Ballona News
CONTENTS OF OUR NEWSPAGE:
- Ballona History (3)
- Ballona Site Index (1)
- Ballona Toxic Sites (1)
- Marina Freeway Wetlands (1)
- Playa Vista Phase 2 Project (4)
- Precarious Financial Health of P.V. Developer--Could Condo Buyers Be at Risk? (3)
- Restoration Planning (10)
- Restoring and Unpaving Local Open Spaces to Clean Up Santa Monica Bay Beaches (15)
- Self-Heating Condos--Explosive Gas Underneath Playa Vista (2)
- Traffic Jams (1)
- Traffic-Reducing Community Promised by Playa Vista Salesmen Never Happened (2)
- What's Left to Fight For: (4)
Monday, May 28, 2012
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
some sad news, yet we count our blessings.
4/4/2012--Dear Friends,
We are sad to report that the California Supreme Court has declined to take our case over the second and final 111 acre phase of the Playa Vista development in the Ballona wetlands area. Our case over this last phase was filed in 2004, and in 2007 we were successful in overturning the plan which totaled 2600 condos and 300,000 square feet of shopping center and offices. The state’s Appeals court called the developer’s environmental impact disclosure documents “dishonest” numerous times. This is because Playa Vista’s lawyer and these documents covered up the true nature of the project: to award a massive $300 million gift of development rights for land upon which this developer had traded away their development rights in order to build their first mega city in their Phase 1 project.
The City’s own 1993 approval documents for Phase 1 specified that one of the “benefits” to the public from approval of Phase 1 was the “elimination” of the remaining development rights on the rest of their land. Unfortunately, in the opinion of this court, our state’s environmental laws allow the developer to fix the huge errors we discovered with a little paperwork correction, and they allow the City Council to then ignore the impacts of the actual project once they are revealed.
So, Playa Vista has been awarded the rights to build on the rest of their land. BEEP has challenged their development plans since 1985 and, despite this court loss, our work has resulted in 70% of the original 1000 acre site being saved as wetlands, wildlife habitat and parks. The original car traffic totals from their project have been reduced from over 200,000 more cars a day to under 80,000. The total amount of condos has been reduced from over 13,000 to 6100.
A project that was seen as a “done deal” has been made a lot less offensive through our work and that of our partners.
Some of L.A.’s biggest developers have wracked up hundreds of millions in losses (at least $600 million) in trying to get around the community opposition. As the president of the Playa Vista company said in 2004, "Would these guys get together in a room and do it again? They would say 'No.'"
We at BEEP are proud of our work, and, yes, we would fight this battle again.
We will continue watching over the future restoration plans for the saved Ballona Wetlands preserve, by the new owners, the State of California Department of fish and game, and we urge you to visit the wetlands sometime, or attend the Wednesday evening hikes at local nature spots led by our president, Rex Frankel, which are listed here: http://lameetuphikes.blogspot.com
BEEP’s next project is posting our massive environmental research and local history library on the internet so future developers looking to wreck natural treasures in Los Angeles will see the battle they face.
------------------------------------
A LITTLE BACKGROUND:
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1975009&doc_no=B231965
------------------------
http://radio-weblogs.com/0138798/stories/2004/07/02/playaVistaPresidentRevealsFinancialTroubles.html
Los Angeles Business Journal, Jan 19, 2004 by Danny King
Will Playa Vista's big-time investment group, made up of Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Oaktree Capital Management, finally make any money on this deal? Playa Vista President Steve Soboroff expects the return to be modest on what's estimated to be a $1.2 billion investment by the time construction wraps, probably no sooner than 2010.
"Would these guys get together in a room and do it again? They would say 'No,'" said Soboroff. "Will they get any sort of return on their money? De minimis, but that's because everything that could possibly go wrong went wrong."
------------------------------------------
Playa Vista: Wetlands Development is a Financial Quagmire... for the developer
July 13, 2006
The head of Playa Vista, Steve Soborrof says his project has lost $600 million for its investors...see the last paragraph
http://www.smmirror.com/#mode=single&view=21977
"Panel moderator David Abel put the key question: Can Playa Vista serve as a model for other developments? Can it be replicated? Soboroff said that the project had produced $600 million in losses to three companies and taken 20 years, all because people thought of it as a real estate project instead of a public policy project.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Ballona Bulldozing Backers seek $6 million from State
Thursday, June 30, 2011
test of Ballona News email system...
I'm wondering whether the automatic "Google--Feedburner" email system for my subscribers is working. I just changed some settings, so hopefully it is working again. Please reply to me at rexfrankel@yahoo.com if you got this email.
Thanks, Rex Frankel
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
NEW: Slide presentations on the Ballona Wetlands Restoration Project
https://picasaweb.google.com/Rare.Earth.fotos/BallonaRestorationPlanSPollutedWaterProblem#
https://picasaweb.google.com/Rare.Earth.fotos/BallonaHistoricalMapsAndPhotos#
https://picasaweb.google.com/Rare.Earth.fotos/EvolutionOfTheStateSRestorationPlansForBallona#
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Monday, October 25, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
"Smoking gun" documents show that Ballona Wetlands developer dealt away their rights to build more
CONTACT: Rex Frankel, director, Ballona Ecosystem Education Project
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 17, 2010
Dear Supporters of saving all of the Ballona natural open spaces:
Should we allow the Playa Vista development to increase its impacts by another 50%?
3 years ago we beat Playa Vista and its owners, the notorious Wall Street firm of Goldman Sachs, in a landmark case over their 24,000 cars a day, 111 acre “Village at Playa Vista” proposed city which is located nearby the Ballona Wetlands next to historical Centinela Creek. We proved, despite the denials of city officials, that Playa Vista had no rights to build the project, and had falsified their environmental impact report to claim that they instead had massive long-ago-approved development rights and thus, their project was creating no new impact.
The Los Angeles Appeals Court saw through this smoke-screen and agreed with us, slamming the project in a 100 page opinion and issuing an injunction to halt all construction of the proposed mini-city of 2600 condos and a shopping center.
Since that victory, this developer returned to city hall, seeking to get around the Appeals Court’s ruling, and not surprisingly, the L.A. City Council members gave away the store again earlier this year. That leads us to our new lawsuit, for which the opening brief was filed on August 16th..
What our first lawsuit showed was that Playa Vista has no massive development rights on this land. What our new lawsuit shows is WHY Playa Vista has no massive development rights and why the L.A. City Council cannot simply change a few phrases in an environmental impact report and again hand over $300 million in massive development rights to them.
Simply put, the approval of the first 350 acre part of the Playa Vista project in 1993 included the promised benefit to the surrounding community that if the developer in the first phase could build 3200 condos and 3.2 million square feet of office and retail space, and the city gave Playa Vista several hundred million of dollars in tax exempt housing and infrastructure bonds and discounts on city fees, plus $30 million to build and widen roads for Playa Vista’s benefit, that PV would give up the right to build just under another 2 million square feet of office and retail space. This trade-off, described as a part of the benefits of the PV 1993 project, was not well-publicized at the time but we found it in the City’s approval documents.
