A New Push for Land Preservation : Legislation: Proposed law offers generous tax breaks for donations of parcels for open space. Others question the bill.

Preservationists seeking more parkland in the Santa Monica Mountains and beyond are pinning their hopes on a new $200-million legislative proposal to save California’s treasured open space by giving land donors a big state tax break.

But at the same time, some environmentalists are voicing fears that the bill’s hefty tax breaks for landowners might come at the expense of grass-roots conservation efforts, and that the measure incorporates a pro-business philosophy of saving enough of nature to clear the decks for more development.

The bill, by state Sen. Jack O’Connell (D-Carpinteria), grants generous tax credits to donors of land, water rights or agricultural easements to local, state or nonprofit agencies. The credits equal 100% of the land’s full market value when twinned with federal incentives and, unlike mere deductions, can be applied directly to taxes owed.

Supporters are trumpeting the O’Connell measure, dubbed the California Land and Water Act of 1995, as the next great hope for acquiring public lands in the penny-pinching 1990s--a decade in which voters and legislators rejected costly bond measures to fund further habitat preservation.

Activists envision as many potential benefits as there are willing donors and projects accepted for the tax break.

Mary Weisbrock of Save Open Space in Agoura, for example, said she hopes that the entire 5,400-acre Ahmanson Ranch could be preserved if the landowner, Home Savings of America, sees advantages in giving it up in exchange for a chance to lower its tax bill.

A spokeswoman for H.F. Ahmanson & Co. said its executives are aware of the bill and are tracking its progress in the Legislature. But Mary Trigg said it’s too early to tell whether such a tax credit would provide enough of an incentive for Ahmanson, the parent company of Home Savings, to abandon plans for home construction on 1,500 acres of the ranch.

As local activists draw up tentative wish lists, major players in Sacramento are taking a closer look at the legislation and, in some cases, are calling for more fine-tuning.

State Resources Secretary Douglas P. Wheeler, who is granted authority by the bill to sign off on qualifying lands, said he is seeking additional safeguards to ensure that properties end up in the hands of agencies with good land-management records and that the program targets only top-priority natural resources.

He mentioned as a possible application of the tax credit the state’s ongoing efforts at preserving coastal sage scrub habitat in San Diego and Orange counties, where vast acreage owned by the Irvine Co. has been tied up by the endangered species listing of the California gnatcatcher.

And although Wheeler said he supports the bill’s goal of creating a new tool for conservation, he concedes he is wary of its potentially tremendous costs to the state.

“One of the concerns is the open-ended nature of this appropriation,” Wheeler said. “It has to be viewed appropriately as a tax expenditure.”

*

The bill allows for up to $200 million of tax credits to be issued annually but also gives the Legislature the ability to set a much lower ceiling when money is tight. After a public comment period, legislators get the final say-so over who gets the tax credits.

According to the bill, credits may be tallied as expenditures of the state’s Habitat Conservation Fund, established in 1990 after voters passed Proposition 117. The proposition, known as the California Wildlife Protection Act, requires the state to spend $30 million a year on habitat preservation.

Some environmentalists, however, fear this is an illegal raid on a program that voters mandated to help pay for local conservation projects. Although the bill’s sponsors deny the charge, critics say the proposal could rob grass-roots efforts of badly needed dollars, by monopolizing Proposition 117 funds that would otherwise go to smaller projects.

O’Connell’s proposal, which cleared its first legislative hurdle this month by winning approval from the Senate Natural Resources Committee, has a long way to go before it reaches the governor’s desk for his signature.

Next, it goes to the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee, where it must withstand vehement opposition from the California Taxpayers’ Assn., which blasts it as too costly. Then, it must clear the Senate floor before heading to the Assembly to repeat the process.

Behind the united front that environmentalists in the Capitol often erect, the bill is getting only a lukewarm response from some who believe it gives too big a tax break to large corporate landowners.

In addition to the Irvine Co., Chevron--a major California landholder since the days of railroads and large-scale oil drilling--has been mentioned as a possible beneficiary.

