lljij wi from: rex frankel, for: don't privatize pv...

From: Rex Frankel, for: DON'T PRIVATIZE PV PARKS

To the L.A. City council, Friday, June 1st, 2012 Council File# 12-0753

1m [E © [E o fYJ [Em lljiJ JUN 2012 WI By

The action on today's agenda would severely damage the major parkland mitigation measure of Playa Vista's Phase 2 development. The 4large parks in the current approved project are not just there as selling points for the tnxury condos, but they are supposed to be fully accessible to the general public as mitigation measures for a.wide array of negative environmental impacts and for the huge upzoning of this land from near-zero entitlements to the massive and dense urban project you approved in 2010.

PV seeks today to slice and dice and convert 3 of those 4 parks into mini and micro parks which will be too small to be useful to the general public. Some will be surrounded on all sides by PV's condos. Some will be no more than sidewalk landscaping. None will fit the original promise of fully accessible large active public recreation areas.

As Aristotle said many years ago, "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts". Thus, converting 3 great parks into a bunch of miniature and private parks takes away the great promise as stated by PV's CEO Steve Soborrofat the hearings : "Great public parks", and their attorney "Anybody can go there, accessible to anybody in the public". This reduces the parkland mitigation measure's effectiveness and is a great sell-out of the public interest.

This plan has a lot more to do with keeping the general public "dff-raff' out of this privileged community, by moving all the park uses that would attract the general public to the one large park left, which is separated from the condo compounds and unfortunately for our precious Ballona Wetlands, i:s right next to the wildlife habitat mitigation s\te.

As a hike leader leading a weekly evening hike to our Ballona open spaces, we hear thousands of happy frogs croaking in this creek every night at sunset, right next to where PV wants to locate their loud soccer and softball fields.

In contrast, the existing plan put these noisy and intensive uses in the three parks located within the condo neighborhoods in Phase 2, not in the park next to the habitat.

Playa Vista company's history has been to make sweet environmental promises of concern and future-thinking to get their projects approved, then they quietly later back out on the promises. And you have allowed them to do it. Thus, the boulevard of mixed use housing on top of retail and offices never came true. The on-site sewage and trash recycling facilities were conveniently found to be not feasible by an ever malleable planning department. And even though your colleague Ruth Galanter demanded that PV's phase 1 's affordable housing component not be segregated in just a few buildings, that's.where they are: 2 buildings on the-far end oft.heir project.

Approval of this massive parks privatization plan will further wall out the general public and continue to make PV an exclusive community for the wealthy while the promises made to the public to get out of the way will disappear, all for the benefit of PV' s wall street owner, Goldman Sachs. Haven't they made enough off of us yet?

I I I hi 1 d cr~te.s . h h b. . . . . h n ega terms, t s p an to ay ~s new impacts on t e a 1tat mitigatiOn area Wit no analysis of the environmental impacts. It guts the parkland mitigation measure and park "overriding considerations" with no finding that the measures are infeasible. As the appeals court ruled in Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County, the government must state a legitimate reason for deleting a validly adopted mitigation measure, plus it must support this reason with truthful evidence, not self-serving developer sales pitches. While this plan today does not delete the mitigation, it severely damages their effectiveness as the promised fully accessible active recreation parks.

Moreover, this project is being justified as having been in the plans in 2010 by the very quiet deletion of condition #63 from the Planning Commissions conditions of approval when the project went for Council approval. Condition 63 specified the 4 parcels for active parks. Thus, they claim, the public "should have known" about the deletion and protested the changes in 2010. However, this is the essence of the act ofpiecemealing, which is prohibited by CEQ A. It involves sneaking major changes through at a hearing where you say nothing is happening, then rely on that quiet change later to say the public missed its chance to protest. However, neither the EIR or other staff reports or other conditions of approval which specified these 4 parcels as the active parks was changed. So sneaking a change to the project in 2010 and trying to ratifY it today with no CEQA analysis just won't fly.

Finally, even though we were never happy with the massive giveaway of the phase 2 development, someone has to stand up for the one benefit the public got out of it. These parks were for us and chopping them up and mostly privatizing them takes away this public benefit ~ce to the affected public and no environmental review.

Rex Frankel, 6038 west 751h street, L.A. CA 90045

\\1-Vh~ lJtL-11? 5~ l)oo

l ~~ (q-;g-l/"?1~

rexfrankel - Yahoo! Mail

2 of3

View your 2012 CrtWit Score Now

lnbox

Conversations

Drafts

Sent

Spam

Trash

Folders

''" American Heritage Univ

ballona-sm bay·baldwi.

bolsa chica

denise stulf

!mirada

hughes center

Katie

media phone numbers

meetup

photos

porn

rare ear1h news, subs .

route 90

roy zimmerman

lammy

Teri

Online Contacts

Irina Protsenko

ShowTopContacts

Facebook Friends -r

You are ~gned out of Faceboo~ Chat. Click the to sign ;n.

Applications -;:;;,

Photos

All My Purchases

Attach Large Files

Auto malic Organizer

Calendar

Flictr

My Cool Fonts

Notepad

Stationery

UnsubsCiiber

http://us.mgl .mai l.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=ah I 205ndngaea

Playa Vista parks privatization plan

FROM: Rex Frankel

TO: norman kul!a Bill Rosendahl

CC: Kathy Knight Briar\ Acree

sec: Teri English Kathryn U1.o.mov

To: Councilman Bill Rosendahl, Deputy Norman Kulla, 5/29/2012 Council tile !?.-0753

Hi, Norm,

Hide Details

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 5:10PM

! reviewed the 102 page staff report and it is clear that the Council approval from 2010 did not grant PV the right to change the public-friendly 4large parks into I laQ,>e and a bunch of mini parks surrounded by their buildings, e~sentially privatizing the main parks*impact compensation measure for a development of 2800 condominiums and a shopping center.

! urge you to re-read this report's ?.0!0 Council-approved Conditions of Approval, in contrast to the Planning Commissions Conditions of Approval:

on page 20 of the pdf ( 8/25/20 II "Planning department Letter of Correction"), it is stated that the revised park plan is submitted "in accordance with the Council-approved tract map condition 3!" (page 33 ofthc pdf). So it appears, according to the trustworthy planning department that lied about Phase?. not being a hub>e upzoning in 2004, that PValready has the right to do this. (or as the Wizard ofOz said: don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain ... nothingto see here!)

This condition in fact says NOTHING about a revised park p!an. It on!y refers to submittal of a revised tract '"~" ~.,...1 ,.,,,!--;,.,. ""'r"' Thi~ """~ nAI inr!ir<>t<' th~t ~ ~"'"ier>r! mini.n~dt nhn "'"~1' h<' ~,.h.,,i!lo>r! "'"'" lh~l lhf'

Cit}• Council in 2010 approved converting the three large parks to a bunch of mini parks.

On page 36 of the pdf, Council-approved Condition 4 I describes the 4 large park lots, and states that if they arc not completed as parks for some reason, then additional street dedications are required. This condition says nothing about converting the large parks into mini parks surrounded by their buildings. This condition approved by the Council is the same as the one approved as Condition 40 by the Planning Commission (pdf page 71 ).

The only actual change between the Planning Commission's and the Council's version of the Conditions, besides re-numbering them, is that the original condition 63 that required "proposed lots 7, 54,67 and 75 be called out on the final map as designated open space/recreation lots", (pdf page 77) was mysteriously deleted from the final Council version oft he Conditions. There is no explanation in the record for why this one was deleted.

Nevertheless, none of the other conditions grant PV the right to simply cut up the large park lots into mini parks and surround them with their buildings.

A !I other city documents, especially the EIR as approved by the Council, however, showed those 4 lots as the active public parks in the project and they were not changed in the Council's final approval.

