may help alleviate some concerns.
12
Summary - Page 2
The JPA is viewed us one additional layer ot'I~ on top of what most felt was
too much g (federal, state and local) already. It did not seem to mat~er that
thc JPA does not issue I: gulate uses. One individual made the general point
that planning should be more integrated than the piecemeal planning which usually
occurs. This would seem to argue in favor of an approach such as the YPA, which was
created to avoid piecemeal park planning by the six member agencies.
Condemnation:
Several property owners said they want the JPA to say it will not use its powers of
eminent domain. Some felt comfortable with simply eliminating the use of hostile
condemnation (they understand about "friendly" condemnation), wh/le others wanted
to see things taken further. For example, the JPA should state that it will ;~
any member agency to condemn land for the Park, and will not accept any land for the
Park that has been condemned by any agency.
[PA Boundary:
Those present did not talk about which FPA they preferred. There was
general discussion about what it means to be in the FPA, including some concerns
regarding on their property as a result of being in the FPA and the potential
for inverse condemnation. It was stated by staff that the Concept Plan does not impose
on private property and that the J'PA has no land use authori~'. Through
further discussion it appears again that concern is wl~ other agencies could
choose to apply in order to implement the Concept Plan.
There was discussion that the term "park" as commonly understood (developed for
active uses) may not be the appropriate terminology for what is the intent of the San
Dieguito River Park, which is a "greenbelt and open space park system". Some
property owners suggested SDRP change its name.
There was strong support for the idea or' having a clearly defined of how
the San Dieguito River Park has t~cn action to protect private prolx'rty rights. They
xv:mted such a document adopted as pm't of the Concept Plan. A draft private property
rights pmlcction plan was distribmcd to the property owners.
- Summary - Page 3
Thc issue of li.~bility was discussed at some length. Although the landowners were
aware thal the Slal¢'s Recreational Trails Liability Statute renders them immune from
legal liability in most cases, they expressed concern aboul the initial costs of defending
themselves ag injured on their property (specifically someone who strayed
offan adjaeem trail) to prove that they are immune. Dwight Worden who was present
m the meeting to address these types of questions said this legal defense could be
provided through liabili~' insurance if the Board ~4shes to have such coverage in the
future as trails are developed.
~therford Ranch I
Several people who own property within the Rutherford Ranch asked to be omitted
from the FPA, because they were no! in the original FPA and not in the ~'iewshed.
They also raised concerns regarding continued access to their property..
Additional Points:
- Several of the eastern property owners stated that they fei! there should be no new
paved trails east of Clevenger Canyon; there should be more property owner
rel: on the CAC; and that there should be no trails by th alan&
Near the end of the meeting, .lack Gibson distributed a list of concerns and issues for
the JPA to consider. This document, dated April 1995, is attached.
5/5/95
PRESENTED BY JACK GIBSON ATTHE PROPERTY OWNERS
MEETING OF MAY 3, 1995
APR~ 1995
· PRIVATE LANDS REMOVED FROM FPA/REDO FPA
· SPA MUST ADHERE TO AND RESPECT THE FIRST AND FIFTH
/ · }PA TO STOP TRYING TO ADVERSELY AFFECT PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN
THE FPA
NO LAND TAKING FOR ANY REASON WITHOUT TH~ PROPERTY OWNERS NON
COERCED CONSENT. PERIOD! PERIOD! PERIOD! THIS IS WHAT Ms. JACOB
WANTED A.ND IT SHOULD BE FOLLOWED.
· PARK CONCEPT AND FINANCING TO BE BROUGHT UP FOR GENERAL SAN
DIEGO COUNTY PUBLIC VOTE. PRESENTLY THERE IS NO SECURE DEDICATED
FUNDING TO MAINTAIN AND OPERATE ~ "VISION". }PA
ACTIONS/PLANS/BUDGET/SPENDING MUST NOT DENIGRATE ANY OTI-IER
PARK OK SOCIAL SERVICE FLrNDING.
NOTIFY ALL LANDOWNERS W~THTN TI-IE FI)A, WHEN POTENTIAL PARK
POLICIES ARE GOING TO BE ENACTED OR ACTIONS SCI-{EDULED TO OCCUR
WHICH MAY HAVE ADVERSE AFFECTS.
