title
CC - PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to Adopt Resolution No. 2025-P013, Approving Site Plan Review, Tentative Parcel Map and Extended Construction Hours, P2024-0190-SPR/TPM and a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Checklist pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15168, for a Mixed-Use Project with 1,077 Residential Units and 5,772 Square Feet of Commercial Space at 5757 Uplander Way in the Mixed Use High (MU-MD) Zone.
body
Meeting Date: February 9, 2026
Contact Person/Dept: Peer Chacko, Senior Planner
Emily Stadnicki, Current Planning Manager
Phone Number: (310) 253-5755 / (310) 253-5727
Fiscal Impact: Yes [ ] No [X] General Fund: Yes [ ] No [X]
Attachments: Yes [X] No [ ]
Commission Action Required: Yes [X] No [ ]
Commission Name: Planning Commission Date: November 12, 2025
Public Notification: (Mailed) Property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius and extended area (01/16/26); (Email) Public Notifications - City Council (01/16/26), Meetings and Agendas - City Council (02/05/26); (Posted) City website (01/16/26), Social Media (1/16/26)
Department Approval: Mark E. Muenzer, Planning and Development Director/Interim Housing and Human Services Director (1/16/26)
______________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the appeal of Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2024-P013, approving Site Plan Review, Tentative Parcel Map and Extended Construction Hours, P2024-0190-SPR/TPM, and a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Checklist pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15168, for a mixed-use project with 1,077 residential units and 5,772 square feet of commercial space at 5757 Uplander Way ("Project"), and adopt a Resolution denying the Appeal and affirming the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2025-P013 (Attachment 1).
PROCEDURES
1. The Mayor seeks a motion to receive and file the affidavit of mailing, publishing, and posting of public notice.
2. The Mayor calls on staff for a brief staff report and the City Council poses questions to staff.
3. The Mayor seeks a motion to open the public hearing, providing the appellant the first opportunity to speak, followed by the applicant, and then the general public.
4. The applicant and appellant are given one opportunity to provide rebuttal comments.
5. The Mayor seeks a motion to close the public hearing after all testimony has been presented.
6. The City Council discusses the matter and arrives at its decision.
REQUEST
On November 20, 2025, Richard Drury of Lozeau Drury LLP filed an appeal on behalf of Supporters Alliance of Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) ("Appellant"), to the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2025-P013 for the above-described Project for the Tentative Parcel Map component of the Project entitlements. On November 25, 2025, the same Appellant filed another appeal for the Site Plan Review component of the Project entitlements. Staff is treating this as one appeal for the same project with the same appellant and identical arguments. The Appellant's appeal requests are included as Attachment 3.
BACKGROUND
Process Description
The Project is located on a ?8.3-acre site over 4 existing parcels occupied by 1- to 2-story business park/office buildings, and consists of:
* Demolition of 146,414 square feet (sf) of existing office space and associated surface parking and landscaping;
* Subdivision into three parcels for phased implementation; and
* Construction of a new 7-story mixed-use building with 1,077 residential units (including 78 very low-income units), 5,772 sf of commercial space, and 3 levels of semi-subterranean structured parking.
The Project includes a total of 131,834 sf of onsite open space, including 36,516 sf of public open space (paseo) running north-south from Hannum Avenue to Uplander Way; 42,311 sf of outdoor common open space (courtyards, roof terraces); 40,077 sf of indoor common open space (amenity spaces); and 12,930 sf of private open space (patios, balconies).
The Project provides 1,303 vehicle parking spaces (including 653 EV spaces), 305 bicycle parking spaces (31 short-term and 274 long-term). The Project Vicinity Map and the Preliminary Development Plans are included as Attachments 5 and 12, respectively.
The Project includes an administratively approved Density Bonus and Other Incentives (DOBI) request pursuant to State Density Bonus Law and Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC) Section 17.580.075 (Attachment 6)
Project Process
The Project originally filed an SB 330 application dated February 1, 2024, and submitted an entitlement application for a Comprehensive Plan and Tentative Parcel Map to be vested under the previous Culver City General Plan and zoning code. At the time, the 2045 General Plan and Zoning Code Update was a work in progress. A CEQA Initial Study was then conducted for the Project to define the scope of a proposed EIR, because at that time the Project approval would have required a site-specific General Plan amendment and zoning change.
