Mr. Messinger, owner of The Aquarium at the north end of the 12 1/2-acre project, is bringing together his fellow entrepreneurs, and they are to huddle next week.
Wrong on Two Counts
As president of the Sunkist Park Neighborhood Watch, Mr. Netzel is rounding up residents as dissatisfied as he is with both the scope and the content of the rebuild.
Convinced the much heralded Citizens Advisory Committee will not forcefully, accurately convey Sunkist Park concerns, Mr. Netzel plans to take his group directly before the City Council in advance of the Council’s anticipated July vote on whether to proceed or stop.
Since one critic lives in the neighborhood and the other owns a business there, the two gentlemen have different but not competing complaints.
Scolding the City
Disgusted by the actions of city staff, the City Council — especially Councilperson Carol Gross — and the Redevelopment Agency throughout the run-up to approval, Mr. Netzel said the community-input process is flawed and relatively useless.
He is frustrated by the ongoing, nearly perfect, silence of the Citizens Advisory Committee through the three meetings. He wants to know what the nine-person group is thinking as the process meanders through the spring season.
Decision Not Final
His opinion is not final. It is possible, he allowed, to ameliorate his objections, longshot though it may be.
He is toying with the notion of planting a juicy question in the sightlines of the developer Bob Champion:
“Would you be willing to remove the residential component (800 units) from the project?”
Friendly Persuasion
“If he says ‘yes,’” said Mr. Netzel, “I would be more inclined to support such a project. But I want to see this scaled down.”
An ally who has sprung to community attention in the last four months over his vivid objections to the Champion plan is much less hopeful.
Minds Are Made up?
In fact, Mr. Messinger emerged from last night’s meeting convinced the project is a fait accompli, community protests notwithstanding.
He links his conviction to a single announcement at the meeting that, curiously, went unremarked upon.
Mr. Messinger believes the newly public information is crucial.
When the South Sepulveda rebuild is completed, the city’s estimated annual state property tax revenues for the business corridor will zoom from $1.5 million to $6 million or $7 million.
Who Noticed?
On a night when unrelenting criticism was rained on officials by the distraught crowd, there was not even a blip when this disclosure was made.
“In view of that increase,” Mr. Messinger said, “I think it will be almost impossible for the City Council to turn down the project. They must be salivating right now.
Game Is Over?
“I would say the cat is out of the bag. All other excuses we are hearing are hogwash.”
As for Mr. Netzel, he criticized Ms. Gross of the City Council for “running the show” at the three public Advisory Committee meetings. “I object to the way she has cleverly cut off members of the committee when they were trying to give their opinions.”
Abrupt Endings
He recalled that at the previous Advisory Committee meeting three weeks ago, members Asher Schechter and J. Marvin Campbell responded to Mr. Netzel’s request for their views. Then, Ms. Gross stepped in, as she did last night, to say it was “inappropriate” at this stage of the community-input process to voice opinions.
Where did her authority stem from? Mr. Netzel asked.
He is exasperated by the closed-mouth approach of the Advisory Committee. This is no time for stoicism, Mr. Netzel asserted. “I am very concerned the Advisory Committee will not fulfill its intent. They just remain silent. They have not offered any real opinions, and I don’t think that is right.”
Why Move So Fast?
He also objects to what he regards as the unnecessary breakneck speed of the community-input series. He said that suggestions and objections should be voiced, acted upon and then carefully studied.
“What is the hurry?” Mr. Netzel asks. “What deadline are we racing toward?
He is rankled by Mr. Champion’s characterization of the redevelopment of South Sepulveda as “my vision.”
“Traditionally,” the activist said, “redevelopment projects have been just the opposite. They have and they should reflect the vision of the community, not just one person’s.”
More Clues
Like Mr. Messinger, Mr. Netzel has identified tipoff signs suggesting to him that the approval process is closer to being finalized than is generally assumed by the public.
In the next fortnight, City Hall staffers and Advisory Committee member Marianne Kim will verify Mr. Champion’s references when they visit two communities where Mr. Champion has built. The Culver City team will interview community leaders.
Getting Close?
“By the time I do reference checks,” Mr. Netzel said, “I am pretty well ready to hire. That, I believe, is the city’s position now with Champion.”
The neighborhood leader is skeptical of the shape and ingredients of the community-input procedure. “When these meetings are over,” he said, “we will be told ‘We have given you opportunities’ because this is how Culver City operates.”
Height Is a Problem
The height (56-foot maximum) and the mixed-use nature of the rebuild bother Mr. Netzel, and he may have a creative solution.
Throughout the four rebuilding phases of the two-block South Sepulveda layout, retail stores in every case are at ground level with four floors of residential above.
To solve widespread complaints from Sunset Park residents that their views will be obstructed once the large project goes up, why not dramatically reconfigure? Mr. Netzel asks.
Only One Way?
“Who says that a mixed use project has to mean retail on the ground floor, residential above? There is not a lot of history on this.
“We have been programmed to believe this is the only way mixed-use can work. I say, why not build retail and residential side-by-side. That would eliminate the view problems.”