HAVE A FrX~D DEFINITION OF "MEMBER AGENCY" I.E. }PA IvI-UST GET PRIOR
APPROVA. L FROM IViEMBER AGENCY INVOLVED I.E. BOARD OR cOLrNCTLS
(NOT) DIRECT DEALINGS WITH CITY AND COUNTY STAFF PRIOR TO
APPROVAL BY BOARD OR COUNCILS
o... RESTRUCTURI'NG OF CONDEIVI2qATION CAPABILITIES A.ND }PA INVOLVEMENT
WITH OTHER AGENCIES CONCER.NTNG SUCH
· RESTRUCTURING OF THE fPA BOARD SUCH THAT THI~RE IS NO ETHICAL
PROBLEMS SUCH AS HAVING A COUNTY SUPERVISOR AS ]PA BOARD
C HA.rR~\ L~N
,/. THE ]PA CLAIMS BEING SUPPORTIVE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS A.ND
AGRICULTURE. THESE WORDS HAVE NOT BEEN SUPPORTED BY ACTIONS.
· DENIALS BY fPA STAFF AND BOAP, D OF PROBLEMS WITHOUT ALLOWING
REBUTTAL IN PUBLIC TESTIMONY KFUST STOP.
~/· ENFORCE CONSISTENCY WITII THE CONCEPT PLAN AND }PA AGREENtENT.
CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF FOLLOW TO THE LETTER THE CONCEPT PLAN
PAO£ I
~IAY 1 6 1995 ITEM 1.~ - ~
WORDING: "To use public land only t'or the benefit ofthe public, and f ~ :
with the goals of thc Pnrk"
. PARK PROV[DE LIABILITY INDEMNIFICATION FOR NEARBY
LANDOWNERS
OF
SDRP TRAILS/FACILITIES ETC. PARK WOULD BE A
FOR PROPERTY OWNERS.
· NO TRA/LS LMPLEMENTED OR HHGE. S SCHEDULED WHATSOEVER '[TIROUGH
PRIVATELY HELD OR LEASED CATTLE RANGE LANDS.
· NO DENYING BY J'PA RECOMMENDATION OR ~MBER AGENCY (REQUESTED
OR SUPPORTED BY J"PA RECOM1V[ENrDATION) ACCESS OF WATER SOLFRCES TO
CATTLE
· PAID LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PARK MAINTENANCE STAFF
PATROLLING/OPERATING AND MAINTAINING PARK TRAK, S AND FACILITIES.
NO PAVED TRAILS OR CAMPGROUNDS ON ANY PUBLIC LANDS EAST OF THE
SAN PASQUAL VALLEY LA1N'DSCAPE UNIT. THERE ARE MANY
ENVII{ONMENTAL CONCERNS CONNECTED WITM THIS ISSUE.
· SDKP PROPOSED DESIGN AND LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES SHOULD BE CHANGED
OR ELI~MTNATED IN SEVERAL AREAS.
· IPA TO STOP REINVENTING GEOGRAPHY. TI-IE SANTA YSABEL CREEK A.ND
CORRESPONDING VALLEY IS NOT THE SAN DIEGLrITO RIVER OR VALLEY. YET
THE SANTA YSABEL CREEK AND VALLEY IS CONSTANTLY BEING PORTKAYED
BY JPA STAFF DURING PRESENTATIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTATION AS
BEING THE SAN DIEGUITO.
J, REMOVAL OF DEPICTION OF PRIVATELY HELD PROPERTIES ON ~ SDRP
BROCHURE BY REMOVING THE COLORED PORTIONS OF THE MAP.
PRESENTLY THESE PRIVATE LANDS ARE INFERKED AS BEING PART OF THE
PARK.
PAGE 2
· T
LRY161995 ITF_ 1)
Ver.~ion as approved by the CAC ut their May 5, 1995 meeting.
* * * * DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES * * * *
PRIYATE PROPERTY RIGlrrs PROTKCTION
', The San Dicguito River Valley Regional Open Space Park
Joint Powers Auth~rity has always respected private property rights and has
pledged not to infringe upon those rights to implement it.~ goals and objectives, To
ensure that private property rights are respected, thc JPA has adopted the following
specific guidelines for private property rights protection.