!t appears that the only legal leg that PV's lawyers are standing on is a secret and unexplained deletion of condition #63 !Or their whole legal authority to do this parks privatization plan. But if this is the sole shred of evidence in their favor, and it was done two years ago and so we missed our chance to fight it in cou11 due to the expiration of the statute oflimitations, why wasn't the E!R's parks impact section changed to reflect the changes that PV was contemplating with the deletion of Condition 63? As the E!R was not changed, the very quiet deletion of the planning commission's condition 63 does not negate what the CEQA review documents say.

It is clear that PV knew this was a controversial issue that would have required additional environmental impact review at a time when they were trying to slide their Phase 2 project to Council approval in 2010 with the claim that it was unchanged and had no new impacts, trying to avoid &riving opponents a new issue to challenge.

Slipping small changes through with no review of environmental impacts is the essence of the CEQA concept of piecemealing, which is breaking a project into pieces so that each separate permit has less apparent impact, but when taken together the impact is great, That is why we are prepared to commence new litigation if this parks cut-up and privati7..ation plan is approved without proper CEQA review, as it greatly increases the impacts of Playa Vista's Phase 2 development project.

310-738-0861

attached: the 10?. page stan· report

CC: Kathy Knight and Brian Acree. Esq

5131120 I 2 6:4.1 Pl'vl

Urban Development Component

Habitat Creation I Restoration Component

LEGEND

- Parks (Aclive Open Space) (11.4 acres)

m Passive Open Space (12.1 acres)

---· Proposed Project Class II Bikeway Bicycle lane-(Active Open Space) (1.0 acres)

{.'1~

2·lY 2 .{, } ·'i2

Playa Vista First Phase Project C!ass 11 Bikeway Bicycle Lane

.. Urban Development Component

fr,-Y..r¥1 Habitat CreaUon I Restoration Component {D ,1 3

O~"""iiiiii~4~00~IIIIIIIIIIIIII8~00 Feet

_ . Source: PCR Servic.es Co oration Ma(Ch 2004

Revised Draft EIR Figure 93, Proposed Project Open Space

I

City of Los AngdesiEIR No. ENV~2002-6l29-El R Village at Plsya VIsta Flnul Em Page 242

FEIR0000262 VLG0025444

1

2

3

4

10:30 5

6

7

8

9

10:31 10

11

12

13

14

10:31 15

16

17

18

19

10:31 20

21

22

23

24

10:31 25

TRANS0000438

MR. MIHLSTEN: I'll wrap up in one minute.

COMMISSIONER MENZER: Very good. Thank you.

MR. MIHLSTEN: Mr. Rosas, one of the appellants

today, has filed a lawsuit against the city, the

state, Playa Vista and others seeking $525 million in

damages and return all of the lands to the Native

Americans.

With respect to the technical corrections

that are before you today, a couple clarifications:

One is that we're requesting that a clarification be

that all recreation parks be publicly accessible and

that restroom facilities be reasonably available.

Now, that is included in the recommendations now.

In addition, there's a tract map condition

that will clarify that the tract map is not effective

until the zone change and general plan amendments are

approved.

Finally, there's a requested clarification

with respect to the development agreement to clarify

that 10 percent of all for-sale housing units in the

Village project will be price-controlled units and

that 83 units will be rent restricted to low income.

In addition, we request the inclusion of the

Culver City mitigation measures.

With that, we appreciate your time and

Biehl & Bell, et al.

39

VLG0033643

1

2

3

4

n<·n? s

6

7

8

9

03:02 10

11

12

13

14

03:03 15

16

17

18

19

03:03 20

21

22

23

24

03:03 25

TRANS0000629

a1 though this has been a very cont.:o;:~s~al~ist~ry---~ for Playa Vista, I think most of us can agree that

the cumulative result of this extraordinary level of

community involvement has arrived at a better design

originally anticipated by the specific plans.

The project will provide the much

anticipated neighborhood center of this community

with compact, walkable, mixed use development with

all the components of a true neighborhood; places to

live, shop, work and play, addressing housing crises

but also taking a look at a way of organizing urban

environments around other things other than cars,

having people be able to walk.

The councilwoman has been very involved and

will continue to be involved in this process as it is

evaluated today and also as it moves on to the city

council for review. The councilwoman has addressed

the adequacy of usable open space and recreation

space and is pressed for the inclusion of larger park

sites in Phase II with active recreation that are

also accessible to the greater community. At this

stage, diagrammatic exhibits of these park spaces

have been developed and submitted to the file clearly

showing the intent as to the type and arrangement of

Biehl & Bell, ct al.

226

VLG0033834

r.;,

~\[)(J [4Jllf' ---c~~_J' fl~,vN\) c1-fY1J~~::c~~w>K; 1

2 I

active recreational uses that are expected for each

park location.

3 The councilwoman has also pressed to have

4 major parks with active recreation fields provide

03:03 5 public restrooms, and Playa Vista has agreed to

6 those. These parks will be public parks open to the

7 general public to enjoy.

8 Traffic is an important concern and the full

9 level of recommended mitigations developed through

03:03 10 the EIR process and recommended by the Department of

11 Transportation should and must be implemented as

12 outlined in the staff reports.

13 The council office is involved in ongoing

14 negotiations of the development agreement. The

03:04 15 provision of affordable and work force housing and

16 its dispersion throughout the development is one of

17 the most important components of this agreement. In

18 order to fully achieve the stated goals of a

19 community, a range of home prices and rental prices

03:04 20 are critical to appeal and provide for the widest

21 range possible of new residents. The recommendations

22 outlined in the staff report today advance this goal.

23 The councilwoman has supported the

24 establishment of a joint use arrangement with

03:04 25 L.A.U.S.D. to fully maximize the school site and

L --~· ~---------- ---227


TRANS0000630 VLG0033835

1 are toxins at the site. The site is being

2 remediated. That is what is supposed to happen.

3 It's being remediated in conjunction with the

4 Regional Water Quality Control Board oversight. It's

03:21 5 a long-term program. Many of the areas have, in

6 fact, received no further action approvals from the

7 Regional Water Quality Control Board, and that is an

8 ongoing process with oversight from the Regional

9 Water Quality Control Board.

03:21 10 It was indicated that the parks are not

11 being built. That's just not correct. Many of the

12 parks, in fact, in Phase I have been built. A

13 concert park, dog park, the crescent park are all

14 constructed and are fabulous places for people to

03:21 15 gather. And these are public parks; anybody can go

16 there. They're paid for by Playa Vista, they're

17 maintained by Playa Vista in the community, but -18 they're accessible to anybody in the public.

19 There has been an indication that there has

03:22 20 been a complete destruction of the habitat in

21 Phase II by the activities in Phase I. That issue

22 was just litigated in the superior court. The

23 Ballona Wetlands Land Trust took that issue to court,

24 sued the city. That determination was just issued by

03:22 25 the judge who found that the EIR for Phase I was

233


TRANS0000636 VLG0033841

1 COUNCILMEMBER GARCETTI: No, no. Go ahead. Go

2 through them.

3 GORDON HAMILTON: The question is where would

4 the one acre be or

5 COUNCILMEMBER VILLARAIGOSA: Yeah, where on

6 here

7 SUE CHANG: You mean off site?

8 COUNCILMEMBER VILLARAIGOSA: Yes.

9 SUE CHANG: Off-site parks have not been

10 identified.

11 COUNCILMEMBER VILLARAIGOSA: Now, are there any

12 playing fields located here? And if they are, can

13 you show me?

14 SUE CHANG: The on-site parks will be improved

15 by Playa. There are four parks --

16 COUNCILMEMBER VILLARAIGOSA: I'm talking about

17 playing fields.

18 SUE CHANG: You're talking about Phase I, and

19 Mr. Hamilton is pointing to the site.

20 COUNCILMEMBER VILLARAIGOSA: How about for Phase

21 II?

22 SUE CHANG: Phase II has four parks.

23 GORDON HAMILTON: Under the terms of the

24 development agreement and also under the terms of the

25 I project, the land area was set aside for parks.

Biehl & Bell, et a!.

