Ballona News

Ballona Bulldozing Backers seek $6 million from State

2012-01-13T13:42:00.000-08:00

FRIENDS,

A local public hearing by the state's Coastal Conservancy has been scheduled for this Thursday, January 19th at 1 PM at the Baldwin Hills Overlook park located on Jefferson Blvd for the request for $6.5 million to do engineering studies of yet another alternative plan for the "restoration" of the Ballona Wetlands, which was purchased by the state's taxpayers in 2003. This new plan has not been discussed at any public meeting before and only came across my desk thanks to the Google-Alerts system. It's almost like the backers of bulldozing Ballona don't want us to come to this hearing.

I say "restoration" because it involves massively bulldozing out much of the existing wetlands and upland wildflower/coastal sagebrush areas and replacement of it with whatever the L.A. Harbor department and others not from our area are dreaming about putting here. The L.A. Harbor department wants to massively dredge out the existing healthy and functioning habitats at Ballona to replace healthy habitats they want to destroy in San Pedro as part of harbor expansion plans. Rather than buy land to expand the Ballona preserve, they would simply "improve" Ballona and not save any more lands for wildlife habitat.

We advocate a slow, community-planned restoration of the Ballona Wetlands, not an industrial scale bulldozing operation that wastes million of dollars and only benefits massive engineering firms.

The L.A. Weekly did an excellent story in May 2011 on this subject: http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/05/ballona_wetlands_sierra_club.php

And to read BEEP's views on the restoration proposals, on page 4 of this newsletter: http://ballonacreek.org/index.php/newsletter?download=23:issue-31-fall-2011

PLEASE COME TO THIS HEARING AND DEMAND THAT ANY RESTORATION PLAN REFLECT WHAT THE LOCAL COMMUNITY AND EXISTING USERS OF OUR HIKING TRAILS WANT, NOT WHAT OUTSIDE WETLAND DESTROYERS WANT.

I have attached the staff report and the latest map. If they don't come through, they are at the following web-link:

STAFF REPORT:

http://scc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/sccbb/2012/1201/20120119Board05_Ballona_Wetlands.pdf

LATEST MAP:

http://scc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/sccbb/2012/1201/20120119Board05_Ballona_Wetlands_Ex4.pdf

Here is the agenda for the Coastal Conservancy Hearing:

http://scc.ca.gov/2012/01/06/coastal-conservancy-public-meeting-january-19-2012/#more-1126

Also, to see a chronology of the various evolving proposals by the State's owners since 2008, click here:

https://picasaweb.google.com/Rare.Earth.fotos/EvolutionOfTheStateSRestorationPlansForBallona

--Rex Frankel, director, Ballona Ecosystem Education Project (BEEP)

http://saveallofballona.org

-------------------------------------------

Finally, for those looking to know more, here are some background reports I recently posted that show the natural and historical value of the Ballona Wetlands as they are.

PHASE 1 DEIR STUDIES OF A-B-C-D, FROM 1991

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B5SGRAMv8RXuMzY2MTQ2OTUtMmI3OC00NGE4LWI3NzYtOTI4MzNkNTQzZjQ1&hl=en_US

COMPLETE DRAFT JOHN CLARK STUDY FROM MAY 1979, FOR A-B-C- AND WESTERN AREA D

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B5SGRAMv8RXuYWQzNzRkNzAtNDJhYi00YjJiLWJkNjMtYTFmZWZiZThhODQ3&hl=en_US

EXCERPTS OF THE FINAL JOHN CLARK STUDY, JUNE 1979

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B5SGRAMv8RXuMmE5MjRmNDEtN2Y5My00NDBjLWE5NzQtN2ViYjNiODRmYzcw&hl=en_US

SCHREIBER STUDY FROM 1981, PARCELS A-B-C, FROM 1981

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B5SGRAMv8RXuYzg3MDg5MTEtOWYwOC00YWViLTgxMjktMjc1MGMzODVmOTA0&hl=en_US

A SUMMARY OF ALL THESE STUDIES:

http://ballonaplants.blogspot.com/2006/09/complete-list-of-native-plants-of_22.html

test of Ballona News email system...

