State Bond Initiative Offers Windfall for Parks : Santa Monica Mountains Would Share $40 Million With Fernando Foothills

The state parks bond initiative on the June 7 ballot includes a $40-million windfall for parks in the Santa Monica Mountains and San Fernando Valley foothills, enough to preserve thousands more acres of trails and picnic sites, scenic vistas and wildlife habitat.

The $776-million parks and wildlife initiative--Proposition 70 on the ballot--earmarks funds for about 70 specific projects throughout the state, including $10 million to preserve open space in the Santa Susana Mountains in the northwest valley and the Simi Hills. An extra $30 million would go to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, a state agency, to buy land in the Santa Monicas and the Rim of the Valley Corridor, made up of the hillsides and canyons encircling the San Fernando Valley.

The $40-million figure is actually a minimum since state and local parks agencies could use part of their bond money for Santa Monicas and valley projects. The measure would give about $99 million to the state Department of Parks and Recreation for land acquisition, and about $16.6 million to Los Angeles County and $1.2 million to Ventura County to expand or improve parks. The city of Los Angeles would get about $12.4 million, with lesser sums due other cities according to population.

Altogether, roughly $113.5 million of the bond money, or nearly 15%, would go for specific projects or park agencies in Los Angeles County. Ventura County’s share would be roughly $12.2 million.

If polls are correct and the measure passes, it will be the state’s most ambitious and costly parks bond ever, and the first adopted through the initiative process.

‘Marvelous Opportunity’

“It’s a terrific idea and . . . marvelous opportunity for California,” said Jerome Daniel, chairman of an advisory committee to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and ex-chairman of the Federation of Hillside and Canyon Assns., which contributed money and signatures to get the measure on the ballot.

Some local opposition has emerged among residents along Mulholland Drive, who blame the conservancy for late-night revelry and vandalism at scenic overlooks the agency has built.

“We’re not against parks,” said George Caloyannidis, a leader of Hands Off Mulholland, a neighborhood group. “We just don’t trust them anymore,” he said in reference to the conservancy.

Statewide, the measure is backed by a broad array of conservation groups, including the Planning and Conservation League and the Sierra Club, and by outdoor recreation, community organizations and some business interests. Supporters, who call themselves Californians for Parks & Wildlife, say the measure is critically needed because open space will be too scarce and expensive in the future.

They say the measure will also benefit the state’s giant tourist industry. Traditionally, parks and wildlife bonds have been crafted by the Legislature and sent to voters every few years. But initiative organizers lost patience and took matters into their own hands after lawmakers and Gov. George Deukmejian failed to act on three bond proposals in 1985-86.

Opponents, who call their campaign committee Citizens for Honest Park Planning, include the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Farm Bureau Federation and the California Cattlemen’s Assn.

They argue that the bond act bypasses orderly park planning, in which acquisition priorities are set by legislators and state park officials. They contend that the proposition provides too much money for acquisition and too little to fix up existing parks, and is just too expensive considering the state’s other needs. According to some estimates, it would cost about $1.3 billion over 20 years to pay off the bonds--or about $2.50 per year for each California resident.

But the environmental forces have enjoyed a fund-raising advantage. And, in another reversal of roles, the business groups have fought back with the type of rhetoric usually aimed at them. Opposition leaflets dismiss the proposition as a creation of “special-interest groups” who bought a place on the ballot for “their own pet projects” by delivering signatures and campaign funds.

Gerald Meral, director of Californians for Parks & Wildlife, insisted that the projects were considered on their merits, not because of local supporters. For example, the measure provides $10 million for improvements at Los Angeles County beaches and $10 million for the Baldwin Hills State Recreation Area near Culver City. No local groups came forward to raise money or signatures on behalf of either project, Meral said.

A few splits have appeared in the opposition ranks. Some chambers of commerce--including those in Northridge, Orange County and San Diego--have broken with the state chamber and endorsed the initiative. And although Deukmejian is against the initiative, the state’s Park and Recreation Commission that he appoints recently voted 4-3 to endorse it.