TRANS0000871

107

VLG0038108

1 The development agreement specifies the

2 kinds of activities that would be at these parks.

3 The first park is at Runway Road and McDonald Avenue,

4 and that would have an open playing field of

5 approximately 140-by-200 square feet informal soccer

6 or football field. There would also be a half-court

7 basketball court, a picnic area, a top lot and a

8 plaza. So that is one park and I have the

9 illustrations here.

10 There would be another park on the corner of

11 A Street and Third Street which would contain another

12 softball field, football and soccer, dimensions of

13 180 feet by 220 feet, a volleyball court and two half

14 basketball courts, along with picnic areas and a

15 plaza. That's the second park.

16 There is a linear park just along the

17 Riparian Corridor, not in the Riparian Corridor but

18 in the green space just adjacent to the Riparian

19 Corridor, that would be a park with an informal open

20 play field, 100-by-185 feet, half-court basketball

21 court, a full-size volleyball court, a picnic area,

22 lawn bowling and a horseshoe setup and another picnic

23 area.

24 And then on the Jefferson side, which would

25 be the northern side of the project, there would be a

Biehl & Bell, et al

TRANS0000872

108

VLG0038109

1 softball field.

2 Now, that is in addition to what was

3 approved in Phase I. Phase I has more of a regional

4 park on the south side adjacent to the school which

5 would have a baseball field and soccer fields. So

6 there's a combination of dog parks, active parks, the

7 ones that I've just mentioned here, and more of a

8 regional park.

9 COUNCILMEMBER VILLARAIGOSA: Mr. President, I

10 have two more areas of questioning, if I can -- if I

11 may.

12 On the issue of affordable housing,

13 Exhibit lc of the development agreement says 83 units

14 of affordable rental housing are required in The

15 Village but that the developer may eliminate up to an

16 equivalent number of units from buildings within

17 Playa Vista Phase I.

18 Can you explain to us just how many units of

19 affordable housing we're going to have in Phase II?

20 GORDON HAMILTON: The requirement is that,

21 No. 1, 83 units be provided in Phase II for rental

22 housing, and they would be established according to

23 50 percent, 80 percent of the market rate or income,

24 average income. Those units can either be taken from

25 the Fountain Park project and moved to Phase II or


TRANS0000873

109

VLG0038110

2s~ L tJ ~- C e 6( Pr -f\ t-1 j_ ' '\.5 h : . V~~QrJ\-cl\,\ )l.j"'J-cLGJ} IM,PDvYJ IV\'-~)'')vd Tt Ld) ~,r-~ S '-T ,) ~_-f[ c ~ G.\\.fe/ l)

VESTING TENTATIVE TRAGT NO. 60110 Page 74

developer, Proposed Project impacts, pursuant to the provisions of SB 50, would be fully mitigated.

Middle and high school enrollment attributable to Proposed Project development would be within the forecasted unused capacity of these two schools. This constitutes a lessthan-significant impact on school capacity, as sufficient capacity would be available to accommodate Proposed Project-generated students without the construction of new school facilities and/or modifications to the existing operational characteristics of Marina del Rey Middle School or Venice High School.

The Proposed Project and the relevant related projects would generate a total of 3,690 students. As such, a significant cumulative impact on elementary, middle and high school facilities would occur. Under the provisions of State law, mitigation is limited to the imposition of new development fees per Government Code Section 65995. The payment of these fees, which is required of all cumulative development, would reduce the significant impact to a less-than-significant level.

5. Reference.

For a complete discussion of impacts to Schools, see Section IV.L.3 of the Original DEIR; Section 11.20, Corrections and Additions, of the Original FEIR; and Original FEIR Appendices H.1 and H.2.

J. Parks and Recreation

1. Description of Significant Effects.

The Proposed Project's 2,600 dwelling units are estimated to generate 5,720 residents which would create a demand for park space. At the same time, the Proposed Project would provide new parks and open space to meet increased demand. The Proposed Project would provide 11.4 acres of parks and 1.0 acre of bike lanes, exclusive of private, open space, such as courtyards and plazas, that would help to meet the Proposed Project's demand. In addition, if the assisted living component of the Proposed Project's Equivalency Program was implemented, an additional 0.18 acre (0. 12 acre onsite and 0.06 acre off-site) of park space would be provided for each 50 assisted living units.

Besides providing this parkland, the Proposed Project would include the improvement of these parks with landscaping; hardscaping; walking, jogging, and bicycle trails; children's play areas; recreational fields; and other recreational facilities, (i.e., basketball courts, skating rings, etc.) with an emphasis on active activities, as appropriate. The Proposed Project also includes 1.0 acre of bicycle lanes within several of the Proposed Project's right of ways. In addition, the Proposed Project proposes to provide 5.76 acres of park space within the adjacent Playa Vista First Phase Project or on land controlled or improved by the Applicant and its affiliates (i.e., nearby off-site locations). With the additional 5.76 acres of off-site park space, the Proposed Project will provide 3.0 acres of park space per 1000 residents.

The provision of 11.4 acres of active open space within the Proposed Project is equivalent to 2.0 acres of active open space per 1,000 residents and would increase the service ratio in the District Plan area from 0.7 acre per 1,000 population to 0.8 acre per

RWAR-001839

VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 60110 Page 75

1,000 population. The 11.4 acres would meet the Public Recreation Plan's short- and intermediate-range standards for community and neighborhood parks of 2.0 acres per 1,000 residents.

2. Mitigation Measures.

Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project and the Equivalency Program:

(a) The proposed Project shall provide park space in an amount equivalent to not less than a total of 17.16 acres (3 acres per thousand residents). A minimum of 11.4 acres shall be provided (2 acres per thousand residents) within the Proposed Project; the remaining park space may be satisfied through provisions of additional park space within the adjacent Playa Vista First Phase Project or on land controlled or improved by the applicant and its affiliates (i.e., nearby off-site locations)

(b) Prior to the issuance of the temporary or permanent Certificate of Occupancy for each 455 residential units, a total of three acres of parks shall be provided and improved, at least two acres of which shall be within the Project site, per the provisions outlined in the preceding mitigation measure. All ark space shall be accessible to the public. In addition, restroom facilities s all be provided either in the retail town center (for the two parks adjacent to the town center) or on-site for the two parks that are not adjacent to the town center.

(c) Prior to the recordation of any phase of the tract map for the Proposed Project, the required on-site and off-site parks shall be identified, including improvement and maintenance responsibilities, satisfactory to the local Council Office.

(d) In addition to the provision of park space identified above, the Proposed Project shall be responsible for providing improvements for the parks within the Project with landscaping, hardscaping, walking, jogging and bicycle trails, children's play areas, recreational fields and other recreational facilities (i.e,, basketball courts, skating rings, etc.), with an emphasis on active activities as appropriate. The cost of the park improvements shall not be less than and is not limited by the amount of fees that the Project would be required to pay under LAMC Section 17.120 as though the Proposed Project was not dedicating any land for parks.

(e) Prior to recordation of any phase of the tract map for the Proposed Project, the applicant shall submit to the Advisory Agency for approval, in consultation with the Department of Recreation and Parks and the local Council office, a plan for the improvement of the parks to be provided by the Proposed Project.

RWAR-001840


(f) Prior to recordation of any phase of the tract maps, all parks within the Proposed Project in such tract map shall either be designated as active open space_ on such final tract maps or committed to open space through recorded deed restrictions and covenants, subject to the approval of the Advisory Agency.

(g) Prior to recordation of tract maps, lots designated for parks in tentative maps shall be offered for dedication to the Department of Recreation and Parks. If the Department of Recreation and Parks does not accept dedication of the park areas, a property owners' association shall be formed to maintain the park and recreational facilities in a manner satisfactory to the City of Los Angeles, together with provision for public access to the parks and the appropriate trails and easements guaranteed to the City. The property owners' maintenance responsibility for the park/recreational facilities shall be recorded in a Conditions, Covenants and Deed Restrictions (CC & R) and a Covenant and Agreement. Any Covenant and Agreement to maintain park, open space and recreational fields/facilities shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to its acceptance by the Advisory Agency. Said covenant and agreement shall be recorded at tract map recordation. The property owner's association shall enter into a usage agreement with the Department of Recreation and Parks if requested.