2011-06-30T22:09:00.001-07:00

From the editor:
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

NEW: Slide presentations on the Ballona Wetlands Restoration Project

2011-05-10T22:34:00.001-07:00

https://picasaweb.google.com/Rare.Earth.fotos/BallonaCrittersAtRiskFromStateSBulldozingPlans#

https://picasaweb.google.com/Rare.Earth.fotos/BallonaRestorationPlanSPollutedWaterProblem#

https://picasaweb.google.com/Rare.Earth.fotos/BallonaHistoricalMapsAndPhotos#

https://picasaweb.google.com/Rare.Earth.fotos/EvolutionOfTheStateSRestorationPlansForBallona#

AND, THE L.A. WEEKLY POSTED AN EXCELLENT STORY FEATURING OUR SIDE OF THIS STORY:

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/05/ballona_wetlands_sierra_club.php

Ballona to Baldwin Hills trail public hearing May 3,2011, 7 to 9 pm

2011-04-21T08:34:00.000-07:00

(CLICK ON THIS FLIER TO ENLARGE)

just a test, do not reset your computer...

2010-10-25T19:48:00.001-07:00

test post--we are trying out feedburner email system

"Smoking gun" documents show that Ballona Wetlands developer dealt away their rights to build more

2010-08-17T15:22:00.000-07:00

Should a 55,000 car a day project by the Ballona Wetlands get to expand with another 24,000 cars a day?

No. In fact. Playa Vista traded away the right to develop more condos, BEEP’s lawsuit will show.

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

L.A. Weekly exposes the massive city hall giveaway to Playa Vista

2010-04-02T22:38:00.000-07:00

http://www.laweekly.com/2010-04-01/news/city-hall-s-gift-to-goldman-sachs/

Here's a thought: if you want more parking, why don't you tear down your building?

2010-01-07T10:09:00.000-08:00

-
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.

“Titmouse is one of about five ideas that I have about parking,” Fraulino said of the pocket park site. “But it’s going to garner the most attention because there is a false emotional attachment to it by certain residents and many of the environmentalists.”...

for rest of story:

http://www.argonautnewspaper.com/articles/2010/01/07/news_-_features/top_stories/1pdr.txt

Daily Breeze covers Playa Vista's latest battle

2009-12-08T22:24:00.000-08:00

-
Delayed 'Village' phase of Playa Vista development to get another look

By Kristin S. Agostoni Staff Writer
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

December 9, 2009 | 4:08 pm

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.

That revised EIR has been completed, and the approval process is beginning anew. The city's planning staff has recommended approval of the necessary plan amendments and zone changes to allow the project to move forward.

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

Parks and Wetlands to Share land in South Bay

2009-11-02T10:58:00.000-08:00

Torrance eyes new sports fields in Dual- Use Treatment Wetland Basins

By Nick Green Staff Writer

Posted: 10/13/2009 , Daily Breeze

A Torrance sump adjacent to Bishop Montgomery High School on Torrance Boulevard may someday be the site of three athletic fields. (Brad Graverson Staff Photographer)

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

A little Bit of Playa Vista History...

2009-09-07T12:27:00.000-07:00

-
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....

Two Restoration Projects, Not One...

2009-06-17T13:00:00.000-07:00

-
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

ORANGE SHADING: UPLAND HABITAT

BLUE SHADING: WETLANDS

(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

WHAT AN UPLAND LOOKS LIKE:

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

State Declares People are Banned in the Wetlands, but Bulldozers are OK?

2009-06-08T12:09:00.000-07:00

-
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

May 20th Ballona Restoration meeting...

2009-05-13T11:22:00.000-07:00

-
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

New Park has 360 degree view of L.A.

