Posted: June 6th, 2005

An Open Letter to the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the Annenberg Foundation, Lauren Annenberg Bon, Public Officials, and the Community regarding Corn at the Los Angeles State Historic Park

June 3, 2005

Greetings:

The Center for Law in the Public Interest is committed to work with community leaders (1) to engage in a continuing dialogue with the California Department of Parks and Recreation (the Department), the Annenberg Foundation (the Foundation), Lauren Annenberg Bon, and public officials, (2) to seek common ground on any short term project at the site of the Los Angeles State Historic Park, and (3) to seek common ground for the long term future of the site. We have stated a collective vision in our Policy Brief on Public Art in the Public Park: People, Power and Place.

We do have grave concerns, however, about the process to date to build support for the idea of growing corn at the Los Angeles State Historic Park. The community is responsible for creating the state park in the so-called Cornfield. The process for shaping the future of the state park nevertheless continues to be profoundly anti-democratic, with virtually no disclosure of accurate information, and almost no public participation. What little information has been made public has been contradictory and misleading. This is not the way to build public-private partnerships for state parks.

The information we have unearthed to date indicates that the soil is clean, and corn will not clean the soil. At this late date, no meaningful information, plan, and budget have been provided for the short term project on the site. The community has largely been excluded from participation in deciding the future of the park they were instrumental in creating. We have seen no evidence of a $2 million investment in the site that arguably — and only arguably — would justify the unprecedented step of turning over a public park to a private individual for almost a year through March 2006.

Our recommendations appear below.

The Soil Is Clean, and Corn Will Not Clean the Soil

The claimed justification for growing corn on the site — to clean the soil — has no apparent basis in fact. According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), as part of the soil remediation for the 32 acre parcel, 5,238 tons of soil contaminated with lead, arsenic, and petroleum hydrocarbons were removed. The DTSC letter of March 5, 2003, states: “Except for the groundwater, DTSC has determined that the Site has been remediated to allow unrestricted land use and that No Further Action for the soil is required. Therefore, the Site is now suitable for park development.” In September of 2004, 40,000 yards of clean fill dirt was placed on the site free of charge by another contractor. A state official has confirmed that the clean soil is in place for the Interim Public Use park in the southern part of the site, and the remaining huge pile is on the northern part of the site where corn is to be grown.

Scientific experts on phytroremediation agree that corn does not clean metals such as arsenic and lead from the soil. Dr. Rufus L. Chaney with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has stated that corn will not remove significant amounts of metals from the soil. Mr. Gary Banuelos also with the USDA has stated that he is not confident that corn will remove lead or arsenic from the soil. Professor David Crowley at UC-Riverside has stated that there is no reason for selecting corn for remediation. These experts agree that corn does not clean contaminated soil. The claim that the purpose of growing corn is to clean the soil at the State Park is false.

The claim that corn is necessary or useful to clean the soil at the site is contrary to the information in the undated “Internal Draft Initial Study” by the Department. According to that document, “In February of 2003, the Department of Toxic Substances Control approved the soil remediation report and determined that the site is now suitable for park development.”

That undated Internal Draft Initial Study indicates that the corn growing project cannot go forward now because it is too late. The corn was to be planted in April 2005. The corn has not yet been planted, to our knowledge.

In short, we have seen no evidence that the soil needs to be cleaned, that the corn would clean the soil, that there is any need for more clean soil, or that any efforts have been made to obtain additional clean soil for free (like the September 2004 soil).

Lack of Community Participation

As reported in the Los Angeles Times on March 23, 2005, concerning the March 21 meeting that Assemblymember Jackie Goldberg and Councilmember Ed Reyes called without proper notice under any state law, “[r]esidents ultimately voted to endorse Bon’s project — provided they have a voice in its planning. . . . Bon pledged to do just that.” Since that date, despite that pledge, the community has had virtually no voice in what is happening at the site of the new state park.