Additional Mitigation Measure for the Equivalency Program:

(a) Additional park space shall be provided at the rate of 0.12 acre for every 50 assisted living units developed.

3. Findings.

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Proposed Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect of all of the impacts of Parks and Recreation, as identified in the Complete FEIR, to a less than significant level.

4. Rationale for Findings.

The Proposed Project would provide an increase in the level of park and open space in the existing area from 0.7 acre per 1,000 population to 0.8 acre per 1,000 population. Since the Proposed Project will provide the equivalent of 3.0 acres of park space per 1,000 residents, the Proposed Project would meet the short· and intermediate-range goal of 2.0 acres per 1,000 population for community and neighborhood parks set forth in the City's Public Recreation Plan. This conclusion applies to the Proposed Project, inr:h 1shtA of thP. Fm!iv:::l!Pnr.v Pmor:=lln r:mrl thA r:nnstruction of the PmnnsP.rl ProiAd's ()ff_ site improvements.

The State's Quimby Act allows a local jurisdiction to require subdivision projects to satisfy the applicable park and recreational requirements by land dedication or in lieu fees, or some combination thereof. The City's parkland dedication ordinance is provided

RWAR-001841


in Municipal Code Section 17.12. The existing Playa Vista Area D Specific Plan provides that the requirements of Section 17.12 may be satisfied by (i) dedicating and restoring the Ballona Wetlands, as they are defined in the Playa Vista Area B Specific Plan and (ii) providing park or recreation space in an amount equal to 100 sq. ft. per dwelling unit within the Playa Vista Area D Specific Plan area. For 2,600 dwelling units, approximately six acres of park or recreation space would be required under the Playa Vista Area D Specific Plan. Since the referenced Ballona Wetlands, as well as additional land (refer to page II.A-4 of the RS-DEIR), has been transferred to the State for open space and recreation uses, the requirement in the above provision of the Specific Plan concerning restoration of the Ballona Wetlands by the Applicant would be modified under the proposed amendments to the Specific Plan to reflect that prior land transfer.

The Proposed Project will satisfy the above provision of the Specific Plan and, therefore, the provisions of Municipal Code Section 17.12. The amount of land dedicBted for parks and recreational use by the Proposed Project equals 17.16 acres (11.4 acres of parks on the Proposed Project site and 5. 76 acres of park space within the adjacent Playa Vista First Phase Project or nearby off-site locations). In addition, the Applicant will construct all facilities for these parks, including landscaping; hardscaping; walking, jogging, and bicycle trails; children's play areas; recreational fields; and other recreational facilities, as appropriate. Further, maintenance of these parks would be provided in perpetuity by a property owner's association.

Thus, the demand for park or recreational facilities generated by the Proposed Project would be adequately accommodated by existing or planned facilities and service, and no significant impacts on parks and recreation would occur.

As the Proposed Project would meet its generated demand for park provision, the Proposed Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts on the demand for park space. Cumulative impacts of the Proposed Project, inclusive of the Equivalency Program and the construction of the Proposed Project's off-site improvements would be less than significant.

5. Reference.

For a complete discussion of impacts to Parks and Recreation, see Section IV.L.3 of the Original DEIR; Section 11.21, Corrections and Additions, of the Original FEIR; and Original MMRP (Mitigation Measures L.(4)-1 through L.(4)-8).

K. Energy Consumption

1. Description of Significant Effects.

Construction of the Proposed Project would only consume minimal quantities of electricity (i.e., temporary use for lighting, construction trailer office equipment, small power tools, etc.) and is not anticipated to consume natural gas. Therefore construction impacts to energy resources would not result in an increase in demand for energy that exceeds available supply or distribution infrastructure capabilities and construction impacts would be less than significant.

Operation of proposed uses would consume an estimated total of 53.01 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity per day and 484,73 thousand cubic feet (kef) of natural gas per day.

RWAR-001842

1 3 mi.llion square feet office being built-out in the

2 Campus portion of the project, the construction of the

3 Village resident:ial units is reaLly important.

4 Another important smart growth principle is

5 neighborhood serving retail. Over the past few years,

6 we've had a great neighborhood retail district emerge in

7 the Concert Park area of Phase I. While these shops are

8 a great amenity, Playa Vista is still missing that

9 critical ''village center'' that will truly knit east and

10 west portions together. And this ''village center" will

11 reduce the need for the residents to drive outside the

12 community.

13 A series of residential neighborhoods will

14 be organized around the village center, with a main

15 street with ground level retail u~es with a potential

16 for additional retail, office, residential uses as

17 located above.

18 As Mr. Hamilton mentioned, the Village will

19 include 2,600 residential units, 150,000 square feet of

20 retail, 175,000 square feet of office, of which about

21 125,000 could be converted to retail or assisted living

22 units and 40,000 square feet reserved for community-

23 servicing uses.

24 There will be four new on-site parks,

25 totaling 11.4 acres. Together with additional 5.7 acres

800-826-0277 MERRILL

818-593-2300 LEGAL SOLUTIONS

Fax 818-593-2301 www.merrillcorp.com

10

RWAR-058949

1 improvements that we've seen through Phase I. In

2 addition, we'll see parks that are open to everybody in

3 the community, and at this critical time in our economy,

4 will see jobs and other opportunities.

5 The Neighborhood Council, before approving

6 this project, reviewed it extensively and discussed it,

7 and we hope that you will approve it along with us.

8 MR. RAUSCH: Thank you.

9 Elizabeth Pollock/ James Farmerr Diane

10 Fecho. Excuse me if I butchered your name.

11 ELIZABETH POLLOCK: Good afternoon. My name

12 is Elizabeth Pollock. I am the recording secretary for

13 the Del Rey Homeowners and Neighbors Association. We

14 are the homeowners group that represents the 30,000

15 people that live in Del Rey, which is the area just

16 north of Jefferson Boulevard across the street from

17 Playa Vista, across the street from this development.

18 Our problem with this is exactly what the

19 Appellate Court said. This is an upzone, and it was

20 slipped in, and it's not been approved. It was not

21 contemplated in 1986, when they did the original

22 planning for this, and it should not be approved.

23 To say that our community, Del Rey, is not

24 affected by this development is to fly in the face of

25 reason. Everybody in the 2,600 homes and retail

800-826-0277 MERRILL

818-593-2300 LEGAL SOLOTIONS


42

RWAR-058981

1 ground which will permit Phase II remains to rejoin

2 Phase I remains at the Ballona Discovery Center at the

3 conclusion of this process.

4 This way Matthew Dorame is very much getting

5 human remains back in the ground. We are pleased that

6 we've been able to work with Robert Dorame, Councilman

7 Rosendahl -- to reach that conclusion. We' 11 move

8 forward to conclude this process so we can put Phase II

9 back in the ground as well. Thank you.

10 MR. RAUSCH: Thank you.

11 (Applause. )

12 MR. RAUSCH: -- Sharon Topping, Genevieve

13 Peters.

14 SHARON TOPPING: Hi. My name is Sharon

15 Topping, and I am a CEO of -- {unintelligible) --

16 Corporation. This organization represents more than

17 300 1 000 residents and over 6,000 residents in Playa

18 Vista. On their behalf they express support for the

19 Village.

20 As for parks, Playa Vista residents t-Jill

21 enjoy additional parks for everyone and creating new

22 retail options we don't currently have.

23 Residents will be able to go to these new parks

24 to do all the shopping within our community without

25 having to get in cars and drive to Westchester, Playa

800-826-0277 MERRILL

818-593-2300 LEGAL SOLUTIONS


65

RWAR-059004

9

1 is a percent of affordable units combined with

2 ground units.

