Joint Panel Could Wield Power Over Bonelli Plans

La Verne Councilman Patrick Gatti says the joint powers commission he chairs at Frank G. Bonelli Regional County Park in San Dimas normally meets just once a year, receives an auditor’s report on park expenditures and then adjourns.

“It takes about a minute and a half,” he said.

But if Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Miriam A. Vogel stays with the tentative view she has expressed in a lawsuit over park development, Gatti and other commissioners will have much more business than the rubber-stamping of an auditor’s report. They could become the key decision-makers on development of the 2,000-acre park.

Judge Vogel said in a written order that she is leaning toward the views of the Coalition to Preserve Bonelli Park in its lawsuit against the county. The coalition, representing about 1,000 families who want to limit park development, contends that contracts to develop the park must be awarded by the joint powers authority, not the county.

The coalition brought the suit to challenge the county’s legal authority to solicit proposals from developers for a 16-acre equestrian center and a nine-hole golf course.

Environmental Report

The suit raises two key issues. One is whether park development is under the control of the county or the joint powers commission, which includes representatives of five area cities and the county. The other issue is whether a comprehensive environmental impact report should be issued before proposals are solicited for commercial development.

The suit seeks a writ of mandate to compel the county to issue a final environmental impact report and an injunction to block the county from soliciting development proposals.

The suit contends that the county violated the California Environmental Quality Act by requesting proposals from developers before issuing a final environmental impact report. County officials say that it is enough to issue a draft environmental report and that a final report is not necessary until the county awards a contract for a specific project.

Judy Hammond, press deputy for Supervisor Pete Schabarum, said the county is not yet ready to award contracts. The county did not receive any response to its request for proposals on the equestrian center and is reevaluating that project, she said. Four proposals have been received for the golf course.

Wants Final Report

San Dimas Councilman Denis Bertone, co-chairman of the coalition, said the group is not necessarily opposed to either the golf course or an equestrian center, but wants a final environmental impact report issued before any projects go forward.

Bertone said he is concerned that the final report could be altered to fit the needs of developers if it is not released ahead of time. More worrisome than the golf course and equestrian center, Bertone said, is a proposal in the park master plan for a hotel-motel-restaurant complex.

In an order issued Dec. 1, Judge Vogel said she will resume a hearing on the lawsuit Jan. 20 and asked attorneys for the county and the coalition to address two specific issues.

One concerns the environmental impact report. Vogel said she had thought originally that issuance of a final environmental impact report “would be superfluous” because both the equestrian center and the golf course were addressed in the draft report. But, she said, upon further study of the draft report, she can find no mention of a golf course. She asked attorneys to either point out where the report covers the golf course or explain why inclusion of the golf course is unnecessary.

Seeks Explanation

Judge Vogel said her “tentative view” is that the joint powers agreement prevents the county from soliciting development bids on its own. She asked attorneys “to explain why the county believes it can ignore the authority’s separate legal entity.”

Helen S. Parker, senior deputy county counsel, declined comment on the judge’s order. She said that the judge has made no ruling and is merely asking for more information. Parker said the county has answers to the questions raised by the judge, but she would prefer to file them in court before discussing them.

County officials have argued that the joint powers authority was established in 1970 merely as a mechanism to issue bonds to pay for improvements in the park.

Ronald S. Vera, an attorney representing the coalition, said minutes from the early days of the authority indicate that the commission once played a larger role than it does now.

Had No Control

Gatti said he sought appointment to the commission seven years ago because he loved sailboating and wanted to participate in overseeing the park and its lake. But, he said, he soon discovered that the joint powers commission had no control over the park.

When he became chairman of the commission two years ago, Gatti said, he looked at the joint powers agreement and found that “we had much more power than (county officials) were letting us have.” But, he said, the county did not agree with his view. “They don’t relinquish power easily,” he said.

Gatti said he would welcome the chance to preside over a commission with real power over the park. Some of the county proposals for the park, he said, go far beyond what was envisioned when the park authority was created in 1970.

The joint powers agreement originally provided for a seven-member commission, with the county and the cities of Covina, Glendora, La Verne, Pomona, San Dimas and Walnut each entitled to appoint one member. Since then, Walnut has withdrawn.