The Applicant refiled their SB 330 application on April 11, 2025, after the 2045 General Plan and Zoning Code Update Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) was certified on August 26, 2024, and the new General Plan and Updated Zoning became effective on October 9, 2024. The Applicant also revised their entitlement request to a Site Plan Review and Tentative Parcel Map, because the Project's proposed land use components were consistent with the City's new General Plan 2045 land use and zoning designation for the Project site, thus a site-specific rezoning and General Plan amendment was no longer needed.
Along with the changed entitlement approach, the CEQA approach was modified to a Clearance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15168, which allows the lead agency (City) to tier from the 2045 General Plan and Zoning Code Update PEIR, by conducting a checklist analysis to determine that project impacts are "within the scope" of the PEIR.
Planning Commission Public Hearing and Decision
On November 12, 2025, the Planning Commission (5-0 approval), adopted Resolution No. 2025-P013 approving Site Plan Review, Tentative Parcel Map, and Extended Construction Hours P2024-0190-SPR/TPM, and making the associated findings for the Clearance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. The Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-P013, Meeting Minutes, Staff Report, Project Summary, Preliminary Development Plans, and CEQA Clearance Documentation, provide more detailed information (Attachments 7 through 12).
As required by the Culver City Municipal Code and CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Public Hearing that included the hearing date and availability of the CEQA Clearance documents were sent on October 22, 2025, at least 21 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing date. The notice was sent via mail to property owners and occupants, via GovDelivery email to the Culver City notification list (which included the appellant representative) and posted on the City website.
On November 12, 2025 (the day of the Planning Commission hearing), a comment letter was also received from Mitchell M. Tsai Law Firm on behalf of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters, stating that the Project would be approved in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and asking that the City require using of local workforce for the Project and impose training requirements for construction activities, related to preventing spread of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases.
DISCUSSION
Appeal
The Appellant objects to the City's reliance on the 2045 General Plan PEIR for the CEQA process and requests that staff be directed to prepare a project-specific EIR for the project and circulate the draft for public review and comment prior to considering approvals for the Project. The Appellant's arguments are summarized below and further detailed in the appeal letter (Attachment 3).
Staff clarifications and responses to the appeal comments follow later in this report.
1. CEQA contains a strong presumption in favor of requiring a lead agency to prepare an EIR, reflected in the "fair argument" standard. The fair argument standard applicable to environmental review under CEQA Section 21151, requires an EIR if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect, even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency's decision.
2. The Certified PEIR analyzed the environmental effects of the City's 2045 General Plan and Zoning Update at a very high level, but it did not attempt to analyze impacts associated with the construction and operation of any specific development project. The General Plan and Zoning Update PEIR was not intended to address project-specific construction and operational impacts.
3. Staff issued contradictory analyses between the Initial Study and CEQA Clearance document. The Initial Study conducted for the Project identified many significant environmental impacts requiring a project-specific EIR. The City cannot now disregard its own Initial Study.
4. The Project's CEQA Clearance document points to generalities and aspirational policies to claim it has analyzed the Project's effects. The Project may not evade second tier review when the record is replete with information that a later project could cause potentially significant environmental effects.
5. Even if a proposed project is within the scope of a PEIR, tiering has no application if the proposed Project has not previously been subject to review. Given the lack of specificity in the General Plan PEIR, staff cannot reasonably claim that document provided some informational value regarding the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project's 1,077 residential units plus retail.
6. Public was afforded just over two days to review the Clearance Document before the November 12, 2025 Planning Commission hearing. The public had insufficient time to review the CEQA Clearance document.
Applicant Response to Appeal
The City has a three-party memorandum of agreement with Environmental Science Associates (ESA) and the Applicant for CEQA-related technical analysis for the Project. On behalf of the City, ESA provided a detailed itemized response (Attachment 4) to the Appellant's claims. Additionally for the record, ESA also provided a detailed response (Attachment 5) to the comment letter sent to the Planning Commission on November 12, 2025, by Mitchell M. Tsai Law Firm on behalf of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters. Both responses have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's Office and Planning and Development staff. The Applicant has also reviewed both responses and concurs with them.
