Hard Choices Ahead for Mountains Conservancy

As the San Fernando Valley’s statutory representative on the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, I certainly share your view (“Conservancy Should Keep Its Focus Local,” Dec. 18) that we ought to focus the conservancy’s increasingly limited funds locally.

For example, as your editorial notes, earlier this year I successfully urged Gov. Pete Wilson to line-item veto the forced expenditure of $7 million in conservancy funds for land purchases in Santa Barbara and Whittier on the grounds that they were too far afield.

A particularly strong case may be made for conservation and recreation around the San Fernando Valley. To some degree, in fact, the name of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy is a bit of a misnomer as we are directed by law to activity beyond the Santa Monica Mountains themselves. Possibly your writer was not aware that the state Legislature in 1983 mandated the Rim of the Valley Trail Corridor, of which Wilson Canyon is an integral part, as part of the conservancy’s statutory responsibility. Further, the source of funds for the acquisition is Proposition A, which by law must be applied to all of Los Angeles County.

I certainly agree that we need to focus on our core mission, but the law does not permit us unfettered discretion. In fact, subsequent legislative direction has also given us responsibilities in the Santa Clarita Woodlands, Simi Hills, Santa Susanas, Verdugos and even the foothills of the San Gabriels. The common denominator is the ring of mountain ranges around metropolitan Southern California and the interconnected ecosystem which they represent.

Clearly the conservancy is entering a period of increasing fiscal austerity. The governor and the Resources Agency have struggled to find funds, but the state continues to have severe budget difficulties. Voters have turned down most recent bond issues, including Proposition 180. At the federal level, our local representation in Congress has been unable to find funding to complete the federal Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.

In this environment, we will have to do the most we can with very limited resources, and undoubtedly many people, including conservancy members themselves, will be disappointed. There may well be cases where we need to pull in our horns and eschew an acquisition no matter how attractive, if it is not key.

If anything, this may point up the need to refocus on the recreational and environmental needs of the San Fernando Valley, which a recent UCLA study found to be severely “underparked.” Some have argued in fact that purchases in the Valley may well be more cost-effective in terms of environmental and recreational benefits than higher-priced urban land on the basin side of the Santa Monicas.

Ultimately, each case must be addressed thoughtfully on its own merits but also as it fits into the conservancy’s overall master plan, mission--and budget. These are some of the hard choices all of us will have to make in the years ahead.

RICHARD SYBERT

Calabasas