City of Culver City, California
Redevelopment Agency and City Council
Agenda Item Report
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Culver City City Council (the “City Council”):
1. Consider instructing staff to prepare and issue a Request for Proposal
(“RFP”) to hire a consulting team to create a Specific Plan with the following
boundaries:
• Sepulveda Boulevard between Machado Road and the 405 Freeway;
• Jefferson Boulevard between Sepulveda Boulevard and the 405
Freeway; and
• Slauson Avenue between Sepulveda Boulevard and the 405 Freeway.
That the Culver City Redevelopment Agency (the “Agency’):
1. Staff recommends the Agency approve termination of the Exclusive
Negotiation Agreement with Champion Realty Ltd. (“Champion”).
Meeting Date: 10/22/07 Item Number: J-2
AGENDA ITEM: A Joint Item to Consider Termination of an Exclusive Negotiation
Agreement with Champion Realty Ltd. and to Authorize Preparation of a Specific
Plan for Sepulveda Boulevard between Machado Road and the 405 Freeway;
Jefferson Boulevard between Sepulveda Boulevard and the 405 Freeway; and
Slauson Avenue between Sepulveda Boulevard and the 405 Freeway and
Discussion of the Future Role of the Champion Development Citizens Advisory
Committee .
Contact Person/Dept.: Joe Susca;
Redevelopment Project Manager
Phone Number: 310-253-5763
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Public Notification: Public notices were mailed to approximately 2,300 Sepulveda
Redevelopment area residents, property and business owners (10/03/07); the
Sepulveda Redevelopment E-Mail Distribution List (10/04/07); the Sepulveda Citizens
Advisory Committee (10/03/07); the Sepulveda Redevelopment Project webpage
(10/03/07); Champion Realty Ltd. (10/04/07); and the Master Notification List (10/17/07)
Department Approval:
Sol Blumenfeld (10/15/07)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol A. Schwab (10/17/07)
Fiscal Impact Review:
Marlee Chang (by N. Kimball)(10/17/07)
City Manager/Exec. Director Approval:
Jerry B. Fulwood (10/17/07) City of Culver City, California
Redevelopment Agency and City Council
Agenda Item Report
BACKGROUND:
During their meeting of October 16, 2006, the Agency approved entering into an
Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (the “ENA”) with Champion to propose a
redevelopment project for the west side of Sepulveda Boulevard between Sawtelle
Boulevard and Slauson Avenue. The Champion ENA project area includes 77
businesses, and twenty property owners. On the same evening, the Agency
instructed staff to form a Citizens Advisory Committee (the “CAC”) to provide input
on the Champion project. During their meeting of March 19, 2007, the Agency
appointed nine volunteer members to the CAC. The CAC has met four times and
upon conclusion of their June 27, 2007, meeting, they unanimously adopted a
motion to recommend to the City Council/Agency Board that they consider creation
of a Specific Plan for the project area. (See attached CAC meeting minutes.)
As a result of the additional time necessary to publicly notice, receive applications,
and appoint members to the CAC, on January 31, 2007, staff executed an
amendment to the Champion ENA Schedule of Performance, extending it by
approximately two months and it now expires in February, 2008, if there is no EIR,
and October, 2008 if an EIR is certified.
DISCUSSION:
Specific Plan:
A “Specific Plan” is a step below the City’s adopted General Plan in the land use
approval hierarchy. A Specific Plan is used for the systematic implementation of the
General Plan for a particular geographical area. It is a “ground-up” process involving
obtaining input from the community through a series of workshops that are geared
toward reaching a consensus on a future redevelopment plan that reflects the
desires of the community for a particular geographic area. It incorporates detailed
land use, zoning and design regulations, infrastructure plans, a financial feasibility
analysis, and redevelopment approval processes that guide future redevelopment
such as residential, office, commercial and open spaces.
Future redevelopment proposals considered by the Redevelopment Agency can
benefit from the foundation created by completion of a Specific Plan by the City
Council. Completion of a Specific Plan would allow redevelopment to occur in a
planned and efficient manner, allowing the City and Agency to quickly respond to
redevelopment opportunities. Further, an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”)
adopted as part of the Specific Plan process to satisfy California Environmental
Quality Act (“CEQA”) obligations may streamline the processing of subsequent City of Culver City, California
Redevelopment Agency and City Council
Agenda Item Report
discretionary projects by obviating the need for additional environmental
documentation.
Staff worked with Agency’s Sepulveda Subcommittee members Carol Gross and
Gary Silbiger to identify the following recommended boundaries for the Specific
Plan. The recommended boundaries reflect areas where redevelopment has the
most potential to create and enhance employment, housing, and commercial activity:
Should the City Council direct staff to proceed with the Specific Plan process,
existing studies and documents created for the area such as the Sepulveda
Streetscape Master Plan and the Sunkist Park Neighborhood Traffic Management
Program will be examined, modified, and incorporated into the Specific Plan.
If approved this evening, then staff will work with the Sepulveda Subcommittee to
prepare a Request for Proposal (the “RFP) for the Specific Plan work for
presentation to the City Council for approval. Ultimately, the proposals from the RFP
would be returned to the City Council and subsequently bid the work out. Once
responses are received and analyzed, staff will return to the City Council to
recommend hiring a qualified team of professionals with proven expertise in
community meeting facilitation, consensus building, urban design, land planning, City of Culver City, California
Redevelopment Agency and City Council
Agenda Item Report
financial analysis, and CEQA to complete the Specific Plan and CEQA analyses
(including an EIR if necessary).
Exclusive Negotiation Agreement Termination:
In recognition of community opposition to the proposed redevelopment project,
Champion withdrew their project and endorsed the CAC’s recommendation that the
City Council/Agency Board consider creation of a Specific Plan for the project area.
Staff has negotiated the attached Termination and Release Agreement with
Champion for Agency consideration. The agreement includes a release and waiver
by both parties for any claims against one another related to debts, liabilities,
demands, obligations, and costs in connection with the ENA and its termination.
Citizens Advisory Committee
The Washington/National Specific Plan currently being refined was formed through a
series of workshops and public meetings absent of a citizen’s advisory committee to
oversee its creation.
The CAC was formed to provide input on the Champion redevelopment project.
Now that the Champion project has been withdrawn, the Agency may wish to
consider dissolution of the CAC. Alternatively, the Agency may want to consider
instructing staff to request the CAC members to expand their service to include
oversight of the Specific Plan creation process. In inquiring as to whether or not the
CAC members would be willing to extend their service to complete this duty, staff
has found that if asked to serve, a majority of the nine members are willing to do so.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
Staff estimates it will take 9-12 months to create a Specific Plan. The cost of the
specific plan will be determined through the RFP process. Staff will present the
results of the RFP to the Council for consideration upon completion of the process,
which is expected to take approximately eight weeks.
Cost incurred from this project will include staff time to prepare the RFP, review
proposals, and manage/review the consultant team’s work. The cost to prepare the
proposed Specific Plan and CEQA analyses are recommended to be paid initially by
the Redevelopment Agency and will need to be funded primarily through unrestricted
tax increment funds. However, cities can impose a Specific Plan fee upon persons City of Culver City, California
Redevelopment Agency and City Council
Agenda Item Report
seeking governmental approvals that are required to be consistent with an adopted
Specific Plan. These fees can defray the cost of preparation of the Specific Plan.
Therefore, the costs associated with the preparation of the proposed Specific Plan
may be reimbursed by subsequent developers, who will pay their prorated share of
the cost when they are ultimately entitled by the City and Agency. As part of the
preparation of the proposed Specific Plan, staff will be developing a cost/fee
recovery program to reimburse the Agency for a portion of its costs.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Citizens Advisory Committee Adopted and Draft Meeting Minutes
2. Champion Exclusive Negotiation Termination and Release Agreement
MOTION:
That the City Council:
1. Approve the preparation and subsequent release of a Request for Proposals
for the creation of a Specific Plan for the study area boundaries
That the Agency:
1. Provided the City Council approves creation of a Specific Plan for the study
area boundaries;
i. Disband the Sepulveda Citizens Advisory Committee; or
ii. Expand the Sepulveda Citizens Advisory Committee service to
include oversight of the Specific Plan creation process; and
2. Approve the Termination and Release Agreement with Champion Realty Ltd
terminating the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement for the Sepulveda
Redevelopment Project.
MEETING DATE: 10/22/07
AGENDA ITEM: A Joint Item to Consider Termination of an Exclusive
Negotiation Agreement with Champion Realty Ltd. and
to Authorize Preparation of a Specific Plan for
Sepulveda Boulevard between Machado Road and the
405 Freeway; Jefferson Boulevard between Sepulveda
Boulevard and the 405 Freeway; and Slauson Avenue
between Sepulveda Boulevard and the 405 Freeway.
ATTACHMENTS
Pages
1 Citizens Advisory Committee Adopted and Draft
Meeting Minutes
1-100
2 Champion Exclusive Negotiation Termination and
Release Agreement
101-104
1
SEPULVEDA REDEVELOPMENT
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
ADOPTED AS AMENDED DURING THE CAC MEETING OF 5/2/07
April 25, 2007
Call to Order: The meeting of the Sepulveda Redevelopment Citizens
Advisory Committee (the “CAC”) was called to order by Todd
Tipton at 6:40 p.m. in the Cafeteria of La Ballona Elementary
School; 10915 Washington Boulevard in Culver City, California.
Roll Call: Roll call was taken (and introductions made):
Members present: Allan Goldman
Asher Schechter
James Jun
Laura Stuart
Loni Anderson
Marianne Kim
Marla Osband
J. Marvin Campbell
Members with
Excused absence: Howard Lichtman
Staff Present: Joe Susca, Redevelopment Project Manager
Todd Tipton, Interim Assistant Executive Director
Conduct of
Meetings:
The Deputy City Attorney was called away at the last moment
and was not able to provide a briefing.
Committee
Duties and
Overview:
Joe Susca reiterated the role of the CAC was to review and
provide input on the Sepulveda Redevelopment’s design,
business tenants and traffic study. Joe Susca also announced
that an e-mail account was being set up that would be posted
2
on the Sepulveda Redevelopment web page once created so
that members of the public can send e-mails to the nine CAC
members. Joe Susca also announced that the meeting that
night was being audio recorded.