This trade off is like a contractual exchange between the developer and the residents of Los Angeles. Every first year law student knows that when two parties make a contract, and one side (the residents of Los Angeles) fully performs (PV gets to build what they want and gets all the taxpayer subsidized handouts), it is a breach of contract when Playa Vista refuses to perform their part of the bargain back to us (the agreement not to try to build even more).
What Goldman Sachs and their lawyers are attempting to do is convert these allegedly “unused” and “available” rights to build 2 million square feet of office and retail into 2600 condominiums and a shopping center. The crux of their argument is that when they said “eliminate” 2 million square feet, they meant “relocate” the 2 million square feet to the rest of their land near Centinela Avenue, which they call the “Village” site.
What this means to residents of Los Angeles who sit every day in traffic jams is that when Playa Vista was allowed in the 1990’s to build a massive city on L.A.’s last flat privately-owned open space and also given huge-taxpayer funded handouts by our City Council, this developer made promises to get this deal. Our lawsuit seeks to enforce those promises.
To read the lawsuit brief:
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B5SGRAMv8RXuYmVlYmM3ZjgtODBmMS00YzJkLWI4YTItYTc2MjhiZWMwOTdk&hl=en
To see the city approval document from 1993 in which the future development rights were traded away:
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B5SGRAMv8RXuYjdmZDBkZjctNGJiYy00ZWM3LTg5ZWItM2U2MDNhOThkZjlh&hl=en
Friday, April 2, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Here's a thought: if you want more parking, why don't you tear down your building?
Cars not parks: This guy wants to Pave-over a park next to the Ballona Wetlands
Playa del Rey: Proposal to convert Titmouse Park to parking lot draws passionate responses
BY GARY WALKER, the Argonaut
1/7/2010
For the better part of 15 years, Craig Fraulino has had a front-row seat watching traffic and parking challenges on Culver Boulevard in Playa del Rey escalate.
The boulevard is used increasingly by Westside commuters during the day and motorists returning to the South Bay in the evening, and without sufficient parking, some businesses along Culver are becoming more anxious about their future in the beachside community.
“Parking is a real issue for almost all of the merchants on Culver Boulevard,” said Susan Zolla, the proprietor of the Inn at Playa del Rey.
In an effort to alleviate the dearth of parking spaces, Fraulino, an architect, is proposing the controversial idea of converting Titmouse Park into a parking lot.
| |
for rest of story:
http://www.argonautnewspaper.com/articles/2010/01/07/news_-_features/top_stories/1pdr.txt
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Daily Breeze covers Playa Vista's latest battle
Delayed 'Village' phase of Playa Vista development to get another look
Posted: 12/08/2009 07:39:29 PM PST
http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_13955604
Playa Vista's long-awaited village core - delayed for more than two years because of a court ruling - will get another look this week from the Los Angeles City Planning Commission.
Developers hope the panel on Thursday will recommend that the City Council approve a new environmental analysis and package of land-use entitlements that could push the second phase of Playa Vista a step closer to completion.
But even then, it will likely face challenges from determined opponents.
The Village is planned for 111 acres within the master-planned development south of Marina del Rey, bringing 2,600 new homes, 150,000 square feet of retailers, 175,000 square feet of office space and 40,000 square feet of community uses to an area described as "the heart" of the neighborhood.
Residents, many of whom are expected to be in the audience Thursday, are eager to see construction start, Playa Vista spokesman Steve Sugerman said.
"It's the exact same project" that won Los Angeles City Council approval in 2004, he said.
"Certainly the feeling here is, we've done all of the analyses that are required. They're comprehensive," he said. "And not only is Playa ready, the community is more than ready to complete this vision."
Although roughly half of the roads were paved and the infrastructure was in place, work on The Village stopped in September 2007 when an appellate court ruled that its environmental impact report was flawed.
Previously, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge had said that the city and Playa Vista provided decision-makers with adequate information. But the appellate court, which combined two separate lawsuits on the matter, found the environmental report lacking in three areas.
The judges questioned the analysis of the project's effects on the nearby Hyperion wastewater treatment plant, the treatment of human remains and artifacts dating back 3,500 years, and whether the city accurately described permitted land uses for the site.
On the last issue, the court said the EIR did not acknowledge that the retail complex would "dramatically increase the amount of development permissible" on the land. Therefore, Playa Vista has been required to seek various land-use amendments that will accommodate a higher-density project.
But one of the plaintiffs in the case argues the plan still should be scaled down, nevermind the revised report and additional analysis.
"Basically, they misstated the beginning conditions," said Rex Frankel of the Ballona Ecosystem Education Project. "They should have studied a 50-50 project. Half the project as open space. Half the project as developed."
Frankel said he plans to bring his arguments to the City Council and pursue another court fight.
"There are still major legal problems," he said. "We're readying a lawsuit that's going to wipe this project out, and we have the evidence to prove it."
Playa Vista was counting on Caruso Affiliated to develop its village, which will be within walking distance of residences in its first phase, now home to more than 6,000 people. Caruso designed The Grove in Los Angeles and the nearby Waterside shopping center at Lincoln Boulevard and Fiji Way in Marina del Rey.
The agreement has expired by now, but Sugerman said "our strong sense is that there's actually still significant interest."
Sugerman said the project's revised environmental report has won endorsements from various community groups, including the neighborhood councils of Westchester-Playa del Rey and Del Rey and the LAX Coastal Area Chamber of Commerce, among others.
Second phase of Playa Vista up for commission consideration
After years of legal delays, the Los Angeles Planning Commission on Thursday will again weigh the merits of the second and final phase of Playa Vista, a 111-acre expansion that would include housing, shops, office space and parks. The Village, as it is known, would be built between Playa Vista's two existing residential developments.
The community, about two miles inland from Santa Monica Bay between Marina del Rey and Westchester, is home to an estimated 6,500 people. Plans call for 2,600 additional homes, 150,000 square feet of retail space and 175,000 square feet of office space, along with four new parks.
The project was originally approved by the city in 2004, but opponents sued, saying the environmental impact report was flawed. The 2nd District Court of Appeal found that the report did not adequately analyze the potential effects on land use, archaeological resources and wastewater. In May 2008, the city was ordered to vacate the approvals and revise three sections of the EIR.
Bud Ovrom, deputy mayor for economic development, said: "Typically, we support our professional planning staff's recommendation." He said the city was particularly interested in seeing that the retail portion move forward. Developers of Phase 1 office buildings, he said, have found it difficult to lease space because of the lack of amenities, such as restaurants and a grocery store.
"If you want a true sustainable community, you really do need the retail component," he said.
Rex Frankel, a longtime opponent of Playa Vista, contended that the proposed project was too big and dense. He said Playa Vista should increase the amount of affordable housing and parkland.
Playa Vista officials say they anticipate further legal challenges if the City Council ultimately approves the project. Still, they say they could begin construction by the end of 2011.