O’Connell said he is aware of the bill’s likely appeal to big corporations with large tracts of land and substantial tax burdens to reduce. But he says that under his proposal, they would be “treated just like everybody else--just like small ma-and-pa farmers.”

For offering valuable incentives to big business, the bill’s supporters offer no apologies.

“What we’re after is one thing, and one thing only. We’re after the land,” said Joseph T. Edmiston, executive director of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. “And if this is a way we can get it that the business community considers business-friendly, then that’s the way we ought to do it.”

To purists who grumble that deep-pocketed landholders ought to be pressed to donate open space out of a sense of civic duty, Edmiston essentially replies: Oh, grow up.

“Excuse me, but large corporations are run for the benefit of their shareholders--not for eleemosynary (charitable) purposes,” he said. “And if anybody in 1995 doesn’t understand that, they are in fact part of the natural habitat because they have their head stuck in the sand.”

Edmiston is a board member of the Planning and Conservation League, the environmental policy group that brought the measure to O’Connell along with the nonprofit Trust for Public Land.

Long regarded as a champion of environmental concerns, O’Connell took up the cause, he said, because it is fiscally wiser than the debt-burdened bond measures used to fund public land purchases in the past.

“This is a more conservative approach,” he said, adding that it has the bonus of freeing encumbered lands for development once enough ecologically sensitive land is set aside. “In the long run, it’s good public policy to preserve open space and preserve habitat and also help economic development.”

But those last two words--spelled out also in the language of the bill--waved a red flag to Weisbrock of Save Open Space, whose hope it is that the Ahmanson Ranch could somehow be saved by O’Connell’s measure.

In a letter to the Senate’s Natural Resources Committee, Weisbrock voiced her enthusiastic support for the bill. But she wanted its pro-business wording weeded out.

One prominent section of the bill says: “The economic development of California can be facilitated if endangered species and other forms of plants, fish and wildlife can be protected quickly and efficiently, so that development and agricultural use can proceed on other lands.”

In a phone interview, Weisbrock said: “We wanted that ‘economic development’ section to be dropped because we don’t want that to be a criteria for saving land. When you purchase land for parkland, usually the No. 1 reason listed is resource protection.”

Jerry Meral of the Planning and Conservation League said the cheerleading tone was employed for a pragmatic reason--to boost the bill’s chances of passage by Republicans and the governor.

Asked if he aimed to market his proposal as part of the wave of pro-business sentiment washing over the Capitol, Meral replied: “We’re surfers like everybody else. I guess I would have to say yes to that.

“We’re aware of two constituencies that we have to serve to make this bill go. One is the Republicans, the other is the governor,” Meral said. “We hope that we are appealing to both of those constituents.”

Having on your side an oil industry giant who is also a major political contributor and a land donor helps the bills’ prospects--even though it faces an uphill battle because of its cost in lost revenue.

*

To give the bill a leg up in the Senate natural resources panel, Chevron lobbyist K.C. Bishop III worked to secure Republican votes, telling GOP senators his employer liked the idea of using an incentive to help break stalemates over habitat preservation.

“I think the farseeing environmentalists--the people who are visionary--are beginning to see that private property rights are important,” said Bishop, who is also working with the Wilson Administration on an overhaul of the state’s Endangered Species Act. “They are finding new ways to use the carrot instead of the club.”

Just last week, Chevron donated 851 acres in the pristine Santa Clarita Woodlands to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. At the same time, it agreed to sell another 2,184 acres for $4.9 million. Had the O’Connell bill been law in time for the transaction, Chevron might have reaped tax breaks worth $7.3 million--the estimated value of the land.

Edmiston notes that, from his perspective, the bill fills a crucial need to shake loose more of the privately held land in the Santa Monicas, Santa Susanas and elsewhere.

“One hundred years from now, when people are enjoying the parkland, they are not going to give a farthing about whether it came from a tax credit,” he said. “They are going to say, ‘Thank God somebody in the mid-1990s had the foresight to save this land.’ And that’s all.”