Top

news

Stories

 

City Hall's Gift to Goldman Sachs

A vast upsizing of the Playa Vista minicity means $146 million for Wall Street partners

In 2009, Goldman Sachs had a very good year. The bank, bailed out to the tune of $10 billion in 2008 by American taxpayers, reaped a record $13.4 billion profit. While many Los Angelenos lost their houses, the bank's chairman, Lloyd C. Blankfein, took home $68 million in salary and a $9 million bonus.

On Friday, March 26, the Los Angeles City Council sweetened Goldman Sachs' pot — substantially. In a vote of 12 to 2, with Westside council members Bill Rosendahl and Paul Koretz opposed, the council handed the big firm significant additional development rights on 111 acres of property it co-owns at Playa Vista.

The vote allows Playa Vista's final build-out phase to dispense with land-use rules that permitted just 100,000 square feet of commercial space — about the size of a single Costco warehouse — to allow about 2.6 million square feet of luxury housing, a smattering of senior housing and about 341,000 square feet of retail, offices and public buildings — significantly more square footage than is contained in Chicago's 92-story Trump International Hotel and Tower.

In pure dollar terms, the new rights substantially boost the value of Goldman Sachs' property — by $145.6 million, according to land-use consultant Bill Christopher.

Because of city-government rules, the council must reconfirm its vote on April 6. Rex Frankel, an environmentalist who played a key role in protecting a large area of the nearby Ballona Wetlands from Playa Vista developers, calls it a "massive upzoning" and "giveaway to the wealthiest Wall Street 'banksters,' who, a year ago, wrecked the economy."

The dollar figure was determined by Christopher, who has consulted for Bear Stearns & Co. Inc. and developers Legacy Partners and Trammell Crow Company, and is a principal at Urban Concepts. He was commissioned in 2009 by environmental opponents to evaluate the additional development rights the City Council was weighing. He determined that without the bump in square footage, the land was worth about $5 million but would jump in value to $151.5 million with the new rights.

The agreement approved Friday goes far beyond what zoning and the city's Community Plan allow at Playa Vista, located between the federally recognized wetlands and the 405. Charles Rausch, a city planner, says the City Council's actions essentially "reenact" 2004 actions that were overturned by courts. In 2008, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge tossed out the council's planned expansion due to an inadequate Environmental Impact Report, which has since been updated.

Before the vote, Koretz asked about mitigation being undertaken to deal with the property's methane-seepage issues, and wanted to know whether simple extra measures could be taken to protect the area's extensive wildlife from being harmed by Playa Vista's traffic. "I couldn't get a straightforward, thoughtful answer," he says, "because it was so much of a done deal. They knew they had the votes."

The crowd at last week's hearing included Playa Vista opponents furious about the construction that will cover a major portion of the Ballona Creek floodplain, as well as Playa Vista supporters who live in or near the first phase — a dense, upscale development in which Playa Vista failed to provide a grocery store and other amenities that had been widely expected. The supporters living in that first phase hope the developer will finally include in the second phase services such as a grocery store.

Playa Vista President Steve Soboroff seemed less than pleased, even though he won the right to erect one of the largest mixed-use projects contemplated on the West Coast. He complained to the Los Angeles Times that Rosendahl changed his mind in voting against the expansion. In fact, the surprise switch by Rosendahl altered nothing.

Emotions on both sides point up the continuing controversy over how land speculators drive up the value of their investments by persuading the City Council to toss out land-use rules and grant major upzoning — a process that Los Angeles City Planner Gail Goldberg has publicly denounced as rendering L.A. zoning protections meaningless.

Community activist Jack Humphreville says that, setting aside the debate over whether Playa Vista is good for Los Angeles, taxpayers should get a piece of the pie when the City Council grants investors like Goldman Sachs such huge boosts in property values through upzoning. Humphreville equates such sweetening of land rights to a direct investment by City Hall.

He argues that in the business world, investments are rewarded with financial dividends. "We're giving [the developer] something, and in return we want 20 percent of the increase in value."

Playa Vista's politically connected president, Soboroff, who participated in a "kitchen cabinet" that recommended Austin Beutner as Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's new jobs czar, would not take calls, referring inquiries to Playa Vista spokesman Steve Sugerman. Sugerman says he does not know the dollar value of Friday's decision to Goldman Sachs and its partners, Morgan Stanley Real Estate Funds and union pension funds.

But, he says, "I don't believe there is an estimate, because it's not the way land-use planning" is done. Cities "don't look at land-use requests in terms of what they bring to the property owner."

