Council Nixes Skate Design Appeal
By Daryl Kelley
Rebuffing its own landlord, the Ojai City Council denied this week an appeal by the Ojai Unified School District that sought to delay approval of the design of a new, permanent skate park until district concerns had been addressed.
“I’m disappointed,” said Linda Taylor, school board president, after the Tuesday evening hearing. “I don’t think it went well.”
The new city-run $350,000 skate park, funded mostly by community donations but with a $100,000 city contribution, would replace a tattered wooden structure near school district headquarters on Ojai Avenue.
The site is owned by the School District and leased to the city for skate park use until 2023. It is a small part of a larger parcel that holds the OUSD headquarters, Chaparral High School and Auditorium and a Park & Ride lot.
The School District had appealed the Planning Commission’s approval of the skate park’s design, stating that the district’s lease requires its prior approval of a new facility.
City officials said, however, that the district review could come later, when a final design is complete.
Although denying the district’s appeal, the City Council promised to cooperate with school trustees as the project moves forward, and to do everything it can to avoid a district lawsuit.
But council members said they thought it was time to press toward completion of the park, which a new city time line projects as August of 2010, at the latest.
Council members said they thought they could answer all of the School District’s concerns as the project moves from the current design stage toward final approval this fall. But the city acknowledged that the project must be sanctioned by the School District to move forward.
“It is clear you can’t commence any construction without approval” by the school district, city attorney Monte Widders told the council.
Mayor Joe DeVito said the city wants to work fully with the school board.
“The last thing I want us Ñ two public agencies Ñ is to get involved in a lawsuit,” DeVito said. “We’re all losers if we do, and that would be a sad day.”
On the district’s behalf, Taylor assured the council that the trustees favor skate park construction, but that the park must be built so it is safe and secure and legal under state environmental law. It should be supervised and have rest room and drinking fountain facilities, she said. And it should also blend into any new commercial project the district might approve for its prime eight-acre headquarters parcel.
“We’re really in favor of a skate park,” Taylor said. “We’re not trying to abort or delay the skate park project. We don’t want a lawsuit.”
A suit to halt the park would be “unconscionable,” she said, “especially between two public entities. É What we’ve been asking for is more communication and regular answers to our questions. É We do not seek delay, we seek communication.”
She also noted, however, that the district has lost 20 percent of its budget to declining enrollment and the state financial crisis, so it must consider all options to maintain services for students, including commercial development of its headquarters site.
The district issued a request for proposals to build a commercial project last year, and has received one response, she said in an interview. The school board has not yet reviewed that proposal, she said.
“We’re going to have to develop that property,” she told the council. “We wouldn’t want anything (at the skate park) that would be a distraction.”
The council acknowledged that the city and OUSD have not communicated well.
“I would hope to see a future where we’re collaborating on all these things,” said Councilwoman Carol Smith.
“The communication issue is an issue that needs to be resolved,” Councilwoman Sue Horgan added. And she asked that the preliminary skate park design and other documents be forwarded immediately to the School District.
The council also officially invited two district trustees and its superintendent to meet with council members and the city manager. Such a summit was planned for last week but was canceled when the city would not accept the presence of an assistant superintendent at the meeting and school officials would not meet without the additional official, who is head of facilities planning.
After Tuesday’s meeting, Taylor said she still wanted Dannielle Pusatere, the facilities expert, at the meeting. But she said that was a decision trustees would have to discuss, along with the superintendent. When asked if tape recording the meeting would suffice so Pusatere could review comments, Taylor said that was a possible solution to the stalemate.
Even with efforts to speed up a nearly two-year campaign to build a new skate park, several community members complained about either the school board’s position or the city’s lack of progress in moving forward on the skate park.
Attorney Bill Gilbreth chastised the School District for saying it had not been fully apprised of the design of the skate park, when trustees had been briefed April 14 at a public meeting that included a Power-Point presentation of the site design.
“I think the school board members Ñ and they are wonderful people Ñ are sticking their heads in the sand,” Gilbreth said.
He said the district is hesitant about the new park because it wants to become “the largest commercial landlord in town” with its headquarters development. “That’s what’s really going on here,” Gilbreth said.
And, if trustees were to block the skate park with a lawsuit, Gilbreth said, “É there would be a petition to recall the school board within a week.”