Appointment of
CAC Chair and
Vice Chair:
Selection of Chair and Vice Chair:
Laura Stuart nominated Allan Goldman for Chair,
seconded by Asher Schechter:
Vote: All ayes
Marla Osband nominated Loni Anderson for Vice-Chair,
seconded by Allan Goldman:
Vote: All ayes
Project
Manager’s
Report:
Approval of
Minutes:
It was moved (Laura Stuart) and seconded (Loni Anderson)
and passed by a vote of 8-0 (Lichtman absent) to receive and
file the Project Manager’s report of the posting of the agenda
for the meeting.
Not Applicable.
Audience
Participation
for Items on the
Agenda:
Through the Chair, Todd Tipton announced that members of
the audience who desired to participate would be recognized at
the time the agenda item is called. An additional opportunity
for audience participation on non-agenda items was also be
provided.
Public
Comment for
Items on the
Agenda:
Dr. Roger Woodard: Stated that he has lived in the
neighborhood for 23 years and inquired about
population density and whether or not the CAC could
stop the project and he also voiced other concerns.
Chris Georges: Requested to speak after the
Redevelopment Brief presentation.
Chip Netzel:
Asked if an EIR would be required for the
redevelopment?
Joe Susca: The Planning Division would make that
decision when completing their CEQA evaluation of
the redevelopment.
As property owners, are Mr. Allan Goldman and Mr.
James Jun willing to stay or sell?
Mr. Asher Schechter- How are you going to balance
your developments.
3
Request: Can meetings be pushed back to 7:00 p.m.
and be held closer to the Sunkist Park area? Joe
Susca stated this was the only time and place he
could get for tonight’s meeting and indicated he
didn’t have any problem with the request, but would
look toward the CAC to determine future dates, times
and places for their meetings.
Allan Goldman: I have not met with the developer to
talk about staying or selling my property. The
businesses I have sold had indicated they want to
stay in project.
James Jun: I haven’t gotten into too many details as
of yet and are still considering either continuing at the
current location or maybe relocating. James June
stated that his family had been there 23 years, and
that it would be hard for his father to accept
relocating.
Asher Schechter: It is early in the game, and as we
move along in the process, I will see what
commitments will be made. I want to work with the
City and build a good relationship.
Bob Champion: I became familiar with the project via his
review of the adopted Sepulveda Street Improvement
Master Plan. Bob Champion noted the existing
disjoined parking lots in the project area and too many
curb cuts and reiterated his commitment to create a
project that benefits the community. Bob Champion also
recommends the City Council implement a Specific Plan
to guide the areas future redevelopment.
M. Levine inquired about how much influence the CAC
will have on the overall project from Slauson to Sawtelle.
Redevelopment
Brief Review:
Todd Tipton gave a PowerPoint presentation that included an
overview of good urban planning concepts, redevelopment
agency goals, industry terminology, and project examples.
Following the presentation, the CAC members were provided
the opportunity to ask questions and Bob Champion
participated in the responses.
Audience
Participation
for Items Not
1. Bob Champion provided the names of the architects
who participated in the design competition and stated
why he selected KTGY:
4
on the Agenda: i. AC Martin/Togawa
ii. RTKL
iii. KTGY
b. Peter Messinger: On your One Westside
redevelopment, how much is rented to family
owned vs. national chains. 25,000 SF of total
interior shop space. Half is owned by local and
independent business owners, such as the sushi,
optometrist, and Robeks and the remainder at
national chains.
c. Laura Stuart: About the CC Observer article, it
indicated that you weren’t interested in doing the
whole project area is that true? Bob Champion
responded that he originally envisioned the
redevelopment being built in 3 phases, in 12
month increments. After completing the pro
forma financial analysis and plans, Bob
Champion recognized a few things. 1. If
conceptual plans were built out, present cost
would be about $640 million and would need to
be built in multiple phases. 2. Since it appears
that there is a strong interest in protecting the
existing shop owners, particularly on the
Berryman-to-Sawtelle block it seemed logical to
Bob Champion, that if the project was going to be
built in phases, to create opportunities for those
existing businesses, they should be completed as
the last phase, so they could be relocated back
into one of the first three phases, which would
minimize displacement. However, the Agency
has the power to decide what portions of the
redevelopment will be completed and in what
order. My proposed redevelopment adheres to
the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code
requirements, and thus requires no variances.
Bob reiterated his commitment to build the entire
project area in four phases.
d. Todd Tipton: The team selected KTGY based on
their experience, ability to follow directions, and
quality of their team members.
e. J. Marvin Campbell: Will it be LEED certified?
Bob Champion: No, but will reflect smart growth
principles. At the next meeting, Bob Champion
will indicate what LEED certification level he may
be able to adhere to.
f. Chip Netzel: Why wasn’t there a public visioning
5
process for a project this size? Other parts of
City under major development went through
similar processes, including Downtown, and the
western portion of West Washington Blvd. No
real buy-in in community has resulted, and I am
concerned that the property owners who serve on
the CAC do not know if they will sell or not. I see
a serious conflict of interest because they can
profit from their property or business sale. What
will be done to allow existing business owners to
relocate back into the redevelopment? Will
incentives and reduced rental rates be provided
to them to give them a chance to be a part of the
new development?
g. Tipton: If a business who wants to lease space in
the new development is not able to be
immediately relocated into the project, we can
find them a temporary location. If the business is
relocated, the Agency/Developer is required to
pay for moving costs and subsidize increased
rent for a period of time until the business
stabilizes at their new location. It should be noted
that many of the businesses in area are paying
below market rate rent. Typically, businesses
relocated back into a redevelopment boost their
sales as a result of it, and thus are able to pay
higher rent than they were before.
h. Bob Champion: I’ve looked at a few leases that
are now encumbered in the general area. Those
leases coming up for renewal have landlords
asking $2 -$3 per square foot. Similarly, when
leases expire in the project area, those rents will
be going up significantly as well to be more in line
with the market.
i. Gary Silbiger: What kind of participation or
communication works best? This process is new
for us and together with the CAC, we will figure
out the best way the community can be heard
and their ideas implemented.
j. Unidentified Audience Member: Rick Caruso
spoke on National Public Radio today. He
mentioned he looks for local businesses to be in
his shopping center projects and gives them
special reduced rental rates because it creates an
overall better feeling for his projects.
k. Todd Tipton: This is worthy of investigating with
6
Caruso further.
l. Bob Champion: Any successful project will have
a combination of tenants. That is what makes a
good project work. I’m not surprised Caruso has
adopted such a strategy.
m. Unidentified Audience Member: Did the architects
have in mind the goal of inclusionary housing?
n. Bob Champion: They did not. This has to be a
decision made by the City. If the City Council
requests it, and the City made a policy decision to
financially support it, then it may be incorporated
into the redevelopment. The State wants
affordable housing built and is applying pressure
on local communities to create it, but affordable
housing is not necessarily incorporated into every
new project.
o. Todd Tipton: The City is formulating an
inclusionary housing ordinance and remains
committed to its goals and the ordinance will be
presented to the public soon.
p. Unidentified Audience Member: The slide show
commented on “eradicating blight” but I think the
real goal is to raise property values. I think that
existing property owners and businesses affected
by this redevelopment should have a
way/opportunity to invest in it.
q. Chris Georges: I am the property manager/owner
for the Comp USA shopping center. I have
owned the property for 10 years. I feel this
process is not as organic as it should be as it
feels like it is coming from the top down and
imposed upon community. Creation of a Specific
Plan is more work for the City, but it provides for
more individual input by community members. I
also think that it should include incentives to
reward developers for specific projects that would
adhere to the adopted Specific Plan. In this way,
the process is driven by the people who live and
work in the City everyday.
r. Unidentified Audience Member: I have been told
tonight that no specific number of housing is
planned, but the CC Observer article published
numbers.
s. Todd Tipton: The housing numbers generated
are pursuant to the City’s existing Municipal Code
requirements. I can’t tell what the final number
7
will be yet. This is all part of what the CAC will
discuss and recommend.
t. J. Marvin Campbell: Has the City considered
inclusionary housing for firefighters and school
teachers?
u. Todd Tipton: This is an important issue for staff
and the City that we’d like to address in the
coming fiscal year.
v. Maria Osband: Q. In a mixed-use project, who
owns the spaces that the businesses will occupy?
w. Bob Champion: On projects I’ve done so far, I
am the landlord and the businesses lease the
space from me.
x. Loni Anderson: I’d like to explore the opportunity
to see if the CAC can work on development of a
Specific Plan for the area. What is the current
zoning for the area? What is possible for
construction?
y. Todd Tipton: The project area is currently zoned
commercial and allows housing in a mixed-use
fashion. The ground floor must be retail. The
Municipal Code currently permits a maximum of
65 units per acre in density. We have certain
requirements from RHNA to create 500 housing
units for the City between now and 2014 and we
have not yet met those requirements.
z. Unidentified Audience Member: So, the RHNA
requirements are not a law that the City has to
abide by?
aa. Discussion ensues: Todd Tipton: Penalties for
lack of compliance, including the withholding of
gasoline taxes from the City are now being
discussed by the Southern California Association
of Governments. Unidentified Audience Member:
Some people like to live in Manhattan. Some
people like to live in Wyoming. Different people
like different things. If people are concerned with
increasing population density in this City, how can
we address this issue in our community?
bb. Todd Tipton: Public hearings and forums are the
place to speak your mind. The CAC is an
advisory body whose recommendations will be
presented to the City Council. Their comments
about the Sepulveda Redevelopment are
important.
cc. Tom Supple: Is there a different Municipal Code
8
for a redevelopment area than that of the City’s?
