Locals Reject Potrero Plan

A crowd of almost 200 attended last Wednesday’s workshop on the proposed park for Potrero Canyon, held at the old gymnasium on Alma Real. Many of them arrived ready to pounce on the consensus plan even before the meeting began. The buzz was palpable as they previewed the mock-up of the site set up on a table near the microphone. At least three dozen residents participated in the earlier walking tour of the canyon, and even more signed up to speak during the public comment period in which each person was given three minutes. Attending the meeting, after having taken the walking tour, was Pam Emerson, head of the California Coastal Commission, which must approve what is eventually built in the proposed park. Following a short overview of the project by committee chairman George Wolfberg, recreation subcommittee head David Card explained the constraints his committee faced in coming up with the plan, the most contentious being the proposed access points from the west rim which Card said his committee had recommended in order to provide easier access for residents, emergency personnel, and to encourage “more eyes and ears to watch and protect the canyon.” Before the end of the evening, Card would be seriously challenged on all three points. Also challenged was the committee’s proposal to eliminate one or two of the tennis courts at the Frontera entrance to provide more parking, the proposed pedestrian bridge which would be built at the mouth of the canyon to provide safe beach access, as well as the suggestion of an off-leash dog park on the former Occidental site bordering PCH. Card noted that completion of the park would take years even if funds could be found to start work right away. He pointed out that while his committee had been planning for a year to come up with a plan, a community consensus on exactly how the canyon would be used was now needed before proceeding further. He answered some questions and encouraged everyone to fill out a questionnaire on their preferences for the site. However , when it came time to speak, most residents didn’t seem to care why the Potrero project has been stalled for almost a decade (lack of funds), the Coastal Commission requirements for the three-and-a-half acre site (that there be a riparian habitat, additional parking and a fire road from one end of the canyon to the other), or whether a cistern should be built (to capture and recycle water for irrigation). Their concerns were more basic, such as: “Why do we even need the park? The canyon is fine the way it is.” Many residents decided to take City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, who opened the meeting, to his word. After thanking the advisory committee for “all their hard work,” the community for participating, and his staff (including his legal counsel and former Community Council chairman Norman Kulla and field deputy Andrea Epstein) for creating a forum which he saw as “democracy in action,” Rosendahl encouraged everyone to “speak their minds,” which they did. He also encouraged them “to build consensus,” which proved to be impossible. While the purpose of the meeting was to seek the community’s input, the general consensus by the end of the evening was: “We don’t want a park. We don’t need a park. It’s just going to make the traffic worse!” Some residents who live near the rim said they didn’t even want “a bike path” or “picnic tables. It’s just going to encourage crime.” The controversial Potrero project, which has been ongoing since the mid-1980s, has been on hold the past year because of funding difficulties. The advisory committee, working with Rosendahl’s office, is hoping to obtain Coastal Commission approval to sell two city-owned lots on Alma Real to provide funding to complete Phase II grading and begin Phase III plans for the proposed park. A dozen residents who live on the west rim of the canyon showed up at last month’s Potrero Canyon Citizens Advisory Committee meeting to protest the proposed plan to provide four additional access routes to the new park. Originally, only two entrances were envisioned’one from the top of the canyon at the end of the Frontera parking lot and the other from Pacific Coast Highway. Both are fraught with difficulties. To provide up to 30 new spaces in the Frontera parking lot (below the playing fields), the committee indicated that at least one and maybe two of the eight existing tennis courts would have to be relocated. And to access the park from PCH, the committee is proposing a pedestrian bridge over the highway so that park users can utilize the existing parking lot at Will Rogers State Beach, where parking is generally $7. At that meeting Card explained that another reason to provide four additional access routes’two from De Pauw, one from Earlham, another from Friends’was to mitigate parking woes at the Recreation Center. However, residents weren’t buying it, judging by their comments last Wednesday. Huntington resident Craig Weston said that while he likes the park idea he does not like “the congestion it will