We wrote to Ms. Annenberg Bon on behalf of diverse community leaders on April 12, 2005. In response, she agreed to have an initial meeting with only two people, on April 21, 2005. That meeting was a good starting point for any dialogue, but there were no follow-up meetings as there were promised to be.

At that meeting, Ms. Annenberg Bon said that in her heart she felt she would not go forward with growing corn at the site. She stated that growing corn at the site was not an art project, but a science project, to demonstrate that corn can clean the soil. She said she would have follow up meetings with those community leaders in the event she were to go forward. She mentioned a dinner meeting to take place a week later. According to Assemblymember Goldberg, there would also be weekly community meetings starting May 6. Since April 21, Ms. Annenberg Bon has not met with those community leaders.

We then learned that on April 24, 2005, just three days after she told us in her heart she did not think she would go forward, Ms. Annenberg Bon and Wallis Annenberg on behalf of the Annenberg Foundation signed the papers to go forward with the corn growing project.

At the March 21, 2005, meeting, Assemblymember Goldberg stated that a decision had to be made that same day on the corn growing project, because the contract for the Interim Public Use park would have to be cancelled the following day, March 22, 2005, and because the process to prepare an environmental impact report for the corn growing project had to start right away.

Work did not stop on the Interim Public Use park on March 22. We have documented through photographs the extensive work that the Department continued to perform through May 2005 to complete the Interim Public Use park. Trees are planted, irrigation lines have been buried under ground, fixtures for light posts are in place, electrical wiring has been laid. We are informed that the Department continued the work on the Interim Public Use park because of the lack of information about the corn growing project, and the Department’s lack of confidence that the corn growing project would go forward successfully.

We have also now learned that on May 2, 2005, the Department completed a so-called “Notice of Exemption” stating that the corn growing project is exempt from an Environmental Impact Report — despite repeated representations that an Environmental Impact Report would be prepared. The Department has not circulated that notice of exemption to the Cornfield Advisory Committee or to interested members of the public. We do not believe anyone received notice of that claimed exemption until we received the document on May 17, 2005. We received it only because we filed requests under the Freedom of Information Act and the Public Records Act.

Lack of Information and Planning

The April 27, 2005, PEF Cultural Review Memorandum by Jim Newland, Cultural Resources Supervisor, emphasizes how little information has been provided by Ms. Annenberg Bon and the Foundation to enable public review of the corn growing project. The very first paragraph concludes: “This particular project review was hindered by the fact that the project scope and implementation details are still not fully developed as of date of review.” That memorandum goes on to state: “unanswered questions as to the type and location of irrigation planned (i.e., flooding, drip, above-ground), lighting, staging areas, amount of public use, and depth of agricultural vegetation require a vigilant program of archeological monitoring and coordination with the project proponent during implementation, maintenance, and removal of project improvements. . . . As such in order to attempt to bring the project into compliance with the aforementioned environmental mandates, the state archeologist requires archeological monitoring of all ground-disturbance, grading, and infrastructure installation — as well as removal of temporary improvements to ensure that no accidental or unexpected archeological resources are encountered. . . . Due to the existing project unknowns, it is recommended that very close coordination with the project proponents and the state archeological monitor take place to ensure that no unexpected impacts to archeological resources occur.”

The March 19, 2005, Project Evaluation by the Department states that appropriate treatment measures are not included within the project scope because “Not enough details are provided about the project to include a treatment plan.” That document also states that “There should be no heavy watering in areas of known significant features for the River Station.”

What $2 Million?

Public officials and others have trumpeted the claim that the Foundation is investing $2 million in the State Park for the corn growing project. We have seen no evidence to support this claim. Indeed, the Foundation has disavowed any knowledge of that figure.