If property owner didn’t want to sell property,
would the City use eminent domain to acquire it?
dd. Todd Tipton: Only the City’s Zoning Code applies
in redevelopment project areas. No discussion
has been had and no decision made on the use
of eminent domain to acquire any property in the
redevelopment area. As a tool of the Agency’s, it
is a last resort.
ee. Peter Messinger: Is Bob Champion aware of the
fact that there are residential units in the
redevelopment area?
ff. Todd Tipton: Yes. It should also be noted that
the Agency cannot acquire residential property by
use of its eminent domain condemnation powers.
gg. Marianne Kim: What percentage of property has
the Agency acquired by use of its eminent
domain powers?
hh. Todd Tipton: We are currently working on about
8 different projects comprising a good number of
parcels and property owners and we’ve pursued
eminent domain on two of those, but that was
after an extensive number of months trying to
negotiate with the property owners.
ii. Carol Gross: In looking at the history of the City,
most of the time the Agency entered into
negotiations with property owners and settled on
a purchase price without going to court.
jj. J. Marvin Campbell. Does the Agency offer tax
breaks or incentives to developers?
kk. Todd Tipton: The Agency is often involved
usually because developments don’t make
economic sense for private developers. The
Agency may be a source of funding for the
redevelopment, which is usually paid back to the
Agency over time either through increased Tax
Increment or other means.
ll. Unidentified Audience Member: The Fox Hills
remodel worries me, in that Bob Champion’s
project may compete directly with it.
mm. Todd Tipton: The two projects are working
closely together to make sure they complement
one another and don’t compete with one another.
nn. Unidentified Audience Member: What are the
boundaries of the First Phase?
oo. Todd Tipton: Between Slauson and Berryman.
9
pp. Bob Champion elaborated: The properties from
Just Tires to where Winchell’s Donuts is located.
The second phase is south of Winchell’s to
Slauson; the third phase is Just Tires to El Pollo
Loco and the last phase is the Berryman-to-
Sawtelle block.
Future Meeting
Scheduling:
Future Meeting Scheduling
Motion by Loni Anderson to move all meetings to 7:00 p.m.
Laura Stuart seconds motion.
Vote: All Ayes
Loni Anderson made a motion to have meetings on 16
th
and
30
th
of May and there was no second. Laura Stuart
requested that we move the third meeting to the last week
of May since she will be out of town.
Allan Goldman: Asked if there was a time constraint if we
went into June with their future meetings? Joe Susca
indicated that staff has the ability to extend the ENA
schedule with Champion Development by up to 6 months
administratively, but that it would put the project behind
schedule.
Allan Goldman: Amends Loni Anderson’s motion to May 23
and June 6.
Gary Silbiger stated that a Sister City event will be held on
May 23, 2007, so that day is not good for him.
Loni Anderson amended the motion to May 22 and June 6.
Laura Stuart seconds motion
Vote: All Ayes
Adjournment
Upon hearing no other business, it was moved (Allan Goldman)
and seconded (Laura Stuart) and unanimously passed to
adjourn the meeting at 8:24 p.m. to the next regular meeting of
May 2, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Rotunda Room of the Veterans
Memorial Complex located at 4117 Overland Avenue.
10
SEPULVEDA REDEVELOPMENT
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ADOPTED MINUTES OF THE
MAY 2, 2007 CAC MEETING
Call to
Order:
The meeting of the Sepulveda Redevelopment Citizens Advisory
Committee (the “CAC”) was called to order by Allan Goldman, Chair
at 7:10 p.m. at the Rotunda Room in the Veterans Memorial Complex
on 4117 Overland Avenue.
Roll Call: Roll call was taken :
Members present: Allan Goldman, Chair
Loni Anderson, Vice Chair
J. Marvin Campbell
Marianne Kim
Marla Osband
Asher Schechter
Laura Stuart
Excused Absence: Howard Lichtman
Absent: James Jun
Staff
Present:
Joe Susca, Redevelopment Project Manager
Todd Tipton, Interim Assistant Executive Director
John Fisanotti, Acting Redevelopment Administrator
Christopher Evans, Management Analyst
Arlene Fetizanan, Redevelopment Agency Intern (and Minutes Taker)
Project
Manager’s
Report:
Approval of
Minutes:
Allan Goldman: Requested a motion to accept the Project Manager’s
Report. Marla Osband made the first motion, and Loni Anderson
seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes.
RE: Minutes from the 4/25/07 meeting: Laura Stuart stated she did
not ask Bob Champion about whom the architects were and how they
were selected, and requested that those comments be removed from
the minutes. Loni Anderson also noted a correction that Champion’s
project is called One Westside, not Westwood One as stated by Peter
11
Messinger. Allan Goldman requested a motion be made to approve
the revised minutes. Loni Anderson made the first motion, and Laura
Stuart seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
Items on the
Agenda:
Laura Stuart made a motion to swap the order of items five and six on
the meeting agenda. Marla Osband seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
Conceptual
Plans:
• Bob Champion: Bob reported that in some local papers that the
project had been reported as shrink-wrapped and that there were
financial issues; stating that those comments were not true. Bob
said that at the last meeting, in the newspaper and now, that he
was asked to create a vision for the Sepulveda corridor and that
he has. “The redevelopment is being proposed in series of
phases, and I would love to do all the phases. From our meetings,
I have learned about the various concerns of the community. The
community is concerned with issues such as massing and
business relocation. I would like to build all four phases as
planned, but this is at the discretion of City Council as to what I will
be asked to move forward with. I am delighted to build the first
and all phases if they want me to. I communicated to the City
Council that they need to give me direction on what they want me
to do.”
• Albert Croft of KTGY Group (Champion’s architects): Albert
introduced Stan Braden, Principal of KTGY to begin the
conceptual plans presentation. KTGY has offices in Irvine and
Santa Monica. Stan Braden is an architect with the firm who
specializes in commercial and mixed use projects.
• Stan Braden: We are excited about the redevelopment. The
process to date has not had time for interaction. We want to listen
to your concerns and incorporate them the best we can. We’d like
to expand the community and bring more residents to the
community, which is healthy for businesses.
• Next, Albert Croft, retail specialist based in Santa Monica spoke:
It’s a pleasure to be here this evening. The project will have
260,000 square feet of retail. Half of the s.f. is large anchor
tenants, and the other half is inline shops. Retail is designed to be
at street level and will create a warm and inviting pedestrian
experience. We want to engage the existing streetscapes along
Sepulveda and Jefferson. Articulation of storefronts will disguise
the massing of the large anchor tenants. Rich building materials
will be placed upon the buildings, with landscaping and hardscape
to mitigate harsh lines. The main focal point of the retail plan is
the corner of Sepulveda at Jefferson. Each phase has an anchor
tenant. It is important for small shops to have an anchor tenant to
generate pedestrian traffic who may patronize the small shops.
12
Parking is at grade and behind, not visible from Sepulveda and is
designed for ease of access from structured parking to shops.
Loading and delivery are located at the rear alley. Designed for
ease of maneuvering. Fully screened with screen wall from side,
but fully roofed. Aesthetics and sound control.
• Stan Braden then discussed the residential component of the
project, stating that the design would have each unit face quiet,
passive green landscape courtyards. Stan noted that the rear of
the building is stepped backward on the upper floors to minimize
massing and shade/shadow impacts to the adjacent single family
homes. Also, windows in the rear of the building would be either
frosted or eliminated entirely to preserve privacy to the adjacent
single family homes. The residential units will have their own,
access-controlled separate parking below grade, with a separate
elevator from the retail component as well. The residents can also
choose to exit and participate in the retail level. Most of the
residential units will face Sepulveda. Two landscape buffers are
proposed on both sides of the alley. The commercial shoppers
will not travel through the alley to find parking.
• Greg Lyon, Retail Architect at KTGY also spoke, indicating that
with vertical mixed use projects, what it would be like to live and
shop here, and to be a pedestrian from the street. Greg’s goal
was to create a pedestrian relief from street, doubling the size of
the existing sidewalk and at the same time, creating an organic
retail environment by pulling the retail to the sidewalk. People
may park behind the development, but when on the sidewalk,
patrons will get a more “main street” type of experience. The
design includes water features, kiosks, outdoor dining, coffee
houses and room for a real type of urban environment. The
residential portion is setback from the retail, with a softscape on
top of the retail component which creates a visual relief for the
residential units above. Residents will feel safer from above as
they will see street activity; especially in the evenings. He stated
that he wanted to wrap an urban fabric around the buildings corner
which is experienced when you drive into the side parking
entrances, thus you will still feel like you are in an activated
streetscape environment, and not have the sense that you are at
the rear of the development.
• Rocky Shen, a KTGY designer spoke, saying that in regard to
elevation and massing, the goal is to create an environment that is
memorable, unique and vibrant, where the buildings act as a
backdrop for people to gather. Articulated building features – such
as the undulations will mitigate the affect of a wall. Think of it as
sequence of spaces rather than a monotonous environment.
There are four levels of residential units above the ground-floor
retail. The strategy was to create a variety in the upper levels.
13
For example, each building corner has special features and a
unique design. Shops are articulated to be more diminutive in
scale. Open spaces provide for outdoor cafes and landscaping.
The heart of projects gathering area is the center court at
Jefferson and Sepulveda, where the project spans in each
direction from this center point, where a water feature resides. A
pedestrian can feel like he is walking through a different series of
individual events that are unique and attractive, but cohesive at
the same time. The proposed design also has features like
lighting elements. KTGY did massing studies to study the projects
impact to the surrounding buildings and to put it into context. The
computer model also simulates shadows at different times of the
day and year. Most of the shadow impacts would be felt during
the early morning hours. Most shadows would be cast upon
Sepulveda. Even during the winter solstice, which is time of year
that creates the most shadow impact, those shadows would be
seen only during the morning hours.
• Michael Flynn of KTGY LEED certified designer gave a
presentation on LEED and sustainability. Michael Flynn stated
that sustainability and green design is a philosophy and how
LEED is evaluated and applied to buildings. When you apply
sustainability to buildings, it means using less water, less energy,
and creating open space. There are costs tied to its
implementation, but as technology and popularity increases, the
costs are coming down. Most manufacturers of construction
materials are beginning to realize there is an increasing demand
for sustainable materials and that it is smarter to sell them.
Sustainable design implementation can increase construction cost
by a range of percentages, averaging about 3% to 5%. This
doesn’t seem like much, but in this case 1% of construction costs
can translate into over $1 million. There are four levels in LEED:
Certified, Silver, Gold and Platinum. The benefits of green
buildings are; Lower energy costs because they use less water
and electricity as well as lower maintenance and operations costs
because the sustainable materials used are more durable. Green
buildings also contribute to the better health and productivity of
their occupants. The LEED evaluation program by US Green
Building Council is now ten years old. The Federal government
and almost all of California state government and UC and Cal
state systems use it. Why LEED? It’s a well defined program that
is nationally recognized and may be used as a good road map.
The LEED certification committee assesses projects in six
different categories. Points are awarded for:
1. Sustainable sites: Redeveloping sites that are already built
out, increasing their density and locating them at or near
transportation centers.
