Costa Mesa backs creating river conservancy

Deirdre Newman

City leaders narrowly voted to support an assembly bill that would

establish the Santa Ana River Conservancy.

The entire watershed would cover an area of about 2,700 square

miles in parts of Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside counties,

including a portion of Fairview Park.

On Monday, the council voted 3 to 2 to support the bill, with

Mayor Gary Monahan and Councilman Allan Mansoor dissenting.

The bill is now in the state Senate Committee on Natural Resources

and Wildlife. If it passes, it could open up channels of grant

funding for Fairview Park.

The close vote reflected divergent views in the community as to

whether supporting the bill means relinquishing local control.

“I think we don’t have control now -- we’re downstream,” resident

Rich Gillock said. “We have to cooperate and do this as a cooperative

effort.”The Santa Ana River is the largest stream system in Southern

California. The river has endured intense development and needs

restoration, conservation and enhancement along its entire route,

states the bill, authored by Assemblyman Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana).

Under state law, conservancies can acquire, manage, direct the

management of and conserve public lands in the state. The bill would

also establish the Santa Ana River Conservancy Fund, but the

conservancy would not be able to exercise its funding authority until

the legislature or a bond act allocates the necessary funds. The

conservancy would also not have the power of eminent domain.

The price tag for the Fairview Park Master Plan, adopted in 1997,

is $9 million. Several projects have already been completed, but the

city only has $700,000 in grant funds and general funds set aside for

the rest of the plan.

Councilwoman Libby Cowan said she viewed the bill as a way to gain

funds to complete the remaining park projects.

The governing board of the conservancy would be comprised of 13

members, including one from the Orange County Board of Supervisors.

Mansoor said he felt that Costa Mesa’s interests would be outnumbered

in the decision-making process.

Part of the bill refers to local control, saying the conservancy

must “conform to all relevant general and specific plans and zoning

regulations of local agencies within the territory of the

conservancy.” But council members had different interpretation of the

language.

Mansoor said the bill’s language in terms of local authority is

conflicting.

“One part says the cities have control over their property, then

other parts say [the conservancy] can sue, and other parts go into

all the details of the authority the [conservancy] has,” Mansoor said

Tuesday morning. “It appears to contradict itself in that nature as

to who really has the final say in those areas.”

Councilman Mike Scheafer said he understood the fears about local

control being usurped, but believed the language would allow Costa

Mesa to retain local control.