The J'PA has not and will not establish any regulations
which impose on private property owners in the focused planning area
for the San Dieguito River Park. The focused planning area for the San Dieguito River
Park is a regional park planning bounda_ny. Both private and public land is included
within the focused planning area. Some of the private land may be acquired for the park
in the fu~re from willing property owners if the land is needed for park purposes. The
SPA has adopted design and development standards which apply ONLY to park-initiated-
projects on public land (page 100 of Concept Plan). The J'PA has not and will not adopt
design and development standards which are binding on private property, owners: The
adopted Concept Plan includes guidelines in the appendix which are not part of ',he Plan
and could orily be implemented by the land use agency (,page 116 of Concept Plan).
t: In its advisory.' review and comment on private development
proposals, the d-PA will not ] Z to have others limit, any private property
owners rights as guaranteed by the U.S. C and upheld by the Courts to
the use of private land whether for farming, ranching or development. The J-PA is
authorized to review and comment on private development proposals submitted to its
memb ~ich are witkin or have an impact on the San Dieguito Rix'er Park (!ag
4 of Joint Powers A~eement). Such review and comment is advisor}.' in nature only,
similar to any planning group or private individuals exercising free speech. Decisions
regarding land use. including zoning, discretionary and ' ' permits and other
regulations are made by the JPA's member agencies, which have complete land use
authority. The JPA will review and comment only on d' . projects such as
subdivision or use permits. The JPA will not review and comment on ministerial
projects, remodels, single t';m~ily home building permits, or uses permitted by right such
as agricultural uses. The JPA has not and will not adopt design and development
standards which are binding on private property owners.
Trails: Trail planning will focus on publicly owned land located west of Lake
Sutherland. The Coast to Crest Trail will not be implemented on privately owned
land without the prnpert)' owner's consent unless the property owner seeks a
d' . permit (snob as a major subdivision) to de,,'elop his/her properS' (page
37 ~f Cuncept Planl. Trail al' II be developed in cooperation with landowners
and Icn.scholdcrs in order lO minimiz'c imp;tots to existing uses, s;leh ;IS farming, cattle
I 8 I¢iAY 1 6 1995 ITEM 13
ranching and private residcncc,s (pg 37 of Concept Plan). When determining where a
spccilic lruil should bc located, consideration shall be given to surrounding uses, both
cxisting and planned lbr tl~ 'Joptcd land uso plan epg 37 of Conccpt Plan). In
order to minimize impacts to adjoining properties and uses, trails shall be adequately
scp:~ratcd t?om existing uscs through sctbacks, significant clcvational separation, ancl/or
f`cncing (pg 37 of' Concept Plan). Signage shall I~ provided along thc trail to inform
users to stay on the trail and respect adJoining private property (pg 37 of Concept Plan).
Thc JDA will establish a volunteer patrol program supervised by a park ranger to ensure
that park regulations are observed (pg 37 of Concept Plan). When a private property
owner seeks a discretionary permit to develop his or her property, the .IPA will work with
member agency staff and the property owner to identify appropriate trail alignments and
to support trail dedications ONLY when a land use agency under its own policies would
normally require a trail dedication (such ')division) (pg 37 of Concept Plan).
Segments of the Coast to Crest Trail may have to extend outside of the San Dieguito
River Park focused planning area because of topographical or to avoid
property owner conflicts.
; The J'PA strongly supports the continued use of private
property, for faming and rauchiug purposes. The adopted Concept Plan encourages
agriculture as the pred in the San Pasqu~.l Valley and continued ranch_Lng in
the Santa Ysabe] Valley (.pages 63 and ?3 of the Concept Plan). The J-PA has not and will
.. property owner's fights or ability to farm. However, there is nothing
in the Concept Plan or in the powers of the YPA that would require a property owner to
farm or ranch bis property, if the underlying zoning of the land use agency permits other
uses,
The J-PA may not acquire property without the approval of
the member agency within whose jurisdiction the properS.' lies (page 4 of Joint
P ). For acquisition from a willing seller, that approval can be made by
the Cit?' Manager. if that jurisdiction delegates that authoriv:' to its City Manager. By
law, the .IPA must pay full fair market value as determined by a certified apl:
required by state la~v. unless the property owner offers the land at a below market price
for tax purposes.
