Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Playa Vista Bonds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council withholds vote on Playa Vista Mello‑Roos and housing bonds after extended public debate
Summary
After a day of extensive public testimony for and against Playa Vista’s proposed Mello‑Roos and housing bond financing, the Los Angeles City Council on June 19, 2001, withheld ordinance votes and continued final consideration to June 26, 2001.
The Los Angeles City Council on June 19, 2001, heard extended public comment and staff analysis on proposed Mello‑Roos special‑tax bonds and housing bond financing tied to the Playa Vista development, then withheld final ordinance votes and continued city action to June 26, 2001.
John Henschel of the Office of Administrative and Research Services (ORS) told the council the CLA/ORS study found the Playa Vista site “can be made safe for development” and recommended approval of up to $135 million in Mello‑Roos bonds for community infrastructure. Henschel told members the city’s general fund would not be pledged for bond repayment and that the preliminary official statement discloses “material” information for potential bond purchasers.
Supporters of the bonds — including Playa Vista officials, business groups and labor representatives — emphasized jobs, local infrastructure and affordable housing. David Nelson, senior vice president of Playa Vista, said the bonds “will help finance much needed affordable housing for on the city’s West Side” and noted the development’s commitments to traffic improvements and wetlands restoration. Representatives of PVJobs and local labor said the project has provided training and construction work for at‑risk residents; one trainee, Luis Medina, said he had moved from gang involvement to steady work through PVJobs.
Opponents pressed safety and disclosure issues tied to environmental investigations. Speakers including representatives of the Sierra Club and Spirit of the Sage Council, the Grassroots Coalition and the Santa Monica Baykeeper alleged that state and federal agencies — including the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency — had ongoing or incomplete inquiries and that some items were omitted or inadequately addressed in the CLA report and bond documents. Patricia McPherson of Grassroots Coalition said bond documents “omit material facts” about state and federal investigations. Steve Fleischley of Santa Monica Baykeeper argued public funds and public oversight should favor wetland restoration and citywide affordable housing rather than the proposed financing at Playa Vista.
Council members asked detailed questions about remediation steps, who bears the financial risk and what tests or approvals must come before development can proceed. ORS and other staff said the regional water quality control board is the lead enforcement agency and that remediation and additional testing would be done during phased development; infrastructure to be donated to the city must meet accepted standards before transfer. Staff emphasized that bond purchasers bear project completion risk and that the city’s general fund is not liable for bond repayment.
After hearing public comment, the council agreed to withhold final ordinances and continue parts of the matter to a subsequent meeting. Councilmember Eric Garcetti explicitly asked that the ordinance votes be withheld to allow further review; members set the next consideration for June 26, 2001. The CLA/ORS reports and the preliminary official statement remain part of the public record.
Why it matters: The council’s action affects whether Playa Vista can use Mello‑Roos special‑tax bonds and tax‑exempt housing financing through CDLAC to build streets, utilities and affordable units. Supporters say the bonds fund infrastructure and affordable units while creating local jobs through PVJobs; opponents say disclosure and environmental investigations must be resolved before bond financing is approved.
Council staff and ORS maintained that existing safeguards — official disclosures and the fact that the city’s general fund is not pledged — limit financial exposure to the city. Opponents asked for fuller disclosure and a public forum to evaluate technical evidence about methane, hydrogen sulfide and other environmental issues. The council recessed final ordinance action for further review and asked staff to produce additional information ahead of the June 26 meeting.