-- Martha Groves
Monday, November 2, 2009
Parks and Wetlands to Share land in South Bay
Torrance eyes new sports fields in Dual- Use Treatment Wetland Basins
Local youth sports groups see more lighted facilities to ease the strain on overburdened soccer and football fields in Torrance.
And city officials see an enhanced storm-water runoff program that will collect, conserve and clean water.
Both will come to fruition if a $6 million proposal to build three multiuse sports fields at the Bishop Montgomery Basin behind the Torrance Boulevard high school and a passive park at the Ocean sump near Sepulveda Boulevard occurs as envisioned.
The first public step in the process occurs at 7 p.m. tonight and again Nov. 18 in the cafeteria at Anza Elementary School, 21400 Ellinwood Drive, when city officials unveil plans for the 7-acre basin adjacent to Bishop Montgomery. Another meeting is scheduled for the same time and place Nov. 4 to discuss the trails, restored habitat and open space proposed for the 9-acre Ocean sump. "Neither of these projects would use any potable water," said John Dettle, acting city engineer. "We would use recycled water plus urban runoff to keep the grass growing." Municipal officials first proposed the idea in March 2008 and have been refining plans for the two sumps ever since. The idea is to help the city meet regional requirements for cleaning urban runoff in winter months while simultaneously creating two new parks. The function of the basins, which have existed for decades to help drain what was once a flood-prone city, would not change.In fact, the goal is to improve how they work, enhancing both the quantity and quality of water that's collected and used to recharge groundwater supplies, Dettle said. The city has set aside $1million for preliminary design work and hopes to apply for state and local water improvement grants to create the parks. There's room for up to three youth soccer fields complete with lights at the Bishop Montgomery basin that could also be used for Pop Warner Football and other sports. "We get constant calls from people complaining they don't have a place to practice or play," said Mayor Frank Scotto, a long-time official with the Hawthorne-based American Youth Soccer Organization, which began in Torrance 45 years ago. "A lot of groups have such a need for more youth fields in the city, it would be very disappointing to me if we could not accomplish this." City officials don't expect many people to object to improving the landscaping and installing trails, but otherwise leaving the Ocean basin in a largely undeveloped state. But it's unclear how neighbors of the Bishop Montgomery basin will react to converting the quiet space into busy, lighted ball fields. With lights below the grade of surrounding homes, it's hoped the illuminated fields will not spill unwanted glare into nearby living rooms. Dettle said he has received only one call from a nearby resident about the project so far and that person was in favor of it. Still, youth sports officials acknowledge that playing games from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on a weekend - complete with a blaring public address system in the case of Pop Warner Football - can create conflict. "When we play, the neighbors always complain about the noise or the PA system or parking on the street," said Dan Lankford, president of Torrance Youth Football & Cheer, whose 400 participants are spread over three different parks and school fields. He hopes a new directional sound system that doesn't blast the entire neighborhood will solve the noise issue. Parking isn't expected to be a problem since the high school already has large lots. Dick Monod de Froideville, AYSO commissioner for Torrance's Region 15, is also eyeing the new sports fields, which would sit on the border of two fast-growing AYSO regions. "It's in an ideal location," he said. "(Region 15) used to be a program of 900 (kids) and now we're a little over 1,000. The city of Torrance is running out of space for sports venues."
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:A5TItD6iKX8J:www.dailybreeze.com/ci_13548805+%22torrance+eyes+new+sports+fields%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Monday, September 7, 2009
A little Bit of Playa Vista History...
Retired Security Guard at Playa Vista/Ballona Wetlands describes how opponents had gotten "inside" the developer's company
http://www.news-bulletin.com/nb/index.php/la-vida/488-solar-savvy-resident-saves-energy-.html
9/5/2009--
...Nordell, a Culver City, Calif. native, said he also worked as a security guard at Hughes Aircraft, the building site of the enormous Hercules airplane, also known as the "Spruce Goose." The hangars have been used to film scenes in the films Independence Day and Titanic, he said.
He said he finagled his way onto the property under the guise of being an author and received a tour of the property.
Nordell was eventually hired on.
"I became the security guard in charge of the Hughes Playa Vista Property."
Nordell said he threw 56 trespassers off the property in one day. That made the security guard who got him the job angry.
"He took on the job of getting rid of me," Nordell said.
As it turned out, the security guard had good reason for not wanting Nordell throwing trespassers of the property. Nordell said he was a spy for a group of protestors who wanted to save the property from being developed into condominiums.
"He admitted he was a spy for the protestors," Nordell said....
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Two Restoration Projects, Not One...
Here is Our Proposal for Restoring the Ballona Wetlands and Uplands:
June 17, 2009, from Rex Frankel, Director, Ballona Ecosystem Education Project
Right now, the local environmental community and the State's restoration planning team are on opposite sides: the State wants to dredge out most of Ballona and convert it into mostly wetlands. The local community wants all of the things they love about Ballona to be preserved, both the wetlands and the uplands, without the huge amount of bulldozing and habitat conversion.
The State's current plan is a recipe for many years of lawsuits. It makes a lot more sense to design a project that can win the support of the local community than push a plan that will lead to endless battling and bad feelings.
A PROPOSAL FOR RESOLVING THE CONTROVERSY:
1. Redesignate Ballona as Two Preserves: One for the Wetlands, and One for the Uplands
Right now, the Ballona Preserve is almost evenly split between low lying wetlands and higher elevation uplands. Both are vital components in a restored natural ecosystem.
Under this proposal, advocates of wetter wetlands can focus on bringing more water into the area south of Ballona Creek that is already wetland. That area can be restored and made much wetter without huge amounts of bulldozing, as the land is between 0 and 3 feet above sea level.
And with this compromise, the community's hiking trails and sagebrush and grasslands north of Ballona Creek that sit on the 15 foot tall uplands will be cleaned up and restored without the need for expensive earth-moving equipment.
2. Slowly remove the non-native weeds and replant native plants in both preserves
3. For the Wetlands Preserve south of Ballona Crek: Bring more water from the ocean into the Wetlands Preserve. Preserve the pickleweed and mudflats, the freshwater Centinela creek and eucalyptus grove, the far-west sand dune, and the former railroad track berm/trail, remains. Hopefully, the City will one day take back the portion of Cabora Road that the Gas Company has been allowed to fence off, so we will have a continuous 3 mile hiking and biking trail south of and overlooking the wetlands.
4. For the Uplands Preserve north of Ballona Creek: keep and enhance the wildflowers, sagebrush, dense laurel sumac thickets, loop hiking trails, Pacific Electric bridge platforms and sand dune, remnant of Ballona Creek and its saltbush, grasslands, and little league fields. Work with all users of the Uplands to sensitively design a new small water channel to expand the biodiversity of the Uplands without widescale habitat conversion.
------------------------------------------
Map of Existing Habitat Conditions at the Ballona State Preserve
(click on map to enlarge)
-------------------------------------------
For more photos showing how an Upland is different from a Wetland:
http://ballona-news.blogspot.com/2009/01/state-officials-back-off-from-over.html
Thickets of laurel sumac and loop hiking trails in the Uplands north of Ballona creek and the Playa Vista development and west of Lincoln Blvd.