In response, Taylor said the city’s April presentation to the school board addressed only a conceptual design, not a detailed one.
Summarizing the school board’s appeal for the council, city manager Jere Kersnar said in a report that the district’s concerns were mostly operational and maintenance issues, and not related to the design of the project, which is what the Planning Commission approved. Thus, he said, the council should deny the appeal.
And Kersnar said that it appears that changes could be made later to address the district’s concerns.
For example, he said that a rest room and drinking fountain might be offered in the first phase of the project, not the second, in response to city concerns.
School officials, however, listed a variety of concerns, including the legal conclusion that the skate park must undergo review under state environmental laws before it can be built. The city has concluded that no such review is needed, because the park fits under exceptions to such laws.
“They didn’t address the CEQUA (environmental law) issue,” Taylor said later. “And that’s not good.”
The School District is responsible for construction on its property and it must follow the law, she said. OUSD’s lawyer has concluded that environmental laws must be followed, she said.
Concerning the 12 months still needed to finish the project, Kersnar and Dale Sumersille, Recreation Department director, said that they attempted to make the time line realistic, so it could be met this time. Sumersille said the 40 steps listed on the time line are sequential and couldn’t be pushed much farther, because each step depends on completion of the previous one.
But some council members said they wanted the project to move more quickly.
Ideally the skate park should be built right where the old one is. That location is observably the best as it is easy to moniter, it fits in with the surroundings and its where skaters congregate anyway. Its close to shops where skaters can grab a bite to eat or get a drink if they need one. There are no neighbors to object to the night lights or noise. Rikki Horne does not say where she thinks the skate park should go in her opinion only that she disagrees with pushing the lease through in 14 years. The real test of her wisdom is ‘where’ she thinks it should go if not at the current location.
Well I will say this much I have seen School board land sold but lets put this into consideration. OUSD agrees to let them build the skate park then in 2023 we have a whole new board and we are worse off money wise then we are now and the developer that is leasing the land from them or that wants to rent it offers them a heck of a lot more money then the city can pay… Who do you think is going to get the land? IF you say the skate park you are crazy. If I couldn’t sell my land and you offered to lease it from me for $50,000 and someone else offered me $75,000 guess what you are out of there. Remember even the school board needs money and the state is cutting theres back also.
If you build the skate park in the current location and it has a life span of 30 years with a lease agreement of 14 years, then in 2023 who will have the political courage to tear it out? Answer – no one. So why did the OUSD agree 10 years ago to lease the property to the city and then renew the lease in 2002 for another 20 years? The defintion of permanent is obviously debatable.
I don’t see where OUSD is the bad guy here. If the city wants to build a permanent park and they only have a lease until 2023 then they should build the park somewhere where it can remain in place after 2023. Who builds a permanent structure on leased space? That is poor use of public money.
The kids have a skate park and the city has a valid lease. They are just asking to build a concrete park that may last a bit longer (2023). The kids have played by the rules it is the OUSD who have been disingenuous.
John makes sense to me. Why wouldn’t the City build the skate park on their land. No need for negotiations, no wasted time and they own the park and land forever. The City gets what they want, the school district gets what they want and our kids get a skate park.
The school district can not sell the land. They can lease it to a developer just as they have leased it to the city. The OUSD could not sell it to the city.
“John” wake up. The OUSD can not sell the land. Check the state laws about selling public school property. They can lease the land to a developer same as they have leased the land to the city. That is why the city did not buy the land.
I am not in it for the money except to save the city from having to build a new one in 14 years. I am a lowly utility worker. I am no where near making any money of of it so quit making assumptions anonymous 14 August 09 @ 9:41. Oh and I hate to tell you but you are wrong. I used to be on a city Government in another town before I moved to Ojai and we could buy and sell as we pleased did not need the towns people to tell us what to do. Now of course we wouldn’t be on council long if we did but we could have.
In 2023 the school board can sell that property without listening to anyone if them and the city does not have a new contract. Heck they can sell all of the land around it now and tell the developer in 2023 you will own that land also. Guess what your skate park is now a parking lot and that is perfectly legal. Trust me where I came from that is exactly what happened. The wonderful skate park that someone built on land they didn’t own got destroyed and it looked like it never existed. We need to (for the kids sake) put it somewhere that can’t happen. I think this is a foolish mistake and it will bite all of the people pushing it in the butt later.
