Are They Really Selling Alcatraz at Westfield?

Cary Anderson

The Culver City Redevelopment Agency approved and knows the history of the Westfield Culver City outdoor signs, from December 2007 and May 2009 public meetings. The Design for Development pertaining to Advertising Content of the Westfield Culver outdoor signs said, "Signs will be used exclusively to advertise the business conducted or service rendered or goods produced or sold upon the property upon which the sign(s) is placed. A sign which advertises a brand name, trade name, product or service only incidental to the businesses or services conducted or operating at the Mall shall not be permitted. Goods, products or services are incidental if they do not make up a significant portion of the business”.

1) How do they justify signs that do NOT advertise the business conducted or service rendered or goods produced or sold upon the property?

2) How do the three TV shows currently advertised meet the Design for Development? How do the three movie ads?

3) Do they justify the blatant violation because the former Redevelopment Agency receives money and a cut of the advertising revenue?

Former Agency Chair Scott Malsin said at the 3/1/2012 Gateway Candidate Forum, "I'm really proud of the signs…” "They weren't my idea…” "They were proposed to us…" "When I talked with them (Westfield) about those signs I said, I can’t imagine supporting them, unless you split the profit with us, us, here, us taxpayers in the City of Culver City.”

From the 05/11/2009 RDA Agenda, "The sole purpose of the additional sign area is to enhance revenues for the freeway oriented mall signs which will be shared between Westfield and the Agency. Westfield indicates that the increased signage is justified because that was the sign area upon which their original sign revenue projections were based."

Pursuant to the OPA, the Agency receives a guaranteed base payment of $225,000 and an additional payment in an amount equal to 50% of the gross sign revenue received by Westfield during each calendar year. The additional payment occurs after Westfield receives a base payment of $2.2 million in revenue per calendar year. Additional sign revenue could increase revenue sharing to the Agency.

So this is how they justify signs that do NOT advertise the business conducted or service rendered or goods produced or sold upon the property!

They are allowing the blatant violation of us taxpayers!

When the mall rents out display space to a wide range of advertisers, it is engaging in "general advertising for hire," in contrast to the "self-promotion" function of a store sign. It is this economic independence that makes billboards legally different. Billboards are not just large signs. The content that does NOT advertise the business conducted or service rendered or goods produced or sold upon the property makes the signs by definition billboards.

The Redevelopment Agency's Attorney explained it clearly, “significant portion of business involved”. Goods, products or services are incidental if they do not make up a significant portion of the business. Movies and TV ads do NOT meet these criteria, so they are violations.

The intent stated by the mall for the signs was to draw in customers by advertising businesses in the mall. The billboards are only about advertising revenue and do NOT draw in customers with Movie and Television Show Ads.

How serious of a business are billboards? California Highway Patrol caught a person cutting trees in the 405 Freeway right-of-way adjacent to the new Westfield shopping mall in Culver City after the first sign went up. The trees, which stood in the line of sight of the billboard affixed to a corner of the shopping mall, were advertising a movie.  According to the California Department of Transportation, this blatantly illegal act is currently under investigation, along with six other tree-cutting incidents that may involve the issue of billboard or super graphic sign visibility from L.A. area freeways.

Don't believe me?  Watch the video above taken directly from the mouths of Council Members and Agency Staff.

Cary Anderson is a Former Member of the Culver City Committee on Homelessness and a Culver City Homeowner for 25 years.

The Wait Is Over: CCUSD to extend dual language immersion program through 8th grade (for Spanish)

Jenny Manriquez

At the urging of school board members, El Marino Language School Principal Tracy Pumilia, with the help of Flap Grant Coordinator Mina Shiratori, presented proposed changes for the Spanish language immersion program at the middle school at the May 2nd school board meeting.  The presentation focused on the Spanish program, but inquiries were made at the meeting about the 20-year old Japanese language Immersion program. 

CCMS is transitioning into a 3-year Dual Language Immersion Program (DL).  The main difference between language immersion and dual language immersion is that to be called a DL program a district must meet certain criteria such as the amount of time spent in the target language. DL programs often refer to Kathryn Lindholm-Leary’s Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education when designing their programs.