3 As Charlie mentioned, the Court of Appeals

4 asked that the EIR restudy land use impacts,

5 archeological resources, waste water, and the City

6 added global climate change. This is just a map

7 that speaks to one of the benefits of the project

8 parks. It is something that been featured of this

9 development since the very beginning (indicating).

10 In the centerpiece of the teal colored

11 parks are part of Phase 2, but you can't look at

12 those parks unless you look at Phase 1, as well

13 (indicating). You can see the park services as sort

14 of a ribbon that links the neighborhoods together

15 throughout the project from the west to the east.

16 More new urban pocket parts on the western portion

17 of the content, to larger parks that will be in the

18 center, which direct the activities of the western

19 project to the Village which is exactly where we

20 want the activity to be.

21 This is an example of one of the parks

22 already up (indicating). This picture was taken

23 about four, five years ago. It's fully landscaped

24 and operating very well -- I will go into detail

25 about that. So that's an example of an area wide

Vcritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127

RWAR-058833

1 Suq(:"-nr.arl, becau:H:::- J wantz:;d to f:i nd out in no:ce detail

) l.f1 i rHJS !.:.hat we::::·e irr..portant to the. Councilrnar:. He said

So

4 sai.d, I'd like to make a commitment that we would

5 (::c.)rlSJ(ier· Jnoving ahead witt1 the equivalency program that

6 allows 200 additio~al assi.sted living units a~d

7 eli~inates offJ.ce space of 24,000 square feet.

8 He also made clear he supports the r·etail

9 center for the Village and would lj_~e to see the retail

10 t:oJrlf)Orterit implemented as soon as possible. 1 said the

11 min~te the litigation stops, we'll begin marketing the

12 retail ce~ter fi~st, and we may even start sooner.

J:l He ~:l.sked, "\rJhat ::nor(;: vJe can do '.Nith ocr

14 parks?rr I explained the park system is paid for by

Playa Visl:a residents and open to the public. It's l:lie

16 only privately built, public park system in the area.

·.7 TL'~ not just ne, previous parks commissioner for tive

l8 years. TAsk p-so:qle in Nevv York, et cetera, et cetera.

19 Let !tl8 stlmmarize. Vile f re proud of h1ha t He! ve done r it Is

?.:) corning ·;·_o .l if~~, i 1-.' s real, the peor::lt.~ \oJho live there

21 love it, the neighbors love it, We 1 ve delivered on every

?? pronise we've ever wade.

23 The Vi~lage that is before you is the final

?4 piet:e, ar1d it's time now to get this approved and rncve

on. _ ask for your approval of the village as supported 24

Veritcxt National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127

RWAR-058718

1 gave h:Lrn.

2 PRF:S TrJP.NT T.A.ElONGE; "" need lo -·· M:r. Rosendahl,

3 one more mintJte for Mr. Soborofi?

4 COUNCIL PERSON ROSENDAHL; HO\v much --

STEVE SOBOROFF: Mr. lvJorales, he can come back up

6 here and talk for an hour as far as I'm concerned.

7 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Morales had how many

8 minutes?

9 PR~SlDSNT LABONGE: I didn'~ keep track. The

10 clerk kept track ot the time.

COUNCIL PERSON ROSENDAHL: Mr. Morales got three

12 mi.nutes. So you have one more mj.nl1te.

1.3

14

l ,. ,)

16

STEVE SOROROFF: Tf yo11 wanl il, 6,000 cards or

12,000 cards, I could have brought those, but we didn 1 t

out of respect to you.

The community is enjoy-ed by many more people than

17 those who live at the place. Our oarks, which these

lG residents paid for are public parks.

19 The fire station that we paid for serves the

20 other commun.i.t.y. And Lhe CouncllHternber got us the

?.1 ambu.la.nc<:~.

22 Playa Vista is good for Los Angeles. And that 1 s

23 why we need this development.

24 In this economy 7.he V.Lllagc means more to it than

25 it did in 2001 when you guys approved the same exact

MERRILL LEC;AL SOJ.,ll'l'JONS 800-826-0277 818-593-2300 fax 818--593-·2301 www.merrillcorp.com

RWAR-058495

( ~j~( HrzNC~ 1 required.

2 It will bring new parks to the area that are

3 enjoyed by eveJ:ybody in th<" community.

4 Crit.i.cA.lly important at th.i.s t.ime of economic

5 are the new johs tt1at will be brOtJght, tlte revertue and

6 the investm-2nt and Lhe housing to the cily.

'Al<~ in Lh(::: Neighbo.rhood Council -~ or we are the

8 Neighbort1ood Council for this area. And we have voted to

9 support the project. After extensive review and

10 disctJssion we hope that you will vote to support the

11 Village as well.

12 PRE:SIDE:NT LABONGE: Thank you.

13 David I<ay. F'ollo\·led by Nancy SvJa.i.n.

14 Di\.VII) 1"\AY: 'l_'h(:lnk you, Counci.l, and Councilmerl.

15 1'1y name is David l<ay. i 'm he1:·e Lo speak in

16 s-uppo:rt of Lhe V:LJ.lage. I am a native Angelino. l\nd I

17 have ovmcd roy home j.r) l?laya Vista for four years.

18 I think nothing informs be~ter than experience.

19 And my neighbors and I shared the experience watching the

20 developer build our community around us over seve:ral

2.1 yca.:::s, and interacting vvith them. 'l'hey "Listened to our

22 input. And they acted on it posi.tivel.y. Fr~n the big

23 pictun~ mix of home, parks, and n~t:ail, l:.o the tini.e.st

?4 J.i.t:tle detail l:Lke where tel ptlL doggy bag weigh stations.

?S Tt1ey listened and they acted.

54

MERRILL LEGAL SOLUTIONS 800--8?6--0?.TI 818-593-2300 Fax 818-593-2301 W>iw.men:illcorp.com

RWAR-058500

i!Xm:BIT2

l'A'IU{S AND RECREATION l'll.OGRAM

DevelOper is providing the follow#il! p~~rk spooe !liJd hnprovmnents; 1) 2 acres of land per thousand projected res;ii1ents fur park oro.d reereational fael)ities in the Village at Playa Vista l'r!>ject; 2) copstmcting and maintaining Improvements in thQse park:s wi(hin th~ Village !If .Playa Vista; and 3) pr.oviding 1 aere of land per thousand r~dents of~oft-site".Pru:k space ln nearby areas, including but not neccssar ly limited to the FR'SI Phase Project, As additional consideration and .!llUf p\lblic benefl\. DeVeloper shall fund, construct and >'naintain, pr ellll8e m be funded, constructed and maintillned, improv~DJents fur ·such off-site patks.

The soft cost,s and hard costs of off-site pnrl<: lmprovetlle:nis shall not be less than an average cost of$20 ppr square :!bot in 2004 dollars ann\lally adjJJI)tedby CPI (as delh1ed in Bxliihlt 1) for the 5,76 ncros of off..mte parks. Thus, the total value of off-site park improvewents shall be $5,018,112.

Prior to the completion .of the third S1lbpbase, Develq>er shall cause to be constructed collltrul!Ji(y serving UBes which consist of !hi' fuUowing:

.. Jllllior Olympic pool

.0 Children's pool

.. Spa

.. Fi!ness Center

.. Meetitlg Room Faoilitles

Those facilities will not be located within the parks. Upon rompletion, t1w facilities shall be conveyed m \he homeown""" association.

in addition, prior to issuance oftbe frrst building p~nnlt, Dl:veloper shall contribute $50,000 to a bicypl!Jfpedeslrian enb!UIC.<mlont trust fund to he ~dmhristered by !he L9s Angeles Department ofTransportatioli. 'I'l'rese funds shall be used to study the fearu'bility of bicycle and pedestrian i.nlprovements on Lincoln Boulevard over tho )3allona Chsnnel, including bicycle lanes, improved pedestrian access and bicycle and pedestrim safety.

l%U15·.4;12/1/04 38

RWAR-000139


character of the development. The Proposed Project would provide active recreation and open space jocludfng 11.4 acres of on-site parks aQd 5.76 acre off-site parks. The Proposed Project would also include approximately 11.7 acres (6.7 acres Riparian Corridor and 5 acres Bluff Restoration) of passive open space.