--------------------------
WHAT A WETLAND LOOKS LIKE:
The wettest part of Ballona, the tidal channel south of Ballona Creek, surrounded by pickleweed and mud flats
Monday, June 8, 2009
State Declares People are Banned in the Wetlands, but Bulldozers are OK?
More on the Controversial State Plan to Bulldoze at Ballona...
6/10/2009--Read the views of three groups on the State restoration plan:
http://argonautnewspaper.com/articles/2009/06/10/news_-_features/ballona_wetlands/b1.txt
--------------------
6/10/2009--Billboards in our wetlands?
http://argonautnewspaper.com/articles/2009/06/10/news_-_features/ballona_wetlands/b2.txt
Rex Frankel of the Ballona Ecosystem Education Project was even more blunt.
“The idea of putting any new signs in the Ballona Wetlands is absurd,” Frankel asserted.
-----------------
5/28/2009--Marina Affairs Committee hears update on Ballona Wetlands restoration project, halted in December
BY HELGA GENDELL, Marina Del Rey Argonaut
http://argonautnewspaper.com/articles/2009/05/28/news_-_features/marina_del_rey/m2.txt
...Another question was about the public wanting to know what types of birds, wildlife and other species exist in the wetlands, asking if a biologist will be doing an inventory.
Mayfield said a biologist had been hired to do the inventory when the money freeze occurred.
The audience member also asked if photos of the various species could be provided online to educate the public, and said it was necessary for the EIR as well.
Small said some quality photos had been taken by Jonathan Coffin, although Mayfield interjected, alleging they were taken illegally because Coffin didn’t have permission to access the property....
----------------------------------
OUR OPINION:
Letter to the editor,
Re: Ballona Wetlands restoration proposals from the State:
June 8, 2009
There are three major controversial issues in the State’s restoration proposal for the Ballona preserve. The cost is a big one. Should we spend $209 million to restore the land which we already spent $225 million to buy? Shouldn’t we spend less on restoration and buy up other threatened lands next to the wetlands?
Another issue is the source of the water, from the ocean or from urban L.A. The third and most important issue: is this a restoration or a massive habitat conversion scheme?
WATER SOURCES:
We believe more water should be brought into the wetlands from the ocean, absolutely. We believe that this water should be clean, not contaminated with urban runoff.
The state’s plan takes the water for the wetlands right out of Ballona Creek. They say they will only do that when the water in Ballona creek is no longer being fouled with urban pollution from all of the streets in the Westside of Los Angeles. Cleaning up the polluted runoff in Ballona Creek is an important project which we support, on which we are working in partnership with our City sanitation department, but it’s going to take a long time and billions of dollars to accomplish this. Taxpayers ultimately have to pay for cleaning up the urban street runoff, and they need to be convinced that the cost is worth it. So this is a long term project that may or may not happen unless voters and taxpayers support it. On the other hand, restoration of the Ballona Wetlands could be accomplished quickly. It doesn’t need to drag on forever, nor cost $209 million as the last proposal would. That’s why we are very uncomfortable in tying the restoration plan at Ballona wetlands to the success of another very expensive project that may not be successfully completed for many years.
HABITAT CONVERSION ON A MASSIVE SCALE IS NOT RESTORATION:
The state’s plan for Habitat conversion is not restoration. It is development.
We support a balanced ecosystem approach for the Ballona Wetlands restoration project. What this means is that as, currently, the almost 600 acres of state land is 49% uplands and 48% wetlands, we prefer it to stay in roughly those same proportions. Unfortunately, the state’s managers have proposed not a restoration project, but a habitat conversion project. This would, at its worst configuration unveiled last fall, mean that the uplands, which contain our beloved hiking trails, thickets, fragrant sagebrush and wildflowers could be cut with heavy earthmoving equipment down to only 16% of the site.
This is not acceptable to the vast majority of the public who have attended planning meetings for the last 4 years, and to those of us who have devoted well over 20 years to saving the diverse Ballona wetlands ecosystem.
A little historical perspective is important here. The reason the Ballona Wetlands ecological preserve is twice the size it was promised to be 20 years ago is because the community and 100 groups rallied around the cry of “Save All of Ballona!”. We doubled the size of the preserve, convincing the State Wildlife Conservation Board to acquire almost 300 acres of uplands to add to the almost 300 acres of wetlands and other near sea-level land that the Playa Vista developer had offered as a concession in exchange for development permits in the 1980’s.
Each component of the fragile Ballona natural ecosystem must be preserved. There is no sense in trying to play backers of fish against the “friends of the lizards”, for example. Both wetlands and uplands are vital to the ecological health of this natural area. Wetlands are the food source, uplands are the nesting homes for the wildlife. There is room for both at Ballona.
The state’s misguided approach shows a lack of understanding of what is a restoration. To restore a wetland, you pull out the non-native weeds, replant native wetland plants and bring in more water from the ocean or the local river. But to restore an upland, you pull out the weeds and replant native upland plants. You don’t bulldoze it all away and turn it into something completely different.
This land is within the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission, which operates under tough rules that were written by the voters to protect our precious coastal natural resources. Because this current proposal is not a true restoration but a habitat conversion project, it should and will be analyzed by the coastal commission like any other development proposal.
The state’s managers have declared their property an “ecological preserve”. This means that all natural resources there are protected. That means that people are told to stay out in order to protect the nature. So it’s extraordinarily contradictory that massive earthmovers could be allowed in an ecological preserve. If the public is not allowed inside, why should we allow heavy earthmovers?
It’s also odd that local citizens who wish to take pictures of the wildlife in order to document its existence in order that it be protected are told by Rick Mayfield, the state’s manager, that they are trespassing. I suppose he will be as insistent when the state’s bulldozers arrive? If he won’t protect the wildlife, the public will!
The ecological preserve designation is identical to what the coastal commission calls an ESHA, which is an ecologically sensitive habitat area. Under the coastal commission’s rules, the only allowable “development” activities allowed in an ESHA are for restoration. If the natural value of that ESHA is as an upland, the only way to restore it is to keep it an upland. You can’t develop it, or change that habitat into something completely different, be it houses or a wetland. Lest there be any confusion, this is not said to be anti-wetlands, but because we oppose destruction of uplands.
IN SUMMARY:
We believe that all the reasons that the public loves the Ballona wetlands preserve should be preserved and enhanced in this restoration plan:
That means that for the uplands north of Ballona Creek, the wildflowers, sagebrush, dense laurel sumac thickets, loop hiking trails, Pacific Electric bridge platforms and sand dune, remnant of Ballona Creek and its saltbush, grasslands, and little league fields remain.
For the wetlands south of Ballona Creek, this means the pickleweed and mudflats, the freshwater Centinela creek and eucalyptus grove, the far-west sand dune, and the former railroad track berm/trail, remains. Hopefully, the City will one day take back the portion of Cabora Road that the Gas Company has been allowed to fence off, so we will have a continuous 3 mile hiking and biking trail south of and overlooking the wetlands.