But why the need to have students enrolled in two courses? To reach higher levels of proficiency.  Culver City is going for it.  Administrators, teachers and parents are beginning to see the value in continuing language acquisition beyond 5^th grade.  We are transforming from a Maintenance Elective (1 class) to a Dual Language Program (2 classes), with the goal of moving from intermediate low proficiency levels to intermediate High/Pre-Advanced at the end of 8^th grade.

This means that students will spend 50% of their day in the target language, in this case Spanish, and 50% in English (Science, English Language Arts, Math and P.E. and any additional electives a student chooses to take).

The presentation announced the following changes to the program that will affect next year's incoming 6th graders are:

§  Adding an additional dual language immersion course: Social Science (core subject)

§  Students must take both the core subject and the elective Spanish Language Arts.  They cannot take just one course. 

§  Students/Families must commit to taking the two courses for 6th, 7th and 8th grade.  If a student decides to drop out in 7th grade, they will not be able to return to the program in 8th grade.  Instead, they can take the foreign language courses currently offered at the middle school - Spanish 1A and 1B.

§  If a student would like to take another elective (Spanish Language Arts is considered their elective of choice, they will need to enroll in “0” period P.E starting at 7:15am.

Heritage and Native speakers would be allowed to enter into the DL Program if they meet the minimum requirements for entrance after taking a language assessment. The addition of Heritage and Native speakers to the immersion class helps CCMS to achieve another important component of a dual language program:  a 50/50 class; 50% English Speakers and 50% Spanish speakers (Target Language in this case).  At CCMS we have more English only students in the Spanish DL program.

Mrs. Pumilia said she has three possible current CCUSD teachers in mind to teach the Social Studies course and is very happy with all three choices.  It hadn’t been decided (at the time of writing) whether the new teacher would teach the Spanish Language Arts elective for 7^th/8^th graders, with Sr. Hurtado teaching both the Spanish Language Arts and Social Studies courses to the incoming 6^th graders or vice versa.

At the School Board Meeting, Mrs. Pumilia touched upon a Phase III of the program that will continue DL programs at the high school level but explained the need for further collaboration, curriculum development and resources to get us there.

Emphasis was put on 2015-2016, the year that La Ballona DL students matriculate to CCMS.  The increasing number of Spanish DL students will require more staffing at the middle school level.

Parents in the audience and the school board asked about the Japanese language immersion program at CCMS.  The FLAP grant was used to develop content based elective courses in 6^th grade continuing through 11^th grade based on the Japanese program in Portland.  At the Japanese parent information night, parents agreed that their children were more engaged and challenged in the new DL format versus taking Japanese as a foreign language.  Mrs. Pumilia explained that due to the Japanese DL program’s lower enrollment it is a challenge (financially) to add an additional class. The School Board expressed concern for not being able to offer two classes to Japanese DL students like their Spanish counterparts and asked Mrs. Pumilia to provide them with an overview of what resources she would need to get CCUSD to a DL program for Japanese students as well.  Yes, Virginia there is a Santa Claus!

To view an abbreviated version of the powerpoint presentation, click here.

It was also recommended and championed by the school board to create a DL immersion “task force”. Parents, teachers, administrators and other stakeholders who are interested in applying to be a part of the task force can write to Michele Van Gelderen, the parent contact for the Culver City Immersion Education Group at El Marino. To join the CC Immersion Education group, click here.

Why do we need a task force?  The immersion program at CCMS is a small strand within a larger non-immersion population that must compete with limited resources.  Although we are fortunate to have a Foreign Language Assistance Program (FLAP) grant that pays  for personnel to develop the program, those funds will end this year. (Although I’m hearing talk about the hiring of an immersion coordinator!)  A task force would be able to keep the momentum going on developing a K-12 program in CCUSD. 

Another Guiding Principal component of a successful dual language immersion program is a dedicated principal or coordinator who understand DL. Mrs. Pumilia is the principal of 782 students at El Marino Language School and Mr. Pearson leads a student body of 1500 (approximately) at Culver City Middle School.  Both are without a doubt committed to the DL program but their hands are full!  A task force could support the work of a coordinator and other staff and keep the DL programs on track and on the front burner.