2009-04-27T09:29:00.001-07:00

-
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#

Ballona Restoration "Stakeholders" Meeting is Planned in April

2009-03-26T20:35:00.000-07:00

-
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 .

Sea-Level Rise may save our wetlands yet...

2009-03-16T11:13:00.000-07:00

-
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/

(click on map to enlarge)

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."

State's scary plan for Ballona is not set in stone

2009-02-20T12:18:00.000-08:00

-
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.

more corporate welfare for Playa Vista?

2009-02-17T19:45:00.000-08:00

-
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.

--Meanwhile, L.A. Residents Face the First Mandatory Water Restrictions in 20 Years

"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.

2009-02-16T13:53:00.000-08:00

-
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.

2009-01-30T16:55:00.000-08:00

-
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
-----------------------------------

BELOW: the September 2008 proposal from the State. (Click on image to enlarge)

I have added elevations above sea level to give an idea how much dirt would have to be removed in the State's proposals. The current elevation of the land north of Ballona Creek is around 15 feet, while the land south of Ballona creek is around 3 feet.

BELOW: the revised State restoration proposal unveiled in January 2009

BELOW: a restoration proposal drawn up by the Friends of Ballona Wetlands in September 2007

-------------------------------------------------
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

2009-01-29T19:18:00.000-08:00

-
Tracking the Lost Streams of Ballona Creek

The report titled "Seeking Streams" was written and published in 2001 by students at Cal Poly Pomona, and is described as "A Landscape framework for urban and ecological revitalization in the upper Ballona Creek watershed of Los Angeles"

One of its authors, Jessica Hall, writes a blog here: http://lacreekfreak.wordpress.com/

(Hall and BEEP's executive director Rex Frankel were also quoted extensively in http://www.laweekly.com/general/features/the-lost-streams-of-los-angeles/14973/)
published the fall of 2006.

Here is the Full Report:

I have scanned the report into a pdf format and while it looks a little fuzzy on their screen, if you click on the upper right corner above the text window, the frame will enlarge to full screen and becomes much more readable. You can also click on the download button and see it full size that way, too.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11529716/Seeking-Streams-Part-1

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11508230/Seeking-Streams-Part-2

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11508240/Seeking-Streams-Part-3

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11508247/Seeking-Streams-Part-4

2008-12-07T17:18:00.000-08:00

Our 2008 Year-End Progress Report:

The 10th Anniversary of a Major Scoop and the Start of Big Successes in the Battle to Save the Ballona Wetlands

This is the Tenth Anniversary of the release of the Playa Vista company's 1998 secret business plan. Insiders in the development firm gave us this 198 page document that contains political strategy, what the owners paid for the land and what our public opposition was costing them, and the frank admission of how "generous" the City Council had been to them.

To read the full plan, click here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8719226/Playa-Vista-1998-Business-Plan

To read our analysis of the plan's contents, read here:
http://radio.weblogs.com/0138798/stories/2006/08/03/whistleblowersReleasePlayaVistaSecrets.html

Soon after we published excerpts of this report, Playa Vista's key tenant DreamWorks Pictures backed out of the project, after 4 years of public protest at their film premieres and a loss at the local Water Board when they sought to be exempted from financial liability for groundwater contamination at Playa Vista;

Read more here:
http://radio.weblogs.com/0138798/stories/2004/12/23/toxicWaste.html

http://radio.weblogs.com/0138798/stories/2006/08/03/september1999IssueOfSaveAllOfBallona.html

A year later, Patricia McPherson and her group the Grassroots Coalition discovered high levels of explosive methane gas underneath the proposed community for 20,000 people.

http://radio.weblogs.com/0138798/stories/2006/08/03/august2000IssueOfSaveAllOfBallona.html

also see: http://www.grassrootscoalition.org/

By 2001, Playa Vista began negotiations with the State of California to sell the Ballona Wetlands, taking the development of all the land west of Lincoln Blvd. off the table.