14
2. Water efficiency: Using indigenous/native landscaping that
uses less irrigation with capture/reuse measures.
3. Energy and Atmosphere: Measured by reduction in energy
use and atmospheric emissions.
4. Materials and Resources: Use of recycled and/or local
building materials located within 500 miles of a project.
5. Indoor Environmental Quality: Better control of
temperatures inside.
6. Innovation and Design Process: Deploying measures that
are different and/or or exceed goals.
• Bob Champion: In addition to being a developer I teach mixed
use development at USC. Residents are concerned about
massing, traffic, and where they will shop and eat. These are real
concerns. In reality, when you look at change, you have to
balance the affect of change to their positive results as opposed to
negative impacts. The easiest thing for people to say is “I don’t
want change and leave it alone.” I’ll tell you why for the last ten
years I’ve been advocating mixed use developments. To begin
with, when you look at traffic, at the cities on the west side, and to
some extent Santa Monica, the increase office space and jobs has
resulted in more commuters going to the Westside to work. At the
RAND Economic Summit I attended recently, they analyzed what
was happening to cities on Westside. In the last ten years over 10
million SF of office space has been built. That’s almost 300,000
jobs. The area has less than 25,000 housing units, the result being
that those jobs are creating more commuting traffic coming
outside of and through your community. Next to Culver City,
Playa Vista has announced they are going to build 2 million SF
office space. You may say, well, they built housing at Playa Vista,
but all that housing is sold. This reality means that aging
communities need to change and adapt. In the case of
Sepulveda, you have a corridor that is cramped. For example, I
was on down there recently and it took me almost 25 minutes to
get off the 405 ramp. It’s bad, but it can be improved. I saw a
draft report/preliminary plan that has outlined Sepulveda street
improvements. The Sepulveda Streetscape Master Plan
envisioned the Sepulveda/Jefferson intersection as having a
gateway, with landscaped street medians in its center and trees
along the sidewalks. The Plan called for improved crosswalks,
noting five or six different places for pedestrians to cross the street
safely. It was a wonderful plan created and approved by the
community, but then the plan was not implemented because it was
discovered that it would cost about $4 million dollars to improve
the Sawtelle to Slauson segment. Second, the Sepulveda project
area has 22 different property owners and over 30 points of
egress and ingress from Sepulveda which means 30 different
15
points of confronting oncoming traffic flows. The City’s General
Plan calls for certain areas to have mixed use redevelopments.
Those guidelines include retail on the ground floor and heights up
to 56 feet. With the 22 property owners, redevelopment that
would occur would be spotty and not cohesive. Property would go
up for sale; a developer would come in and propose mixed use
development because mixed use is the highest and best use for
land. So market forces dictate that the project area will be built
out to allowable maximum according to the City’s approved
General Plan. Mixed use proponents will say that it is the best
method for redevelopment, and I believe it too. However, it could
be better if done as a single, cohesive plan in the project area. On
Sepulveda I see a large field of parking and buildings built in the
1940’s and 1950’s. In a cohesive plan, you’d create a plan that
minimizes curb cuts and provides parking that is adequate and
usable for everybody. In my project parking is off the street front
and back into the rear and sides of the project. This way I am
creating a livable corridor, a place you can stroll up and down and
go to restaurants, have outdoor dining, shop or go to bookstore.
We want to create a project that addresses concerns the
community has. It is only 56 feet tall. No taller than five story
building. It’s the same height as City Hall. In the industry, it is
considered low rise construction since it is less than 65 feet tall.
This project has a very low impact in terms of height. What are
the benefits it will create and are they worth it? A 30,000 SF
public plaza will be constructed. Right now I see the public plaza
residing on the Big Lots corner. This corner should be a place that
signifies this is the entrance into the redevelopment. My
development will have restaurants surrounding the public plaza, a
place you will want to get out of your car and spend time strolling
about. No cars, no surface parking lots to see. Surface parking
and cars do not facilitate pedestrian activity or encourage people
to stroll. Instead of having 30 points of ingress/egress conflict we
will have only a few, creating new streets that are traffic controlled.
One reason people are proposing mixed use these days, when
you have people who live, work, and shop in same place, they
take great ownership and pride in their community. They will be
concerned about safety and cleanliness. They will have and
participate in a home owners association. My plan is cohesive,
rather than 22 different property owners who have their own game
plans for their property. There are only three streets in my
proposed plan. Think of the increased value to the community this
project will create. It will create additional property, sales and
businesses taxes, allowing the City to pay for things you wouldn’t
be able to otherwise. We want to adopt the goals and measures
outlined in the Sepulveda Streetscape Master Plan. So this is not
16
just a project, but an opportunity to implement those street
improvements. Our intention is not to eliminate the existing alley
but to improve it. The oil pipeline that runs along the alleyway will
stay where it is. The plan includes the creation of two landscape
buffers in rear portion of the alley adjacent to the single family
home residents. We’ll have tree plantings on both sides of the
alley so that when you are in your backyard and looking out you
will see trees. Behind the trees, you’ll only see three stories of the
building that is 30-40 feet high, since the plan proposes a tiered
setback, increasing in height to its full 56’. The setback between
the single family homes and the project is about 55 feet from the
rear alley wall.
I know change is scary and the project is huge, but if it is
developed in the phases I propose, it won’t seem like a huge
project because it will be implemented in phases. The project is
evolving and that is why you are here to give me input into on the
project. Let’s suppose I didn’t partner with the City’s
Redevelopment Agency to talk about a project, and instead I did it
as an independent developer. For example, let’s say the Tattle
Tale property went up for sale. I could build buy it and build retail,
in adherence to the City’s General Plan. If I did, this conversation
wouldn’t be occurring. Instead, my partnering with the City’s
Redevelopment Agency has provided the community a unique
chance to have input on developing a plan, and to address
concerns and problems. So you can be assured when this project
is built out, it will be with your input. I am not a big developer. I
own my company and we have a total of 16 employees. We only
do about three projects a year, which are mostly infill
redevelopment. We seem to work well with communities. This is
our first presentation of our vision of how we see the Sepulveda
corridor as it could be redeveloped. We now ask you to help us
come up with a refined plan. I’m here to listen. For example, we
could probably go for LEED certification. It would probably be the
first mixed use project of its kind that does so, but we could try to
do it, if this is what this community wants. Not sure if the corridor
were to be built between 30 different developers if they would sit
here and listen to how to mitigate the concerns and impacts of
their individual projects.
CAC Member
Comments
After Bob Champion and his team of architects presented, CAC
members made comments. The CAC committee decided to ask all
their questions at one time and then have Bob Champion respond.
• Laura Stuart: Some of my concerns – First, signage. I notice that
signage is being put on the building. I’m concerned with light
spillage in my neighborhood from the restaurants and loading
docks. I would like to see the alley privatized. Would like to see
17
plans for traffic mitigation for the neighborhood. I have concerns
over egress/ingress into the alley, and the added noise and air
pollution as a result of its operation. Are the walls you’re
considering erecting sound absorbing? We had to fight for sound
walls with the 405 widening project. Is there a way of marrying the
two sides of the street to ensure they are complimentary? I
haven’t seen that. What about crosswalks and stop signs; things
that would bring other side of street visually into street.
I’m concerned about entrances into Berryman. Once you put an
entrance there, you invite a lot of people into our Sunkist Park
neighborhood. It doesn’t look like you stopped that traffic.
I think the number of condos is a little high. 700+ or so condos.
1,500-2,000 people. Maybe bring that down? Concerned that
visitors or people who don’t want to pay for parking and workers
who don’t get reimbursed for parking will be parking in my
neighborhood as an alternative to paying. On the green areas-
they need to be more kid and playground friendly. If more people
come to the neighborhood, our one City park will become
crowded. I prefer more green space in lieu of hardscape BBQ and
eating spaces. I also want to see something more charming in the
architectural design. One of my favorite mixed use projects is in
Hoboken, revitalized downtown Hoboken. Architecturally right
now, this project does not appeal to me.
• Marla Osband: Thank you for the presentation. You [Bob
Champion] talked about gathering places. Traffic on Sepulveda is
impossible right now. If there is to be gathering places in front of
restaurants and stores, how are you going to mitigate noise from
traffic on Sepulveda? Are there any provisions for parking that is
exclusive to the project’s residents?
• Marianne Kim: I thought the presentation was very good. Only
comment about presentation is that you spoke about the project
being good for people who live within it, but I didn’t feel like I heard
enough about how it would affect people living in the community
surrounding it. The Grove does good job of letting the community
use their open space as meeting areas for events. The
presentation was good if you want your audience to be those who
are in the market to buy the condos to, but it didn’t quite speak to
the rest of the community. I have a question about additional
property taxes -- will they be dedicated to implementing desirable
streetscapes?
• Asher Schechter: With a four phase build out, any preliminary
study on what the residential property values would be?
• Loni Anderson: During the presentation you talked about how
loading will be off of the rear alleyway. Sounds like that will create
a lot of noise for delivery in the morning and at night. What kind of
studies have you done on sound impacts and mitigation of those
18
impacts? Also, I would like clarification of where the trucks will be
coming from -- the side streets or from Sepulveda? Any studies
done on sight line? I’m also concerned about people residing in
the residential units looking down into the Segrell single family
home backyards. Do you plan to use mature trees or seedlings,
because mature trees can be quite expensive. During the
presentation – the architects made light of the fact that the
developments shading in morning is minor, and thus acceptable.
This doesn’t sound like something residents will be happy with.
Allan Goldman: The alley is almost an alternative street to Sepulveda
right now, and I know the residents have concerns about its continued
existence. How will you address problems at Berryman, Sawtelle and
Slauson crossways?
Bob Champion responded to questions from CAC members:
Regarding concern about signage, it will be geared towards
Sepulveda and away from adjacent residents. All of the signage
will be below the second level of the project and be beneath the
upper floor residents. No signage will be visible west of the
project or by residents adjacent to the alley. The signs facing
Sepulveda won’t be visible to the adjacent residents.
Regarding light spillage from the loading docks -- when we get into
more detailed plans, it will reflect that the loading docks are not
open and visible; rather they will be obstructed by a wall
prohibiting them from being seen and also providing light and
sound mitigation. Today, the trucks maneuver through the alley
and unload. This existing condition and operation won’t exist
anymore. Instead, we will have a dedicated ramp where trucks
come down alley and will back into the down ramp and the loading
dock will be shielded by a wall. The loading dock operations will
not be visible by residents on other side of wall.