We believe all the things the public loves at Ballona can be preserved.
But this requires the state’s managers to stop thinking of the land as “theirs”, and to recognize that the Ballona preserve belongs to all of us.
Rex Frankel
DIRECTOR, Ballona Ecosystem Education Project
http://saveallofballona.org
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
May 20th Ballona Restoration meeting...
State Managers to Hold Another Ballona Wetlands Restoration Planning Meeting;
is it to hear from us or to tell us what they're going to do regardless of what the locals want?
From Mary Small, Southern California Regional Manager, Coastal Conservancy, 5/7/2009:
There will be a public meeting to provide an update on the Ballona Wetlands restoration project on May 20th from 5 to 7pm. This winter, all work on the project stopped when the state halted all bond-funded projects. We hope that some work related to project planning and access improvements will be able to resume and will have a more detailed update on the 20th. The meeting will be held in the McIntosh Room in University Hall at Loyola Marymount University ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1330 Broadway #1300 Oakland, CA 94612, 510-286-4181 phone, 510-219-7991 cell
Monday, April 27, 2009
New Park has 360 degree view of L.A.
The Baldwin Hills Scenic Overlook has opened to the public!
The grand opening was April 18th, 2009--Here are photos, maps, planting lists and more...
http://picasaweb.google.com/Rare.Earth.fotos/BaldwinHillsScenicOverlookGrandOpening#
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Ballona Restoration "Stakeholders" Meeting is Planned in April
Could the Ballona Wetlands Still Face Bulldozers?
By Rex Frankel
originally printed in the Culver City News, March 26, 2009
Numerous local residents fought for up to 30 years to save the westside’s Ballona Wetlands from the bulldozers of a developer. They won in 2003. So it was a shock to many when they learned last year that under the new owner, the State of California, the bulldozers and heavy equipment could return.
At issue here is what’s the best use of tax dollars: buying up more open spaces next to the wetlands or spending millions of dollars to fix the wetlands, which many who worked to save it say doesn’t need fixing.
The plan unveiled last September by the State’s managers of the land would have spent at least $209 million to dig out and remove most of the earth and trees and plants in the property in order to turn it into largely an inland arm of the ocean. That plan raised a howl from nature-lovers almost immediately and this forced the State’s bureaucracy to back off in January of 2009 and unveil a new plan. They are now promising to bring the public back into the planning process at a meeting this April to decide the future of the largest remaining coastal wetlands in Los Angeles County. (to see the State’s website, go to http://ballonarestoration.org)
The Ballona Wetlands Ecological Preserve is around a square mile in size and sits between the communities of Marina Del Rey, Playa del Rey, Westchester and Del Rey in what was once the floodplain of Ballona Creek. While a lot of the natural wonders of this land may not be visible when you are driving through it on Lincoln or Culver Blvd., a short walk on its trails may lead to a field of colorful wildflowers, a thicket of willow trees, mounds of minty smelling sagebrush and critters like lizards, frogs, jackrabbits and birds ranging from tiny to 4 feet tall.
Whether it was the State’s budget crisis or the threat of lawsuits and political battles that made State officials change their minds, for the next few years, at least, little is going to change at the beloved Ballona Wetlands.
What had seemed like a project on the fast train has been slowed way down by the State's budget crisis, but also by the community's response to the mega-dredging plan. Last month, Dr. Shelley Luce, the director of the State’s Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission and a key player in the project unveiled a new plan that preserved more of the higher elevation habitat, the upland/grassland/sagebrush area, especially the zone east of Lincoln Blvd.
There was "definitely a consensus that more uplands were needed", she said in an interview last month. Uplands are considered by scientists to be an essential part of wetlands as they provide the dry nesting areas for the wildlife which then hunts for food in the wetter lands. In response to the concerns of many that the State had unilaterally made a final decision, Luce said that even the latest plan unveiled in January is still "a work in progress". In fact, while it may not have been communicated clearly to the public last September, Dr. Luce says that it was always the State's intention that the plans were going to be modified after further review by the public. When the plan was first unveiled at a public meeting at Loyola Marymount University last September, critics immediately cried foul. “You don’t even know what is on the land,” said local wildlife photographer Jonathan Coffin, who has a website on flickr.com called “stonebird” with shots of birds, plants and animals that have been missed in the State’s official lists of likely occupants of the wetlands. In response to this, Luce agreed that "What is missing is a comprehensive survey of what is on the land".
WHAT’S ON THE LAND
In a noisy and busy urban environment like Los Angeles, there were many reasons to save this last intact piece of nature. Some come here to watch 350 types of birds. Some come to hike in a quiet refuge from the loud city. Others need a place to walk their dogs or ride their mountain bikes.
But the Ballona wetlands are a lot different than when man first arrived here. Instead of a delta-like region with many channels and sand bars and islands, full of the rainfall draining from Hollywood to the coast, Ballona today is much drier and the main source of water comes from the sky, a spring in the hillside near Loyola Marymount University, and from the ocean through a few remaining channels that were once part of the larger Centinela Creek.
During the last century when Los Angeles was paved over into a 100 mile metropolis, wetlands and creeks were dumped with trash and disparaged as “waste” lands and a nuisance and breeding ground for mosquitos. Beginning around 1905, the community of Venice was reclaimed from the north Ballona wetlands and a system of canals were dug to carry away water and also provide a lagoon for small boats called gondolas, much like the city of Venice in Italy. In the 1930’s the federal government sought to make the surrounding low-lying areas safe from flooding, and so they largely dried up the remaining Ballona Wetlands by confining Ballona Creek to a concrete channel running through the middle of the marsh and heading straight to the ocean. In the late 1950’s, another section of the wetlands was dug out into a yacht harbor and named Marina Del Rey. Construction of the Marina also brought a lot of damage to the wetland to the south as it was overrun with heavy equipment and used as a dumping ground for excess mud dug from the harbor channel. By the late 1970’s, only about 1/3rd of the original wetlands remained unpaved and it was in the hands of one owner, the estate of the quirky billionaire Howard Hughes, who in the 1940’s had bought up much of the wetlands plus dry land in the floodplain to the east for his company, Hughes Aircraft.
By the 1980’s, development plans for a project called “Playa Vista” were floated proposing to pave over 90% of Hughes’ land and carve out another yacht harbor, adding a golf course and 13,000 condominiums and numerous high-rise office buildings and a massive shopping center. After over 20 years of lawsuits by environmental groups over traffic jams and wildlife loss, including the political intrigue of one of L.A.’s most powerful politicians, the City Council’s president Pat Russell, getting voted out of office by angry constituents in 1987, the public now owns 600 acres, which is around 2/3rds of the former Hughes property.
The State spent a total of $225 million to buy this land with the first part of 73 acres acquired in 1988 and the rest in 2003.
WHAT TO DO WITH IT?
So what do you do with this land that is loved by birdwatchers and hikers, bikers and little leaguers?