The ideal situation would be to have a DL coordinator working with Mrs. Pumilia, Mrs. Collins, Mr. Pearson, Mr. Farris and the task force to:

§  Work with all the sites to develop and communicate the end goal of CCUSD’s DL program. 

§  Create a timeline for the end goal and provide bi-monthly updates to the school board and parents on where we are.

§  Investigate how to expand the programs.  If we’re limited to expanding at the secondary level due to low enrollment, maybe it’s time to consider expanding the program at the elementary school level so we net more students for the program at the secondary level.  In fact, the creation of a DL strand at La Ballona is probably the single most important reason why we’re expanding the program (that and the FLAP grant) at the secondary level.  The number of DL students is growing and there is a need to be prepared for these incoming students.

What is the tangible end goal of CCUSD’s DL program? Is it a special accreditation from Spain or Japan?  Is it a biliteracy seal on a student’s diploma?  Is it having our students enter college just shy a few credits of a minor in the language they’re studying?  What’s wonderful about the questions being asked, is that they’re being asked.  

I asked Rosa Molina, Executive Director, of Two-Way Cabe, the Two-Way Bilingual Immersion (TWBI) arm of the California Association for Bilingual Education, what is the future of DL programs.

I predict that in the very near future we will see some 80/10/10 programs develop in California such as the wonderful model that is currently in place in Ysleta School District in El Paso, Texas and their wonderful program of third language offerings for their Two Way students (Russian, German, Japanese or Mandarin).  We have been engaged in this "language war" for so long in California, defending the rights of families to keep and develop their mother tongue, that we are losing sight that the rest of the world is preparing their children to master a world language as well.  If our children are going to be competitive in today's global market, they must have a command of more than two languages.

More than two languages!  Let’s go Culver City!

There is a group of parents who are investigating another option: International Baccalaureate (IB).   A large component of IB is language learning.  The IB program is not specifically designed for DL students although it is a nice companion piece.  Tara Fortune, the Immersion project coordinator at the Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA) says that IB and immersion are in many ways a great fit and sites the programs: Lakes International Academy in Forest Lake, MN and International Spanish Language Academy in Minnetonka, MN.

What’s interesting about IB is that non-immersion students can enter this program via the traditional foreign language option.  The IB program can be designed in many different ways (emphasis on the Arts, Science) and at all three levels (elementary, middle and high school) but what’s appealing to many parents is that it could bring language learning to every child in CCUSD whether they are an immersion student or not.  Parents interested in IB should contact Karin Shaw.

There are many things to be excited for in CCUSD and many people to thank for their continued efforts to improve DL programs in CCUSD.  As a small district, we may have limited resources but unlike LAUSD we can choose where to put our resources that best maximize our potential.  Si se puede Culver City!

Jenny Manriquez is a Culver City Immersion Program Parent and the Co-Coordinator of the 40th anniverary Immersion Symposium.

School Boards and Barn Doors

Jim Province

Controversy continues to swirl around the role of school-connected organizations in our schools, and while the School Board continues to work to create a responsible policy for these school-connected organizations, there are others in our community that seem to see the newly constituted board as inadequate to the task. There is now even a small group that proposes to form a Political Action Committee (PAC) that aims to promote “an educational culture that places the interests of students before those of adults” and “organize the financial and political power of parents to support candidates and issues that promote a student-first agenda in our city and school district.”

It would seem that there are at least a few parents/community members with a grievance, who feel they have not been adequately heard and who see a need to organize against those (school board members?) that don't “put the interests of students before those of adults.” More power to them, I say. If they have a message that resonates with parents throughout the district, they should find themselves very successful. I however will not be joining them, and I suspect there are others who, like me, may balk and wonder the identity of these villains that don't “put the students first.” I have not met any of these people here in Culver City. 

PreviousSuperintendents and School Boards have failed to a large degree in their role of providing adequate monitoring and evaluation of “school-connected organizations,” or worse, have turned a blind eye to some of the more problematic actions in which these organizations have engaged. This board has found itself in the unenviable position of trying to “ close the barn door after the horse is out.”

I hope we are able to avoid overt politicization of our school system(we have seen how well this works on the National level). We have one of our most talented Boards in some time. Let's all work with them now to develop and ensure meaningful and equal opportunities for all students and parents across all grade levels and in allschools.