Regarding privatization of alley. In discussions with staff, I thought
of taking responsibility for redesigning and maintaining the alley
though the City would continue to own it with preservation of the
existing utility easements within it. We are contemplating
contouring the alley and potentially installing speed bumps to
deter people from speeding and using it as an alternative to
Sepulveda like they are now.
Regarding traffic mitigation studies, at this point we haven’t done
traffic studies for the project, but a preliminary analysis included
the suggestion to add a southbound lane on Sepulveda
Boulevard. The traffic study will be completed as part of the next
level of planning for the project. Regarding the desire to see both
sides of the street married, our present agreement with the City
does not include the east side of Sepulveda. I believe there is a
19
benefit however, to ensuring that both sides of the street
implement street improvements that link them together. I also
believe that redevelopment of the other side of the street should
be well planned out and compliment my project.
Regarding the concern made about the entrance into Berryman.
There are several ways to mitigate this issue, although a traffic
engineer hasn’t evaluated it as of yet. One way may be to make it
a one-way street. Another way would be to create neighborhood
identification signs on the street, sidewalk and perhaps above, so
drivers realize they are entering into a residential neighborhood.
This can also be achieved through landscaping.
Please note that in the latest plan the office building is gone, and
we have replaced it with residential. This is for two reasons; first,
we found office buildings create much more traffic than residential,
and second, Playa Vista announced their construction of 2M SF of
new office space.
Regarding more kid/family gathering places and talking about the
project being more an amenity for its future residents rather than
existing adjacent ones. I want to create gathering place at
Sepulveda and Jefferson that will be used by adjacent residents
as well as project residents. The projects setback will create a
pedestrian walkway that is about 16 – 20 feet wide.
Regarding the comment that architecture wasn’t significant and
that the community would like to see more charm. I’m not
concerned about that comment because the way I created this
designs competition; it was conceptual and focused more on the
layout of the spaces than design. When it gets to the next level of
design, I will ask the architects to come up with three or four
different architectural styles that they can bring back to you so you
can decide which the best is. We’re here to work with you and
come up with a project you will be proud of, and that includes
picking the architectural style as well.
Regarding mitigating street noise from Sepulveda – this is
primarily accomplished thorough landscaping and creating wider
sidewalk setbacks from the street. We won’t be able to mitigate
everything, but we may be able to add low-volume music in the
outdoor dining areas to mitigate the street noise impacts.
Regarding the projects residential parking. As proposed, 50% of
the retail parking is at grade and one or two levels above are also
used. Studies show that retail customers typically do not like to
use below grade parking when patronizing a business, but don’t
mind going above grade one or two levels during peak hour use.
The residential parking is subterranean, completely segregated,
and its access is controlled. There is a vertical separation
between the different parking uses.
Regarding property tax increment, I’ll let staff answer that one.
20
Regarding adjacent property values, we will employ a consultant
to determine their effects, but typically the property surrounding
my projects increase more than market rates.
As for loading in the alley and its impact to adjacent residents, we
will design segregated loading areas, with a wall enclosing them.
As the project moves along, we can talk about what loading hours
best knows we have residential units above and adjacent.
Regarding the abutting residential impact, an image of the sight
line from the adjacent residents will be created, where the
rendering will include a depiction of standing in the back yard of
the Segrell residents for our next CAC meeting. Let me assure
you that we have designed the project so no units look into the
rear residential neighborhood. Instead, they look into the interior
courtyards. Regarding shading, all of residential units are
designed with “fingers,” creating all this open space between units,
so as not to have a solid mass facing the rear of the project. The
building height will probably cause shadows during certain times
and days of the year, but we will design the building to mitigate
those impacts to keep them to a minimum. In comparison, if 22
different projects [in lieu of a single, cohesive plan by one
developer], were undertaken by the existing property owners, they
wouldn’t be able to prevent this type of sun blockage from
occurring.
CAC members wanted to follow up on Bob Champion’s responses to
their questions.
• Marla Osband: Are you going to invite existing businesses to
become part of project – give them the first right of refusal to lease
available space? Who’s doing that?
Bob Champion: Is your question about how we will relocate them,
particularly those located in the northern block of the project area?
This is how the phasing notion came about. If we did the project in
phases, those businesses located in later phases could relocate back
into the projects first few phases. I’m not prepared to state that I’m
inviting all the businesses to be relocated back into the
redevelopment, but I will be working with staff on a plan for their
relocation either back into the redevelopment or elsewhere.
• Laura Stuart: Property value impact: I’m concerned property
owners on Culver Park Drive and Segrell Way will have their
property values diminish, while others will be fine. I would like to
see an analysis that targets property values for the streets
immediately adjacent to the project. Can they analyze this specific
area separately when completing their evaluation of the overall
impact to the neighborhood?
21
Bob Champion: I don’t know if consultants can get that specific, but I
will ask them to.
Todd Tipton responded to CAC members comments.
• Todd Tipton: In regard to property tax for streetscape
improvements, there is no reason why increased property taxes
generated as a result of the project cannot be allocated to
adjacent streetscape improvements, but you have to not only think
the capital costs associated with buying the trees, building
landscaped medians and widening sidewalks, you also have to
think about the resulting maintenance burden it placed upon the
City because it’s expensive. With the Sepulveda Streetscape
Master Plan specifically, capital costs were only one part of
equation when deciding not to proceed with its implementation.
Maintenance was also an issue and costs of services tend to rise
over time. What’s great about the Sepulveda project is it provides
an opportunity wherein we can ask Bob Champion to provide the
streetscape improvement and subsequently maintain them. This
is a good chance to get some desired items for the community.
We have gone to businesses to ask for some of these things and
their response has been that they didn’t find them a priority.
Regarding the architectural comment about a charming
development – in addition to architectural elements for charming
we can also include such factors as people, strollers, casual,
dogs, activity, good food, interesting, pleasant. Charming is a
good word, but I propose number of those descriptive may also be
used to guide us in this process.
Audience
Participation
Allan Goldman called upon people who filled out speaker cards to the
podium to make their comments.
• Tom Supple: For written record. I’m looking at the drawings, and
see no indications…?
• George Laase: Mr. Champion mentioned there would be some
kind of control on the three exits? What kind of control? I’m also
skeptical about the statement that the buildings won’t shade the
adjacent residential homes in a significant way.
• Lee Norris, Sunkist park resident: First issue, seems like it is
incestuous for the developer to sit with the CAC committee next to
the Redevelopment Agency Administrator at the same table
because often times relationships shape the reality.
I agree about the notion that a single developer is good idea for
the project area because it brings consistency. There are too
many units of housing proposed. Also, the retail is also too large,
even with the proposed setbacks and tiers. I chose Culver City
22
specifically for its small town feel. I could have lived in Santa
Monica which has a lot of density, permit parking, etc., but I chose
Culver City because you could actually drive it without getting on
the 10 or 405 freeways. I’m not opposed to change but this
degree of change is significant. The developer didn’t talk enough
about the impact of project on the quality of life of the existing
residents. Finally, we need more information to understand how
this project in its current configuration, coupled with Playa Vista
and Symantec project impacts and how they result in increased
daytime traffic. What is the impact on Fire and Police services?
Our Police Department has about 100 police officers.
Allan Goldman responds to comment on the developer sitting up
front, next to the CAC panel.
• Allan Goldman: We had Bob sit up here because we have a
limited number of microphones in the room to speak from, and
there was no more room at the KTGY architect team table for him
to join that table as well.
• Chris Georges: This was a lovely presentation. It is a lovely start
in the process of improving this part of Culver City. Though there
are flaws in this process since its beginning. A truly organic
process would have meant that the City would have gone to its
stakeholders in the area first. Instead, we were brought on board
at this stage in the game. “It’s like you built this beautiful ship, and
asked us what do you think – and if you want us to move some of
these deck chairs around, please let us know.” The way it was
handled and is being handled could stand some improvement.
There is still a way to get involved. How many property owners
are there in the area? They have a lot of say in how this project
unfolds. It cost lots of money for relocation, and I don’t think the
City wants to write the check for that. This process could be
improved, though the vision is wonderful. There are two ways to
achieve a main street USA feel --- one is to involve people who
live and work there and the other is to say “Hey, we made a
Disneyland USA, what do you think?”
• Shirley Chami, a former business owner on Sepulveda: I enjoyed
the presentation very much. The community needs many the
existing stores -- such as the television, dry cleaning, shoe store,
and I especially like the hardware store. I used to own The
Aquarium store. What is going to be done for the community, and
the existing small business owners? Did anyone contact Rick
Caruso about leasing rates for local stores? [In reference to an
inquiry from the last meeting’s comments on what developers like
Caruso get as leasing rates for local store owners].
• Les Wagner, resident for 54 years: Wife and him love the project
23
and look forward to seeing it completed.
• Bernard Bronstein: I have a follow up on the comment that
George Laase mentioned -- who is the target consumer for the
residential units? Are they one or two bedrooms, or studios? I
want to know so we can grasp who we are bringing in to the
neighborhood, be it singles or families? I know the City is
desperately trying to attract teachers, police officers, and fire
fighters -- maybe a potential discount for government employees
who’ve been working in the City for number of years could be
offered to them. I need some sort of idea of what this new
population coming in might do in regard to loading up of our
existing school system.
• Jennifer Ryba, resident next door to project: Next time when you
bring in a slide on shadowing effects, I want to see the impact
from different season’s renderings. Your comment [Bob
Champion] about single family home distance of 50 feet from your
project is too generous. The trees and wall you will put up will
also impact me as they will create shadows into my yard. How is
the proposed alleyway wall going to impact access for the existing
residents who use the alley to get in and out of their property now?
My next question is about construction. What are you going to do
to mitigate dust and noise during construction? We already have
problems given the 405 widening project. The plan doesn’t look
like Culver City at all to me. It would be great if the project were
located in Beverly Hills or Downtown LA, but not here. Do we
have to meet all of Culver City’s housing needs in this one place?
What is the impact to our air quality as a result of the parking
structure operations into the neighboring backyards? I don’t see
how my property value will go up -- I see my property value going
down.
