Private Lands

 

• Historic in-holdings/family-owned properties want to be maintained in study area. Includes commercial and retail establishments.
• Private property should be left as is - not expanded.
• Protection of Baldy Village as private inholding. Leave out of designation.
• Procuring land from willing sellers/concerns of coercion to sell/ charge above-standard.

• How do you protect lands that are privately owned, absent the power of eminent domain or limitations on the agency's authority?
• Concerned that if NPS acquires/obtains land as part of an NRA that it could later be sold to private landowners later (like what happens with BLM lands).

• Don't want eminent domain.

• The San Gabriel River corridor includes private property; would be interesting to see how NPS would be able to manage the lands.

• Connection for trails in Sand Canyon area to Pacific Crest Trail - by Robinson Ranch property.
• Our concern with all three proposals is private property rights.
• Each of the three alternatives presented seek to add or increase federal agency jurisdiction over significant portions of the San Gabriel River watershed, but the description of alternatives does not identify the local (and potentially adverse) implications of such new designations: e.g. new land use restrictions, additional environmental hurdles for projects, loss of local control over land use decisions (including types of acceptable recreation), threats to water quality due to expanded recreation, and federal interference with water rights and supply.
• The City of Chino Hills is concerned that the results of the study could ultimately be used to compromise our ability as a local government to decide what is best for our community. Land use management should be the responsibility of the local government without federal involvement, especially in this rapidly growing region. We believe that it is imperative that land-use planning decisions be made at the local level. We are extremely concerned about the NPS's ability to use "eminent domain" or other land use and land development restrictions as part of the potential recommendations made as a result of the watershed study.
• The most valuable aspect of the proposed plans is that existing agencies will continue to maintain their own land/resources and there will not be a recommendation to pursue eminent domain. Furthermore, it's beneficial to know that each concept respects existing property rights, jurisdictions, and authorities.
• Out of concern that the results of this study could ultimately be used to compromise the ability of local governments to decide what is best for their communities, in 2005 several cities in my congressional district and surrounding communities contacted me and the National Park Service in extreme opposition to their inclusion in this special resource study. After several letters and much discussion, the National Park Service refused to remove these areas from the Special Resource Study. It is important to note that even four years after this study process commenced, these concerns remain. 
• We would also like to reiterate our concern regarding the potential for a future designation to impact water rights or local land use authority. For this reason, we request the following assurances as conditions for support of any recommended action for this study:
• Protection of local water rights, preservation of our water supply (including use of adjacent lands to access that supply), and prevention of water contamination from recreational activities.
• Provisions allowing private property owners, entities with water or sanitation facilities, and cities to "opt out" of any future designation.
• Guarantees that any future designation would respect and abide by the General Plans and Zoning Ordinances of each City (and the County).
• An NRA would allow for the use of federal funds to acquire additional land for wildlife corridors and to purchase private inholdings.
• Every effort should be made to purchase the private inholding at the Bridge to Nowhere in the East Fork of the San Gabriel River.

• Many of us (residents from the City of Walnut and Diamond Bar) are against the proposed NFL Stadium/ entertainment complex, as it will cause tremendous harm to the environment, damaging also the local ecology of the two creeks, in addition to adding traffic, noise and air pollution to the San Gabriel Valley. Has NPS done any study of this area that we can review to help us with our goal of stopping this project? Can these rolling hills be considered as park of the San Gabriel Mountain/Puente-Chino Hills resources?
• Another concern I have is the reaction by the public to the concept of purchasing land from willing sellers and adding it to the federally managed area. I support the idea of purchasing land from willing sellers, but some of the meeting attendees expressed concern and stated they absolutely did not want to see this happen. I support this idea going forward and am concerned that current landowners want to skirt the constitution and try to mandate the choices available to neighboring landowners. If purchasing land can provide for closing "gaps", enhancing wildlife corridors, protecting resources, then it is a great idea and should continue to be included in the alternative concepts.
• Mostly we want to keep the Park Service out of San Antonio Canyon because they have such a poor record of taking over property. Yes, I know your plan says you will not use "eminent domain", but what happens when you decide you need to widen the road? There is no way to widen the road through the village without taking houses. We are particularly concerned about the "eminent domain" section which you say won't be used, but frankly, we don't believe you can foresee ten or fifteen years in the future.

• Sand and gravel pits should be deeded back to state or federal government once they are mined out, rather than turning them to dumps and pollution. The pits can become both recreational and for water storage.
• Too much private property on the north of all of the alternatives. Limit your scope on the north to the National Forest boundary.