There will be plenty of time later for politics and campaigns.

Jim Province is a parent of a Culver City High School student.

Students First, Not Parent’s Pocketbooks

George Laase

I have read various summaries of studies published on-line concerning the advantages of offering extended or full-day kindergarten over half-day sessions. Most of the executive summaries stated that there was an educational advantage to having full-day classes.

But it was only when I delved deeper into the reports, that I found that those gains previously cited were shown to be minimal, at best, and not at all long-lasting. The reports showed the “full-day advantage” was not long-termed because, as they put it, the half-day students had “caught up” with the full-day students by the third grade.

If there is only a short-lived advantage and no measurable long-term effect on student learning, then the only advantage in disrupting the education of the 70 Culver Park High School (CPHS) students is to reduce the childcare costs for the new, incoming kindergarten parents.

Is that what is really behind the moving of Culver Park: Only a decrease in childcare costs?

All El Marino’s 600+ upper grade students—second thru fifth--came through its half-day kindergarten program. Even though the other elementary schools in our district have had full-day kindergarten classes for some time now, El Marino Language School still continues to post some of the top API test results in the district—932 in 2011.

Since there is no state-testing done in Kindergarten, we should not expect to see a significant jump in El Marino’s API scores in the following years as these new full-day kindergarteners start matriculating up through El Marino’s upper grades.

Our Board’s Primary Responsibility

The last time I read the Board’s policy, it stated, "The Governing Board believes that its primary responsibility is to act in the best interest of every student in the District."

Yes, El Marino should have full-day kindergarten classes, if that’s what the school’s parents and educators want. But, what is the rush? If the decision comes down to choosing between El Marino parents saving on childcare and the disruption of the educational stability of the Culver Park  students, then, I believe our Board members would be duty-bound to protect the education of these 70 students until a new, suitable, permanent site is ready for them.

It makes me wonder if these old, yet to be refurbished bungalows in the back parking lot at Farragut Elementary, now destined to be Culver Park’s new temporary home, are going to be so good, as suggested by some Board members, why, then, don’t we just leave Culver Park where it is until a suitable site is found and move those bungalows onto the El Marino site and have the new, incoming kindergarteners use them, instead?

The district seems bound and determined to complete its full-day district program even if it means disrupting the high schoolers’ education. To an outside observer this rushed-into solution makes it look like Culver Park’s stability and its continued success is not as important to the district as is El Marino’s in-coming kindergarteners. And the finding of a new suitable place for Culver Park was only a mandated afterthought.

 This Board has already voted to start El Marino’s full-day kindergarten classes this coming September; thereby, putting these Culver Park High School students in direct conflict with El Marino’s full-day program.

In 2010, Culver Park High School was one of only 12 schools in California to be recognized by the State Superintendent as a California Model Continuation High School.  

It seems this Board is willing to put these continuation students’ education in a temporary limbo just in order to free up classroom space even before a new permanent site is found for Culver Park.

If you were to listen to the district tell it, it looks like the Culver Park students were intruding on El Marino’s school site. But, in reality, Culver Park had already settled into their school site long before the district had started its language immersion program at El Marino. So, it is actually the immersion program that is the Johnny-come-lately and is infringing on Culver Park; not the other way around. So why should Culver Park have to leave when it was at the site first?

The studies have shown that there is only a short-term advantage and no measurable long-term effects to attending full-day kindergarten. So the real outcome in removing this 2010 state recognized model school is just in saving El Marino’s in-coming kindergarten parents money on childcare by keeping their kindergartners in public school for a full day.

Again, this Board’s primary responsibility is to act in the best interest of every student; not in saving parents money in childcare costs.

The education of these 70 Culver Park High School students should come first, not the parents’ pocketbooks.

George Laase is a Staff Writer for the Culver City Progress Blog and a life-long resident of Culver City.

The Next Redevelopment Advisory Committee Should Include Everyone

John Derevlany

For four years, I sat on something called the Advisory Committee on Redevelopment (ACOR) here in Culver City.  I was often asked, “What is ACOR?  And what do you people do anyway?”

It’s a valid question.  We had no real power or authority.  Our meetings were public but not well publicized.  We were legally required to exist and give advice, but no one was legally required to listen to anything we said.

