By Gary Walker
Facing yet another postponement of the long-planned restoration of the Ballona Wetlands, local environmentalists are shaking their heads in frustration over the fifth delay of the state-sponsored restoration effort already stalled for several years.
A necessary environmental study needed to break ground on the project “could be released sometime in spring 2014, but that target could be delayed again,” Department of Fish and Wildlife spokeswoman Jordan Traveso told the Argonaut. “It is simply taking longer to complete the draft than was originally scheduled.”
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the state Coastal Conservancy are the agencies involved in the restoration effort. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also plays a significant role.
“It is unfortunate that the [environmental report] process is taking longer than we expected. It is a massive undertaking that requires and deserves a very thorough analysis,” said Shelly Luce, executive director of the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission.
The commission, which has its offices on the campus of Loyola Marymount University in Westchester, has done a great deal of the research, testing and gathering of evidence and information on wetlands species and habitat in the Ballona Wetlands.
The Annenberg Foundation is planning to build a nature center in what is known as Area C of the Ballona Wetlands that would include an auditorium, classrooms, a public lobby, exhibits on wildlife and domestic animals, facilities for an animal adoption and care program and veterinary facilities for animals.
Detractors of the nature center say the state is allowing the influential nonprofit Annenberg to build on a protected wetland because the foundation has pledged a $1-million donation to the restoration effort.
To Ballona Land Trust President Walter Lamb, the latest setback is a prime example of what his organization thinks are behind-the-scenes troubles between the foundation and the state agencies.
“To us, it isn’t a good reflection on how the actual project itself would be managed. There has been a lot of tension between Annenberg, Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission and the Department of Fish and Wildlife that we’ve seen in the e-mails that went back and forth,” he said. “Our best guess is that these groups still aren’t working well together and that that is causing delays.”
Luce said the postponement of the environmental analysis highlights how complicated the magnitude of the rehabilitation process for the wetlands can be.
“The delay is indicative of the broad array of potential restoration designs being analyzed and the very careful and detailed analysis that the team is conducting for each potential design,” she said. “We are all eager to see some form of restoration and public access at Ballona.”
Traveso said large scale and multifaceted initiatives often face interruptions and postponements.
“The delay is not at all uncommon for such a complicated project,” she noted.
Lamb speculated that the state agencies in charge might take unnecessary chances in an effort to start building the wetlands center, which was slated to start construction by the end of next year.
“We don’t believe that there is any possibility that the Department of Fish and Wildlife can meet Annenberg’s timeline of December 2014 to begin construction, which is referenced several times in the memorandum of understanding,” he said. “We are concerned that Fish and Wildlife will rush and cut corners to try to meet that deadline because so much money is riding on it.”
The wetlands group also thinks the public process provided for in the landmark California Environmental Quality Act will be circumvented by the state agency because of the delay.
“We’ve formally requested that [the state] renegotiate the [memorandum of understanding] with Annenberg,” Lamb said. “We are also asking for the public scoping period to be reopened, for monthly public meetings and a reasonable process to get permits for controlled access for things like bird watching and nature photography.”
Under CEQA, the 1970 environmental statute, a public comment period must be opened for a specific amount of time so anyone who wishes to speak on a project that is undergoing an environmental review may do so in a public setting.
Luce said one of the most critical components of the entire initiative is the environmental review.
“The CEQA document is really important. It must be done well and thoroughly, and I’m very proud of the work our team is doing, so I am having to be patient as well,” Luce said.
The Ballona Land Trust filed a lawsuit against the state on Sept. 11 alleging that Fish and Wildlife failed to provide critical information to them regarding the Annenberg project.
Luce said her organization would not stop their work in the wetlands, despite the continued postponement.
“We are in the fifth year of the long-term comprehensive scientific monitoring program at Ballona, with a focus on tracking the extent and spread of invasive plant species and assessing the health of the different habitat types,” Luce said.
A spokeswoman for the Annenberg Foundation could not be reached for comment.
Gary@ArgonautNews.com
12 Comments
Leave a Reply to Matt Horns Cancel reply
For information about our privacy practices, please visit our website at https://argonautnews.com/privacy-policy/
By clicking to subscribe, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing. Learn more about Mailchimp’s privacy practices here.
Nothing worthwhile is instant.
Nothing can be developed at Ballona until the Coastal Commission grants a coastal development permit, and they will do so only after all other (Water Board, Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife) permits are granted. None of those permits will be granted until the CEQA/NEPA analysis is complete and certified, and that won’t occur until the courts end litigation, which is inevitable. Litigation will take at least two years, so we are looking at a 3-4 year process to get to construction, optimistically.