10. Implementation of the Proposed Project will establish tie Proposed Project's ecological components via the creation of a riparian corridor along the base of the Westchester Bluffs; and the restoration of coastal sage scrub habitat adjacent to the riparian corridor on the bluff face itself. The proposed riparian corridor would connect with the riparian corridor immediately to the east and west of the Proposed Project and would complete the Riparian Corridor portion of the Freshwater Wetlands System, which would support natural habitat, flood control and cleansing of waters entering Santa Monica Bay.

11. Implementation of the Proposed Project will develop the Proposed Project in a manner that would also link the residential communities currently under construction near Lincoln Boulevard to the west, with the commercial development to the east by providing an integrated and interconnected series of neighborhoods and districts, streets and trails.

12. Implementation of the Proposed Project will establish height and lot coverage restrictions which are generally more restrictive than those in existing plans. These new development standards would result in a development which is typically low· to mid-rise in nature, with the taller of such buildings being limited by amount, location, and maximum height.

13. Implementation of the Proposed Project will improve the transportation systems in the area in a manner that addresses changes brought about by the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project will provide significant enhancements to the transportation system, including roadway corridor and intersection improvements, signal system improvements, external transit system improvements, internal and expanded intelligent shuttle system improvements and bicycle system improvements.

14. Implementation of the Proposed Project will, generate significant financial benefits for the City and region.

15. Implementation of the Proposed Project will create thousands of construction jobs, new permanent jobs and provide a substantial boost to· the local economy.

16. Implementation of the Proposed Project will accommodate expected population and employment growth within the City and Community Plan Area and plan for provision of adequate supporting transportation and utility infrastructure and public services.

17. Implementation of the Proposed Project will encourage new multi-family residential, retail commercial, and office development, while at the same time conserving existing neighborhoods and related districts.

RWAR-001938


18. Implementation of the Proposed Project"will accommodate a diversity of uses that support the needs of the City's existing and future residents, businesses and visitors.

19. Implementation of the Proposed Project will identify areas sufficient for the development of a diversity of uses that serve the needs of existing and future residents (housing, employment, retail, entertainment, cultural/institutional, educational, health, services, recreation, and similar uses) and provide job opportunities.

20. Implementation of the Proposed Project would include active recreation and open space including 11.4 acres of on-site parks, 1.0 acres of on-site bicycle lanes, and 5. 76 acre off-stte parks, and a projected 1,180 permanent jobs.

21. Implementation of the Proposed Project will provide for the spatial distribution of development that promotes an improved quality of life by facilitating a reduction of vehicular trips, vehicle miles traveled, and air pollution. The Proposed Project provides residential units in an area already rich with jobs (i.e., the Los Angeles west side). Based on the fact that jobs in the area are closer to the housing in the Proposed Project, average trip lengths to and from the Proposed Project are estimated to be reduced by approximately 33 percent compared to the average trip length in the remainder of the region.

22. Implementation of the Proposed Project will establish patterns and types of development that improve the integration of housing with commercial uses and the integration of public services and various densities of residential development within neighborhoods at appropriate locations.

23. Implementation of the Proposed Project will provide for the development of land use patterns that emphasize pedestrian/bicycle access and use in appropriate locations.

24. Implementation of the Proposed Project will provide for the stability and enhancement of multi-family neighborhoods and allow for growth in areas where there is sufficient public infrastructure and services and residents' quality of life can be maintained or improved.

25. Implementation of the Proposed Project will ensure that the character and scale of stable single-family residential neighborhoods is maintained, allowing for infill development, provided that it is compatible with and maintains the scale and character of existing development.

26. Implementation of the Proposed Project will reinforce existing and establish new neighborhoods which accommodate a broad range of uses that serve the needs of adjacent residents, promote neighborhood activity, are compatible with adjacent neighborhoods, and are developed as desirable places to live, work and visit.

RWAR-001939

Re: Agenda Item 9a

Final Map of Tract No. 60110-01-REC

June 1, 2012

To the Los Angeles City Council:

l:r0 JPv n1e amc/,e~ L J.-Ac;~nu

If 1 gfl)'f) If :f1(U!/l II o . 1 t7....;

I object to the recommended approval of the final map of Tract No. 60110-01-REC located at 12200 Jefferson Boulevard easterly of Lincoln Boulevard and accompanying Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Contract with attached security documents.

The Advisory Agency determined that "this project will have a significant effect on the environment". The Advisory Agency adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations which is inadequate to address these effects, including: traffic, air quality, temperature increase, water quality, water usage, changes in the aquifer due to extraction and run-off, loss of habitat, destruction of historic and prehistoric sites, destruction of Native American graves and associated objects, upzoning, densification, building up to the height of the bluffs, elimination of scenic views of hills and bluffs, decrease in livability for residents of neighboring areas.

Mello-Roos bonds (approximately $13 million) were voted for by the LA City Council and used to repay Playa Capital retroactively for the digging up of over a thousand burials of the Tongva people, Los Angeles' original inhabitants. Both the destruction of these burials and the use ofMello-Roos bonds were opposed by tribal members, individuals, community and environmental groups, and theCA Native American Heritage Commission, a state agency.

For these and other reasons, I oppose the recommended action to approve the Tract map and Subdivision Agreement.

Leslie Purcell Playa del Rey, CA

llt..so 77/z:7(e /V~tJ3 p L3e /I .J711LJl Jlr '!7:1-G Ctt.Mala~ ,;JZ.NJ / /kJ-..r-() r 77ft5 <;z:fl)C.-'/<£C-.;1.5'BZ} f)ez_;' /:?l.L' ,.0</1/? e?;;V I / ~ :7/:h::!f I/;!( c/!'J,

Los Angeles City Council 200 No. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012

Cuff F'o 1Z- L/1 &~ 'f7 e-u/?.1( ;::; w or l?ec..of"....,{)

June 1, 2012

RE: ~genda Item No; 9a File No. 12-0753- Playa Vista Changes to Public Open Space Mitigation -

Dear City Council Members:

We ask you to use the California Environmental Quality Act process if you are going to change previously approved Public Open Space Mitigation requirements for the proposed Playa Vista Phase 2 project. As noted by Mr. Frankel in another letter to you, the large open space mitigations are being changed into smaller areas that are split up through the developed part of the project. This is not what the public was told they would be getting in the mitigation - see LA City EIR documents and public testimony.

Also, please notice .citizens that were involved in the Phase 2 EIR process so that they can be aware of this proposed change in the Open Space Mitigation and comment on it. This isthe biggest project in the history of LA and it needs careful scrutiny.

In addition, we have the following comments:

1) It appears that the local indigenous people, the T ongva, have not been notified of this proposed change and bulldozing that is being done on the property. It is our understanding that they need to be notified and consulted.

2) We are attaching a copy of an article that came out this week in the Argonaut newspaper that documents that the Native American Heritage Commission does not agree with the reburials of the 1500 ancestors that Playa Capital dug up for the Playa Vista development. It states: Not everyone is happy with the reburial. David Singleton, a program analyst with the California Native American Heritage Commission, said his organization was invited by Sinclair but declined to attend. "We respectfully disagree with the landowners and the most likely descendant on the reburial," Singleton said. "We did not have the authority to prevent the ceremony from happening because we don't have any legal control over (Dorame)." Tension has existed between some

members of the Gabrieleno/Tongava tribe for several years, and challenges to Playa Vista are no different. Members of a San Gabriel-based tribe took part in the many lawsuits filed against Playa Vista in its early days. Dora me was not part of the legal actions and some in the San Gabriel-based tribe remain angered that Playa Vista unearthed a burial ground during construction of Phase I. "We are not against development, but we try to balance the protection and the preservation of cultural resources of the burial grounds," Singleton said. "We expect (the ancestors) to be buried with respect." (See attached copy of Argonaut article)

3) It appears to us in an letter written to the City that the entity the City is working with is not an entity in good standing with the California Secretary of State. Why are you working with them on this project? In fact, it is impossible to even find out who they are, who is on their Board, etc. other than Patricia Sinclair is CoPresident.