We were nine citizens appointed by the City Council/Redevelopment Agency whose responsibility was to review upcoming redevelopment projects and comment on them for the benefit of… well… whoever cared to listen.

In my view, however, we played an incredibly important role as a kind of “early warning system” for the community and our elected officials (as well as developers).  We were a group of relatively-random citizens whose job was to look at a development and let the city (and developer) know whether it was something that we folks in Culver City would like or not.  How could that be anything but positive for the City?

With the demise of the Redevelopment Agency, it appears ACOR will go away as well.  But that doesn’t mean we should abandon this citizen “early warning system.”  In fact, I believe the City should continue some form of ACOR and take it even farther: invite the whole City into the advisory process and expand the “early warning system.”  I would start this process by providing more information to everyone -- add a relatively simple, interactive “Development Map” site to our City’s website.

Right now, if you go onto culvercity.org, you will find an enormous amount of helpful information about our City and its services.  But it’s nearly impossible to find some simple information about what is being built in our city.  Sure, if you click around enough, you can track down some Planning Board material or meeting agendas.  But what we really need is a simple, prominent link on the home page labeled “Development.”  This link would lead to an interactive map of the city, showing all projects over a certain size (say, 2000 square feet or more).  You then click on the site of a particular development, and that leads you to a simple web page with details of the project, along with some basic maps, elevation drawings, architectural models, etc.

Why should we do something like this?  Don’t existing laws require developers to inform neighbors about their projects?  Yes, but only in the immediate area around each project.  However, a development at the West end of Washington often impacts people on Sepulveda and downtown (and vice versa).  Yet unless you live within a few hundred feet of that proposed project, you will most likely not be aware of it until it is almost ready to break ground.

This is what I learned in four years on ACOR.  There are dozens of large and small projects planned for sites all over Culver City.  Yet no one knows anything about them. 

Are folks aware of the large developments planned for the Metro Station area?  What about the Faneuil Hall-style project at Centinela and Washington?  Or the renovations planned for the old Albertsons Chevrolet site at Washington and Sepulveda? 

Some of these projects are really positive for the City (like the ones at Albertsons and on Centinela), while some… well… they may need some work.  The point is: these projects will only get better as more people are informed about them.

But I propose we go further than just providing information to the community.  We should also let people comment on each of these projects early in the process.  Each project should have its own webpage on the city’s site, with details of the development, and an area for citizens to post comments.  These comments would be moderated.  No anonymous postings would be allowed, and some kind of verification process would be employed to make sure all commentators are “real people” and not just cranks and/or competitors. 

The point of this commentary is not to be pro-development or anti-development.  The point is to get as much “advice” as early as possible, for the benefit of the community, City Hall, and developers.  This is what we used to do in ACOR, but it would be open to EVERYONE in the City.

A site like this obviously has some costs involved.  The development pages would be relatively simple, as would the interactive map, but we would still need some City staff time to moderate the site.  Given the current financial situation at City Hall, this “Development” site MUST be self-supporting in order to survive future budget cuts.  That’s why I propose that the program is funded by a small developer fee ($100-$200 per project). 

Developers already have to pay plenty of fees to the City before they build anything, and many of them will complain about this.  But complaints about the fee, I feel, will only come from the “bad” developers, with bad projects. 

Good developers will be happy to participate in our “early warning system.”  Community opposition to a project only increases development costs and lowers profit.  A good developer will want to know about that kind of opposition before he/she invests too heavily in a site.  A Good Developer will also see the Interactive Development Map as a marketing tool – one more website for him/her to tout a new project.

In the future, when someone asks me what “ACOR” is all about, I hope to be able to tell them: “It was what we used to have before the City started that interactive Development Map with public comments on its website.”  Our “early warning system” can continue to thrive, and build a better Culver City.

John Derevlany is a former Member of the Culver City Advisory Committee on Redevelopment.