Patience, care and a thorough analysis of all possible project alternatives, and incorporation of public input on each alternative are critical to successfully navigating all of these check points. We’ve done this many times before up and down our coastline, and we’ll do it again for the Ballona. We look forward to that day when the tides again nourish lands long buried by Marina del Rey construction, and the community can access well-regulated trails to enjoy the largest public open space in Los Angeles second only to Griffith Park.
David W. Kay
President, Board of Directors
Friends of Ballona Wetlands
David,
The issue isn’t that a complex EIR is taking a long time to complete. We support being thorough and getting the EIR right, even it requires additional time. The issue is that the project team so badly underestimated the timeline and that it isn’t explaining the delays or doing anything to keep the public engaged during the process. That isn’t good project management, regardless of how one feels about the project itself.
If you truly believe that that we are 3 – 4 years away from construction, then aren’t you a bit concerned that DFW entered into an agreement with the Annenberg Foundation that repeatedly and specifically references a December 2014 construction start date? I don’t understand why you didn’t raise this point when the agreement and timeline was announced way back in January, if you knew it was so unrealistic.
Why don’t you join us now in requesting DFW and Annenberg to amend the agreement and remove references to a timeline that cannot realistically be met? If the Foundation is willing to wait 3 – 4 years to begin construction then they should be comfortable stating that in writing. If they aren’t, then it is clearly a waste of precious restoration resources to continue to evaluate their proposal. It is not in the taxpayers’ best interest to have this discrepancy hanging over the project for several years.
Given your comments about public input, you could also join us in requesting that the public comment scoping period be re-opened, that the project team start hosting monthly meetings, and that a reasonable process be established for getting permitted access to the entire reserve for the purposes of bird watching, nature photography and other such activities.
Walter Lamb
Ballona Wetlands Land Trust
This article raises important questions and it is unfortunate that the project representatives did not give more substantive answers. The responsible agencies have been working on this project for many years now and were well aware of the complexity when they indicated to the public that a draft EIR would be ready by last spring. With that important document taking at least five times longer to prepare that originally estimated, the public deserves more information regarding the cause of the repeated delays and the impact of those delays.
It has now been almost a week since the Ballona Wetlands Land Trust sent our formal request for more public involvement in the CEQA process and we haven’t received any response from any of the involved agencies. We specifically requested: 1) monthly meetings to update the public on status of the project and CEQA process; 2) re-opening the public comment period for 45 days; 3) rewriting the MOU to reflect the new timeline and to incorporate public feedback, and 4) establishing a reasonable process by which groups and individuals can obtain access permits for the purposes of bird watching, nature photography and other appropriate uses. We have offered to assist the project team with all of these requests.
This all comes down to controlling the flow of information. We believe that greater public involvement will ultimately improve the project and increase its chances for success. The Annenberg Foundation and the state agencies they are working with have made it clear that they see public involvement as an annoyance. Leonard Aube, the Foundation’s Executive Director, called the public process “foreboding” and suggested that the state agencies would have to find innovative ways to navigate the entitlement process in order for their proposal to succeed. As this article mentions, we filed a lawsuit against the Department of Fish and Wildlife because they refused to share presentations that has been used to influence public opinion on the Annenberg proposal in a way that one DFW staffer called “deliberately misleading.”
The people of Los Angeles deserve better, and so does the wildlife that calls this ecosystem home. Whatever course of action is settled on for Ballona, there will be passionate disagreement. However, if we all commit to open communication and respectful dialog, we have a much better chance of an ecologically successful project.
Walter Lamb
Ballona Wetlands Land Trust
http://www.ballona.org
These seem to me to be reasonable requests. The rabid hyperbole against the proposed Annenberg Center seems to me to be pure nonsense. A few acres out of four hundred acres of restored wetland for a visitor and interpretive center seem good to me, even with their nonsensical other tiny pet projects.
Funny how no one is mentioning the all the homeless drug addicts that live in the wetlands. What is being done about them?
The Malibu Lagoon Restoration Project suffered many delays and ultimately took fifteen years to complete. It turned out beautifully. This project is much larger. We must all be patient.
Matt –
Earlier you acknowledged that your stance on the Annenberg project was based on not wanting to agree with Marcia Hanscom rather than on an objective analysis of the facts. Your latest comments give me the impression that you still don’t have the facts.
First, calling us rabid for not wanting a 46,000 square foot “urban ecology” center to be constructed on land that we spent countless hours and dollars protecting sends a bad conservation message. Surely you realize that all of the habitat that California has lost has been justified by the same “It is just a few acres” rationalization. What we are trying to do is pretty basic conservation – prevent the conversion of habitat into development.
