Senators’ Letter Angers Environmentalists : Transportation: Action by Cranston, Seymour threatens efforts of some to block San Joaquin Hills toll road. Others say current law holds private land hostage.
Local environmentalists are angry at U.S. Sens. Alan Cranston and John Seymour for writing a letter that may rob them of a legal weapon for blocking the construction of the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor in South Orange County.
The dispute concerns a regulation that makes it difficult to obtain federal funding for highways that border public parklands. The proposed $680-million San Joaquin Hills toll road across Laguna Canyon would run next to several parks, including Crystal Cove State Park and Aliso/Wood Canyons Regional Park.
Cranston and Seymour wrote a letter this month asking a Senate committee to exempt Orange County from this rule, saying it is keeping developers from dedicating public parklands. The exemption, requested by the Irvine Co. and the county Transportation Corridor Agencies, was not approved by the committee but could be added as an amendment to a bill pending before the Senate.
Environmentalists say the exemption would violate the spirit of the federal regulation and would set a dangerous precedent.
“This is an attempt to water down an environmental protection for open space and parklands,†said Michael Phillips, executive director of the Laguna Canyon Conservancy. “It won’t stop here. How long before they start seeking spot relief through Big Sur or the Grand Tetons?â€
Opponents of the San Joaquin Hills toll road say they feel particularly betrayed by Cranston, who in 1980 introduced legislation that would have converted the canyon into a national park. Last year, Cranston visited the canyon and said he might lobby for federal funds to buy the land for preservation.
“We’re shocked and disappointed with what’s happened,†said Michael Fitts, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group representing several Orange County groups in a legal challenge to environmental reports about the impact of the San Joaquin Hills toll road.
Cranston, however, is no longer championing the proposed amendment, according to an aide.
“We are not planning to pursue any amendment nor are we seeking it,†said Clare Thorne, a legislative assistant to Cranston who specializes in transportation policy. “. . . He will not offer this as an amendment or work to have the language included in the bill.â€
Asked why Cranston no longer is seeking the amendment, Thorne indicated that the reaction of tollway opponents influenced the senator’s position. “A lot of people feel very strongly about it,†Thorne said Thursday in a telephone interview from Washington.
H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for Seymour, said the Republican senator still “supports trying to get the exemption†and believes that it is necessary to accommodate construction of the toll roads as well as the dedication of parklands by developers.
Since 1956, federal spending for public roadways has been governed by a comprehensive highway act that Congress generally re-examines every five years.
A provision restricting construction of federally funded highways on public parklands unless no “feasible alternative†exists has been a part of the law since 1968. Subsequent court decisions have broadened the protection, making it difficult to build highways when nearby open space could be adversely affected.
An official of the Federal Highway Administration said it is unusual to ask for an exemption from the law. “It’s a very rare circumstance,†said John Bates, director of the office of engineering for the administration’s regional office in San Francisco.
The law can be a powerful tool for roadway opponents, he said. “We’ve got projects that have been held up for years in the courts†by opponents of road projects, Bates said.
Palmer, Seymour’s spokesman, said court rulings have altered the original intent of the 1968 act, transforming it into a tool that could now be used to halt all Orange County toll road construction.
“Private landowners are afraid to dedicate these parklands for fear it will trigger the . . . rule and place the corridors in endless litigation,†Seymour and Cranston argued in their May 8 letter. “This unfortunate outcome in Orange County, we believe, was never the intent behind the original provision.â€
The letter said the exemption would clear the way for public ownership of new parklands, such as the 5,360-acre Limestone Canyon Park next to East Orange owned by the Irvine Co.
Officials from the Transportation Corridor Agencies, which intends to build the county roadways, say their lobbyists in Washington persuaded the senators to request the exemption because the law has shifted from its original intent.
“What we’re trying to do is look into how the law can be rewritten to get it back to it’s original interpretation and, therefore, be able to turn these parks over to the citizens quicker,†Agencies spokeswoman Lisa Telles said.
Thorne said that the park-related amendment was also sought by a Washington-based lobbyist for the Irvine Co. An Irvine Co. official said Thursday that if Cranston has withdrawn his support of the amendment, it is “a total surprise†to the company.
“As recently as yesterday our people in Washington had discussions with the senator’s office, so I’m really surprised if this is the case,†said Gary Hunt, Irvine Co. senior vice president. The company expects to work with Cranston’s office “to correct whatever problem may exist,†Hunt said.
Last week, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved the Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the first major overhaul of the federal aid program for highways and mass transit in 35 years.
The act moved through the committee without the amendment sought by Cranston, Seymour and backers of the tollway project, Thorne said. The measure is expected to be considered on the Senate floor the week of June 10, when the exemption could be added.
Advocates of the exemption argue that since the federal law protects only public parklands, a number of privately owned parks are being “held hostage,†said Bob Fisher, director of Orange County’s Harbors, Beaches and Parks. Landowners are reluctant to free parklands because they fear such a move would stand in the way of roadways being built, he said.
Times staff writer David Willman tributed to this story.
Sign up for Essential California
The most important California stories and recommendations in your inbox every morning.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