With the State's purchase of the wetlands in 2003, fully 70% of the original 1087 acre Playa Vista project was permanently preserved from development. Approximately 300 acres of the site has been developed or is in the process of being developed as part of the project's Phase 1. We were successful in 2007 in overturning the development plans for the remaining 110 acre Phase 2 site and with the election of friends at City Hall in 2005, we have excellent working relationships with L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and City Councilman Bill Rosendahl.

Read more about our legal efforts here:
http://ballona.blogspot.com/2007/09/playa-vista-loses-huge-case-to.html

Above and Below--two views of the Ballona Wetlands State Preserve

BELOW: The condominium development at Playa Vista. In the background is the remaining Phase 2 site which totals 110 acres. Can we preserve this land? Maybe 2009 will bring us another big victory!

---------------------------------------------------

Excerpts of the 1998 Playa Vista Business Plan:

Here are some of the most interesting pages; CLICK ON THEM TO ENLARGE:

"The site has issues of...poor soil conditions".
"The entitlements received for Phase 1 are generous"

2008-11-04T12:10:00.000-08:00

WHAT WE HAVE ACCOMPLISHED IN 20 YEARS:
OPEN SPACES SAVED;
TRAFFIC DISASTER PREVENTED!

11/4/2008

When we first began fighting the onslaught of mega-developments that out-of-town builders were planning here, the threatened traffic gridlock would have been staggering. City planners told us the traffic on Lincoln Blvd/Highway 1 would DOUBLE. Traffic on the 405 Freeway, which is now a virtual parking lot, would increase by 28% from Playa Vista alone!

By working with our partners and friendly elected officials, we have scaled back what would have been a disaster to much more manageable growth. We didn't get all that we wanted, but, for example, we saved 2/3rds of the Playa Vista/Ballona Wetlands. We still have a chance to save another 10% of this site. We preserved blufftop trails and the Cabora Road trail system. And we cut the size or eliminated many of the other major projects: Fully 60% of the new car trips per day that were on the books in 1989 have been cancelled!

TABLE OF DEVELOPMENT-TRAFFIC PROPOSED IN OUR AREA IN 1989:

(the traffic totals come from an L.A. City Planning department report from 1989)

PROJECTS IN 1989	CAR TRIPS PER DAY	OUTCOME
LAX Northside and Continental City	72,705 37,000	Both Not Built due to changed LAX plans
LAX 55 Million annual passengers Expansion	18,950	18,950 trips (more growth was proposed in the late 1990's that was cancelled)
Howard Hughes Center	37,350	Around 30,000 trips completed
Playa Vista	200,000	Cut to 79,000 trips due to State Parkland Purchase; Only around 25,000 trips completed so far
Marina Marketplace (Gelsons)	18,293	18,293--completed
Marina Place Mall	34,699	Cut to around 10,000; now CostCo/Albertsons/Sav-On center
Corporate Pointe	12,859	Around 5,000 completed
Sepulveda/Slauson offices	13,914	cancelled
Santa Monica Commons	17,231	cancelled
Marina Del Rey redevelopment	25,056	Approved but mostly unbuilt
TOTALS	488,056	BUILT: 107,243 CANCELLED-REDUCED: 286,549 --------------------------------- REMAINING TO BE BUILT: 94,265 54,000 AT PLAYA VISTA, 25,056 IN MARINA DEL REY plus Hughes Center buildout of 4 remaining lots

SOME BACKGROUND:

In 1985, the City Council which was very-friendly with developers approved the "Big-4" super-sized developments which surrounded the communities of Westchester and Playa del Rey. The only concession offered by these developers was that they would pay to widen most of the major roads in this area to the width of a freeway--or 10 lanes across. What made the plan fall apart was the discovery in 1988, (after voters elected a new councilperson to represent us at city hall,) that the money promised to fix traffic problems was less than half of what was required. That meant that taxpayers would have to fork over $100 million to fix problems, while these developers stood to make billions in profits.