I’m glad that you agree with us that the inclusion of domestic pets is “non-sensical.” Why do you use the word “tiny?” I think you are buying into talking points that aren’t supported by the facts. The companion animal component is the only reason that the Annenberg Foundation is involved at Ballona. All of the other components are to convince people like you that this is a reasonable project. This is all well documented for people who want to learn about the project.
Regarding the center itself, have you ever visited an interpretive center? How big are they in your experience? How big is the one at Malibu Creek State park? Are you aware of any similar center that comes anywhere close to 46,000 sq ft?
Regarding the delays, we need more than truisms about things being worth the wait. When the project manager from SMBRC is complaining that Annenberg has “never hit a deadline yet,” then we have right to be concerned that the overall project is being slowed down to accommodate the personal goals of one rich individual that is now driving this process.
Lastly, I’m glad that you think our four requests are reasonable. You will be interested to know that none of them have been addressed. No public meetings, no access, no extended scoping period, no re-evaluation of the MOU.
It is hard to stay positive about the future of our planet when we see an organization that should be in the “good guys” category using every corporate PR trick to convince well meaning people that Wallis should be allowed to fulfill her dream of a “Mayo clinic for companion animals” on land set aside for wildlife habitat. It is a true nightmare to watch to this unfold.
Walter Lamb
http://www.ballona.org/annenberg
Walter, in no way do I consider you among the people I call “rabid.” You and I disagree in a few ways, but we both do all we can to state our opinions in ways that respect reality and other people.
The “rabid” people I’m talking about blatantly lie to the public, engage in frivolous lawsuits, and launch personal attacks against people they disagree with. If you followed the debate over Malibu Lagoon you know exactly what I’m talking about.
Here’s a perfect example posted by some numbnut calling itself “Malibulocal” yesterday on a Malibu Times blog in reply to my post that provided factual information:
“The only thing mystical is someone believing the west channel existed 90 years ago……and that you make 25 an hour……. “
The Ballona Wetlands includes 600 acres. The Interpretive Center will occupy at most a few acres including the building, parking, and other infrastructure, which is less than one percent of the total project area. I find it puzzling that some are so upset about the Annenberg proposal while apparently paying no attention to what’s planned for the other 590-something acres. Of course all planned projects will be delayed for years. This is a huge project and we all want to see it done correctly. I consider any lawsuits at this time frivolous and a waste of money.
In my opinion, David and Walter and all other concerned citizens best spend our time and energy ignoring the Annenberg Center and working together to assure that the wetland restoration is planned, designed, and implemented in a way that will be successful and cost-effective.
Several years ago I attended Shelley Luce’s lecture and field trip regarding Ballona Wetlands upcoming restoration. Ballona looked to me a lot like Bolsa Chica, another Southern California coastal wetland that has, like Ballona, also been heavily impacted by oil well development. Ballona is a huge mess. In my opinion, a little structure in a little corner of the 600 acres does not matter much.
Matt –
I keep trying to explain that the ramifications of the Annenberg proposal extend beyond Ballona. We are talking about the State Department of Fish and Wildlife allowing a friend and major campaign donor of the Governor to build her long-desired “Mayo clinic” style facility for domestic pets in an ecological reserve and you have the Foundation’s Executive Director making all sorts of non-nonsensical statements about urban ecology in trying to explain why the domestic animal components should be included. Why should my daughter’s interpretive experience at Ballona we dictated by someone with no comprehension of its unique value as an ecosystem?
As I have also said many times, the ecosystem is already a fraction of what it was and the State’s own analysis indicates that we don’t have any surplus acreage to squander on one wealthy heiress’ personal project. The vast bulk of the money people are drooling over is to build the center itself, not for the restoration.
Go visit any other nature/interpretive/visitor center anywhere else in California. You aren’t going to find anything close to what is proposed for Ballona. Most are a few thousand square feet and the bigger ones top out at around 6,000 – 7,000 square feet. The Back Bay science center in Newport is 13,000 sq ft. The Annenberg proposal is 46,000 sq ft.
This is bad stewardship and bad governance. DFW has had this land for ten years and treated it like an unwanted stepchild. They have banned people who want to help from accessing the land and even ticketed someone who provided them important reports about fires and other disturbances.
This is the kind of apathetic mentality that has put us into the dire environmental circumstances we face today. With all respect, that any environmental professional can look at this situation and say “who cares” is a very bad sign for the future of our planet.
Walter Lamb
Ballona Wetlands Land Trust
http://www.ballona.org
Walter you do beautiful work. The thousands of damaged watershed acres that I have restored are doing quite well. To me, a few acres do not matter much. Please get past the Anneberg Center and focus on what’s important.
Thank you,
Matt Horns