To: Culver City Council
SAVE THE CULVER BOULEVARD MEDIAN PARK - AGAIN!
SAVE THE CULVER BOULEVARD MEDIAN PARK - AGAIN!
We the undersigned, PETITION Culver City Council:
To reject the approval of the Culver Boulevard Realignment Project P-460 and the recently combined Urban Runoff Infiltration and Retention Project
pending further study of safety and other impacts on the community, and the adoption of community oriented and responsive design priorities.
The current proposal for the separately funded Urban Runoff Infiltration has a much more serious impact on the community than the original realignment project. It should not be allowed to go forward on the basis of prior public inputs to the original realignment project alone.
>We request that the city treat these combined projects as a new proposal and that any required public meetings be reset with October 3, 2017 as the first presentation.
The current proposal calls for bulldozing the existing Median Park and its 140+ trees, replacing them with 70 saplings.This completely ignores the outrage of the community three years ago to the threatened loss of the trees. In a recent public document the current unique median park built in the 90's is dismissively referred to as a " an abandoned railway right of way" making it sound so much easier to just bulldoze at whim.
>We request that its high time the median be officially declared a park. Perhaps then it will also be easier for it to be treated as such
The Urban Runoff Infiltration and Retention Project
The current plan does not address the impacts of the actual functioning of the proposed dirty storm water treatment facility. This would include filtration, accumulation of toxic waste on site, removal or renewal of filter media and toxics, the nature and frequency of ongoing maintenance, the locations and impact regarding noise or fumes of the pumping station, as well as potential leaching into adjoining neighborhood soils,etc . The current proposal is to completely use the entire area of the relocated median and to excavate it to a depth of 50 feet. This is directly above the water table and much deeper than any of the other projects in other local cities that are part of the proposed Ballona creek Watershed Management Program. Non of the other projects are located directly adjacent to residential homes.
The foundations of adjacent residences along Little Culver would be approximately 45 feet from a 50 foot deep basin holding a huge amount of water. The idea is to infiltrate a lot of that water into the soil. What will this do to soil around our homes? Does this have the potential to be a swamp? Will we lose good soil drainage under our gardens? How earthquake-proof can these deep basins be built so that they don't fail in earthquakes releasing the stored water, and requiring a destructive and expensive rebuild ?
>We are seriously concerned that the locally much wetter soil and the 50 foot deep tank would present a very different seismic profile with increased liquification effects in earthquakes causing much more damage than otherwise to adjacent homes.
> The current proposal tries to use the entire footprint of the relocated median. Can a park actually be built on top of a concrete tank? Will trees actually thrive in the 5 to 15 feet of fill indicated in the current plan? >In CC's RFP # 1656 P.6 item 5 , it was implied that the useful life of the facility might only be 20 years. Are we to expect a major rebuild every 20 years? The proposed project appears to be very over-scaled for the location in an attempt to force fit a need to place. The current runoff water Infiltration plan is more than doubled in scale, and impact, by including LA water into the project.
>We request that the tentative participation of LA water in the project be dropped and further reductions in scale be considered that would integrate better into the community and the park design.
>We ask the City Council to not go ahead until the true impacts on the community are fully addressed. A full and appropriate environmental impact statement may be needed to properly get answers, not the "short form" version in the current proposal.
If and when the above concerns are addressed and the project in some form continues:
The Park Rebuild
>We request the replacement of the berm in the first block from Sepulveda to Commonwealth. The 1990's removal of that berm and the large increase in noise resulted in serious property appraisal reduction for those along Little Culver.
>We request that berm, low park walls, dense foliage ( as currently in place) be given top priority in the redesign of the park in relation to minimizing the noise and visual impact of Culver Blvd traffic especially as the road will be moved even closer to Little Culver and adjacent homes. A berm should be continued at Harter and Huron Avenues not leveled as in the current proposal.
>We request that the lighting of the boulevard and little Culver be the current old style neighborhood globe lights and not the high...
We the undersigned, PETITION Culver City Council:
To reject the approval of the Culver Boulevard Realignment Project P-460 and the recently combined Urban Runoff Infiltration and Retention Project
pending further study of safety and other impacts on the community, and the adoption of community oriented and responsive design priorities.
