State Parks Commission Objects to Destructive Toll Road Route in O.C.

OCTA and the Foothill East Transportation Corridor Agency have voted in favor of a route for a new tollway that would cut through San Onofre State Park and surf beach. You, Governor Schwarzenegger, and nearly the entire environmental community have expressed opposition to this route. What's going on here? Share the context for this public debate.

The context is that this is a state park, which is the highest land-use designation that the people of California can make. So people are very concerned that something of that power and authority can be overruled to build a tollroad. It doesn't seem to properly respect that designation.

What jurisdiction does the Parks and Rec Commission, and you as its chair, have in this debate?

Sadly enough, the commission's role is only advisory. We advise the State Parks Department and the Governor on the attitude of the public. That's why we have commissioners from all over the state – Republicans, Democrats, men, women, Northern California, Southern California, Central Valley. The commission voted unanimously that this is a very bad idea.

Can you elaborate on the nature of that debate within the commission?

I would say there was no debate. That's a bit of a brash statement, but really I think it's clear that the sort of people who become parks commissioners would not want a freeway built through a park. We respect the fact that people in Orange County face nightmarish traffic situations. But, it would be a funny parks commissioner who voted to build an eight-lane highway through a park! I wish I could say there was debate. I could sound very erudite expounding on the finer points, but there just wasn't much.

Share if you would the nature of the advisory conversations you and the commission have had with the transportation agencies.

I wouldn't say it was advisory. I've only met with them in the public hearings, and I believe that's true of all the commissioners. We've heard their descriptions of their work, and they're very professional people, obviously. We just think that they haven't properly studied the alternatives.

What steps can the agency or your commission take to make sure, if construction goes forward, that the road does not do irreparable harm to the land-side environment or to the coastline?

In the current alignment, and even ten feet on either side of the alignment, there will be irreparable harm. I don't even believe that the agency felt that there was even an argument that the road wouldn't do irreparable harm to the atmosphere of the park and the beach.

What's the status of this decision? Is it a done deal?

From their view, it's a done deal. The Parks Commission is going to look at it some more. The governor has the executive authority.

Are there other efforts that you're aware of?

The attorney general may take a view; certain environmental groups may take a view and start the horrible process of litigation. I don't know whether they will or not, but I've certainly heard through the grapevine that people are doing a very serious study of that. But it just doesn't seem like the right way to address the problem – to get into years of litigation about the matter when there are alternatives.

Is there a favorite alternative for the commission?

No, not yet. We've had only one hearing about it, and I'm reluctant to put myself or any of the other commissioners forward as experts. We haven't studied the alternatives. We would hope that the governor would take up the challenge to work out an alignment that does not go through a state park and to pursue other ways to mitigate the terrible traffic there.

The toll road is not the only matter of concern to the Parks Commission. What else is on the agenda?

The biggest issue by far for the Commission and the Department is the gigantic amount of deferred maintenance at parks all over the state. We estimate that there is today between $750 million and $900 million worth of deferred maintenance. But it's not really accurate to call it that; it's more like destruction of existing facilities. For instance, we have bathrooms that don't work anymore; it's not that they just need paint. Some of the parks are pretty close to crumbling.

We're working diligently to get the governor's and Legislature's attention to these matters and perhaps put some money into the large infrastructure bonds. We view parks as part of the infrastructure of the state, and we believe that these recreational facilities and particularly parks in urban areas – such as the parks to be built here in Los Angeles on land purchased with the last park bond – deserve funding.

The governor has an ambitious plan for infrastructure investment as do the State Senate President Pro Tem and the Speaker of the Assembly. What is the status of the efforts to include in those bond discussions green infrastructure?

I couldn't address green infrastructure, nor could I address all three of those bond proposals. I hope everybody knows that this is a volunteer position, for which neither I nor any of the other commissioners are compensated, so we do the best we can to try to represent the public view.

I think that stormwater runoff is an issue of vital interest in Los Angeles. That Prop O passed by an enormous margin with almost no campaigning proves that. I'm working in Santa Monica on a project for the storm drain system and the whole watershed not covered by Prop O. We're trying to follow L.A.'s lead.

I feel strongly that land should be added, especially in urban areas where less wealthy people can have access. But the maintenance should be job No. 1 right now. We own land right now that we're not able to open because we're unable to build a welcome station or police it in any way. So in that environment, I think the priority has to be on managing the assets we already have.

If we speak to you in a year's time, looking back on these issues, what do you hope to be able to say?

I hope something has gotten into one of these bonds for maintenance of the parks, and I hope there are no plans to build a giant freeway through San Onofre.

On a separate topic, you are the Mayor Pro Tem of the city of Santa Monica, and TPR has been covering the issue of new planning directors in the Los Angeles region. Can you give us an update on your search?

We have hired a new city manager, Lamont Ewell, from San Diego. He's a terrific fellow, and the planning director is his hire. It's not the council's or the mayor pro tem's hire. He's very focused on that search, and very focused on getting a person of tremendous caliber. Santa Monica faces large planning challenges – we're re-doing land use elements and circulation elements, and, as you know, that's not something that happens every year. It's a fundamental set of documents, and we need a really terrific person to lead it. So all your really, really smart readers should call Lamont Ewell in Santa Monica!