Mayoral Rotation Goes Counter-clockwise, Again

Gary Silbiger

For  the  second  time in 3 years, there has been some controversy surrounding the choice by the City Council of Culver City over who should become mayor.  This is no small deal.  The mayor helps structure the City Council agenda, chairs the meetings, and represents the City in many capacities. The aura of the title of “mayor” gives additional power in the minds of many, influencing the political direction that the city follows.  In 2009, the City had a 12 year consistent unwritten policy about rotation of the mayor.  This year, the Council had a written policy.  Neither one worked because the Council decided to ignore the precedents and intention of a fair selection process.  Interestingly enough, both Councils selected Andrew Weissman who successfully campaigned twice on promises of bringing civility to city government.

Let’s begin exploring the 2009 mayor selection and then look at the 2012 process.

In 2009, the City Council was given the choice of selecting the current vice-mayor as the next mayor.  We have to go back in time to 1997 to find a sitting vice-mayor – Mike Balkman (whose name is used for the Council chamber) - who was passed over by his colleagues to become the next mayor.  Tempers flared and accusations hurled during that 1997 vote.  Yet for 12 years afterward, each vice-mayor was quickly chosen at the conclusion of the term to become mayor.  This one year period as vice-mayor gives training, both in terms of occasional chairing of meetings and representing the City at community events, for the inevitable mayoral position.  Equally important, the April mayoral selection process should give predictability and good will to our community and Council members.

The precedent was overwhelming.  Yet,  at the April 27, 2009 meeting, Councilmember O’Leary quickly nominated Councilmember Weissman for mayor stating he had gained the necessary skills of acting as the mayor during his year as Redevelopment Agency chair.  At that time, I had served as vice-mayor the previous year and Councilmember Armenta nominated me to become mayor.  When the vote was taken, Weissman became mayor by a 3 to 2 vote.  Weissman explained, “Fairness requires that we all have an opportunity to serve once before anyone has an opportunity to service twice”. 

The serious disagreements caused by that vote led to a Council meeting on May 18, 2009  to discuss implementing a policy about the rotation of the mayor.  Councilmember Armenta explained that a written policy on rotation of mayor will lead to a celebratory selection rather than resulting in a fight.  Councilmember Weissman proposed that “It’s a matter of equity and fairness.  It establishes rotation one year in advance when vice-mayor is selected. Otherwise, it would perpetuate the process of who can get 3 votes.  I prefer an orderly process.”  The Councilmembers passed  the motion for City staff to bring back a policy which used as a model Beverly Hills’ policy as well as the fairness ideas of Weissman. 

On February 8, 2010, the City Council adopted City Policy 2010-01 entitled “Mayoral Rotation”. 

In 2012 the selection of the mayor took another twist with unfortunate results.

When the selection of mayor inevitably came before the Council on April 23, 2012, the rules required the vice-mayor to rotate into the mayor’s seat.  However, due to vice-mayor Malsin’s resignation in 2011, there was no vice-mayor in place.  The Council policy does not cover every scenario, but does have both helpful language and the intentions as stated by the Councilmembers at the time of its passage.  The Council policy states that the vice mayor shall be the most senior member in length of uninterrupted service who has not previously served as vice mayor.  If all members have served as vice mayor, then the position will be filled by the member who has not served in that role for the longest time. 

When we evaluate a policy, we first look at the clear meaning of that policy.  If we can fully understand the policy in terms of the current issue, then it must be followed.  Here, there was no vice mayor at the time of the voting for the mayor, so there was no Council member who would automatically advance to become mayor.  Therefore, we have to look at the (1) logical meaning of the policy and (2) the City Council’s intention at the time of enactment. 

Although this Council policy is silent about the order of the mayor when no vice mayor exists, the wording demonstrates that the mayor must be the “member who has not served in that role for the longest time” because that would be the case if a vice mayor had been previously chosen.  Reviewing the Council statements from the 2009 meetings – “fairness requires that we  all have an opportunity to serve once before anyone has an opportunity to serve twice” – the only proper selection of mayor this year would have been Jeff Cooper.  However, Cooper declined the nomination of Councilmember O’Leary.  This raises another point:  Should a Councilmember be able to reject the mayors office when it is his/her term to serve?  If so, that Councilmember should not be able to choose the “correct” time to serve as mayor because it would avoid the fairness this policy is built on.  If Cooper wanted to wait another year because he wished to be mayor in his last year, or thought Weissman was more qualified, or any other purpose, once again the Council would be letting power politics overshadow the fairness and equality that is best for Culver City and required by the Council policy. 