Staff Response to Appeal
Clearance Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168
CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 is specifically intended to allow methods by which subsequent projects can be evaluated and determined to be within the scope of a Program EIR (PEIR). The 2045 General Plan and Zoning Code Update Certified PEIR was specifically intended to serve the purpose of review of subsequent discretionary implementation projects for consistency with the PEIR based on preparation of appropriate environmental documentation pursuant to CEQA Section 15168.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 has the following provisions which were adhered to in the Project's Environmental Checklist documentation:
* Whether a later activity is within the scope of a PEIR is a factual question that the lead agency (City) determines based on the substantial evidence in the record. Factors that an agency may consider in making a determination include, but are not limited to, consistency of the later activity with the type of allowable land use, overall planned density and building intensity, geographic area analyzed for environmental impacts, and covered infrastructure as described in the PEIR.
* The agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the PEIR into the later activities.
* Where the later activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were within the scope of the PEIR.
While the Project started out on a path for a CEQA Initial Study prior to the completion of the above-mentioned Certified PEIR, contrary to the assertions of the Appellant, it did not analyze impacts relative to the new Culver City General Plan 2045 and Zoning Code Update PEIR. Instead, the Project Initial Study was conducted in the context of the previous Culver City General Plan and zoning code.
Projects often change their CEQA course as modifications or refinements occur or regulations change. There is no CEQA requirement that prohibits a Project from changing its course during the process, nor that the Project must prepare a project-specific EIR simply because an Initial Study was prepared.
The Project's entitlement application and CEQA approach were subsequently revised after completion of the above-mentioned Certified PEIR, because the Project's proposed land use components were consistent with the City's new General Plan 2045 land use and zoning designations for the Project site. A site-specific rezoning and General Plan amendment was no longer needed for the Project, and the Project as revised was eligible for an Environmental Checklist tiered from the Certified PEIR.
There is no substantial evidence, nor any fair argument basis provided by the appellant, to indicate that the Project's Environmental Checklist did not appropriately analyze impacts from the Project via an environmental document that tiers from the Certified PEIR.
Compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, a subsequent project-specific EIR is required if one of the following criteria apply to a subsequent project. The Project's Environmental Checklist found the Project does meet the applicable CEQA criteria for preparing a streamlined environmental review document. No subsequent project-specific EIR is required for the Project because, as summarized below, there is no basis to find that any of the below-stated criteria have been met such that a major revision to the Certified PEIR is required:
* No substantial changes are proposed which will require major revisions of the PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects.
* No substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions of the PEIR.
* No new information of substantial importance has been uncovered, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the PEIR.
* The project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the PEIR.
* No mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant impacts.
Rigorous Project-specific Environmental Checklist documentation (Attachment 12) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(2) was completed, tiering from the Certified PEIR to streamline environmental review, and covering all the topical categories included in the Certified PEIR. The Environmental Checklist conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the Project's impacts relative to those evaluated in the PEIR and includes project-specific analysis of environmental effects not specifically analyzed in the PEIR where there is potential for site-specific impacts. Note that the Environmental Checklist analyses included the same modeling and calculations of impacts that would have been included in an EIR, should it have been required.
This analysis showed that the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts, nor result in any change to the analysis in the Certified PEIR and would thus be within the scope of the Certified PEIR. Applicable mitigation measures identified in the Certified PEIR were incorporated as Project mitigation measures, and additional Project-specific mitigation measures were included based on the analysis in the Project-specific CEQA Clearance documentation.
A summary of the key findings in the Project-specific CEQA Environmental Checklist analysis, organized by each of the environmental issue categories identified in Certified PEIR, was prepared by staff and included as Attachment 13.
Compliance with Public Notification Requirements
The City provided a Notice of Public Hearing which referenced the Project's CEQA documentation, at least 21 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing, contrary to the applicant's claim. The notice did not request the public to review and comment on the CEQA documentation because no public review and comment period is required.
The public notice also included the following statement: "based on the Culver City General Plan 2045 and Zoning Code Update Certified Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) analysis and pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City prepared a written checklist to evaluate the Project-specific environmental impacts and determined they are "within the scope" of the Certified PEIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(2), no further environmental analysis is required."
Accordingly, the noticing requirements were met, and no other public review notification standards were applicable to the Project's Environmental Checklist under the CEQA Guidelines.
City Council Review Authority
The City Council's consideration of the appeal is "de novo." This means the City Council is holding a new hearing. In that regard, the City Council is not solely limited to considering the record that was before the Planning Commission. The City Council's review authority for this appeal is governed by CCMC Section 17.640.030.D, which provides that the City Council may consider any issue involving the matter that is the subject of the appeal in addition to the specific grounds that form the basis of the appeal.