: The JPA has never condemned properS.'. The JPA will never
~1 nor be officially involved with a hostile condemnation. The JPA will not
utilize its power of condemnation except with the consent of the property owner and in
accord with its adopted policy on eminent domain. By law. the JPA must compensate
property thc ~ luc of their property.
DRAFT
May 19, 1995
Honorable Chair and Board of Supervisors
County of San Diego
1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335
San Diego, CA 92101
Dear Chairwoman Jacob and Supervisors:
SUBJECT: The San Dieguito River Park and Your Action of April 4, 1995
This I >onse to y t' April 4, 1995, requesting consideration
by the JPA Board of certain issues. After giving careful consideration to your
concerns, and those of private property owners and members of the public, the
JPA Board, on May 19, 1995, adopted a Private Property Rights Protection
Policy, a copy of which is attached to th/s letter, and revised the Focused Planning
Area of the San Dieguito River Park (see attached map). The JPA Board's
responses to y ~ issues are listed below:
1. Remove the power of cona' he San Dieguito JPA.
In response to your request, the J'PA Board has reviewed its position on eminent
domain and has clarified its position with respect to hostile condemnation in the
Private Property Protection Policy. The JPA will only enter into "tYiendly"
condemnations with willing sellers who wish to use that process for the tax
benefits.
2. Provide a p), ~ to identifi.' the western portion of the park as a priori~,.~
for acquisition.
The JPA has almost no funds available currently for land acquisition, and there
are few potential sources of fiature acquisition funds on the horizon. Language
has been added to the JP:Vs Private Property Rights Protection Policy to indicate
that thc JPA will its acquisition priorities on lands west of Interstate
15. The JPA Board will continue to take advantage of acquisition opportunities
xxhcrc possible in the eastern areas, specifically at Rutherford Ranch and Boden
Canyon, and frnm other willing sellers. It is thc JPA's intention to
land ' ' ' trail planning m~d impl of park improvements in thc
ama west of Lake Sutherlal~d. ·
May I0,
3. I,'~rtmd~lL, rt~rttl ~,,Iddeltnes 1~) clarify Ihe rt, latltm, rhlp b~,lween Ihe park ~nd Ih~, pr/vale
pr(~p~,rty east ~?f A I ~.
Thc Private Propc~y Rights Protcction Policy lays out all of thc ways in which thc JPA will
suppo~ and protect private propc~y rights. ~is policy applics to all private pro~y o~ers,
not just those in thc ~ral
4. /nsure thul the JP~ will not ha~e the ability to interfere with farming activities and the
utili=ation of local streams for irrigation.
The JPA h~ repeatedly s~ ~ suppo~ f i f~ing ~d ~ching ' '
the river valley. ~e Private Pmpe~ ~ghts Protection Policy ~i~orces ~t in ~g~d ~o
f~in~ ~d r~chin[ on pfivatc prope~. In ~e S~ P~qual Valley, mo~ of thc f~[ng
activities t~e place on Ci~ of S~ Diego pro~, ~d ~e regulated by ~e Ci~. la ~ditioa,
regional, s~te ~d federal asencies ~ve regulations conce~ng potential imp~ts to wat~ ~d
water qua]J~, ~d these regulatJo~ c~ ~pact f~Jng activities.
only.
5. Revise the Focused Planning ~rea by deleting the privately owned proper~ be~een the
Sutherland Rese~oir and Rutherford Ranch while providing a tho~and foot corridor along the
San Die~ito R' linage.
~e ~A retained prep~c a computerized viewshed ~ysis of ~ S~ Die,to
~ver V~ley. The compute~ed ~¢wshed ~ysis w~ at~Hzed to develop a revised Foc~ed
Pl~in~ ~ea. At its mect~S of May 19, t995, ~ ~A Bo~d adopted a revised FPA w~ch
eliminates ~ose ~c~ which ~c outside of ~e viewshed. In addition, ~e ~A Bo~d created a
Spccia[ S~dy ~ea ~n ~e S~ta Ysabe[ ~ea be~een L~e Su~erl~d ~d Ru~e~ord R~ch.
P~k pl~in[ ~11 [ such ~e ~ a private prope~ o~er reques~ to
FPA, or a private prope~ o~er submits a discretioa~ development pe~k request (s~ch ~ a
major subdivision, specific pl~ or gene~ pl~ ~endmen0 to ~e Co~.
acquire prope~ or casements or pI~ ~]s or o~cr p~k improvemen~
~ea antiI ~ FPA is established.