We think it should be available public knowledge, both to the City and to the public, who Playa Capital Co. LLC is, and why their standing is forfeited with the California Secretary of State.

From Secretary of State Website:

Results of search for" PlAYA CAPITAL COMPANY, LLC" returned 3 entity records.

Pr!vacy St!!!!.m!!!! I f.!:!~~£«!!!!.!!lll.£?!.~ Copyright© 2012 California Secretary of State

4) The gas mitigation measures required at Playa Vista have not been fully implemented as required, such as all the 50' vent wells that were going to be required, and there is no mitigation monitoring follow-up that we can find. This needs to be investigated. Phase 1 and Phase 2 are inter-connected regarding gas migration issues.

5) The LA City Audit in 2007' by Laura Chick showed that things were not being complied with. Where is the follow-up on this audit? These issues need to be fully complied with. Oilfield gases at high volume are very dangerous, as shown in the Fairfax explosion of 1985. (See attached ETI gas map of Playa Vista)

6) What impact will changing open space from a large area to small areas have on wildlife? Already over 3,000 animals are killed annually in the Ballona wetlands area, and Phase 2 will bring 24,000 more car trips daily to this area that is connected to the State Ballona Ecological Preserve. This needs to be addressed.

We want a full public hearing on these unresolved issues. Please follow CEQA guidelines in this process, and hold a properly noticed public hearing, with at least 1 0 days notice.

Sincerely,

~#zr-&~k-Kathy Knight, Conservation Chair Airport Marina Group 1122 Oak St., Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 613-1175

Attachments: ETI Gas Map Copy of 5-31-12 Argonaut Article on Reburial of Tongva Ancestors

Exploration Technologies, Inc.

Plate I

Site Characterization

Plays1 Vista Development First Phase Project

Los Angeles, Cahfomia

Prepared For: City of Los Angeles Departm-ent of Building and Safety

199·2119104·2

.!'Print Version:.

Marina del Rey • Pla}'a del Rey • Del Rey Venice • Santa Monica • Westchester

Play«t Vista • Mar Vista !SHED EV

(Print Page)

Thursday, May31, 2012 Last modified: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 4:38PM PDT

finally at rest

Finally at rest

Second set of Native American ancestral remains quietly reinterred

By Gary Walker

The road to seeing his ancestors back in their sacred burial grounds is an obligation that Robert Dorame has shouldered for several years.

Part of his duties as the designated "most likely descendent" of the Gabrielino/ Tongva tribe includes reburial of the remains of tribal ancestors, a process that is a sacred component of Native American culture.

On May 20, in a small, quiet ceremony with few people in attendance, several bundles, which can hold several dozen fragile remains, were reinterred at Ballona Discovery Park in Playa Vista.

For Dorame, the final journey that his ancestors will be taking has left him in a state of tranquility.

''There is a sense of finality now,~~ he said in a recent interview near the site of the ancestral burial grounds.

The designation most likely descendant is a title issued by the Native American Heritage Commission that empowers Dorame with the discretion to select the final resting place for the remains of his Native American ancestors.

His feelings could not always be described as calm in his dealings with Playa Vista

THUilSDAY

5/31/12 5:45PM

over the tribe's remains. When Phase I of the planned community was in the space) in Discovery Park at Playa process. of bemg constructed, a Gabnelino/Tongva cemetery was unearthed, sight of his ancestors' burial ground. along with many cultural artifacts. For several years they remamed m a Playa Vista warehouse while Dorame tried to get the developer to return them to him so, as the tribe's most likely descendent, he could give them a proper reburial.

''Those weren't very easy times for me," Dorame recalled.

When Councilman Bill Rosendahl was elected to the Los Angeles City Council in 2005, he learned of Dorame's desire to rebury his ancestors. Rosendahl, who represents Playa Vista, acted as a go-between and soon Dorame took possession of the remains.

Over a period of several months beginning in 2008, The Argonaut interviewed Dorame and others who had been waiting for the reburial of over 1,500 ancestral remains.

http://www.argonautnewspaper.com/articles/2012/0S /31/news_-_features/top_stories/1. prt Page 1 of 3

.: Print Version :. 5131112 5:45PM

The first reburial took place Dec. 13, 2008, against the backdrop of the Westchester bluffs a few hundred yards away near Discovery Park, which had not been built. That day, members of four Gabrieleno/Tongva tribes took part in Native American traditional rituals in private reburial ceremonies and later that day, invited members of the public and press witnessed the reinterment of over 1,320 bundled remains of their ancestors as they reentered the ground where they had rested for centuries.

Rosendahl downplays his role in the reinterment, but Dorame said that without his intervention the reburials would not have happened.

"Without the councilman, this would not have come to fruition," he asserted. "Councilman Rosendahl has been instrumental in this from the beginning and he has been an ally in making this a reality."

Playa Vista Co-President Patricia Sinclair attended·the recent reburial ceremony, along with other members of her team.

"(The reinterment) brings this portion of the project to a close," Sinclair said. "We're very happy that the ancestral remains have been put back into their burial grounds."

Rosendahl said he realizes the importance of seeing the tribe's ancestors restored to where they had been unearthed.

"I'm extremely happy that these final remains of the sacred ancestors have been put to rest," he said. "It's closure."

Dorame invited Rosendahl to participate in an ancient and secretive reburial ritual a few weeks before the first reinterment, which few outside the tribe are allowed to take part in or witness.

Rosendahl said there was an additional reason that the reburial was cause for celebration. "It's fantastic news because Phase II will be starting soon with some low~income housing," he said.

The councilman was referring to the Village, the second stage of Playa Vista's commercial and residential real estate venture. It will feature 2,600 residential units, 175,000 square feet of office space, 150,000 square feet of retail space and 40,000 square feet of "community serving retail," including a shopping center.

Not everyone is happy with the reburial. David Singleton, a program analyst with the California Native American Heritage Commission, said his organization wa·s invited by Sinclair but declined to attend.

"We respectfully disagree with the landowners and the most likely descendant on the reburial," Singleton said. "We did not have the authority to prevent the ceremony from happening because we don't have any legal control over (Dorame)."

Tension has existed between some members of the Gabrieleno/Tongava tribe for several years, and challenges to Playa Vista are no different. Members of a San Gabriel-based tribe took part in the many lawsuits filed against Playa Vista in its early days. Dorame was not part of the legal actions and some in the San Gabriel-based tribe remain angered that Playa Vista unearthed a burial ground during construction of Phase I.

"We are not against development, but we try to balance the protection and the preservation of cultural resources of the burial grounds," Singleton said. "We expect (the ancestors) to be buried with respect."

One point of contention by those who take issue with Dorame's handling of the reinterment say that the burial grounds are not exactly at the place where they now rest. During the first reburial, Dorame said it was not possible to reinter them at a location much closer to the original cemetery, which is west of Lincoln Boulevard near the Ballona Wetlands.

The gravesite is shielded from noise and traffic by a fence and landscaping and is not open to the public. While these are not optimal conditions for a final resting place for his ancestors, with the proper cleansing and soil treatment, Dorame thought that his elders could be respectfully laid to rest in this spot.

His daughter, Mercedes, who took part in this month's burial ceremony, also approves of the reinterment site.

'\I do like the proximity to the original resting place, so in that regard I like it," she said.