Two Years without Information and Public Participation

It is disturbing that there are so many unanswered questions at this late date. Ms. Annenberg Bon and the Foundation have been involved in efforts to plan the future of the Cornfield site since the fall of 2003, but have refused to include meaningful public participation. In the fall of 2003, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) informed us that Ms. Annenberg Bon and the Foundation were interested in funding a symposium about the future of the Cornfield attended by a select few to take place in February of 2004. The Center repeatedly emphasized the need to work collaboratively and to engage the community and not to let any individual or foundation dictate the future of the Cornfield. We were nevertheless unable to arrange any meetings or discussions with Ms. Annenberg Bon or the Foundation to address these concerns. In February 2004, NRDC informed us that Ms. Annenberg Bon and the Foundation were still interested in doing a roundtable at some point. On December 22, 2004, NRDC informed us for the first time that Ms. Annenberg Bon had decided to abandon the conference and the symposium in favor of growing corn instead, and that she and NRDC had already met with State Park officials to obtain approval for the project.

Recommendations

Since at least December 2004, when Ms. Annenberg Bon decided to take over the site to grow corn, there has been virtually no accurate information about the project, as demonstrated in the quoted documents above, and no meaningful public participation in deciding the future of the Cornfield. We believe there are effective and fair ways of working with the community, but they have not taken place to date.

We urge a common effort to work with the community to achieve a vision for the state park that encompasses the struggles, hopes, and triumphs of all those who have struggled to create a park there.

1. The park in the interim public use plan (IPU) must go forward now to provide places for children to play and green open space for the community. The communities surrounding the park site are park poor and the interim park would provide ten acres of park space now. The park in the interim public use plan provides the place and opportunity for the community to make their own dreams come true and tell their own stories side by side with any corn growing project on other parts of the site. There is no justification for delaying the ten acre park there. We understand that the interim public use park will not be part of the corn growing project anyway.

2. The short term project must include full disclosure of information and full and fair community participation. The purpose of the Cornfield Advisory Committee as mandated by state law is to plan for interim and permanent land uses. The dreams of the community are as important as the dreams of any individual, foundation, or private entity in determining the present and future of the State Park.

3. The story of the people and the place — from the Cornfield to the Los Angeles River and El Pueblo de Los Angeles — must be told truthfully and completely from 1781 to the present as part of the inaugural project, and the people have the right to tell their story in their own way. The National Park Service at Crissy Field in San Francisco reached an agreement with representatives of the Native Americans on telling the story of the Native Americans at that park. That is a best practice example of the kind of agreement to be reached with State Parks, the Annenberg Foundation, and Lauren Annenberg Bon on telling the story of the people and place at the Los Angeles State Historic Park. People also have the First Amendment right under the Constitution of the United States of America to tell their own stories in the park. No one private individual or foundation or other entity has the right to monopolize the park, a traditional public forum under the First Amendment through March 2006. This site is the Ellis Island of Los Angeles. The community fought city hall and wealthy developers to create the state park.

4. The Annenberg Foundation should invest $2,000,000 in a seed fund to be administered and distributed as grants by three civic leaders to locally based organizations to make the vision of the State Park come true. The seed funding should be the beginning of financial support for the communities surrounding the park. Community representatives, State Parks and Recreation, and the Annenberg Foundation should develop a long term plan and strategy for funding projects from public and private sources that will benefit the State Park and the surrounding communities.

5. We should all work together to document the truth of the planning process from December 2004 to the present and beyond, and eliminate inappropriate and unnecessary rhetoric and tactics.

We look forward to a meaningful dialogue based on full information to enable full and fair public participation in deciding the future of the Los Angeles State Historic Park.

Very truly yours,

Robert García
Center for Law in the Public Interest

cc: Antonio Villaraigosa, Mayor-Elect, City of Los Angeles
Gloria Molina, Los Angeles County Supervisor
Jack Scott, State Senator
Gil Cedillo, State Senator
Jackie Goldberg, State Assemblymember
James Hahn, Mayor, Los Angeles
Ed Reyes, City Councilman, Los Angeles
Eric Garcetti, City Councilman, Los Angeles
Ruth Coleman, Director, California Department of Parks and Recreation
Ted Jackson, Deputy Director, Parks Operation, California Department of Parks and Recreation