6..~[c'et wi/~ res/dents and properO' o~'ners of the rural areas ~o obt~in their input and
~ddress ~ by I]~e pr()~ . ~e Board of Supe~isors hearin~ and provide
guidelines for ' ' p~zrticip~zd(m in the fizture.
Those persons ~vho spoke in opposition to thc S~m Dicguito River P~k at ~c 4/4,~ Bo~ at'
Supervisors meeting wcrc pcrso~ally contacted ;md intb~cd of thc JPA's April 21st ;md May
loth mcctin~ on these issues, :md i~vitcd to express tb ' hc JPA Bo~d. All private
property owners within thc FI~A xxcm invited to a special meeting with JPA staffon May 3~ to
discuss their concerns, and to help t~nnulatc spccilic proposals to amclloratc those concerns.
Bo~,rd uf Supervis~rs
May 19, 1995
Pug¢ 3
Citizens ibr Private Property Rights gave a g to thc JPA at the JPA's May 19th
meeting.
In addition, input from rural property owners was considered at great length by the JPA Board
during the concept plan adoption hearings, Public meetings were held on October 15, 1993 md
December 3, 1993. Property owners throughout the FPA were notified of the January 21,199:3
hearing, the February 4, 1994 workshop, and the February 18, 1994 hearing. In addition, all
private property owners within the FPA were invited to attend an informal discussion with staff
on January 19, 1994 to ask q :I provide input in regard to the concept plan. Numerous
members of the public, both those in favor and those opposed to the plan, wrote and spoke to the
Board during the time period when the Concept Plan was under consideration. As a result of the
hearings, numerous changes were made to the Concept Plan to accommodate public concerns,
and two property owners from th 'Ideal to the Citizens Advisory Committee.
7. Provide a more detailed map showing the FPA as it relates to public andS ' ~ip.
A map showing the areas within the existing and revised FPA which are publicly owne~l is
enclosed with this lener.
Additional Issues of Concern to the JPA
Th ~Iditional issues proposed at your April 4, 1995 meeting which are of concern
to the YPA. A the County, along with the Cities of Del Mar, Escondido, Poway,
San Diego and golana Beach, authorized the YPA in 1989 to acquire land, plan, improve, operate,
manage and maintain land within the San Dieguito River Park Focused Planning Area as a
greenway and open space park system. It was to discharge this duty that the WA worked with
County staff and the staffofits other member ag quire land and begin impl'
of th ' ' :1 in the Joint Powers Agreement. The .IPA t that lands purchased
in the San Dieguito River Valley ~th San Dieguito Prop. 70 funds would be mansferred to the
JPA to be o~5~ed and administered in accord/race with the Joint Powers Agreement. It was
understood that funds expended by the JPA to help acquire those properties would be reimbursed
as provided for in the bond act. Additionally, in order to carry out its responsibilities as set forth
in the Joint Powers Agreement. the JPA depends upon its memb for annual financial
support. The County's share of the JPA's budget, approximately $64.000 annually, is 26% of the
memt: ~ That share was determined in 1989 based on a f posed
of total population and acreage within the FPA.
The JPA Board is contident that it has satisfactorily addressed your concerns by adopting a
Private Property Rights Protection Policy, and by revising its Focused Planning Area. The
adopted Concept Pkm ;md thc Private Property Rights Protection Policy. provides clear direction
for thc impl park goals and objectives which will benefit thc residents ot' San Diego
County now ami in thc I\m~rc. l'hc JPA Board requests that thc Cotmty continue to support thc
vision or' thc San l)icguito Rixcr Park by transferring title to those properties purchascd with
Bo-rd ot'Supervisor~
May 19, 199~
Pal~e 4
Proposition 70 funds earmarked for San Dieguito River Valle~ to the JPA (as ~onnally requested
in the JPA's letter of Januno, 31, 1994), reimbursing the SP^ for its d ' helping to
acquire properties in the river valley with those funds (also requested in th~ Jnnua~ 31, 1994
letter), and lute it's share of funding support for the JPA along with the other
member agencies.
Sincerely,
Diane B. Coombs
Executive Director
ITEM