Sugerman says elected leaders look at whether the land use and development fit within the general plan and provide tax benefits to the community. According to Sugerman, "Playa is generating millions of dollars for the city, jobs for local people and $100 million in transportation improvements in the area. It's a significant stimulus for the area and the entire city."

1 | 2 | Next Page >>
 
  • CJ 05/11/2010 2:51:00 AM

    Wow - what a fair and balanced article. (That's sarcasm.) I live in Playa Vista and drive from downtown every night and there is no traffic clog. If there's one on Lincoln, that because there is ALWAYS one on Lincoln. That comes from lots of people - not just Playa - who want to live at the beach. And before people complain about the community, which many of them have clearly never visited, they should know it has many benefits. I can walk to the grocery store (yes, we have one, but it's little), to the dry cleaner, coffee shop, doctor, and library. For bigger grocery store items, we have to go to the Marina because the Westchester grocery stores are either inconvenient (no parking at the Ralphs on Lincoln) or jankety. It would be great to have one in the neighborhood that I would not have to drive to. The community is clean and the people are friendly. Despite how many units there are, it is never noisy. It is actually a community - I'm a SoCal native and never lived in a place like this where I actually know my neighbors. People who complain that Phase II is building over the wetlands have no idea what they're talking about. Go look at the property right now. It's a shrubby pile of dirt. The Riparian corridor that Playa built is actually the best place to see different birds and ducks. All the people with their holier than thou attitudes about the development should really research what they're talking about. And if you already live at the beach, I don't think you have some right of priority over other people who would also like to live there. You all might as well let go of this issue. It's happening and it's going to be wonderful.

  • Allen D. Frankel 04/11/2010 3:28:00 AM

    I am strongly opposed to the Phase II development since it would impinge upon the existing wetlands and also to complete Phase I in an ecological matter. For example, I agree with the author of the LA Weekly article to the construction of a much smaller shopping center as part of Phase I. Do not want our tax money to go to the bank accounts of investment companies like Goldman Sachs. I go along with the restoration of the wetland in the area instead of Phase II to recycle waste through the natural filtration that wetlands provide rather than the expense of the piping the waste to a sewage plant.

  • MovingtoMontana 04/05/2010 7:06:00 PM

    I am not surprised by this comment, because I am pretty sure that Cyndi Hench is sniffing glue much of the time. Go to a meeting of this crowd, and you can easily imagine them passing it around. (Hench, president of the Neighborhood Council of Westchester-Playa, who lives in Westchester). "You have to go to the Marina to go to the grocery store." DID SOMEONE CLOSE THE 4 SUPERMARKETS IN WESTCHESTER WHILE I WAS ASLEEP? DID THE EARTHQAUKE IN MEXICALI KNOCK THEM DOWN AND I MISSED IT? YOU DON'T EVEN SUPPORT THE STRUGGLING GROCERY STORES IN YOUR OWN TOWN??????????????????????????? Cyndy!!!!!!!!!!! There are no grocery stores in Playa Vista! And for theat matter, no schools, no churches and not much of anything, unless you can live on a peach and a latte! WAKE UP! THIS IS BAD, SPELLED B- A- D for our town!

  • ICANSEECLEARLYNOW 04/05/2010 6:54:00 PM

    Who owns it? You must be kidding. WE own it and WE will pay the price in traffic, pollution, early cancer deaths, and some of the worst neighbiors anywhere. Remember the $135 million in Mello-Roos bonds to fund roads, utilities and parks, and the $33 million in Multi-Family Housing Revenue Bonds....and on and on and on. Bravo Tibby!