The current proposal for the separately funded Urban Runoff Infiltration has a much more serious impact on the community than the original realignment project. It should not be allowed to go forward on the basis of prior public inputs to the original realignment project alone.
>We request that the city treat these combined projects as a new proposal and that any required public meetings be reset with October 3, 2017 as the first presentation.
The current proposal calls for bulldozing the existing Median Park and its 140+ trees, replacing them with 70 saplings.This completely ignores the outrage of the community three years ago to the threatened loss of the trees. In a recent public document the current unique median park built in the 90's is dismissively referred to as a " an abandoned railway right of way" making it sound so much easier to just bulldoze at whim.
>We request that its high time the median be officially declared a park. Perhaps then it will also be easier for it to be treated as such
The Urban Runoff Infiltration and Retention Project
The current plan does not address the impacts of the actual functioning of the proposed dirty storm water treatment facility. This would include filtration, accumulation of toxic waste on site, removal or renewal of filter media and toxics, the nature and frequency of ongoing maintenance, the locations and impact regarding noise or fumes of the pumping station, as well as potential leaching into adjoining neighborhood soils,etc . The current proposal is to completely use the entire area of the relocated median and to excavate it to a depth of 50 feet. This is directly above the water table and much deeper than any of the other projects in other local cities that are part of the proposed Ballona creek Watershed Management Program. Non of the other projects are located directly adjacent to residential homes.
The foundations of adjacent residences along Little Culver would be approximately 45 feet from a 50 foot deep basin holding a huge amount of water. The idea is to infiltrate a lot of that water into the soil. What will this do to soil around our homes? Does this have the potential to be a swamp? Will we lose good soil drainage under our gardens? How earthquake-proof can these deep basins be built so that they don't fail in earthquakes releasing the stored water, and requiring a destructive and expensive rebuild ?
>We are seriously concerned that the locally much wetter soil and the 50 foot deep tank would present a very different seismic profile with increased liquification effects in earthquakes causing much more damage than otherwise to adjacent homes.
> The current proposal tries to use the entire footprint of the relocated median. Can a park actually be built on top of a concrete tank? Will trees actually thrive in the 5 to 15 feet of fill indicated in the current plan? >In CC's RFP # 1656 P.6 item 5 , it was implied that the useful life of the facility might only be 20 years. Are we to expect a major rebuild every 20 years? The proposed project appears to be very over-scaled for the location in an attempt to force fit a need to place. The current runoff water Infiltration plan is more than doubled in scale, and impact, by including LA water into the project.
>We request that the tentative participation of LA water in the project be dropped and further reductions in scale be considered that would integrate better into the community and the park design.
>We ask the City Council to not go ahead until the true impacts on the community are fully addressed. A full and appropriate environmental impact statement may be needed to properly get answers, not the "short form" version in the current proposal.
If and when the above concerns are addressed and the project in some form continues:
The Park Rebuild
>We request the replacement of the berm in the first block from Sepulveda to Commonwealth. The 1990's removal of that berm and the large increase in noise resulted in serious property appraisal reduction for those along Little Culver.
>We request that berm, low park walls, dense foliage ( as currently in place) be given top priority in the redesign of the park in relation to minimizing the noise and visual impact of Culver Blvd traffic especially as the road will be moved even closer to Little Culver and adjacent homes. A berm should be continued at Harter and Huron Avenues not leveled as in the current proposal.
>We request that the lighting of the boulevard and little Culver be the current old style neighborhood globe lights and not the high...
Why is this important?
The bulldozing of the Culver Median Park that seemed to be prevented three years ago (our Move On petition then was noticed by the city) has now been combined with an urban storm water capture project that is part of a larger area plan to clean up water getting to the ocean. This environmentally important goal is, however, being used as an excuse to fast track the combined projects, limiting the time for, and responsiveness to, important public concerns about serious local impacts and loss of the trees. The public works department believes they have a done deal. The project is very over-scaled for the small area of the median park and the devil is in the details. Thus our long petition addressing those vital details