75% Polled in Support

Parks bonds have had a history of popular support. Each of the last three won at least 63% of the vote. In a California Poll of registered voters last month, 75% favored Proposition 70; 19% were opposed.

Such a lopsided result seems unlikely because the combined effect of other spending measures on the ballot could cause some voters to get cold feet. But backers of Proposition 70 are confident.

“Most people feel that their lives are enhanced by in some way getting closer to nature,” said Joseph Edmiston, executive director of the conservancy.

“Every community considers itself better off if it has more open space, more green area, more parks. . . . I don’t think you’d find 20 out of 100 people that live in Los Angeles that think we have too many parks.”

Passage of the act would mean personal vindication for activists such as Jan Hinkston of Chatsworth and Glenn Bailey of Encino, who together gathered more than 5,800 signatures, according to Bailey’s count.

Scenic Backdrop

Both are active in two groups working to preserve the Simi Hills that straddle the Los Angeles-Ventura County line along the Santa Susana Pass, where striking pinnacles and boulder gardens have been a scenic backdrop for many Western movies. Old Indian trails traverse the land, along with the old stagecoach road and a nearly century-old wagon route whose rock embankment is visible today. Conservationists are eager to protect another transportation link: the migration corridor thought to connect wildlife populations in the San Gabriel, Santa Susana and Santa Monica mountains.

During a recent visit to the area, purple clarkia, monkey flower and Mariposa lily were in bloom, and Hinkston pointed out Owl Rock, a huge boulder robed in oaks where a great horned owl nests in a crevice.

“This is such a unique resource,” Hinkston said. “You don’t have rock outcroppings like this anywhere else” in Southern California. “It’s going to be wall-to-wall development if we don’t get this,” she said of the initiative.

Over the years, more than 700 acres of these hills and canyons have been acquired by three public agencies: the state parks department, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and the Rancho Simi Open Space Conservation Agency. The Santa Susana Mountain Park Assn., which Hinkston founded in 1970, sponsors Sunday morning hikes that depart from Chatsworth Park South, where the association also operates a visitor center from 12 to 3 p.m. Sundays.

The $10 million provided by the bond funds could be used to connect and expand existing public lands, creating a preserve large enough to qualify as a state park or state historic park.

Thick Woodlands

Part of the $10 million could also be spent on a proposed Santa Clarita Woodlands State Park on the eastern flank of the Santa Susanas above O’Melveny Park in Granada Hills. In contrast to the parched grasslands on the Santa Susanas’ southern slope, thick woodlands dot the deep draws and ridges on the other side. The proposed woodlands park is seen by conservationists and neighborhood groups as a way to preserve the sweeping views and forest and to block proposed expansion of the adjacent Sunshine Canyon landfill.

The conservancy’s $30 million might be enough to complete half of about 35 top projects, said Edmiston, its executive director. Purchase price, willingness of landowners to sell the land and key land-use decisions by county officials would determine how many purchases can be made. Edmiston said the conservancy, which has acquired or helped local agencies buy 9,800 acres of mountain land in its nine-year existence, has paid an average of $3,400 an acre. At that rate, $30 million would buy thousands of acres more.

One priority is the 702-acre Inter Valley Ranch in northern Glendale, where two rugged canyons, bristling with creamy-white yucca blooms, lie in the shadow of 5,074-foot Mt. Lukens. Glendale has put up $3.2 million of the $5.2-million purchase price. The conservancy wants to provide the remaining $2 million to acquire the land for a regional park.

Another priority is Rustic, Sullivan and Mission canyons. Rustic and Sullivan, encompassing 1,900 acres, are deep and pristine clefts on the eastern flank of Topanga State Park south of Mulholland Drive. The 400-acre Mission Canyon, once used as a landfill, is just west of the San Diego Freeway. Although wholly within the city of Los Angeles, the canyons are owned by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, which wants to hold them as possible landfills.