  • Rex Frankel 04/05/2010 9:38:00 AM

    As a 25 year unpaid volunteer working to make L.A. a cleaner and greener city, I really don't care to make a point by point rebuttal to Mr. Russell's fabrications. He's a developer and that's a tough business to be in these days, so I really feel for him....NOT! The reason Playa Vista's massive several hundred million zoning increase is back before the City Council is because of my organization's victorious lawsuit, which exposed the many lies in the project's Environmental Impact Report. We won thanks to the L.A. Appeals Court which was outraged by the numerous false and untrue statements that were used to sell the project to the public and the City Council in 2004. I suspect Mr. Russell was offshore counting his millions when that decision went down. For those that live in the real world and breathe and drive in L.A., when a developer buys and pays for members of the city council, county supervisors and State legislators for twenty years as Playa Vista and the Hughes Center have, we average folks see you greedy hogs as well-deserving targets. Thanks to the work of over 100 groups in our coalition, we convinced our State to buy and save the Ballona wetlands and uplands for the critters and hikers. A lot of us thought the price was too high, at $139 million (not $25 million as Mr. Russell says). Given that immediately after buying the land, the State determined that nearly all of it could not have been developed anyway under the State's Coastal Act, Playa Vista got a windfall. On the land PV held onto, our city hall lavished many millions in road bonds, housing bonds, tax and fee cuts, and outright paid for most of the road widenings and freeway offramps that were designed to serve Playa Vista's condos and office complexes. Yeah, Mr. Russell wants you to believe that developers fix the problems they create--BALONEY! Ex Mayor Dick Riordan made certain L.A.'s taxpayers and Playa Vista's condo buyers got the bill for all their "mitigation measures", not that it come out of PV's profits. It took a lot of people to save the Ballona Wetlands. Mr. Russell only credits people that were in favor of developing half of the land we saved. Yup--when you're a land baron, you have a different idea of what's a "green" group. We didn't give up when Mr. Russell's "friends" attacked us almost daily in the local papers. We didn't give up when the "friends" sued us using attorneys who were getting over $50,000 a year from the Playa Vista developer. We posted the famous Playa Vista 1998 Business Plan that revealed their funding of this group and other choice secrets on our website for all to see. Thank you, Tibby, for speaking truth to power! We will continue fighting to save the precious unpaved natural wonders of L.A.

