Supervisors Take a Middle Road in Decision on Riding Trails

In an effort to expand the county’s trail system, the County Board of Supervisors voted Wednesday to require major developers to dedicate portions of their property if their land lies in the path of a proposed trail.

But the action made no one happy.

Property rights advocates argued that it is unconstitutional to deprive anyone of property without just compensation, while horsemen and hikers argued that the county board’s action would not provide a countywide system of trails for the public.

The trails plan, which was first adopted in 1976, called for mandatory dedications “when legally entitled to do so.” By 1982, 46 miles of riding and hiking trails have been acquired. Property owners opposed the requirement, however, and the policy was changed to allow voluntary offers of trail dedications.

Only 2 1/2 miles of trails were added during the next five years, prompting riding and hiking groups to demand that the county return to the mandatory trail dedications in order to link up the bits and pieces of dedicated property into a countywide trails system.

Patsy Fritz, a Valley Center rancher and a member of WHOA--Worried Homeowners Organized and Angry--argued that a January land-use ruling by a California appeals court overturned the right of the county to condemn private property for recreational uses. She argued that that was what the Board of Supervisors was seeking to do.

Horse interests contended that the county government had the right to require dedication of right-of-way needed to complete the trails system, when the owners required any type of county building permit.

Limiting the requirement to developers of five or more lots would leave the envisioned trails system with gaps or “roadblocks” that would render the system virtually useless to riders and hikers, proponents said.

The supervisors’ action, which applies only to unincorporated areas of the county, took the middle road. The board voted to require trail dedications only from developers of five or more lots and only on sites along the proposed countywide trail system.

Three planning groups, in San Dieguito, Ramona and Sweetwater, already have adopted community plans with stiffer requirements for trail dedications. Supervisors on Wednesday directed the staff to prepare amendments to these local land-use plans to make them conform with the county’s plan to require dedication only from major subdivisions along the routes of the adopted trail plan.

Supervisors also directed the county counsel’s office to analyze the recent state appeal court ruling cited by property rights’ speakers.

The case, Surfside Colony vs. California Coastal Commission, involves a private gated community in Seal Beach that was ordered to provide public coastal access through its property as a requirement for obtaining a permit to build a rock revetment to protect beachfront homes.

The appeal court ruled that the Coastal Commission requirement was illegal because the construction of the seawall to protect homes had no direct connection with the provision of public access to the private property.

Supervisor Leon Williams told the divided audience that “this is not a private property versus socialism issue,” but a compromise that attempts to acquire needed recreational trails for the county’s increasing population.

“I don’t ever expect to ride a horse, but I respect the rights of those who do,” Williams said.

The board voted, 4 to 0, to support the compromise.