Therefore, Councilmember Cooper was the appropriate Councilmember to become mayor in 2012 for 2 reasons:  (1) although the Council policy fails to explicitly select the mayor when a vice mayor does not exist, it does imply that procedure when requiring the vice mayor to be chosen from the Councilmember who is most senior in length of uninterrupted service who has not previously served as vice mayor because (s)he will become the mayor “the following year”, and (2) Councilmember Weissman explained in 2009 that “fairness requires that we all have an opportunity to serve [as mayor] once before anyone has an opportunity to serve twice”.  This policy statement was specifically sent to staff as part of the motion creating the mayor rotation policy that was later approved.

How do we fix the mayor rotation policy?  The next step should be agendizing a discussion about reforming the Council Policy on Mayoral Rotation so the lessons we’ve recently learned can be implemented in a revised and fair new policy.  This new policy should specifically state the selection process of a vice-mayor when none exists – either because the vice-mayor is ill, resigns or can not serve - as well as the selection of the mayor when no vice mayor exists.  Each of the 5 Councilmembers has been elected by our whole City to serve everyone and should have a fair opportunity to lead for the one year term.  This will lead to the predictability and fairness needed to begin a new year of the Council.  Our community expects no less.

Gary Silbiger is the Co-Editor of the Culver City Progress Blog and the Former Mayor of Culver City.

Encouraging Everyone to Make Better Use of Culver City's Parks

June Scott

As cities around the world grapple with challenges related to climate change, Culver City has an important opportunity to ensure that its parks and other open spaces play a rolein helping the city adapt to the effects of global warming. The Culver City Green Space Plan is a planning study designed to promote an urban environment that  enhances personal and environmental health via the city’s parks, bicycle paths and open spaces. It also aims increase the value of these spaces to a broad segment of the local community through increased chances for passive recreation, or wellness activities.

We want all to lend their voices to the discussion. 2 public workshops have been held where all have been able to exchange ideas about the types of passive recreation they would like to see and do in the city's parks and open spaces.  Subsequent workshops will focus on preliminary designs for possible improvements.

Some Background on the Project

North East Trees is a non-profit organization devoted to designing, constructing and preserving open space in Los Angeles through sustainable park, streetscape and schoolyard projects. In 2011, North East Trees, together with the city of Culver City, was awarded a grant from the State of California Strategic Growth Council (SGC) under the Proposition 84 Urban Greening Planning Program for Sustainable Communities. This program provides funds for projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide multiple benefits, such as: developing a healthy community, decreasing air and water pollution, reducing the consumption of natural resources and energy, increasing the reliability of local water supplies and increasing adaptability to climate change.

Listening to the Community

The Green Space Plan is being developed through an extended period of community outreach. North East Trees has partnered with Ballona Creek Renaissance and Culver City Unified School District for community and student outreach. During February and March 2012, Culver City high school students helped poll over 200 residents about their ideas for passive recreation. An online survey reached 400 more respondents throughout the city.

People Friendly, Eco Friendly

One goal of the planning project is to provide passive recreational open space within walking distance of all the Culver City neighborhoods, to help promote walkable neighborhoods and a healthy lifestyle. In the past, active recreation facilities, such as ball fields and sports courts, were given the primary focus when the city’s parks were designed, with little attention paid to passive or “unprogrammed” spaces. Those passive spaces present an excellent opportunity to expand the number experiences available to

park visitors and to increase the value of the parks to an expanded public, such as seniors, people with disabilities, indiiduals without children, and children not participating in organized sports.

In addition, the plan will suggest ways to educate the community about environmental issues, such as water pollution, green house gasses and energy and water conservation-promoting environmental stewardship through site-specific uses. It will outline steps to create ecologically functional, water-wise, low maintenance park spaces and monitor their success.

The Green Space Plan will result in a vision for the conversion of existing public open space to passive recreational space based on community input; this will be in addition to already existing ball fields and other active recreation. From there, five design concepts will be developed for future implementation. This fall, a planning document will be developed that outlines the final vision for passive recreation spaces in Culver City.

 

June Scott is a Landscape Designer for Notheast Trees and a Member of the Culver City Green Space Plan Committee.