In its consideration of this matter, the City Council may take the following actions:
* Deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission's CEQA adoption (Staff Recommendation).
* Approve the appeal, overturn the Planning Commission's CEQA adoption, and require further environmental review. Upon completion of these materials, which would take several months, next steps would be determined based on CEQA Guidelines. If an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required, this would include additional public meetings, technical reports, and further analysis. Following completion of the EIR, the matter would be scheduled for public hearing.
* Refer the Project back to the Planning Commission for further consideration based on new or different evidence presented at the City Council hearing. Any new or different evidence, as determined by the City Council, would need further evaluation by staff. This would require the preparation of additional technical reports and/or environmental review, depending on the nature of the additional evidence. Following completion of staff review and preparation, the Project would be scheduled for a public hearing to return to the Planning Commission for further consideration, likely not until the end of second quarter 2026.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
As part of the entitlement review process, 3 hybrid community meetings were held for the Project, plus one workshop-style in-person meeting. The first hybrid meeting, the in-person workshop, and the second hybrid meeting were held on January 18, 2024, May 7, 2024, and July 16, 2024, respectively, during the preliminary review phase of the process. The third hybrid meeting was held on September 9, 2025, during the application review phase of the process.
Additionally, a CEQA scoping meeting for the Initial Study was held on January 7, 2025. After the Project's CEQA approach was changed, the public notification and hearing requirements for the Clearance process pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15168 coincided with the notification requirements for the Planning Commission entitlement approval and was conducted accordingly. Public notification of the November 12, 2025, Planning Commission hearing (including information on availability of CEQA Clearance documentation) was conducted pursuant to Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC) Section 17.630.010.
Public notification for this Appeal Hearing was also conducted in accordance with CCMC Section 17.630.010 and included notices via mail to property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the Project site on January 16, 2026, via email to the Culver City GovDelivery notification list, and posted on the Project site and on the City website. As of the writing of this report, staff has received one public comment (Attachment 14).
FISCAL ANALYSIS
The appeal of the Project, if denied or approved, will not result in any direct revenue or expenditures by the City, beyond building plan check fees and development impact fees. Although, if the appeal is denied and the Project is completed, the new site facilities will provide some revenue to the City.
If the appeal is approved, additional staff time will be required on review and preparation of additional environmental documents and further processing (e.g., scheduling public hearings, etc.), which would not be fully covered by associated review fees.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
No further environmental analysis is required upon affirming the Planning Commission adoption of Resolution No. 2025-P013. Denial of the Planning Commission adoption of Resolution No. 2025-P013, including the Checklist pursuant CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, would require additional environmental analysis that must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Referring the Project back to the Planning Commission if new or different evidence is presented may result in additional or different environmental determinations.
CONCLUSION
As shown in the preceding analysis, the Project and associated CEQA clearance were reviewed in compliance with applicable requirements and guidelines. The Planning Commission's adoption of the Clearance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 is sufficient to meet CEQA requirements and no substantial evidence was provided to support the claims of deficiencies.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed City Council Resolution Denying the Appeal and Affirming the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2025-P013
2. Vicinity Map
3. Appellant Letters, November 20 and 25, 2025
4. Response to Appellant Letters, December 28, 2025
5. Response to Western States Regional Council of Carpenters, December 28, 2025
6. DOBI Administrative Approval
7. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-P013 with Exhibits, November 12, 2025
8. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, November 12, 2025
9. Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments), November 12, 2025
10. Planning Commission Project Summary, November 12, 2025
11. Preliminary Development Plans, September 18, 2025
12. CEQA Clearance documentation (including attachments)
13. Summary of CEQA Clearance Checklist Findings
14. Public Comments
recommended action
MOTION
That the City Council do one of the following:
1. Adopt a Resolution denying the Appeal and affirming the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2025-P013 approving Site Plan Review, Tentative Parcel Map and Extended Construction Hours, P2024-0190-SPR/TMP and Clearance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 for a mixed-use project with 1077 residential units and 5,772 square feet of commercial use at 5757 Uplander Way (Staff Recommendation); OR
2. Approve the Appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2025-P013, subject to further environmental analysis under CEQA; and direct staff to return to the City Council with a proposed Resolution granting the Appeal; OR
3. Refer the Project back to the Planning Commission for further consideration based on new or different evidence presented in the Appeal.