County Supervisors and Ecological Sites

* Much of your Feb. 20 op-ed piece by Sandy Wohlgemuth about significant ecological areas consists of opinions based on inaccuracies and distortions of the facts.

Mr. Wohlgemuth states that the board majority of county supervisors--Deane Dana, Pete Schabarum and myself--were opposed to the SEA concept. As a matter of fact, the board--on my motion--has twice adopted general plan updates, one for the Santa Clarita Valley in 1984 and the other for the Antelope Valley in 1986, in which we affirmed our commitment to SEAs. This was in the face of opposition from affected landowners.

He fails to mention that the lawsuit leading to the development of the SEA concept was filed against the previous “liberal” board made up of Supervisors Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, Ed Edelman, Kenneth Hahn and Baxter Ward.

He then adds (incorrectly) that the county has allowed these resource areas to deteriorate. Of course, he offers no examples. Nor does he acknowledge that over half of the identified 61 SEAs are outside the county’s control and under the control of one or more of its cities, which are not obligated under state law to respect any of these SEAs.

We have done a great deal, within our limited resources, to enhance these resources.

The General Plan has never prohibited development within SEAs. Most do not require public ownership (assuming we could afford to buy them). They can coexist with sensitively designed developments. In most cases, the county has required developers to “cluster” developments on the property, leaving the sensitive areas as permanent open space. Acreage has also been purchased, using park bonds, to protect certain of the sensitive areas both in Santa Clarita and the Santa Monica Mountains.

There is one case in which Mr. Wohlgemuth has cause to complain, about which he is strangely silent. That case involves the board’s approval of the expansion of the Sunshine Canyon Landfill last year. That action, which I opposed, permitted the conversion of about one square mile of SEA lands (and the cutting of about 3,000 oak trees) to permit the expansion of a dump. I fought that action, but was overruled by the current “liberal” board. Supervisor Edelman (one of Wohlgemuth’s white knights) made the motion to approve this destruction.

Mr. Wohlgemuth closes by stating that the courts may be the final authority on this issue, and he cites the Westridge case in the Santa Clarita Valley as an example. He incorrectly states that the judge in that case did not rule on the SEA issue, ignoring the fact that the attorneys for the plaintiffs somehow missed the appeal date, as if they were bumbling neophytes unschooled in judicial procedures.

Clearly, Mr. Wohlgemuth has a political (as opposed to an environmental) agenda far removed from the protection of ecological resources. He tries to condemn “conservatives” (without justification) while ignoring the real failures of the “liberals” (who are the ones willing to surrender these resources to other uses like landfills).

MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH

Los Angeles

Antonovich represents the Fifth District on the county Board of Supervisors.