(Also, note that in the table above, traffic totals are for the entire day, while in the article below, traffic totals are for each rush hour. Normally, to convert rush hour car trips into daily trips, multiply by 10.)

City Cites 2 Highrise Projects Over Funding Shortfall

By Rex Frankel

(originally printed in the Westchester Journal September 29, 1988)

The traffic management plan created by former Councilwoman Pat Russell in 1985 was denounced by City officials and Russell's successor Ruth Galanter last Thursday as giving special favors to two local high rise projects, the Howard Hughes Center and Continental City. Galanter criticized the granting by Russell in 1986 of development agreements for the two projects which lock-in traffic improvement fees at one third that to be paid by all other new businesses.

Representing the City Dept. of Transportation, Haripal Vir said the Coastal Transportation Corridor Specific Plan (CTCSP) will come up about $100 million short of its target of raising $191 million for traffic improvements from developers of commercial and industrial projects in the area bounded by the San Diego Freeway, Santa Monica City limits, the Pacific Ocean and Imperial Highway. Vir told the approximately 50 audience members that "only a change in land use can ultimately balance the development and transportation infrastructure" in the area. Galanter agreed, stating that reducing densities of Westside building projects was the major issue in her successful campaign against Russell last year.

The traffic fund would pay for the widening of most non-residential streets in the area, including Lincoln and Sepulveda Blvds. The plan also recommends that Falmouth Avenue in Playa del Rey be continued north from the edge of the Bluffs to Admiralty Way in Marina Del Rey.

One audience member shouted that "the whole ordinance should be scrapped." Others didn't like the proposed continuation of Falmouth and the widening of Lincoln and Sepulveda, while others opposed elimination of parking along major streets and loss of local businesses to the proposed street widenings.

The $191 million figure was the estimated amount needed to widen local streets to accomodate the total buildout of all commercial and industrial property in the Westchester, Playa del Rey, Del Rey, Mar Vista and Venice areas to at least 3 to 1 density. (For comparison, building densities in Downtown L.A. average out to 3.5 to 1 density.) This buildout would have caused creation of 34,560 rush hour vehicle trips. The Hughes Center and Continental City projects will create 10,300 of these trips. Adding the 9800 trips planned by Playa Vista and the 7500 planned at the LAX Northside project--a total of 27,600 rush hour trips will be created by these 4 projects. High rise construction on Century Blvd. will add several thousand more trips.

Galanter criticized the approach used by Russell's CTCSP as saying that " 'any amount of growth is OK as long as we keep widening streets and improving intersections to handle it.' I don't accept it and I believe very few of my constituents do either."

Galanter told the crowd to expect more public hearings on the revisions to the CTCSP in early 1989.

The changes to the CTCSP recommended by the City Transportation Department are as follows:

1. Raise the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) fee charged developers of new commercial and industrial projects from $2112 to $5690 for each additional rush hour vehicle trip created. The 20-year development agreements enacted for the Hughes Center and Continental City by Russell lock in these fees at the lower level. The report recomends prohibiting the setting of these TIA fees in future development agreements.

2. Cut the amount of time to pay the fees from 20 to 10 years.

3. Make new local-serving commercial projects, such as markets and mini-malls, pay TIA fees at 30% of that charged the more-regional commercial projects, such as offices and hotels. The DOT report cites a study showing that 70% of the area's traffic passes through and only 30% is locally generated.

4. Require widening of streets or improvements to intersections before a building can be occupied.

5. Modify the concept of "in-lieu credits", which are traffic improvements paid for directly by the developer which theoretically benefit the surrounding community, too, and are credited against the TIA fee. Both the Howard Hughes Center and Continental City projects make extensive use of these credits, further cutting into the city's ability to raise the needed $191 million.

