RIVERSIDE COUNTY – A decade ago, Riverside County and 14 cities set up a regional conservation agency to acquire and protect wildlife habitat and remove red tape for developers who want to build in the western part of the county.
But some say the mission is in jeopardy. The agency faces pressure from people whose property has been targeted for eventual acquisition and who want to sell now, at the same time the agency is juggling depressed funding and higher-priority land purchases.
Several landowners are using a rule in the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority’s bylaws to force the agency to buy their land. The property was identified as wildlife habitat in a 2003 conservation plan, a blueprint to establish a wildlife reserve system for 146 protected plants and animals, including several endangered species.
The property owners say the habitat designation prevents their property from being developed, and they must still pay annual property taxes.
Grace Kaelin is among five people who have owned 25 acres off of Florida Avenue in Hemet for more than 30 years. The land was targeted for eventual acquisition for the reserve system.
“Either buy us out or let us go, and if you don’t have the funding, leave town,” Kaelin testified at the agency’s April 7 board meeting. “We are still paying taxes. We are still clearing weeds.”
In most cases, the conservation agency seeks to buy wildlife habitat when development plans are in the works that would destroy it.
Kaelin is among a handful of owners who have invoked a rarely used rule that compels the agency buy land where no development plans are on file.
On top of that, a lawsuit settlement compels the agency to purchase 47.6 acres, also in Hemet, from a San Diego partnership for nearly $6 million. The deal will consume about two-thirds of the agency’s annual revenue from developer fees, its primary source of funds.
Dan Silver, executive director of the Endangered Habitats League, described the situation as an unsustainable run on the agency’s limited funds and a threat to its mission.
“They are forcing the authority to buy land that is more remote and that is not under the threat of development,” said Silver, who has followed the habitat plan since its inception and is a member of an agency advisory panel.
“They are forcing it to spend … unwisely and not strategically,” he said.
Scott Miller, a San Jacinto councilman and chairman of the agency’s board, said the controversy reflects financial stress that no one anticipated before the Great Recession.
Developers pay the conservation agency fees and, in exchange, the agency can endorse projects that otherwise would have to undergo review by state and federal wildlife authorities, an often lengthy process.
More by David Danelski at pe.com.