The article sounded as if the OUSD would honor the lease agreement if the city provides the supervision requirements that the district wants. To renege on the agreement is politcal suicide for any elected official including Rikki Horne.
Rikki Horne can be reached at rikkihorne.schoolboard@yahoo.com
she didn’t say
Read the paper, since you read the editorial in the paper could you please tell me where Rikki Horne thinks the skate park should go?
Rikki Horne was pretty clear in the editorial she wrote that she is against a permanent skate park at the current location
Who on the school board is not in favor of the Skate Park at the current location? Let them speak now and then start the recall!
John,,,I know!! Put it by the tennis courts! Those kids will have to skate right passed the police station which will act like a filter leaving only the purified innocent kids to continue on to skate heaven. We could even call it that! SKATE HEAVEN! Kind of goes with Church of Skatan don ya think? Put the skate park up on that hill next to the tennis courts at the end of Montgomery where it turns to go into Creek Rd. There are bathrooms there and lots of room and a space cushion from the neighbors.
So, John…..how much are you standing to make if the development deal goes through? How much are you standing to lose if it doesn’t go through?
In 2023, barring the existence of an ironclad contract of some kind, the school board won’t be able to do anything the voters refuse to let them do. The public has plenty of time between now and 2023 to make that perfectly clear to those who might be on the board someday, and the public has the power to elect board members who will accomodate the majority of the voters who elected them.
The City doesn’t own anything outright, by the way. Again, the ownership of “City property” is public and subject only to existing laws, regulations, and any binding contracts.
That people do not become more involved in the actions of their own government is their own fault, and no one else’s. In America, if people do not get what they want from their government, they have only themselves to blame. When they claim otherwise it means that they are ignorant, or lazy, or both.
Again the question is what happens in 2023 when the school board sells the land and the new owner tears down the skate park which will be there right. Anonymous 12 AUg 09@9:50 said the public owns the land but the school board does decide what to do with it so whether we own it or not it can be sold without our say so. What do the kids do then? What happens to all the money that was spent? MONEY WASTED. Lets find a place to put it that the city owns out right and not leases.
Okay start the recall now. When school board member Linda Taylor says “We don’t want a lawsuit”, that means that the district is putting their lawyers on notice to file a lawsuit.
The site is owned by the School District and leased to the city for skate park use until 2023.
Let’s be clear about one thing; the School District may be the administrative entity for the real estate in question, but the public owns it. The School District owns nothing that the public does not allow it to own. Members of the board are not owners of any piece of school district property to any greater extent than any other member of the tax-paying public, any more than Council members are the owners of the City of Ojai. The school board is elected by the voters, and the school board manages property that is owned by the people who put them in office; voters who live with the Ojai Unified School District.
People need to quit barking at shadows and shaking their fists at imaginary fortresses and remember that they own the land, and the public process.
I concur regarding no date assigned once again. This does seem to be a continuing theme. I too think it would be a good thing to be posted on the city website because then the public would have input.
I agree MO. It should be noted that many, if not all of the City Council members were not pleased with the 12 month completion date in the schedule presented by Staff last night. Could you imagine if it took that long to complete repairs to the freeways and bridges in LA after the Northridge earthquake? Staff was instructed to go back and work on the schedule, including using paid labor for some tasks rather than use volunteer labor if it would move the project along faster. Unfortunately however, like some City Council meetings in the past, there was no date set by the Council when Staff was to have the revised schedule. This is where breakdowns have occurred before.
Hopefully the City will take the Pat McPherson’s suggestion, which some council members seemed to support, and post the present and revised schedule(s) on the City’s web site for all to see. Transparency is critical if we truly want to make Ojai a united community again.
This is not a realistic timeline that was presented. This is just another stall tactic by the OUSD and the recreation dept. I think the city council truly embraces this project but they keep letting the city manager and the parks & rec. director (who work for them by the way) sabotage the process. I think the city council members need to consult with other cities to review how they went about their projects. This is California and I’m sure every single city that has a skate park, which is just about every one except us, has considered earthquake possibilites. DUH
A one year timeline is not acceptable and Skate Ojai will fight to the bitter end to get this project completed sooner.