« Heat Wave Recedes, Sorta | Home | Claremont Graduate University Endorses Ken White for CA State Assembly »
Monrovia Wilderness Preserve
By Publius | April 16, 2008
Speaking of Monrovia…
Amanda Rice of the About Cambria blog recently cited Donald R. Hopper’s old article in Western City Magazine highlighting the fact that 8 years ago “Monrovia’s residents voted overwhelmingly to tax themselves to buy the last remaining open space in the adjacent foothills and hold it in trust as a wilderness preserve.” The article is written from the usual perspective of city governments, hinting as it does at the sacrifices local residents must make (i.e., taxes they must pay) in order “to help meet the demands and challenges they place on their public institutions,” but it is interesting article nonetheless.
Last 5 posts in Main Page
- Feed Portantino's Election Reelection Campaign - July 23rd, 2008
- Alvarez Waterboarded! - July 23rd, 2008
- Morning Linkfest: 7 Reasons to Hate Corporations - July 23rd, 2008
- Even the Cost of Underwear Is Increasing - July 23rd, 2008
- Pasadena Has a New City Clerk - July 23rd, 2008
Topics: Main Page, (Re)Development, Historical Society, Monrovia |
April 16th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Yup I remember that well. I voted yes on it for a variety of reasons. Chief was to maintain some green space and keep the hillsides clean.
I knew at the time developers owned the land and we would not get it cheap. In the end they made some nice money but we got clean hills, worth it to me.
The city ran a survey last summer on what to do with it. I never saw the results, or even asked about them. I do want some of it available someday for hiking. Some separate trails for bikes maybe even connecting to the bigger bike trails in the mountains. After that just keep it as wild and green as possible like it has been done up in Canyon Park.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Good timing on this post. It’s been a long time since the community meetings on the wilderness preserve and since we’ve heard anything from the consulting firm that the city hired to study and provide recommendations regarding what to do with the land. But, just got word last night that the report and recommendations are expected from the consulting firm in May or possibly June. At that time the report will be available to residents in some form or another and residents can again voice their opinions.
Should be interesting.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Thanks for noticing the mention on AboutCambria. I added the article from Western Cities because we are facing a similar reality here in Cambria - except it’s the local government that wants to preserve the space. Water is scarce and without an additional source (desal is the current agua du jour) the remaining 2000 or so lots that aren’t developed won’t have water. The buildout reduction plan originated with the water company’s consultant and while many Cambrians want to preserve the open space and forest, many lot owners are NOT happy about having their property become unbuildable. In a town of 6,000, buying the lots the water company won’t serve will be an expensive proposition. I’m curious how it worked out in Monrovia, since the Western Cities article indicated the buying of land had yet to start.
Anyone interested in more details about this issue in Cambria is welcome to contact me through AboutCambria.com. Thanks again for the mention!
Amanda
April 19th, 2008 at 11:57 am
I also voted for the Wildlife Preserve understanding that it would be a wildlife preserve, not a recreational park. I know what a wildlife preserve is and that means you leave the land as it is with very little contact by humans. Once you disturb the land, either building trails or opening up the preserve to hikers, etc. it’s no longer meets the definition of being a wildlife preserve.
The Monrovia city council screwed up bing time when they excepted grant money from the state to purchase property in the foothills. There were conditions attached to these state grants, one being that the property that was purchased with state funds would have to be opened up for public use. This would be in direct conflict with what the citizens of Monrovia voted for. They voted for a wildlife preserve not for a recreational park.
What I see in the future, if the city uses the preserve for recreational purposes, I see law suits coming.
Then there is another problem.Private property rights. There are three parcels of land in the wildlife preserve owned by private citizens who also have homes on these pieces of property.
And the Lower Clamshell road runs right through the center of two of the property owners lots. After conducting a search on easements on the Lower Clamshell road, it was discovered that there were only two written easements, one for the U.S. Forestry Service and the other for the Los Angeles County Fire Dept.
The Los Angeles County Assessors office indicates that the Lower Clamshell road is a private roadway, not public. And the road is owned by the property owner which the road runs through.So any one using the road with out the owners permission would be trespassing.There is an issue with personal property rights.
As the city purchased property in the foothills, the city became the owner of the Clamshell roadway where it passes through that property but hasn’t spent a penny on maintaining the roadway. For over sixty years the Lower Clamshell road starting at the gate on Cloverleaf and ending 1 3/4 miles where the fire gate is located has been maintained by the three property owners who live with in what is the Monrovia Wildlife Preserve. Every year these three property owners spend thousands of dollars maintaining Cloverleaf and the Lower Clamshell road, including what parts of the roadway now run through city owned land. The road has to be graded after every rain storm. If you proceed 1 3/4 miles up the road from the Cloverleaf gate to where the fire gate is located on the Lower Clamshell road, you get an idea looking past the fire gate what the road condition is like when little maintenance is conducted. This part of the Lower Clamshell road has been maintained by the L.A.Co. Fire Dept and the private property owners who need access to the road to maintain water lines running through the area.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:53 am
I am glad to see folks are considering the uses of the Wilderness Preserve.
If the city wants to use the WP for recreational purposes, the property will have to be rezoned to Wilderness Recreation by the citizens, at the ballot box.
Since the City has only recently acquired the property that part of the Lower Clamshell Road is through, I doubt that the city is responsible for past years of maintenance.
What is the law on the maintaining easements on one’s property for another’s use? Perhaps it is only required not to block the use of the easement.
Since homes are up there, I do not think the home properties specifically are zoned Wilderness Preserve. However I do understand homeowners are surrounded by Wilderness Preserve.
I believe the neighborhoods adjacent to the WP are about to be hit again about establishing trail heads (parking lots, restrooms, telephones, lighting, picnic areas, etc.) from their streets.
It is time to refresh ourselves with ballot measures A and B and what was and what was not approved and zoned by the citizens.
Thank you.
May 17th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
The WILDERNESS PRESERVE MANAGEMENT PLAN by City staff and LSA - consultants - is about to be presented to the community at the June or July Community Services Commission meeting - which falls on the second Tuesday of each month.
The report is said to be 300 pages in length, but is not available for review by the public yet.
The meeting will be held in Council Chambers to accommodate the anticipated crowd.
See you there!