bring.” He wanted to know how much more abuse his neighborhood will have to endure considering “how bad the traffic and parking already are because of all the nearby schools.” Alma Real resident Val Clifford pointed out that “gracious park neighbors have already allowed partial skate park and ball fields.” She sees the need for a stop sign at Chapala and Alma Real, speed enforcement and speed bumps, as well as EIR and traffic studies. Huntington resident Marie Peterson urged the committee to “leave the canyon alone. The park is beautiful as it is and should be preserved.” She sees no need for a second community park. Lucia Ludiviccio wants a poll to see if residents even want a park in Potrero. She’s “very much against it.” Resident Mark Victor is opposed to picnics, beach access and spending money. “Why all this effort into this park?” He wants residents who are directly affected by the proposal added to the working committee. Huntington resident Stacia Wells represents Palisades Advocates for Dogs (PAD). She would like to see an off-leash dog park in the meadow area rather than the former Oxy site which is no good “because of traffic and noise.” Jan Chatten-Brown, who lives on Via de la Paz, feels that if there’s going to be a park, “make it nicer and passive, more like Los Liones with a seasonal stream.” As co-chair of PAD she would prefer the off-leash dog area on top of the cistern. Resident William Moran showed a petition opposing both the dog park and west rim access, which he said already had 77 signatures. Resident Doug Fuchs, after thanking the advisory committee for their hard work, said he sees a groundswell of opposition to this park. He owns a lot there and will soon be building a house. He feels only a fraction of Palisades residents even know what’s going on. He thinks west rim access would change the character of the neighborhood, bring trash and security problems. He told Card that his rational for west rim access was not justified, considering that “it is not wanted by the neighbors” and residents should not be put in the position of having to “deputize the proposed park. That is not our job,” he said to applause. While resident Ron Shelton “loves the idea” of restoring the riparian habitat, he reminded the committee that Via de las Olas neighbors are “still fighting the city on erosion and waiting for the street to be repaved.” He doesn’t want more people on that street doing U-turns on his lawn at corner of Friends and Via de las Olas. Friends Street resident Chris Spitz calls west rim access a disaster. “The bluffs are already crumbling.” Dr. Duncan Thomas, who also lives on Friends, is also against west rim access and wants usage and EIR studies be done. Friends resident Jerry Bloore lives closest to the proposed west rim access point. “There’s a constant stream of cars now on our street, so it will just get worse.” Ellen Travis, who lives at Lombard and DePauw and has already lived through 20 years of repairs in the canyon, said that the current Coastal permit allows access only at the top and bottom of the canyon. She supports the sale of two lots on Alma Real to complete Phase 2 of the project. Rim resident Joe Phelps has already had an intruder enter his house from the canyon, parts of which he referred to as “Meth Mountain,” and does not want any more. He quoted a 1993 letter from then Councilman Marvin Braude regarding “not wanting to see big park project.” Phelps is opposed to multiple access to the park. Steven De Sousa, who lives across from one of the proposed western rim entry points, said that unlike some “Nimby” neighbors, he’s an “Imby”: “I want this in my back yard!” While he’s opposed to the west rim access he’s in favor of the proposed uses which he sees as an “exceptional opportunity.” Architect Emily Kovner, who also serves on the Palisades Design Review Board, lives on De Pauw, where there are four proposed west rim access points. “The proposal is egregious and unfair and reflects a lack of understanding of landscape architecture. The committee obviously needs professional help at this point.” She was totally opposed to the suggestion of perhaps turning some of the R-1 lots into parking lots. “Go back to the original plan for a passive park,” suggested Huntington resident David Peterson. “No traffic, gates, or parking. No beach access either.” Dennis Martin, who grew up on Alma Real, agreed. “We were promised a passive park,” Martin said. “No meadows are needed. Just leave the canyon alone.” Chairman Wolfberg told the Palisadian-Post on Wednesday that while he was disappointed so many residents objected to the committee’s consensus plan, he was impressed with the “incredible amount of passion” displayed at the workshop. He saw the parking issue as having a “trickle down effect” and that until it is resolved, it could continue “to stymie our efforts.” The next PCCAC meeting is Wednesday, June 21. (Editor’s note: The results of the questionnaire and background material is available on the Potrero Canyon Citizens Advisory Committee’s Web site: www.potrero.info/bb/.)