• Paul Bergstrom called to make his comment, but was no longer
present at the meeting.
• Charles Hoult: My question is primarily for Todd Tipton and Joe
Susca. What are the impacts to the City’s books? You talked
about increased tax revenues, but what about impacts to our
schools, police, fire, parks and recreation and trash pick up? I
would like to see projections of the increased tax revenues versus
impacts on our infrastructure.
• Jerrie Beall: I really like the planning so far, except that my house
is right behind Big Lots. I love this town, was able to afford a
house here and I put so much into my house, the pool, and its
landscaping. The picture [slide on massing from presentation]
scares me to death. I’m relieved that residents of the project will
not be looking into my backyard. I want to get on board for the
project, but I’m still scared by it. I need to know you are still
thinking about the adjacent existing residents. I don’t know if
24
“fingers” in the development landscape design coming through will
allow enough sun through to heat my pool. I’ll keep coming to
these meetings and hopefully we’ll be able to work it all out.
• Harold Hyman, property owner: I own property along with five
other partners, on the northern most tip of project at Sawtelle and
Sepulveda. (Tattle Tale, King Kabob, Elena’s beauty shop, The
Aquarium). I want to repeat words I stated at first meeting in this
non-organic process. I think it’s rare (and I’m sure the developer
and architect will understand this) that the community has not
been involved in what the project looks like from its beginning
stages. I’d like to remind everyone that the CAC is responsible
mostly to people sitting out here, not the City government. I
worked in the school system for 50 years, 30 of which I was a
school principal. In this project there are 600-700 residential units.
Where are the play areas for little toddlers? Where are the slides?
Where is that rendering? This project belongs in big cities like
Chicago or New York, not Culver City. I thought we were
downsizing to make the City friendlier to children. Each property
owner of the existing site should work with the City and its
Redevelopment Agency in partnership to improve their properties.
We need to work together. If that comes about, a win –win
situation for business tenants and the existing property owners will
be achieved.
• Chip Netzel: Maybe if some of the property owners invested back
into the project, it would be different, but I would like to hear what
you [CAC members] think of the City’s vision for the project area.
Would you like to see the Sepulveda Streetscape Master Plan
implemented? Did that Plan include creation of 800 residential
units in the Sepulveda corridor? KTGY displayed Noon Day
shadows [in slide presentation] -- I strongly hope the CAC
committee will recommend that an EIR be done when the time
comes. I heard concern about the impact to City services, and as
resident of Sunkist Park, it’s a real concern of mine as well. El
Marino is a charter school. El Rincon is the closest school, K -5.
How will these two schools be impacted? I want to be assured
that Berryman will be completely closed off from the
redevelopment. I would like to ask each CAC committee member
what they think of the proposed 800 residential units addition to
the City and if that adds value to the City’s quality of life.
• Katie Victors: Will the parking be free? I’m concerned employees
or visitors will park on adjacent residential streets because they
don’t want to pay for parking. Will the parking meters on
Sepulveda Boulevard stay? There is a vote in Sunkist Park as
part of the Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Plan to turn Segrell and
Culver Way into one-way streets, along with their thought of taking
parking meters away from Sepulveda during rush hour.
25
Todd Tipton responds to public comments.
• Todd Tipton: There are a number of issues related to impacts of
the project that need to be addressed. There is environmental
review required pursuant to State law called the California
Environmental Quality Act that requires analyses of the impacts
through an Environmental Impact Report or other means, what
exactly those impacts there may be on traffic, schools, public
works, noise, shade/shadow, quality of life, and an analysis of the
impacts upon the City’s existing infrastructure. The formal
environmental review process would begin after a decision has
been made upon what form the project will take and once
completed, it will be presented before the Planning Commission to
consider entitlement of the redevelopment. First we have to
define what it the project it, then you work thru the various and
different analyses required by the law. Once impacts are
identified, we would then ask Mr. Champion to mitigate the
impacts. One example that comes to mind is the new BMW
motorcycles that Police Officers now use. Symantec bought three
motorcycles for the Police Department to give them what they
needed to better patrol the City. One of the mitigation measures
implemented from the Symantec project was to require them to
sponsor the additional Police services required to respond to the
impacts their new development have upon them.
Regarding the project area, I see low vacancy, deferred
maintenance, and very little reinvestment by its property owners,
and no City infrastructure improvements. One opportunity for the
City is that when something like this project comes along, we can
ask the developer to help mitigate impacts by paying for City
infrastructure upgrades and enhancements such as the under
grounding of utilities, replacing of aging sewer mains, repaving
adjacent roadways, sponsoring local school/police/fire activities,
etc. A number of years ago we offered a façade improvement
program to the property owners in the project area, and though it
was a financially appealing program, we had very few takers. It
was a generous program that offered substantial grants and other
Agency assistance to ensure their buildings rehabilitation was
seen through the City processes. Unfortunately only a few
property owners came forward and took us up on the offer. Some
examples of places that did participate include the Comp-USA,
Culver Hardware Store and Serrano Market across the street.
Funding for the façade program was re-appropriated into other
Agency programs due to a lack of interest by property owners.
Part of the redevelopment process required by law is the
requirement that existing property owners be allowed to participate
in any planned redevelopment of their property. Prior to entering
26
into the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Champion, those
property owners in the redevelopment area were allowed to come
forward with a project for the area. We had a handful of those
came forward, but most were not qualified, and Champion was
subsequently selected to investigate the feasibility of a project in
the redevelopment area. Regarding the Sepulveda Streetscape
Master Plan, it didn’t address land use issues; rather it focused on
the public streetscape only.
Vice Mayor Carol Gross spoke in response to CAC members and
other public comments.
• Carol Gross: Regarding the comment about an incestuous
relationship with the developer on the panel. Mr. Silbiger and I are
sitting at the table as the appointed Subcommittee for the
redevelopment. We are both City Council and Agency board
members and we have been assigned the task of closely
monitoring the progress of the redevelopment. Other Council and
Agency members aren’t here, as their attendance would be a
Brown Act violation as three or more of us cannot attend a
community meeting to discuss a project without formally
conducting a publicly noticed Agency meeting. As such, Gary and
I are answering questions on behalf of the City, though I
understand what the gentleman was saying about perceptions.
Regarding the question about property taxes and where they go,
recently, a 10-year financial plan was presented to the City
Council. Along with that plan, was a list of 18 items of how to
address anticipated funding shortfalls. Some had to do with
reducing services, others with creation of fee increases and
creation of assessment districts. The costs associated with
running this City increase faster than the amount of income it
brings in to do so. This leaves in my mind three choices a City
has. (1) Offer a lower level of City services to the community. One
option may be to turn Police services over to the County Sheriff, or
to turn over Fire services to the City of Los Angeles. (2) Add
additional fees and cost to residents and business property
owners. (3) Bring in economic development that creates new jobs
and funding sources. We need this kind of redevelopment to
offset the additional costs of maintaining the kind of community we
would all like it to continue to be.
Regarding the process and vision for the project area and the
question about how and when we contemplated it, specifically the
idea of mixed-use projects and building housing above
boulevards? It appears in number of publicly created documents,
including housing plans adopted some years ago, the
Redevelopment Plan, and the Mixed-Use Ordinance. The City is
under the gun by regional housing authorities to build additional
27
housing, and we have failed to meet our goals Since we don’t
have agricultural land and open space to build the new housing
upon, we have a couple of choices. Rezone single-family areas to
multi-family or build mixed-use housing above commercial in our
commercial districts, which makes more sense. I would rather
leave the single family neighborhoods in tact and build housing
over commercial on our major streets. To several people who live
on Segrell, I would offer an invitation to the developer and his
architects to come and visit and see what it looks like from your
backyard so they can better understand your concerns.
Bob Champion spoke, answering audience questions.
• Bob Champion: Let me give my office number, it is (310) 312-
8020. If any of you would like us to come photograph your
backyards, we would love to do that.
Regarding traffic controls at driveways in the redevelopment.
Those kinds of specifics will be determined by a traffic study,
which will commence once the project’s scope is defined. At this
time, the scope and project are not defined as we are working with
the community to do so. I said to the City that I am willing to build
four phases, and I am now waiting to obtain direction from the City
on how they want me to proceed.
Regarding traffic controls. A few different kinds of traffic controls
may be deployed in the redevelopment. Street signalization,
medians, signage, synchronization of existing traffic signals,
limiting exits to right turns only and the like. I imagine when a
traffic study is done those kind of recommendations will be
reviewed.
Regarding new residential demographics and who is buying
condominiums in the redevelopment, we are building a project in
downtown Burbank that is similar. It has exact same density as
Culver City in that it has 65 units to the acre. Of the 118 units,
roughly 15% are studios (600-700 square feet each), 30% are one
bedroom (750-850 square feet), 40% are two bedrooms (1,000-
1,200 square feet) and 15% are three bedrooms; the average unit
being 900 square feet. Buyers for Sepulveda will be same type as
in my Burbank project. 10-15% is empty nesters, people who
decided they don’t’ want the hassles associated with single family
home ownership, or retirees that want to move back into a City
they grew up in. The second category is people in their late 20’s
to late 30’s, single, and employed within the Burbank community.
They are tired of commuting, but can’t afford a single family
house. The project was an opportunity for them to be able to
afford property ownership, often for the first time. Some are
married couples with no children, and less than 20% are married
with small children.
28
Regarding trees as a buffer or obstruction to adjacent property.
Intention is not to have a line of trees on the western walls along
the alley, rather lower-height landscaping is proposed for that
area, with offset taller trees to be planted along the alley on the
redevelopment side. The intention is that when you view outside
your backyard, you will see a variety of landscaping and
staggering of trees. I will instruct the architect to select tree
species that are designed no to grow higher than 15-20 feet high,
so that light will not be obstructed into the adjacent back yards.
Regarding the too big versus small town feel issue. Density
proposed in this project is in adherence with the City’s General
Plan and existing zoning. I take my direction from the City Council
in this regard. If the City Council says, we want to build all four
phases, I will build all four. If they decide let’s build phases one
and two and see how it will impact the area first, I will do that as
well.
Regarding impact of other area developments, such as Playa
Vista and Symantec. When we get to that point in the project, will
study to see what those neighboring impacts are when evaluating
my own projects impacts. I want to remind you that your City has
a shortfall of housing now to meet the requirements of its
workforce. Your City has single family homes starting at $700,000
to upwards of over $1M which is out of reach to many people.
