On Thursday evening, November 17, at the CCUSD school board meeting, School Superintendent, Patricia Jaffe, introduced Paul Westberg, the architect whose firm prepared designs for the proposed sports complex, The complex is intended to replace the existing sports fields along Harter Avenue. Mr. Westberg aided by a labeled schematic of the changes presented the proposed plan to the 80-100 members of the community in attendance for, as he remarked, "its first vetting after numerous iterations."
In essence, the plan which is detailed in local newspaper articles, calls for movement of the existing football field 100 feet closer to the school buildings, the addition of a new practice field for a total of 2 practice fields, improvements to the existing baseball fields and overall improvement to the field coverings, lighting, bleachers and sound system. An elevator will be added in accord with American with Disabilities requirements along with a press box on the home team, or west side of the field. Jerry Chabola, the sports director of CCUSD, was adamant that the need for the complex was great given the present condition of the premises. The community present was in total agreement with the desire for an upgraded sports complex. But the community had a number of concerns and the item which was the most contentious was the proposed addition of 147 stalls of covered parking along Harter Avenue.
Some members of the community had no objection to the location of the new Harter parking structure given the District's statement that additional parking was necessary. But the residents of the area most affected by this proposed parking were united in opposing the addition of new parking on grounds that Harter was ill equipped to handle increased traffic and that the existing student parking lot was available if the District unlocked it when the public had access to the field.
A petition signed by residents of the area was presented to the superintendent prior to the meeting. Superintendent Jaffe accepted the petition and remarked during the discussion that the proposed plan was an attempt to remedy discontent with the existing resident issues of congestion and safety. It was her belief that additional off street parking solved the problem. It was obvious, however, that there were strong feelings against the plan.
A lively discussion followed where multiple ideas were proposed to alleviate the concerns of the residents. The following items were part of the discussion:
- Enlarging the student parking lot and making it available to the public when the complex was in use
- Moving the student lot to another area of campus and making it available to the public when the complex was in use
- Earmarking the proposed covered parking as disability only parking to in effect limit public use of the proposed parking
- Making parking on campus more attractive or easier for the public
- Restricting parking on Harter
- Red zoning portions of Harter
- Converting the three proposed Harter entrances/exit gates to the sports complex as entrance only/exit only gates
- Moving entrance/exit gates to the baseball field area of Harter
- Creating a landscaped berm in front of the proposed parking to solve the aesthetic impact of the proposed covered parking area
- Adding trees to the proposed plan
Some of these proposed ideas were feasible according to Mr. Westberg but he noted that existing law mandated that other aspects of the architectural plan could not be changed.
While the residents were interested in continuing the discussion of parking and other issues related to "green" concerns such as water use and reclamation given that the plan included artificial playing surfaces, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30.
Whether the District will amend the plan or provide other community input sessions was unclear.
Nancy Gulish is a resident of Culver City and a neighbor in the community bordering the new proposed CCUSD Sports Complex.
Thank you for your well-written meeting summary.
ReplyDeletePlease note a recent comment by Jon Barton of ACE-Community:
"While the Superintendent accepted a number of our proposals, she has stated that it will only apply to 'Future' capital improvement projects, taking off the table the current projects and our communiy's proposals for these projects."
I am curious whether the supervisor has the authority to make that decision on her own or whether the Board has already voted on this issue, which would be a violation of the Brown Act.