6. Find ways to make LAX pay TIA fees for its proposed expansion from handling 40 million annual passengers to 65 million.

7. The report also suggested making now-exempt residential developments pay TIA fees if they generate "significant" amounts of traffic.

2008-10-14T16:35:00.000-07:00

------

State Unveils Restoration Plan for Ballona Wetlands to Extreme Alarm of the Folks Who Fought For Years to Save It;

They would reduce the relatively balanced three native habitat communities at Ballona down to almost entirely one type

And here's the contradiction: While we are told there isn't money to buy the remaining open spaces next to the wetlands that are threatened by developers, there is over $200 million to pay for bulldozing the wetlands?

Restoration By Bulldozer Is Not The Way to Go...

Dear Friends,

We have been informed by the State officials in charge of the restoration planning for the Ballona Wetlands that they favor the most habitat-altering proposals of the 5 that were unveiled in September. Alternative 5 is the plan which proposes dredging out over 90% of the 600 acre wetland/wildflower property, and it would replace what is there now almost entirely with an arm of the ocean. Gone would be the hiking trails, the little league fields, and almost all of the uplands that are now covered with sage brush and trees and the freshwater habitats.

I have posted some of the State's maps. Look at the map legend for the phrase "new habitat to be created" compared to the areas labeled "existing habitat to remain"; this shows how much of the land is to be dredged/bulldozed under each proposal.

The director of the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission, Dr. Shelley Luce, informed me last week (Nov. 6th) that the EIR for the restoration will only consider Alternatives 4 and 5 and doing nothing at all. That ignores the more reasonable proposals that restored some of the wetlands while preserving existing trails and upland habitat.

-----------------
COMPARING THE PROPOSALS:

EXISTING: SALTMARSH/ESTUARINE: 27%
FRESHWATER MARSH: 18%
UPLANDS: 45%
OTHER: 11%

ALTERNATIVE 5: SALTMARSH/ESTUARINE 75%
FRESHWATER MARSH: 2%
UPLAND: 14%

OTHER: 8.5%

To view the 5 alternatives, here is a link to the State's website:

http://www.santamonicabay.org/smbay/ProgramsProjects/HabitatRestorationProject/BallonaWetlandsRestoration/tabid/149/Default.aspx

(click on the "documents" link)

ALTERNATIVE 4: COST $170 MILLION

ALTERNATIVE 5: COST $209 MILLION

ALTERNATIVE 2-- COST $61 MILLION

---------------------

HERE IS A TABLE OF THE COST ESTIMATES OF ALL 5 ALTERNATIVES:

-------------------

Here is our opinion of the Plan that was endorsed by the Restoration project's Science Advisory Committee:

Alternative 5 is an outlandish, over-reaching solution without a problem. There is very little that needs fixing at the Ballona Wetlands. We spent 20 years fighting to keep this land from being bulldozed and turned into condos and a yacht harbor. Now the State wants to bulldoze it and wipe out two of the three natural habitats at Ballona to turn it into an inland sea. The community loves Ballona because it is a remnant of the three habitats that were once common in Los Angeles: salt marsh, freshwater creeks and grass and wildflower-covered uplands ringed by hiking trails. All of these natural habitats are nearly extinct in L.A.

To massively bulldoze and dredge out 90% of this fragile nature preserve to create an almost exclusively saltwater-world-like amusement park ignores the needs of the community that has grown up around Ballona walking the trails and smelling the wildflowers. While it is essential to bring water back into the wetlands, it should not be done at the expense of our walking paths and the uplands which are the nesting areas for so many of the wetland wildlife. What might be a good plan for fish is bad for birds and lizards and butterflies. Alternative 5 is not a balanced plan but one that satisfies a very narrow interest. To preserve biological diversity and the remains of nature in L.A., we support a balanced habitat plan like in Alternatives 1 and 2.