In the opinion of the new managers of the wetlands at the State’s Coastal Conservancy and Department of Fish and Game, using massive earth-moving equipment and carving or “dredging” (as it’s called) out an almost all water “estuary” is the right way to go. At a cost of at least $209 million from taxpayers, their plan unveiled last fall would have converted the property into nearly all wetlands. The property now is around half salt and freshwater wetlands and half drier “uplands”, which are home to the wildflowers, sagebrush and hiking trails,.
Seeing this plan, 3 groups that had previously fought with each other over the development plans, with opposing strategies, such as “should we work with the developer?” or “should we sue them?”, all agreed that the State plan was too much. All of these former adversaries, which are the Friends of Ballona Wetlands, the Ballona Ecosystem Education Project, and the Balllona Institute agreed that the uplands and hiking trails were valuable and should not be eliminated.
As John Hodder, a biologist who has worked on wetland and upland habitat restoration projects and heads a group called California Wetland Research, explained, there are two ways to go when doing a restoration. The way which was chosen by the State planners is for maximum “biological productivity” and as the thinking goes, the wetter the habitat, the more life that can grow there. This approach favors ocean life and the wide numbers of animals that live there. The other approach is “maximum biodiversity” in which the existing three types of natural habitats at Ballona, all of which are rare in Los Angeles, would be preserved and enhanced. This would maintain the wide range of both common and endangered wildlife and plants in the saltmarsh, which are distinct from the freshwater marsh and distinct from the uplands, too.
Kathy Knight believes that “we should do nothing but pull weeds for the next hundred years.” Knight is a board member of the Ballona Ecosystem Education Project, which filed an unsuccessful lawsuit over the 1st part of the Playa Vista development plans in 1993 and halted the second and final portion in 2007. Knight agrees with Betsy Landis, a leader in the L.A. chapter of the California Native Plant Society, who wrote in their newsletter, “Let Ballona back in to flush the marsh area, but do no dredging. The best answer—let Nature do the work.”
An opposite opinion is held by Dr. Shelley Luce of the Bay Restoration Commission, who formerly worked as a marine biologist for the Heal the Bay group. As a member of a science advisory committee for the wetland project who was appointed by the State project managers, Luce strongly favored the plan unveiled last fall. Luce feels that “50 years of vegetation” that grew up after the construction of Marina Del Rey on the north portion of the remaining wetlands can be removed since the State’s plan would replace it with something more like what was historically there.
Choosing to be historically accurate and removing much of what is there now, however, really upsets those who like Ballona exactly as it is. Marcia Hanscom with the Ballona Institute thinks that if taxpayers provide the money, the priority should be to buy up other parcels of natural open space on the periphery of the wetlands. She points to two parcels totaling 5 acres near the original mouth of Ballona Creek at the ocean in Playa del Rey that are targeted by their owners for condominium development. Her group, as well as another called the Ballona Network have a list of smaller parcels on all sides of the State preserve that they feel would make excellent additions. After the State committee made its final recommendation in last September, Hanscom wrote in an email to activists “It will still be good-bye to the Great Blue Heron as a nesting species at Ballona, good-bye to the White-tailed Kite and Northern Harrier, good-bye to California King Snake, California Ground Squirrel, Horned Lizard, and possibly even the endangered Belding's Savannah Sparrow - as the channel where they currently nest will also be dug up and re-made in the likeness of whatever these people think is best.”
As local activists frame it, the choice is between adding more currently threatened open spaces to L.A.’s meager supply of green spaces, versus spending the money re-arranging land that is already saved for which no consensus has been reached on what is the best way to do it. Or as activist Kathy Knight says, “The wetlands will always be here—what’s the rush?”
-----------------------
Rex Frankel writes about various public policy issues at http://rexfrankel.com, and about the Ballona issue at http://ballona-news.blogspot.com .
Monday, March 16, 2009
Sea-Level Rise may save our wetlands yet...
Could Playa Vista Become an Island? Local Area is under Heavy Risk of Future Flooding; State-Funded Study Projects 4 & 1/2 Foot Rise in Sea Level by Year 2100
first reported 3/12/2009
http://www.pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise/exec_sum.pdf
funded by the California Energy Commission, the California Environmental Protection Agency, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, California Department of Transportation, and the California Ocean Protection Council
Over the past century, sea level has risen nearly eight inches along the California coast, and general circulation model scenarios suggest very substantial increases in sea level as a significant impact of climate change over the coming century. This study includes a detailed analysis of the current population, infrastructure, and property at risk from projected sea‐level rise if no actions are taken to protect the coast, and the cost of building structural measures to reduce that risk. We find the following:
• Under medium to medium‐high greenhouse‐gas emissions scenarios, mean sea level along the California coast is projected to rise from 1.0 to 1.4 meters (m) by the year 2100. A series of maps for the entire coast of California demonstrating the extent of the areas at risk are posted at http://pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise
• A 1.4 meter sea‐level rise will put 480,000 people at risk of a 100‐year flood event, given today’s population. Populations in San Mateo and Orange Counties are especially vulnerable. In each, an estimated 110,000 people are at risk. Large numbers of residents (66,000) in Alameda County are also at risk.
To read the report:
http://www.pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise/maps/
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-global-warming-searise12-2009mar12,0,2741152.story
The group floated several radical proposals: limit coastal development in areas at risk from sea rise; consider phased abandonment of certain areas; halt federally subsidized insurance for property likely to be inundated; and require coastal structures to be built to adapt to climate change...
Ice sheet melting has since accelerated. Dan Cayan, a researcher at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a lead scientist on the state's action plan, said the 55-inch estimate in the report is "probably conservative. . . . As temperature climbs, melting is going to proceed at a greater pace. It is not necessarily going to proceed linearly, in the same proportion as it did in the past, because melting begets more melting."
Friday, February 20, 2009
State's scary plan for Ballona is not set in stone
The Ballona Restoration Plan is still "a work in progress"...
by Rex Frankel
2/20/2009--I had the pleasure to meet on Feb. 17th with Dr. Shelley Luce, who is executive director of the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission. She served on the Science Advisory Panel for the Ballona Wetlands restoration project and is one of two local public employees along with Sean Bergquist that are based here and who work extensively on the restoration of our 600 acre Ballona Wetlands State Preserve. The Commission's offices are at Loyola Marymount University located on the bluffs in Westchester, as opposed to the State agency overseeing the show, the Coastal Conservancy, which is based in Oakland.
I met with Dr. Luce to explain my organization's objections to the State plan unveiled last September that would have dredged out nearly the entire 600 acres and converted it into mostly open water, as opposed to the current delicate mix of three habitat zones and hiking trails.
What had seemed like a project on the fast train has been slowed way down by the State's budget crisis, but also by the community's response to the mega-dredging plan. Last month, Dr. Luce unveiled a new plan that preserved more of the higher elevation habitat, the upland/grassland/sagebrush area, especially the zone east of Lincoln Blvd.
There was "definitely a consensus that more uplands were needed", she told me. In response to the concerns of many that the State had unilaterally made a final decision, Luce said that even the latest plan unveiled last month is still "a work in progress". In fact, while it may not have been communicated clearly to us last September, Dr. Luce says that it was always the State's intention that the plans were going to be modified after further review by the public.