This project will provide buyers with more affordable housing stock
that is currently not available to them. Sale prices will range to
approximately $350,000 to $600,000 for the residential units.
Regarding the impact on Fire and Police services. When the
project is defined and goes to the next step in the process, an
economic study will be done that will evaluate public safety needs,
and the City will also see how much tax will generated as a result
of the project. I am positive if the project doesn’t offer a net gain
to the City, it won’t approve proceeding with the project.
Regarding the comment that this project is increasing the City’s
population by 15,000 to 20,000 residents. I hope you misspoke. I
am proposing 800 units if all four phases are built. It is more like a
1,200 population increase.
Regarding child playing areas. In my Burbank project we have
three courtyards. These have a Bocci ball court, pool and spa,
sandbox, BBQ and green grassy area. The Sepulveda project has
built into it facilities for residents to have privately used open
space for their children to play in. The great thing about a mixed
use project is you can use the verticality to create enclosed
courtyards solely for its residents and their benefit.
Regarding the relocation of tenants. I’d like to go on record that
I’d like to have Culver Hardware Store become a tenant within the
project. Regarding backyard size and setbacks. We will take a
29
look at aerials and do the measurements. If misspoke earlier in
estimating the distances, I apologize. At our next meeting, I will
show what existing conditions are and provide an idea of what the
project would look like from this perspective.
Regarding mitigation of construction activities. Issues of dust,
sound, soil containment, adjustment of hours of operation and the
timing of haul routes will all be addressed if the decision is made
to move forward with a redevelopment project. Regarding paid
parking, I’m not presently contemplating that parking would be
paid parking. If the City agrees, we will probably come back and
suggest that on west side parking meters be removed to create an
extra lane for traffic flow, and move any lost parking spaces into
the redevelopment’s on-site parking.
CAC members responded to the discussion:
• Marla Osband: Is methane gas in the project area? Bob
Champion: I have no idea, but soil boring studies will be
performed prior to any construction activity to determine the
presence of methane and environmental studies will be performed
to determine the presence of other hazardous materials.
• Allan Goldman responded about the comment made as to whether
or not the CAC represents the community. Allan Goldman: Mr.
Hyman, I agree with you that we represent the public in whole.
We were picked to represent homeowners, residents, business
owners, and property owners. Regarding Chip Netzel’s question to
what the CAC thinks about the project’s impacts, personally I just
learned about the true numbers and am not ready to give an
answer. I need time to absorb it all.
• J. Martin Campbell: I reserve judgment on that as well. Offhand,
800 residential units seem excessive. I just found that out myself.
• Asher Schechter: I know its cliché, but being young and single, I
would like see this development as positive. I’d be a prospective
buyer of a residential unit. I would like to live closer to work (which
is at the Westfield Fox Hills Shoppingtown. I’ve seen how Culver
City has evolved. The downtown transformation is remarkable.
This looks like a strong project with a lot of potential. I would like
to be part of the Culver City community, but can’t right now given
the cost of home ownership.
• Carol Gross: At this early stage, I don’t think it’s appropriate to ask
each CAC member to comment on how they feel about the
redevelopment since it is only just now being introduced to them
tonight. Instead, today’s meeting is about information gathering.
• Tom Supple, a Sunkist Park resident: I wish to make a comment
on items not on the agenda: We have meeting after meeting.
Why are we going so quickly at this stage? The City is giving me
more opportunity to look at traffic mitigation in Sunkist Park than
30
what documents I’ve been able to see thus far for this project.
Why do we have to have this meeting every two weeks? Why
can’t we spread it out?
• Todd Tipton: The answer is twofold; we have a schedule of
performance in the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with the
developer that should be adhered to by both parties. The idea at
this point in time is to figure out if there is a project. We need your
input so we can present your ideas to the City Council in the near
feature. So the sooner we get your opinion, the better.
• Marianne Kim: Is the slide show going to be on web?
• Todd Tipton: Yes we will do what we can to post as soon as
possible.
• Unidentified CAC member: I noticed Howard Lichtman [a CAC
member] has not showed up again for the second meeting in a
row. Any discussion about how many times you cannot show up
before being dismissed?
• Todd Tipton: That is something for the Chair of the committee to
discuss and determine.
• Joe Susca: Howard Lichtman has an excused absence for the
last two meetings as he is currently in China and plans to return
and attend the upcoming 5/22/07 CAC meeting.
• Gary Silbiger: What time period do we have in terms of the
Exclusive Negotiation Agreement performance with Champion?
• Joe Susca: We had hoped to bring this to the Agency board
sometime in July to consider what phases they would like to
project with the redevelopment. If the CAC would like to have
additional meetings to be as thorough as possible in their review
and comment of the proposed redevelopment, staff has the
administrative authority to extend the performance schedule by a
factor of up to six months if need be.
• Carol Gross: We have a sort of chicken and egg thing going on
here. We need to get input from the community and CAC so we
can define the project. Through this process we can pinpoint
more specifically what kind of project we may want. Right now the
project hasn’t been pinned down, so we can’t give specific
numbers. We need to get some input from you all so we can
refine the project. This is by no means the end; rather this is the
beginning of the beginning.
• John Fisanotti, Acting Redevelopment Administrator: Some of you
may have attended the ACOR [Advisory Committee on
Redevelopment] committee, the standing committee of the
Redevelopment Agency that meets once a month. The next
ACOR meeting is tomorrow and the same project will be
discussed at the Senior Center. The architects will do the same
presentation to the nine members of ACOR. The ACOR agenda
is posted on the City’s website. If you want to come back and do
31
this all over again, you are welcome to do so.
• Chip Netzel: Which advisory body will give recommendations to
the City Council?
• John Fisanotti: Both advisory bodies’ input will be given to the City
Council for their consideration.
Future
Meeting
Scheduling:
• Laura Stuart asked the committee if they would mind moving the
May 22, 2007 meeting to May 30
,
2007 since she plans to be out
of town.
• Marianne Kim: I feel like if we set the date, we shouldn’t change it.
It confuses everybody out there who has already set their
schedule to attend them.
• Loni Anderson: I would agree with that. As I recall Laura, you
seconded the motion establishing the subsequent meeting dates. I
hear what you are saying, but we discussed the schedule
previously at the last meeting and we should stick to it.
Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 9:53 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled
meeting of May 22, 2007 at 7:00 PM at a location to be announced.
32
SEPULVEDA REDEVELOPMENT
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ADOPTED MINUTES OF THE
MAY 22, 2007 MEETING
Call to
Order:
The meeting of the Sepulveda Redevelopment Citizens Advisory
Committee (the “CAC”) was called to order by Allan Goldman, Chair
at 7:08 p.m. at the Senior Center on 4095 Overland Avenue.
Chair Allan Goldman began the meeting by asking the members of
the committee to introduce themselves to the group.
Roll Call: Members present: Allan Goldman, Chair
Loni Anderson, Vice Chair
J. Marvin Campbell
James Jun
Howard Lichtman
Marianne Kim
Asher Schechter
Laura Stuart
Excused Absence: Marla Osband
Staff
Present:
Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director
Joe Susca, Redevelopment Project Manager
John Fisanotti, Acting Redevelopment Administrator
Christopher Evans, Management Analyst
Arlene Fetizanan, Redevelopment Agency Intern
Max Paetzold, Traffic Engineering Manager
Sherry Jordan, Senior City Planner
Council
Present:
Carol Gross, Vice Mayor
Gary Silbiger, Council Member
33
Development
Team
Present:
Bob Champion, Champion Development
Laurel Gillette, KTGY Group, Inc. Architects
Project
Manager’s
Report:
Approval of
Minutes:
Allan Goldman: Motion to accept the Project Manager’s Report. Loni
Anderson offered motion. Laura Stuart seconded motion.
Vote: All ayes.
Loni Anderson motioned, and James Jun seconded the motion for
approval of the minutes from the May 2, 2007 meeting. Loni
Anderson included in her motion a proposed change to page two of
minutes; where the third line from bottom states, “The main focal point
of the retail plan is the corner of Sepulveda and Slauson” should be
changed to “Sepulveda and Jefferson.”
Vote: All ayes.
Conceptual
Plans
Discussion:
A female audience member interrupted the proceedings with the
following question: Why do we have members on the CAC that are
not from the project area?
Joe Susca: This is a nine member committee, with five members
directly affected by and adjacent to the project. The purpose was to
have a balance of the entire community. Of those five members, we
have two property and business owners, two residents from Sunkist
Park and one from Blanco Park. The four others are comprised of
residents and business owners from the remainder of the community.
Allan Goldman proceeded with the agenda, and introduced Bob
Champion and Laurel Gillette of KTGY who presented to the group a
rendering created using a photograph from an adjacent Segrell Way
resident to depict what the view would be from their backyard.
Bob Champion commented: At the last meeting, the direction we
were given was to provide an image of what the project would look
like from the backyard of a home adjacent to the project. We got
access to one of these homes, took pictures and depicted in this
rendering what it would look like. In this rendering you see a
continuous row of trees from the west side of the alley. The building
you see is actually three stories, and then steps back 20 additional
feet to the remaining two additional stories. Also, this rendering
depicts the windows in the project face the courtyards, not the
backyards. I’m addressing the privacy concern of people who live
behind that the project that they fear people will be looking into their
34
backyards. We’ve made minor changes to the plans. The office
building at the corner of Slauson and Jefferson has been taken out.
In the last meeting, I said the plans hadn’t been updated. The revised
plans shown here today reflect the office has been removed and
replaced by ground-floor retail/restaurants and upper floor housing.
Slight tweaks to plans include change in size of the plaza, additional
landscaping, and retail square footage.
CAC Member
Comments:
Allan Goldman calls on members to share their comments and to ask
questions.
Asher Schechter: Are there any plans for traffic lights to stem the flow
of traffic?
Bob Champion: With the Chairman’s approval, I’d like to hold off and
answer all the questions at one time.
Allan Goldman: That is fine. Would other members like to make
comments?
Loni Anderson: On Sunday I walked Segrell Way to get a feel for how
residents feel about the project. I wanted to try to talk to as many
people as possible who are not able to make it to the CAC meetings.
From many of the people I talked to, their concerns were focused
upon traffic on Segrell Way. If this project goes through they hope
they will receive something from the City to mitigate its traffic impacts.