Rex Frankel, the editor, and director of Ballona Ecosystem Education Project
-------------------

Here is an account of the Science Advisory Panel meeting by Marcia Hanscom, who directs the Ballona Institute (NOTE: I have posted Hanscom's email so our readers can hear the variety of views on this issue. While I agree that the proposal circulated by the State planning team goes too far, I can not vouch for the accuracy nor necesarily agree with how Hanscom characterizes the events of this meeting since I was not there. I have heard from some that disagree with her account of the meeting. I have asked the State and Agency officials mentioned in her message to respond, and if they do, I will post them.):

9/20/2008

Well, after the *majority* of the public (even Friends of Ballona Wetlands/Playa Vista attorneys - they are worried the birds at the freshwater marsh may not have enough upland habitat surrounding the area!) expressed grave dis-like for alternative #5, and expressed concern for the land to be PRESERVED and the wildlife RESPECTED at this Working Group meeting....The only ones who expressed strong support for this radical vision of #5 were Mark Abramson, formerly of Heal the Bay (who helped pick the Science Advisory Committee, which is mostly made up of former Rich Ambrose students - Ambrose being the one who has little clue about land and wetlands ecological processes, only marine ecology, which he focuses on without knowing the rest) and Isabelle Duvivier, who is on the payroll of the State Coastal Conservancy, so, of course, she supports what they are pushing.

The next day, after a 6-7 hour meeting of the "Science Advisory Committee" - which has long been stacked with those who John Hodder has described to well below (pro-engineering and ignorant of ecology) - voted unanimously to support Alternative #5. Sean Bergquist immediately turned to National Marine Fisheries Service rep, Bryant Chesney, with a "high 5" and a big smile for getting what they wanted, which is an extension of the Bay inland, instead of a respect of the wetlands ECOSYSTEM.There were a couple of good scientists who asked strong and valid questions, but they were pooh-poohed with non-answers by Rich Ambrose, Shelley Luce, Mary Small and Sean Bergquist, the leaders in what they are calling a "planning process." Even Michael Josselyn, who long worked for the Friends of Ballona Wetlands, said he could not support this plan without a lot of "caveats." In the end, he, Camm Swift and Wayne Ferren, while expressing grave concerns, agreed to go along, so they could stay involved with the process - which is clearly being taken over now by the Army Corps of Engineers.Bottom line? What is being touted as a more NATURAL, sinuous stream restoration, will be nothing of the kind. They will need to build curving levee WALLS around edges of their curvy, unnaturally-formed (but mimicking nature) tidal channels, and nearly all of the upland areas will be wiped out. At the end, there was a BIT of a concession made and it was said that MAYBE Area C will be "restored" to grasslands. 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. Best for what? Seemingly it is water quality driving this project, even though we all voted and AGREED that Water Quality was NOT the consideration we wanted guiding this process, but rather ecological processes.When Rich Ambrose was asked by scientist Ken Schwartz - what will the impacts of these plans be on various species - Ambrose said "well, we don't have enough information on this. I've asked a student I have working on a list of species at Ballona, but it would just be he and I guessing" This is pathetic, both as an answer and as a huge mis- calculation and non-understanding of what is at stake here - and from the co-chair of this "Science Advisory Committee."

Roy, Edith Read, a woman from Heal the Bay, Kelly Rose (from Friends) and I were the only public members who attended this day-long SAC meeting. Sack the SAC! may be our rallying cry. The public was not allowed to talk until the very end of the meeting, well after the vote was taken. We had asked the night before to be able to speak BEFORE the vote, but we were denied by Mary Small, who is running this show for the State Coastal Conservancy.

If any of this disturbs you, I hope you will write to your Assemblymember, your State Senator, the LA City Councilmember for this area (Bill Rosendahl) and our LA Mayor, who helped buy this land to begin with. They would all be very disturbed to learn these things. And, send a copy to us, if you would.

take care, all ~~ Marcia Hanscom, Ballona Institute