County Wants Beaches Back From State

Just four months after handing over operations at eight beaches around Santa Monica Bay to the state because they were a financial drain, Los Angeles County wants the world-renowned shoreline back.

The county, though teetering on financial insolvency, is seeking to take permanent title to miles of sand and surf and accept financial responsibility for their upkeep and operation. Even as it prepares to shut dozens of health facilities and layoff thousands of employees, the county appears to be on the brink of winning approval for the transfer, which is being pushed by a vocal lifeguard union and Supervisor Deane Dana. The state seems delighted at the prospect of giving up control of beaches that cost millions of dollars to maintain.

It was only in May that for the first time in 50 years the state parks department began managing the famous shoreline that includes Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach and Topanga State Beach. Though the state owned the beaches, the county had provided maintenance and lifeguards for decades--at an annual cost of about $4.3 million. After two years of haggling unsuccessfully for reimbursement of its costs, the county turned the operations over to the state.

Although the proposed transfer would affect some of the most watched beaches in the world--gracing the television screen nightly as a backdrop for “Baywatch”--the maneuver has generated little publicity.

But opponents, including the Sierra Club and the Friends of California Parks, say it is an issue of statewide importance. They argue that the transaction would set a terrible precedent and could lay the groundwork for the eventual divestiture of parts of the state park system.

Those who oppose the transfer also fear that the near-destitute county will not have the funds to properly operate the beaches and that it will eventually attempt to commercially develop some of the environmentally fragile properties to raise money.

Despite these concerns, the state Senate has approved the transfer and the Assembly is scheduled to take up the matter perhaps as soon as Monday. Even opponents of the deal say it is more than likely to be approved.

The timing of the transaction, and its potential financial effect on the county, has some observers questioning its wisdom.

“Why on earth would the county want to take on this long-term financial responsibility. . . . Long ago I gave up trying to make sense of it,” said Assemblywoman Debra Bowen (D-Marina del Rey), whose district encompasses some of the affected beaches.

Even the measure’s sponsor, Assemblyman Steven Kuykendall (R-Rancho Palos Verdes), questioned the financial soundness of the deal.

“He has concerns about the county’s ability to operate them,” said Kuykendall’s chief of staff Mark Reeder. “That’s the real issue, can they do it financially.”

Some county officials, led by Dana, say it is simply an issue of public safety. Because the county already operates such beaches as Zuma, Venice and Hermosa, consolidating beaches under one jurisdiction would provide more comprehensive lifeguard services, they say.

The county lifeguards, supporters of the transfer say, are the best trained and most experienced in the world. And unlike the state lifeguards, the county force is connected to the 911 system and coordinate with other county emergency services.

Dana, whose district has traditionally covered most of the county’s coastline, has had a strong relationship with the lifeguards.

Ninety-one lifeguard positions were lost when the county handed over operation of the eight beaches to the state and the union is fighting to get them back. Legislators say the lifeguards have mounted a massive lobbying campaign, including writing hundreds of letters and sending a representative to Sacramento.

With some complex financial moves, county officials now say they can run the beaches for a third of the $4.3 million it cost before.

Under the arrangement pending in Sacramento, the state would give the county $1.5 million a year for three years in an indirect subsidy.

In a transaction typical of the complex county budget process, the state would take $1.5 million from its Harbors and Waterways Fund and give it as a grant to the county to fund an offshore boat rescue program. The $1.5 million would then be shifted to the Fire Department, for whom county lifeguards now work.

The county also would shift about $1 million annually from funds used for fire control districts to help pay for operations at the beaches.

That would leave about $1.8 million in costs that officials say would have to be spent anyway because of the beaches the county now run.

“It’s a wash,” Chief Steven Sherrill of the county Fire Department said about costs involved in retaking control of he beaches.

However, the subsidy would run out after three years and after that, the state has only promised to make further indirect grants “a high priority.”

“That’s not worth a nickel at the bank,” Bowen warned.

The state’s reluctance to pay for its share of maintaining beaches it owned in Los Angeles County is what led County Chief Administrative Officer Sally Reed to recommend giving up the beaches in the first place. “My objection was to providing services on beaches that we don’t own,” Reed said.

The CAO said she acknowledges the benefits of having uniform services at all the major beaches in the county, but she still questions the county’s desire to take ownership. “Why take the liability?” she asked.

Meanwhile, the state has pegged its costs to operate the eight beaches at $6.8 million annually, and officials are pleased at the prospect of the county assuming that responsibility.

“They’re thinking, ‘If L.A. County is dumb enough to take this expense, let’s let them have it,’ ” said Hans Hemann, legislative representative for the Sierra Club.

Patricia Megason, deputy director of the state Department of Parks and Recreation, said, “We’ve done a good job of operating [the beaches] for four months, but we’ve done it at a deficit. . . . We just don’t have the funding for it.”

And besides, she added, “these beaches are not properties we consider of statewide significance, not part of our core state system.” So they were good candidates for divestiture, she said.

Megason denied the allegations of critics who say the proposed transfer is part of a grander strategy by the state to dismantle the parks department as part of a government downsizing trend.

But she acknowledged that the department did recently transfer a Ventura County beach to the city of Oxnard and is in talks with the city of Coronado in San Diego County about transferring the Silver Strand Beach to city control.

With the backing of Gov. Pete Wilson’s Administration, and legislators eager to cut state costs, the county proposal has moved swiftly through the Assembly and Senate.

Bowen held the measure up briefly, and working with environmental groups, was able to write into the legislation strong protections against any commercial development of the properties.

But Laura Svendsgaard, president of the Friends of California Parks, said the county will “be back to loosen the language.”

Indeed, Supervisor Mike Antonovich has said he expects the county to increase commercial use of the beaches as a means of covering the costs of providing lifeguards and other services. To what extent Antonovich envisions development is unclear. The supervisor is traveling in China on county business.

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who has been apprehensive about the beach transfer because of possible moves to develop some of the beach property, insisted that any plan to develop the waterfront properties be approved only by a unanimous vote of the Board of Supervisors.

“The county beaches have lots of parking lots, restaurants, amusements and rental concessions,” said Yaroslavsky. “We have mined them more than the state. The state has protected them like the natural resources that they are.”

“These are jewels for the county; the world’s most famous beaches,” said Scott Davey, a lifeguard and representative of the County Lifeguards Assn.

He wants to see them protected, but he also wants to see his colleagues back on the beat. “We’re just trying to get our people back on the beaches where they’ve been for 40 years,” Davey said.