Dorame said in his charge as the most likely descendant, he has tried to focus on the ancestors and not the existing fissures between some tribal members. "It's really sad to see that some people try to discredit others because they refuse to treat each other in an Indian way," he said.

Rosendahl; whom Dorame calls a "very spiritual man," said he is hopeful that any remaining animosity will dissipate with the

latest reburial.

"The healing process can come into completion now/ he said.

With the most recent reinterment, Dorame feels that he has satisfied his commitment as the most likely descendent. "I feel great relief," he concluded. "The reburials have been completed with dignity and peace, and the ancestors are now on their safe andpeaceful journey home,"

http://'NWw.argonautnewspaper.com tartlcles/2012/05 /31/news_-_features/top_stories/1. prt Page 2

--Forwarded message --From:Johntommy Roaas<tattnlaw@gmall com> Date: Wed, May 30, 2012 at 9:36PM Subject: RET ATIN -OBJECTION AND OPPOSITION TO I ON HEM NO.[ 9]/CONT- (28) 12-0753 CO 11 FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 60110-01-RECI/(Continued from Council meeting of May 25, 2012) To: sharon djckinson @laci\y .om councilmem [email protected] councilm em l>ar Krekorian @Jacity.aro [email protected] counci!mem bar. Labonge@lacitv .erg, nat!! koretz®lacity oro couocjlmemberc.ardenas@!acity pro councUmember a!arcon@lacity om CPimgilmAmber parks,@lacily om Jan Perry@lacitv gm <:o!md!membti!r wgsson®lacity oro Councilman Rqwndahl@!acity om coyoci!membar [email protected], CQ!lOcUmember garpelli@!acl!y om councilmember huizar@lacitv om councl!member hllSCflino@!ac!tv org Cc: Dave Singleton <ds nahc@pa£bell Ml> ftJ!?.. Vf v'r-1 Clete/( Off/a A'- F/t.A7

fltJetvLltl ::r:ww; 'fce.-RE- TATTN I JTR --OBJECTION AND OPPOSITION TO I ON ITEM NO. [ 9] CONT -(28) 12-0753 CD 11 FINAl MAP OF TRACT NO. 60110-01-REC'for property located at 12200 Jefferson Boulevard lying easterly of lincoln Boulevard. (Approve Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Contract IIIJ/1!1111111/1

ITEM N0.(9) 12-0753 et al. FINAL MAPS in the various Council Districts. Recommendation for Council action: APPROVE the Final Maps and ADOPT the City Engineer Reports as detailed in the various listed council fifes, including bonds, agreements, contracts and other related isrues as specified: 12-0753 CD11 a CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 6011 0..01-REC for property located at 12200 Jefferson Boulevard lying easterly of Lincoln Boulevard. (Bond No. C-120194) Applicants: Playa Capital Company, LLC Psomas (Continued from Coonci! meeting of May 25, 2012)

T ATTN I JTR -·OBJECT TO THIS ITEM [9J AND WE HAVE NOT BEEN LEGALLY " NOTICED" BY CITY OF l A ·CITY COUNCIL ETC AND NAHCf NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION OF THE OFFICE OF GOVERNOR THE NAHC IS THE TRUSTEE AGENCY AS DESIGNATED BY THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

IF YOU APPROVE OR ADOPT ANY OF THESE ILLEGAL ITEMS PARTS WE WILL PURSUE UTATION AGAINST All OF YOU IN US FEDERAL COURT

THERE HAS BEEN NO COMPLIANCE TO NHPA OR SB 18TRIBAL CONSULTATION OR NEPA /CEQA VIOLATIONS

ANY AFFECTS THAT CHANGE THE US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ILLEGAL PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT REQUIRE FEDERAL CONSULTATION

WHICH WE BELIEVE CITY OF LOS ANGELES IS VIOLATING OUR II:'IDIGENOUS RIGHTS I UNORIP INTEANATIONALL Y ADOPTED INCLUDING BY THE USA-

THERE ARE OTHER NUMEROUS NON-COMPLIANCE VIOLATIONS WITH THE CITY OF LA AND PLAYA VISTA DEVELOPMENT AND ITS NUMEROUS ILLEGAL SHELL CORPS I LLC'S

WE ALSO FIND NUMEROUS DEFECTS WITH THE AllEGED APPLICANT OUR RECENT VERIFICATION OF THE VAUDITY OF PLA VA CAPITAl ON I FROM California Secretary of State's database THAT IT IS A FORFEITED LLC

sb WE DEMAND THE DENIAL AND REJECTION OF THE PROPOSED II! CITED BELOW AS THE APPUCANT ISNT A LEGAL ENTITY AND IT IS ILLEGAL TO PROCEED WITHOUT A VALID LEGAL ENTITY

ITEM NO. (28) 12-0753 0011 FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 60110-01-REC for property located at 12200 Jefferson Boulevard lying easterly of Uncoln Boulevard. (Approve Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Contract with attached security documents)

(ADOPT City Engineer Report) (ADOPT Bond No. 0~120194) Applicants: Playa Capital Company, LLC Psomas

AGAIN IF THIS IllEGAl ITEM AND" ClAIMED CORRECITON " GETS ADOPTED BY CTIY COUNCIL

liTIGATION WILL BE BEGIN AGAINST ALL LA CDY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND MAYOR

Business Entity Detail

Data Is updated weekly and is current as of Friday, May 25, 2012. It Is not a complete or certlfled record of the entity.

12555 W JEFFERSON BLVD STE 300

LOSAN.GELES CA 90!l66

C T CORPORA T!ON SYSTEM

FURTHER EVIDENCE THE APPLICANT ISNT A LEGAL ENTITY

r~ Suspended or Forfeited: The business entity's powers, rights and privileges were suspended or forfeited in California 1) o by the Franchise Tax Board for failure to file a return and/or failure to pay taxes, penalties, or interest; and/or 2) ~> by the Secretary of State for failure to file ll:he required Statement of Information and, if applicable, the required Statement by Common Interest Deveiopment Association. Information regarding the type of suspension can be obtained by ordering a status report. For information on ordering a status report, refer toinformation R~~·

hltwlfwww sosca oovlh!Jsiness/be/cbs·field:§tatus.definitions htm

Status Definitions

o Active:

@ Domestic entities- Subject to any other requirements imposed by law, the domestic entity has filet! its formation document in Califomia and is authorized to carry cut its buQness activities.

o Foreign entities- Subject to any other requirements imposed by Jaw, "!he foreign entity has registered and is authorized to transact intrastate business in Califbmla.

o Canceled: Domestic and foreign corporations- The formation or qualification filing was canceled by the Secretary of State because the payment for the filing fee was not hooored by !he financial institution.

o SOS Canceled: Domestic ar.d foreign limited partnerships and limited liability companies- The formation or registration filing was canceled by the Secretary of State because the payment for the filing fee was not honored by the financial institution.

eo Suspended or Forfeited; The business entity's powers, rights and privileges were suspended or forfeited In CaUfornla 1) o by the Franchise Tax Board for failure to file a return and/or failure to pay taxes, penalties, or interest; and/or 2) o by the secretary of State for failure to file the required Statement of Information and, if applicable, the required Statement by CommQn

Interest Development Association. Information regarding the type of suspension can be obtained by ordering a status report For information on ordering a status report, refer tolnformatlon Requests.

!Sf JOHNTOMM Y ROSAS

JOHN TOMMY ROSAS TRIBAL ADMINISTRATOR TRIBAL LITIGATOR TONGVA ANCESTAAL.TERRITOAIAL TRIBAL NATION OFFICIAL T ATTN E-MAIL CONFIDENTIAL All RIGHTS RESERVED T ATTN f TRIBAL NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged infmmation,attomey-client privileged Any

review, use, dioolowre, or distribution by unintended recipients is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of tne original message.

lljij wi from: rex frankel, for: don't privatize pv...

Documents