We both agreed that the public meetings to involve the community back into the planning process need to resume. I see the end of local public meetings as when the whole process went awry. During 2007 and 2008, these meetings which were originally every 1 or 2 months soon became every six months. The Science Advisory Committee which ultimately made their final decision last September to endorse the mega-dredging plan had several 7 hour meetings in Costa Mesa, 30 miles away, and public comment was limited to the end of these long meetings. Whether this was intentional or due to budget cuts, the outcome didn't make any longtime Ballona activists happy.
We had a long talk about sources of water for the restoration, whether from the ocean or from the ocean and Ballona Creek. I suggested that we need a "modular" approach to planning the restoration, since it may be many years before the urban street runoff pollution in Ballona Creek is cleaned-up, and therefore, any plan that includes breaching the levees and letting the Creek back into the rest of the wetlands could have the negative effect of polluting the wetlands. That's why I favor bringing water back into the wetlands directly from the ocean. If someday we can clean up Ballona Creek than we can re-connect the creek and the wetlands. But basing the future of our wetland preserve on some other project that may or may not also happen could make us wait many years until anything changes at Ballona. Now, while some locals would rather that nothing changes at the wetlands unless it is done by hand or with shovels, (a position that is equally justifiable) I could support bringing some more water into our wetlands.
In response to the calls of many, especially local Ballona wildlife tracker/photographer Jonathon Coffin, Luce agreed that "What is missing is a comprehensive survey of what is on the land".
I agree with the calls of many that there is no rush to restore our Ballona wetlands. The maxim of "do no harm" needs to be followed here. We need to restore Ballona solely for what is best for all the wildlife of Ballona and all the respectful users of this land.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
more corporate welfare for Playa Vista?
Playa Vista Seeks $300 Million "Gift" from the People of Los Angeles via Massive Increase in What they're Allowed Build.
They seek OK for their Last Phase--the same project we overturned in 2007.
"Under the plan adopted in principle by the governing board of the L.A. Department of Water and Power, homes and businesses would pay a penalty rate -- nearly double normal prices -- for any water they use in excess of a reduced monthly allowance."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090218/ts_nm/us_water_california
PLAYA VISTA: Concerns are reviewed a year after work on community was stopped when first study found flaws.
2/17/2009, Daily Breeze
http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_11719782
By Kristin S. Agostoni, Staff Writer
More than a year after a court ruling halted Playa Vista's second phase, developers of the master-planned community are hoping a new environmental study will move the project closer toward completion.
Since an appellate court ruled in September 2007 that an analysis for the so-called Village contained flaws, the land targeted for shops, homes and offices off Jefferson Boulevard has sat dormant and mostly vacant.
The grading is nearly complete and half of the roads have been put into place, but the court issued a stop-work order until a handful of disputed land-use issues were reviewed.
Now those issues are being hashed out in a revised environmental impact report that will trigger a new collection of city approvals.
Residents have until March 16 to submit comments on the "recirculated" EIR, which analyzes a development identical to the earlier one - with 2,600 homes, 175,000 square feet of office space, 150,000 square feet of retail and 40,000 square feet of community uses.
"We're moving forward with the plan that was approved by the City Council for The Village," said Playa Vista spokesman Steve Sugerman, adding that officials and residents are anxious to move on. "The court was pretty specific that all of the other areas (of the original EIR) were fine," he said.
The battle over The Village began not long after the council approved the project in September 2004.
Opponents, including the city of Santa Monica, the Surfrider Foundation, representatives of the Tongva/Gabrieleno Indians and groups dedicated to preserving the nearby Ballona Wetlands, said in two separate lawsuits that the environmental impact report was flawed.
In January 2006, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge had ruled that the city and Playa Vista provided the public and decision-makers with adequate information.
But the appellate court, which consolidated the cases and reviewed more than two dozen issues raised by opponents, singled out three "deficiencies."
The judges questioned the analysis of the project's effects on the Hyperion wastewater treatment plant, the treatment of human remains and artifacts dating back 3,500 years, and whether the city accurately described permitted land uses for the site.
On the latter issue, the court ruled that the EIR did not acknowledge that the proposed retail complex would "dramatically increase the amount of development permissible" on the property spanning 111 acres. Therefore, Playa Vista is required to seek a collection of land-use amendments.
Rex Frankel of the Ballona Ecosystem Education Project, one of the groups that sued, said he was pleased to see the new report acknowledge that the proposed land uses go beyond what is permitted - 108,050 square feet of office and light industrial space.
But Frankel also said he wants the analysis to include alternative plans that would adhere to the lower zoning threshold.
A community retail center still could be built, he said, but he'd like to see consideration given to other uses for the surrounding property, such as park space or a treatment wetland.
"The city has a lot of leverage right now to decide what is appropriate on this land," Frankel said. "We should have an honest discussion in an EIR. If you tell the truth, then the public at least knows we don't have to accept this project."
As for the treatment of Indian remains in the area, it's unclear what, if anything, will come from the revised report.
The area where most of the remains were discovered is now occupied by a drainage channel that was approved as part of Playa Vista's first phase and runs behind the land reserved for The Village. And as of December, the majority of the remains unearthed from the area have been reinterred nearby.
While opponents argued Playa Vista could have shifted the course of the channel to avoid a major burial site, the revised EIR states that "impacts to archeological resources would still have occurred" in four alternatives considered and that the channel might not operate as effectively.
On the Hyperion issue, the EIR says that new data indicates "there is less demand on the city's wastewater collection and treatment system than previously projected," and that the city has conducted studies on expansion plans, if needed, after 2020.
Sugerman said officials hope the City Council will reconsider the EIR this summer, and that construction would begin in mid-2010.
FIND OUT MORE
Los Angeles city planners are accepting comments on a revised environmental impact report for The Village at Playa Vista through March 16.
Submit comments to David Somers, Los Angeles City Planning Department, Room 750, City Hall, 200 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, 90012, or e-mail david.somers@lacity.org. Reference file
No. ENV-2002-6129-EIR.
Review the report at http://cityplanning.lacity.org/ (the link is under the "environmental" section, then click on Draft EIRs), or at these libraries: Playa Vista branch, 6400 Playa Vista Drive; Westchester/Loyola Village branch, 7114 W. Manchester Ave.; and the Marina del Rey library,
4533 Admiralty Way.
To buy a copy, call 213-978-1355.
