County Wants ‘Commercial Fun Zone,’ Opponents Charge : Plan for Bonelli Park Draws Fire of Neighbors

Denis Bertone pulled his car off the gravel road in Frank G. Bonelli County Park and gestured dolefully across a gully. Walnut and pepper trees scattered along a ridge undulated in the breeze, a distant wall of snow-dusted mountains stretched toward the horizon and, on the lake front below, a few solitary fishermen seemed to lean lazily into the afternoon.

“That,” Bertone said with the air of someone clinching an argument, “is where they want to put the chalet complex. A swimming pool, Jacuzzis, tennis courts, parking lots.”

He picked out drawings of the 22 little square chalets, which the county proposes to build on the ridge, along with a lakeside “fishing village” with shops and paved promenades. “It’s probably the prettiest part of the park,” he said angrily, “and they want to cover this whole hill with development.”

The 2-year-old county plan to turn large parts of the 1,976-acre park into what opponents call a “commercial fun zone” is drawing increasingly rancorous opposition from residents of surrounding communities. Opponents have already defeated a county proposal for a 220-unit apartment complex in the park, which spreads east of the Foothill Freeway at its junction with the San Bernardino Freeway in San Dimas.

A 700-member Coalition to Preserve Bonelli Park has sprung up, opponents of the county plan have packed San Dimas City Council meetings on the issue and opposing lawyers, in response to comments made during the heated debate, have exchanged letters.

“The people of San Dimas are really worked up about this,” Mayor Donald Haefer said. “People have enjoyed it as a park for many years. This just takes the park away from the citizens of the surrounding cities.” The county proposal, Haefer said, would turn the park into “a Disneyland amusement center.”

On the sidelines, public-interest groups such as the Sierra Club and the Center for Law in the Public Interest, citing threats to coyotes, small game and the 150 species of birds that have been sighted in the park, have promised to throw their legal and political resources into the fray on the side of the opposition.

But County Supervisor Pete Schabarum, the point man for the proposal devised by planners at the county Department of Parks and Recreation, is adamant. The park has been a money-loser, costing the county about $900,000 a year, said Schabarum, a leading proponent of “privatization” of county services.

“The development would allow us to gain enough revenues to offset maintenance costs,” said Ray Anderson, an aide to Schabarum, who has been out of the country on a trade mission.

The county estimated that revenues from the development would be about $600,000 a year, reducing the net deficit to $300,000.

There is nothing new about commercial development in county parks, said Jim Park, department facility planner. Since 1978’s tax-cutting Proposition 13 has squeezed its budget, Park said, the county has given space to Raging Waters, a swimming attraction in Bonelli, and plans another water theme park in the Castaic State Recreational Area.

Raging Waters Expansion

About 2.4 million visitors a year go to Bonelli Park, named after a late supervisor, which has hiking and horse trails, a golf course, Raging Waters, the Puddingstone Reservoir and large tracts of wilderness.

The proposed development, as described in an environmental impact report, would be largely an expansion of Raging Waters, built in 1983 by Bryant L. Morris Development Co. of Carlsbad. The company, which would build and operate an expanded amusement center, pays about $400,000 a year to the county for use of the parkland.

If the proposal is approved by the Board of Supervisors, the company would be invited to build and operate a Western village, with rustic shops and an equestrian ring, connected by aerial tramway to the swimming area. There could also be a 3,000-seat amphitheater, a Western-style restaurant, a theater for water ballet and a fountain-like water display.

Unspecified developers would build a restaurant and the 22 one-family rental cottages with adjacent pool and tennis courts, as well as the fishing village with small shops and a boat dock. The plan would add more than 5,000 parking spaces.

“It’s not necessarily bad development,” said Bertone, co-chairman of the coalition opposing the proposal and the Sierra Club representative in the area. “It’s inappropriate.” Bertone said Bonelli is “one of the few places a person can still go in Los Angeles County and still find open, unspoiled, natural space.”

Kent Lemasters, executive vice president for Bryant L. Morris, said the firm is awaiting action by the county before committing itself to the plan.

An amended plan is being prepared for presentation to the cities adjacent to the park. There would be a 30-day period for public comment, then the plan would go to the supervisors by midsummer, Anderson said. Construction would not begin for at least three years, he added.

Lemasters said his firm’s immediate concern is to build new rides on the Raging Waters site and to expand parking. “We’d also like to add more entertainment facilities for teen-agers,” he said.

The coalition said information from the county on the park’s financial deficit has been contradictory. For example, a budget issued by the park for the 1986 fiscal year shows a deficit not of $900,000, as claimed by the county, but of $60,000. The environmental impact statement lists annual operational costs for the park as $1.3 million, but county parks officials said they are $2.4 million. County officials say the earlier figures were incomplete.

Opponents have had one significant victory: the elimination of housing from the county plan.

Last month, the county withdrew plans for the apartment complex because of a determination by the county counsel that it would violate a restriction under which the county administers the park, according to Anderson. Opponents of the county plan claim credit themselves, however, citing their lobbying efforts and their use of information leaked to them anonymously.

In 1970, most of the park--then a wilderness surrounding a reservoir--was turned over to the county by the state on the condition that county parks administrators maintain it for “park and recreational use.” Last year, however, county officials sought the assistance of the state Department of Parks and Recreation in bypassing that restriction.

According to a representative of the state agency’s legislative office, state and county parks officials discussed alternatives, including the introduction of legislation to permit transferring the restriction to another parcel of land. The coalition, armed with a leaked letter from the state Department of Parks and Recreation that pledged support for the housing development, appealed to Assemblyman William H. Lancaster (R-Covina).

The state Department of Parks and Recreation “gave some measure of conceptual approval for the idea of making the park self-sustaining,” Charles Willard, an agency legislative analyst, acknowledged. But the state changed its mind about overriding the deed restriction, he added, based partly on public opposition.

Although not opposed to development in the park, Lancaster also objected to violating the deed, according to aide Bill Nunes.

In February, Schabarum cited “restrictions in the deed” in recommending the elimination of the housing proposal. A par-three golf course is being discussed for the site once proposed for housing. Schabarum has also recommended scaling down a plan for a 10,000-seat amphitheater.

It is not yet clear if the restriction applies to other parts of the development.

Nevertheless, opposition continues to mount in the governments of the four nearby cities: San Dimas, Pomona, Claremont and La Verne. In recent developments, the San Dimas City Council has formally voted to oppose “each and every element of the proposed plan,” and the Claremont City Council has asserted that “public parks are for public use and should not have to pay their own way.”

San Dimas, Claremont and Pomona have also protested a series of closed meetings between Schabarum’s staff and a citizens’ advisory committee. Schabarum appointed the committee of residents and City Council members to study the plan and to make recommendations for amendments.

Anderson described the meetings as “working sessions” that would be hindered by the participation of an aroused public. “There’s been so much misrepresentation on the issues, we’re trying to nail down the facts,” he said. “Then we can go to the public and say, ‘Let’s have some comment.’ ”

He said there were public hearings on the environmental impact report. “Frankly, we don’t have to go through all of this,” Anderson said. “Pete (Schabarum) could have closed the hearings, brought it before the board and had a slam dunk.”