Conservancy Swaps Control for Support : Environment: Agency agrees to unusual restrictions to get supervisors to put parks bond measure on ballot.

The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy has made unusual compromises with the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors that sharply limit what land it could buy using bond proceeds.

The conservancy, a state agency that buys land for public parks in the Santa Monica Mountains and other nearby ranges, agreed to the compromises in a last-ditch effort to persuade supervisors to place the proposed $816-million bond issue on the Nov. 6 ballot.

One compromise grants supervisors veto power over certain conservancy land purchases; another guarantees that the conservancy will not compete with the County Sanitation Districts for landfill sites in mountain canyons.

The bond measure--thought to be the largest in county history--would generate funds for a wide array of projects, from restoring beaches and public gardens to removing graffiti in inner-city neighborhoods.

The measure is backed by an odd-bedfellows coalition ranging from Sierra Club members to anti-gang activists. Millions of dollars from the bonds are earmarked for gang-prevention projects such as building Outward Bound-style wilderness camps.

The supervisors Tuesday postponed a scheduled vote on whether to place the bond issue on the ballot. They must decide by next Tuesday in order to meet the legal deadline for November ballot issues.

At least three supervisors--Mike Antonovich, Ed Edelman and Kenneth Hahn--support it, their spokesmen said. Supervisor Pete Schabarum is opposed. Supervisor Deane Dana, who pushed the conservancy for the compromises, remains undecided.

Conservancy officials and other backers hope to get as many supervisors as possible behind the bond issue, which requires approval by two-thirds of the voters in November. Recent bond issues, statewide and in other counties, have passed by margins only slightly above 66%, and proponents of the Los Angeles County measure worry that opposition by powerful supervisors could damage its chances.

The conservancy infuriated some county officials recently by maneuvering to keep county sanitation officials from purchasing mountain canyons for garbage dumps. In December, the agency bought 145 acres of land at the mouth of Towsley Canyon near Santa Clarita, effectively blocking truck access from the Golden State Freeway.

In intense negotiations with supervisors in recent weeks, the conservancy agreed not to use any of the $80 million it would get from the bonds to buy land identified by the county for potential dump sites.

The parks agency also agreed not to buy property astride access routes to such areas.

Conservancy officials further agreed to give supervisors veto power over conservancy efforts to buy land in unincorporated county areas using bond proceeds--a move conservancy Executive Director Joseph T. Edmiston called “an unprecedented compromise for a state agency.”

“What do we do? We’re at the mercy of the Board of Supervisors. . . . If they don’t put it on the ballot, it doesn’t get on the ballot,” Edmiston said.

He said the compromises give county waste-disposal officials a “big strategic window of opportunity” to buy potential landfill sites in canyons that the conservancy might otherwise try to acquire.

Provided it passes in November, the bond measure nonetheless would provide a huge windfall to financially strapped public agencies seeking funds to rehabilitate local parks, beaches, museums and other recreation-related facilities.

For example, the county would receive $332 million for projects ranging from restoring trout streams to improving the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Cities would receive $243 million to use for specific projects such as acquiring wildlife habitats, building sports complexes and improving beaches.

The bond measure also represents a bonanza for the cash-strapped conservancy, which would receive $80 million directly and be eligible for another $35 million.

The idea for the bonds was originated by Esther Feldman, who works for an arm of the conservancy that provides park services in Los Angeles and Ventura counties. Feldman also helped run the successful 1988 campaign for Proposition 70, a statewide bond issue that generated $776 million for parkland.

Feldman said the measure has been endorsed by 47 of the county’s 86 cities, including Los Angeles. It is also endorsed by local Sierra Club chapters, the League of Women Voters and dozens of other groups.

However, several cities oppose the measure, arguing that they would pay more to amortize the bonds than they would receive in bond revenues.

James B. Hendrickson, city manager of Palos Verdes Estates, said that according to his calculations, only nine cities in the county would get more than they would pay, even without including interest costs on the bonds.

Although the cities would receive $348 million in bond revenues, they would pay $744 million in bond principal alone, he said.

Hendrickson said that he “can’t get straight figures” from the conservancy about how much property taxes would have to be raised to repay the bonds and that he doesn’t believe that backers have thoroughly analyzed the bonds’ true costs.

Feldman said Hendrickson’s complaint that only a few cities would get more than they pay is “highly misleading” because it doesn’t take into account benefits that residents will enjoy from improvements in regional facilities such as beaches.

“We all go to the beaches, regardless of what city we’re in,” she said. “To assume that the $50 million going to the county for beaches doesn’t benefit you because the beach isn’t in your city is ludicrous.”

Feldman said the bonds would cost the average property taxpayer an extra $8.50 annually over the bonds’ 20-year amortization period. She said different tax rates she gave out earlier this year were based on “a couple of assumptions which now have changed,” including different interest rate projections.

She said the figure for the tax rate increase was drawn up by a Los Angeles investment banker who favors the bond issue and who volunteered his time.

Hendrickson said the county should not be issuing bonds for parks when it has so many other pressing funding needs, such as providing shelter to the homeless and improving County-USC Medical Center, which recently was placed on conditional accreditation.

But, Feldman said, enhancing parks, beaches and other recreational facilities is a vital concern to many residents worried about increasing urbanization and a deteriorating quality of life in Los Angeles.

A spokesman for Schabarum said he opposes the parks bond issue because it is only one of five property- or sales-tax increases that could be on the November ballot. Schabarum said the measures will not only raise taxes but add to the county’s bond debt.

Feldman countered that the county is in good financial health and can easily afford the park bonds. She said debt payments represent less than 2% of the county’s budget, well below the 5% limit recommended by Standard & Poor’s, a nationwide credit-rating agency.