  • Michael Russell 04/04/2010 8:25:00 PM

    Having worked for Howard Hughes Corporation, serving as the Vice President in charge of Howard Hughes Center, One West Bluff, an interest in Playa Vista, as well as Cahuenga Peak, the lots on the Venice Canals and the parcels at the end of the Del Rey Lagoon, Ms. Rothman gives journalism and journalists a bad name. She has made it clear that she has an “axe to grind,” is willing to make some outlandish statements to support her opinion and did not checked her facts. First, Playa Vista is owned by Playa Capital, which is owned equally by Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. Secondly, when one is dealing with a councilman, who has expressed many times in public that he dislikes developers, does not believe that land owners have any rights to their property, that government and citizens have the right to tell a landowner what to do with their property and this landowner is probably stuck with this councilman for another six years, the landowner/developer is going to do what they believe is in their self interest. This is only natural. Third, Ms. Rothman does not believe that economics should play any role in development. At this time, there is no demand for the Village land or any other land in LA. If there is no demand, there are no buyers. If there are no buyers, there is no REAL value. For Mr. Christoper to say that the Village property will increase in value from $5M to $146M, based upon the approval, is just factually incorrect. It was interesting that Ms. Rothman forgot to mention that the 64-acre Campus at Playa Vista that was owned by Tishman Speyer and Walton Street is now in the hands of a receiver. As it relates to Ms. Rothman "patching together a quilt of comments" that are unrelated, I would submit that Ms. Rothman, Councilman Rosendah, Rex Frankle and Bill Christopher have done much more to raise the cost of property and housing in our city than anything else. Let us examine the facts. In the case of Tishman Speyer, the 64 acres has no real value. For loan purposes, the land was valued at $152M, at the time the loan was made. (If Ms. Rothman is correct about the Playa Vista windfall, then East West Bank, who ended up with this loan after the failure of Key Bank, would have turned around and sold the property. Instead, they gave it to a receiver, which should tell us something about the fact that there is no market for this land with 400,000 SF of office buildings and over 1MSF of the Spruce Goose building and other ancillary buildings.) Fourth, it is clever for Ms. Rothman to use Trump's 92-story Chicago Tower as a means of conjuring up an ugly image. Here is the reality: With 111 acres in the Village property and development entitlements of 2.6M square feet, the floor area ratio (building area to land square foot) FAR is 0.56. This means that there is slightly more than one half foot of building area on one foot of land. At a FAR ratio of 0.56, the density of the Village at Playa Vista is less dense than downtown Santa Monica, Old Town Pasadena and Americana on Brand, which has a FAR of 0 .75.). What do they say: "Success has many parents." The people responsible for saving the Ballona Wetlands are Ruth Landsford, the founder of Friends of Ballona Wetlands, along with Jacob Lipa, the President of Psomas Engineering and Nelson Rising, who negotiated a $25M deal with Landsford, which provided the funding for the creation of the salt water and fresh water marshes. Think about this, it will cost $12M to purchase the 113 acres of Cahuenga Peak, while Playa Vista sold Areas C and D for $25M to the Trust for Public Land. Ms. Rothman has totally mischaracterized the role of Rex Frankle. He had nothing to do with REALLY saving the Ballona Wetlands. One way or another, he has been involved in over 25 lawsuits against Playa Vista and Howard Hughes Center. HE HAS LOST EVERY SINGLE CASE. He uses lightweight lawyers out of San Diego (No LA lawyer will work for him.) and he gets them to work on contingency. At every mandatory settlement conference, he demands money from the landowner/developer. Money is his motivation. At Howard Hughes Center, I obtained title insurance that allow the developer to proceed with the construction of the Promenade at Howard Hughes Center and paid him nothing. He lost this case in the Ninth Circuit Court. Ms. Rothman’s article states: "The agreement approved Friday goes far beyond what zoning and the city's Community Plan allow at Playa Vista, located between the federally recognized wetlands and the 405. Charles Rausch, a city planner, says the City Council's actions essentially "reenact" 2004 actions that were overturned by courts. In 2008, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge tossed out the council's planned expansion due to an inadequate Environmental Impact Report, which has since been updated." Again, Ms. Rothman has mischaracterized the facts. Playa Vista has lived by the decision of the Courts. Playa Vista was required to prepare an EIR, covering the proposed Village development, and they did that. Councilman Rosendahl made a request to Playa Vista that additional residential and senior housing be added to the project. Playa Vista was responsive to Councilman Rosendahl’s request, but this was not enough to satisfy the Councilman. Playa Vista is a show case project regarding "best management practices" for smart growth, planning, product programming, methane mitigation, the treatment of the environment, archeology and wildlife. The people that were the most upset with Councilman Rosendahl were the residents of Playa Vista. It is interesting that Ms. Rothman does not value honesty and fair dealing. All developers have to deal with how Councilman Rosendahl handles things. A person like Councilman Rosendahl justifies their "situation ethics" by believing that dishonesty is justified by doing "what my constituents want." In this case, he is ignoring the constituents who live in Playa Vista and the surrounding communities that have come to appreciate that Playa Vista is the only smart growth, master planned community in the City. This is the truest statement in the whole article: Cities "don't look at land-use requests in terms of what they bring to the property owner." West Los Angeles planning activist Barbara Broide is correct when she says, “residents of Los Angeles don't see the benefits that purportedly flow from such projects. She cites the continued deterioration of Los Angeles city parks, libraries, roads and traffic conditions — even after a booming development period.” "We don't see the tax revenue," she notes. "That's why people start to fight development." This is a true statement. In the last two EIRs I completed in the Playa Vista area, we found that there were over 65 "related projects" that were under development and, due to their size, NONE OF THESE PROJECTS WERE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE MITIGATION AND BENEFITS PROVIDED BY PLAYA VISTA, ONE WESTBLUFF AND HOWARD HUGHES CENTER. On the Westside, Playa Vista has made improvements to 162 intersections, contributed significantly to schools, set up and managed community job training program and numerous park, recreation and environmental benefits. At Howard Hughes Center, Howard Hughes Corporation and Arden Realty built all the on and off-ramps, the bridge over the southbound off-ramp and provided $2.2M to Culver City and much more to the surrounding neighborhoods, for a cost in excess of $30M. Even though there is only ingress and egress off Lincoln Blvd., One Westbluff built over $500,000 of traffic mitigation measures in the surrounding neighborhoods. Sam Ross, the late traffic engineering consultant, Peter Lauener of Catellus and I spent two years meeting with the community to come up with the street-by-street traffic mitigation plans. (Our mitigation solved traffic issues that these communities faced if One Westbluff had never been built.) Sabrina Venskus points to page 59 of the agreement approved on Friday, which states: "Developer agrees that it will use its best efforts, in accordance with its own business judgment and taking into account market conditions and economic considerations, to develop the Project in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Project Approvals." Ms. Venskus has completely misinterpreted this language, and Ms. Rothman did not challenge her statement. The language means that the developer will develop the property when it makes sense to develop the property. In an economic time like this, the City cannot MAKE the developer develop the property as a means of collecting fees or receiving mitigation. It is poor journalism to use quotes from people like this and then not challenge what they say. Since Terry Kaufmann Macias, who is not even involved in the substance of the matter felt the need to provide a quote "as to form and legality,” (Besides legality, what else needs to be considered by a city attorney.) maybe the City should refer the case to the City Attorney who opined on the Warner Ridge case in a similar manner. This City Attorney only cost the City $50M in the settlement of a lawsuit against the City. What all this proves is that that there are a lot of misinformed people in our City and the some media people are relying on them to “support an OPINION.” This is not good for quality developments, or for the need for top-flight journalists to write about these quality developments.