Monday, February 16, 2009
If You Support Unpaving Ballona Creek , its Buried Streams and Filled-In Wetlands -- Come to this Public Workshop Held by the L.A. City Sanitation Department
INVITATION FOR STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP: March 3, 2009, at Hyperion treatment Plant in Playa del Rey
TIME/DATE: March 3, 2009 from 1:00 to 3:30 pm Hyperion Treatment Plant, Conference Room 116 12000 Vista Del Mar, Playa Del Rey , CA , 90293
DEVELOPMENT OF TMDL IMPLEMENTATION PLANS IN THE BALLONA CREEK WATERSHED: WORKSHOP II
Dear Stakeholders: On behalf of the Ballona Creek watershed cities and agencies, Dr. Shahram Kharaghani (Division Manager of the Watershed Protection Division, City of Los Angeles ) would like to request your participation as a stakeholder in the second Implementation Plan Development Workshop for the Bacteria, Metals and Toxics TMDLs in the Ballona Creek watershed. These Implementation Plans will be developed over the next 2 years and have the overall goal of reducing urban runoff pollution to comply with TMDL requirements for the Ballona Creek watershed. More specific goals of the Implementation Plans are the following: . Identify pollution hot spots and prioritize the drainage areas to be addressed; and . Identify Best Management Practices for reducing pollution by urban runoff and select and verify potential locations for implementation. The TMDL Implementation Plans will be completed in 2009 (Bacteria TMDL), 2010 (Metals TMDL) or 2011 (Toxics TMDL). Several stakeholder workshops will be scheduled to support this process. The first workshop was held on November 6, 2008 and focused on the initial characterization of the Ballona Creek watershed.
This second workshop will focus on the next steps:
. BMP types and process selection
. Breakout sessions focusing on specific areas of the watershed
Your participation as a stakeholder is important to provide input to the development of the Implementation Plans.
For more information and to RSVP please contact Ida Meisami at, Ida.Meisami.Fard@lacity.org or (213) 485-3999. Please RSVP by February 19, 2009 with your name and the number of guests that will be in attendance.
Friday, January 30, 2009
State Officials Back-Off From Over-Ambitious Ballona Restoration Proposal
NEWS ALERT!!! Friday, January 30, 2009
In a surprising and welcome turnaround, the managers of the state-owned Ballona Wetlands preserve have withdrawn a $209 million proposal to let heavy equipment loose on the site in order to create their vision of a restored wetland.
The proposal was unveiled as the "preferred alternative" at a community meeting last September to almost unanimous disbelief and disagreement from the groups that have worked up to 30 years to save the wetlands from a developer's bulldozers. What is notable is that groups that have frequently disagreed about Ballona issues in the past, such as the Friends of Ballona Wetlands, Ballona Institute/Wetlands Action Network, and our group, BEEP, were united in our distaste for this plan.
The plan we all agreed went too far would have converted what is currently a bio-diverse area with 3 habitat types and hiking paths into almost exclusively open water with almost all one habitat type, salt marsh. While we at BEEP want to see more water brought into this site as part of a restoration plan, we feel this went too far.
To compare the State's proposal to what is there today, currently 29% of it is a salt marsh, 19% is a freshwater marsh, and 49% is an upland/grassland area that contains most of the hiking trails. The State's plan would have been 82% saltmarsh, 2% freshwater wetland and 16% upland. It's uncertain where the Ballona Creek bikepath would have been re-routed and it's most likely that, given that most of this area would be under water, most of our hiking trails would be gone.
There is no question that the wetlands have been altered by man in the past, such as by road construction and by the development of the Marina Del Rey yacht harbor which resulted in dumping up to 10 feet of wetland mud onto the north part of the wetlands. But despite all the damage done 50 years ago and more, Ballona has bounced back and some of the areas that were most heavily altered are covered with thickets of wetland and upland plants, providing nesting areas and hunting grounds for numerous kinds of wildlife.
The New Proposal unveiled on January 20th by Dr. Shelley Luce, executive director of the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission: does not convert the parcel east of Lincoln Blvd. from uplands/grasslands into a deep water marsh like in the previous plan. It also does not require that Lincoln Blvd. be completely rebuilt and elevated. To attempt such a change to this exceedingly busy highway would assuredly be a many-year traffic nightmare.
We have a lot more to say about why the planning process for the Ballona Wetlands went astray, and that will be posted soon. While this latest proposal may still go too far, as I've heard from some, and dig up too much of this site, we are glad that the State has recognized that the local Ballona community wanted something better for our wetland.
--Rex Frankel, director of the Ballona Ecosystem Education Project
-----------------------------------



-------------------------------------------------
HERE IS MORE BACKGROUND ON THE STATE'S SEPTEMBER 2008 PROPOSALS:
To read the report summarizing the 5 proposals:
http://www.santamonicabay.org/smbay/Portals/0/ballona/BallonaFeasTEXT-Sept2008-OUT.pdf
To see maps of the proposals:
http://www.santamonicabay.org/smbay/ProgramsProjects/HabitatRestorationProject/BallonaWetlandsRestoration/BallonaDocuments/tabid/153/Default.aspx
TABLE COMPARING THE HABITAT-CONVERSION UNDER THE 5 ALTERNATIVES:
| TYPE OF HABITAT | ACREAGE CURRENTLY | UNDER ALT. 1 | ALT 2 | ALT 3 | ALT 4 | ALT 5 |
| ESTUARINE-SALTMARSH, PICKLEWEED, OPEN WATER | 29% | 41% | 52% | 78% | 79% | 82% |
| FRESHWATER: WILLOWS, MULEFAT, SEDGE GRASS | 19% | 4% | 3% | 3% | 3% | 2% |
| UPLANDS: HIKING TRAILS, SAGEBRUSH, WILDFLOWERS | 49% | 51% | 41% | 19% | 18% | 16% |
| OTHER: UNVEGETATED & BALLFIELDS | 3% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 0.1% |
NOTE: Percentages here are computed based on the total land owned by the State that can be modified as part of the restoration project which is 579.8 acres. The percentages exclude the 39.8 acre Freshwater Marsh urban runoff basin that was constructed by Playa Vista on State lands and the 10.9 acre Southern California Gas Company facility.
-----------------------------
HOW CAN YOU TELL THE DIFFERENT HABITATS APART?
This is a freshwater wetland:
Cattails growing in the lowlands west of the Gas Company facility.
old Centinela Creek west of the Gas Company facility
Sedge, a type of grass in the lowlands near the Gas Co. facility
WHAT IS A SALTMARSH?
The wettest part of Ballona, the tidal channel south of Ballona Creek, surrounded by pickleweed and mud flats
The tidal channel on the far north side of Ballona, alongside Fiji Way
The confluence of tidally influenced salt water channels and the freshwater Centinela creek. The wood piers used to support the Pacific Electric Railway. This is next to the small businesses on Culver Blvd. in Playa del Rey.
This is the high salt marsh that exists on top of soil dumped from the construction of Marina Del Rey. The saltmarsh plants such as pickleweed and alkali heath and saltbush that survive here get their water from rainfall, not the ocean.
FINALLY, WHAT IS AN UPLAND?
An upland is typically anything above 5 foot elevation
Coyote Bush north of Culver Blvd., and east of Lincoln Blvd.
Thickets of laurel sumac and loop hiking trails north of Ballona creek and west of Lincoln Blvd.
Fragrant coastal sage brush growing on the bluffs
Purple-flowering bush lupine near the Villa Marina Condos