  • Kate Barner 04/03/2010 10:17:00 AM

    I think that it is obvious that Rosendahl and Koretz knew that this motion would carry and had the best of both worlds thanks to their colleagues. With a wink of an eyelid, the developers and City Council win, while the environment (wetlands), infrastructure, and our children's health is the lesser.

  • Cindy Kraven 04/03/2010 5:32:00 AM

    How refreshing when the media focuses on the real issues confronting our society today. In the context of this development project, for example, is the theme of how our elected officials continue to bow down to the wealthy and powerful. Our quality of life (and our economy) diminishes because our leaders lack vision and courage to do what is right, and not enough every-day citizens take the time to make them accountable. The Playa Vista development is a perfect example of a development that never should have been and had our leaders been visionaries and responsible stewards, it never would have been. Instead, in its place we would have more wildlife and park space for all, cleaner water, cleaner air, less traffic congestion, and a more hopeful future. I am hopeful that people do not give up fighting the greedy developers who own this land.

  • Robert 04/03/2010 4:31:00 AM

    Wow. Obviously none of the council members have driven down Lincoln Blvd at 5pm. If they had, they would know we have too many people living here already. (That is assuming they care, which they clearly don't)

  • Suzanne Thompson 04/02/2010 5:29:00 AM

    One of the best article ever written by Ms.Tibby Rothman!

  • Rex Frankel 04/01/2010 11:32:00 PM

    To "enjoy PV": The city didn't owe PV anything for the loss of their zoning on their Phase 2 site because they never had it! That's what our lawsuit proved. This land never had the massive development rights because PV used them up in their Phase 1 development project from 1993 and 1995, which features over 3000 condos and 3 million square feet of office space. That's why the approval and massive upzoning that the city council handed to Goldman Sachs on a silver platter for Phase 2 is an undeserved gift worth hundreds of millions of dollars. That's why we question what the public is getting in exchange for this massive pile of corporate welfare. There is no benefit to the citizens of Los Angeles from another 2000 luxury condos. Even assuming the new residents are all billionaires, L.A.'s hard-working mostly middle class and poor taxpayers will still get the bill for the added burden PV Phase 2 will put on city government. Doubt me? If approving PV phase 1 and countless other similar projects over the last 10 year was the solution to our budget crisis, as development-greenwashers claim, why is L.A. city broke? Why do our taxes and water bills and sewer bills keep going thru the roof? Because real estate developments only make the out of town profiteers rich--packing more people into L.A. is not a moneymaker--it never was--for the residents of this town. That's why we fight for our quality of life and our open spaces--because over-development is bad for our lungs, our worsening traffic jams, our remaining green spaces, but most importantly, our wallets. ---Rex Frankel, director, Ballona Ecosystem Education Project, plaintiffs that exposed the massive PV giveway

  • Enjoy PV 04/01/2010 7:37:00 PM

    City didn't pay Playa Vista 20% of the loss by the downzoning for the three legal issues, why should it get 20% of gain by upzoning after resolution of the three legal issues. Goldman Sachs only represents investors (moms and pops whose 401.k invests with them). Hardworking folks of labor, and other small investors (via other firms) own Playa Vista. So easy, and so foolish to pick on folks who invest in Los Angeles. No wonder you need the kinds of ads you run to pay for your paper, and no wonder it is free.

 

Most Popular Stories

Browse Voice Nation
  • Voice Places

    Voice Places

    Discover restaurants, nightlife, travel, shopping...

  • VOICE Daily Deals

    VOICE Daily Deals

    Get 50 to 90% off every day on restaurants, movies, massages...

  • Best Of

    Best Of...

    More than 10,000 of the BEST things to eat, drink, and experience

  • My Voice Nation

    My Voice Nation

    Join the Village Voice community and get exclusive deals and info

  • Happy Hour

    Happy Hour

    Your local Happy Hour guide at your fingertips

or

Log in or Sign up

Social Connect:

Use your favorite account to access My Voice Nation.


Use your My Voice Nation account to log in:





Forgot password?
or

Sign Up or Log in

Social Connect:

Sign up for My Voice Nation with your preferred network.


Sign up for a My Voice Nation account:



Privacy policy