Another concern was the scope of project. If the individual buyer
purchases property, they can build legally to a code permitted height
of 56 feet. To have one developer build in totality could be of interest
to the community since this developer is going to step back the
building. I know the CAC can’t make the decision, but we can make
suggestions to City Council.
An audience member interrupted Anderson with her question about
whose side she and the group were really on. Loni Anderson clarified
she was not stating her opinion at this point; rather she was sharing
information about citizens concerns that she spoke to. Anderson
continued making her points, and talked about perhaps looking at
changing the existing zoning to address these concerns.
Loni Anderson: I see many of the folks I spoke to during my walk
here tonight, and I’m glad. One of the other concerns was what will
my children be looking at when they see the project? I didn’t know
the rendering would be available tonight to answer that question. I
talked to many folks, and some folks were for it, and some people just
didn’t care. I want to hear what you have to say because the CAC is
35
here to hear it. The biggest thing I heard when I walked the
neighborhood was this project was too big. This is an opportunity to
receive public input because you wouldn’t have this opportunity if it
were redeveloped by several property owners on a project by project
basis. Maybe we should look at changing the 56 feet zoning to
something we can live with. If this group says no to this developer,
then he can’t build to 56 feet, but if an individual property owner
proposes a redevelopment, they can still do it to the 56 feet limit, so
perhaps we ought to think about the bigger picture and look into
changing the existing zoning.
Laura Stuart: A resident from Segrell asked me a question. Is the
City and Developer going to compensate the residents for their
losses? Are we going to be protected from the ravages of
construction? I have a question about the Fire Station property,
which is directed to the City Council members to answer. The Fire
Station is moving away from Segrell and three single family homes
will be built in its place as that is what the zoning allows. I wanted to
ask the City was still planning to sell the land for single family homes,
and if so, is Champion going to develop them, or can we think about
making it into a Pocket Park? We need to consider what fits with the
neighborhood.
Howard Lichtman: (Commenting on the backyard view rendering
Champion brought). I appreciate the buffering and landscaping and
trees. I know the aesthetics of the building and architectural style and
specifics are still to come. As far as articulation, this is something that
needs to be looked at further. In its current form, it does not do
anything for me. Also I see utility lines feeding the building, and I
think a case can be made for going underground with those utilities as
part of the project.
Allan Goldman asked if anyone else had any comments. J. Marvin
Campbell, James Jun, and Marianne Kim did not have a comment.
Allan Goldman: At this time, we need a CAC member to volunteer to
contact officials from other cities Bob Champion has worked with.
Only one person should be assigned to ask the questions. Is there a
motion for someone to volunteer? If no one can, I will volunteer
myself.
A motion was made to nominate Marianne Kim as the CAC
representative. Loni Anderson seconded the motion.
Laura Stuart: What is the deadline (to talk to the other cities)?
36
Allan Goldman: June 6, 2007. At that meeting we will discuss the
findings thoroughly. Perhaps we can meet one more time on June
27, 2007. I know the City wants to be done by July 1,
2007 if
possible. We won’t know officially if another meeting is necessary
until we get feedback from Marianne. So we should schedule two
more future meetings.
Allan called for a vote for Marianne Kim to be appointed as CAC
representative to contact the cities of Burbank, San Diego and
Pasadena.
Vote: All Ayes
Audience
Participation
Allan Goldman announced at this time they will now take comments
and questions from the audience.
Allan Goldman: Bob, do you want to answer all the questions from
the audience at once?
Bob Champion: Yes, I’d like to.
Allan Goldman called the first speaker, Tom Supple, to the podium.
Tom Supple had a comment: Regarding notification of this meeting, I
went online nine days ago, and the meeting place was still listed as to
be announced. It wasn’t in the papers. People asked me if I knew
where it was. When I found out, I did not have sufficient time to pass
the information onto others. I was at that backyard when the
photographer took the picture (in the rendering displayed at this
meeting). The photographer took many pictures but this one is at the
best angle for the developer. It does not look straight across the
alley. It should be taken more down the alley as well. I also have two
questions. Twenty – twenty-five years ago, the Planning Commission
approved a ten story building on the site of the old bowling alley. It
was not approved, but appealed. Part of the 56 feet height limit had
terracing back on this project. Twenty years ago you couldn’t build 56
feet or is the Code we established 25 years ago still in effect? What
is the height on the alley property line? You say three stories, and for
two stories above, what is the height? At the last meeting you talked
about articulation. Does any of this articulation go above 56 feet?
Would they be architectural features?
Phyllis Kissoff: I would like to know how the City Council voted on
this project.
Loni Anderson: They haven’t voted.
37
Ann Treleven, Segrell Way Resident: I live with my front yard facing
the project and I have a view of the Culver Crest. When I look at
these pictures (site plans and renderings displayed at the meeting) I
can see a three story building, loading dock, and parking lot. It’s cute
but not accurate. I’ve heard lots of arguments if we don’t’ get Bob,
we’ll get some horrible thing. Bob has a lot more buying power than
others. Essentially he is taking 20 some owners, and turning it into
one owner. In regard to traffic, it is interesting that the traffic
discussion does not speak about Segrell. If they have trouble
entering Sepulveda, guess what streets they are going to use – it will
be Segrell and Culver Park Drive. We are the bypass roads for
Sepulveda. If people are circling the area for retail to get into the
parking lot, it’s on our streets. There’s got to be more than a
statement that the traffic mitigation group will take care of it. Fox Hills
is going to expand. Symantec is coming too. What about all those
people living in the condos – where are their kids going to go to
school? We only have one neighborhood school and a highly
competitive magnet school nearby. We’re going to need to build
another school. I’m not an economist, but people who live behind the
project will have a view of the buildings, while people who live in
Culver Crest will still see the ocean views. The corridor angles across
and blocks our side of the neighborhood, which is Sunkist Park. I’m
not anti-development, but you have businesses there that people
love, that would not exist. Nothing is that tall anywhere near us.
Target is not that tall. Toys-R-Us is not that tall. The tallest one
nearby is near Fox Hills. It will completely stick out and separate the
two sides of Sepulveda Blvd. I think this thing is seriously too big. It’s
a lot to take twenty existing owners and turn the whole space into one
owner.
Dorothy Inman, Segrell Way Resident: My mother has lived on the
street since 1959 on Segrell Way. I remember when they proposed
the ten story project on Jefferson as well. But I’m fighting this one.
The woman who spoke before me voiced my concerns. Traffic is
horrendous. I can’t imagine 800 units behind my mother’s house! No
way, unless you build another road on top of Sepulveda. I live in
Orange County now, and the only building we have that is five stories
is our school district which is a huge enterprise. Five stories right
behind my mother’s house seems like an awfully high building.
Chris Georges of Harvey Capital Corporation: Thank you Mr.
Chairman. We own CompUSA on Jefferson. We are one of the
largest owners in the project area. I have nothing personal against
Bob Champion, I’m familiar with his work and he has done it well
historically. By the same token, everyone in this room is a
stakeholder. One thing I want to point out is that all the advantages
38
that are being propounded before us; aesthetics and economic
effects, how it will be a south end gateway; those ends are achievable
in other ways. It will take more work for the City to do it the other
way, through creation of specific plans, rather than the monolithic
way. What about more of an organic process, albeit with a lot more
work. I have a specific question for City Council members. I’m not
quite clear what the July 1,
2007deadline is, what it entails and what
is driving this process with such speed? I want to know what it would
take for the City Council to vote this down, because this is only an
advisory body and frankly I don’t know if anything the advisory body
says will deter the City Council from approving the project.
John Wacker, resident of Sunkist Park: I have been coming to these
meetings since the first one at El Rincon School. I’m a concerned
resident. Many speakers addressed that this CAC is formed,
assuming that this project will go through. We’re not being asked to
participate on this project. Gary Silbiger mentioned in last week’s
meeting that this is an experimental process. To me this is as
experimental as can be. So what I’ve done in efforts to discuss with
others such as Chip Netzel, as representatives along with property
owners, we’re going to go ahead on our own to form a committee to
address the City Council to cancel this project and start all over.
These people (CAC) have been appointed by the City Council to
move this project forward. After this meeting concludes,
representatives from the community (not the CAC) are going to meet
and put together a strategy to go to City Council to get this project
cancelled and to put together a proposal the community wants.
Chip Netzel, resident of Sunkist Park: I’d like to focus on the
committee here since you continue to be the recommending body. I’d
like to find out how each of you feel about this rendering, because this
is your home. It says on the agenda (Agenda Item #5), “Once
concluded, CAC members will consider the plans and their
refinement.” Speak up. I want to hear what you have to say. Talk.
This is 65 units per acre in density; the Planning Commission may
start to talk about this. Are 65 units per acre a good thing? Why not
bring that number down. (Addressing Bob Champion): Bring shade
and shadow boards next time. I took a look at all three architects’
proposals for this project and of the shade and shadows boards I saw
at City Hall, only one showed 8 a.m. shadows. The adjacent
residents will not have any sun from 8:00 a.m. to about 11 a.m.
Jennifer Ryba, Segrell Way resident: A lot of my points have been
made so I I’ll try not to repeat. This is too tall and too dense. I like
the ideas of having restrictions changed. There is no reason why this
has to be built to the maximum it can be. It’s too big for the area. Mr.
39
Champion you tell us you will reduce traffic by getting rid of
driveways, but it won’t do much. I can’t imagine people who work in
the retail portions of the project would be able to live and work in
same area, since they cannot afford the $300,000 units. To the
question about power lines -- you can’t bury them, because the
Mobile 75 oil lines are below ground. Most people in the
neighborhood will not be able to afford to shop at the retailers within
the project. Point about website posting -- you have to go through so
many layers to get the information. I asked at the ACOR meeting that
all meetings on this project be posted. Shade and shadow boards,
we asked you to bring them. We don’t see them.
Male member of the audience: I walk to work everyday. When I walk
home at 4:00 p.m. everyday at Jefferson and Slauson, I see five to
seven cars a day waiting to come out of the alley because they can’t
turn left. The light there lasts 15 seconds. On Berryman, if there are
seven cars turning right or left, they can’t exit the alley unless they
exit through Sunkist Park. At Sawtelle and Sepulveda I see ten cars
that are backed up past Culver Park Drive. And this is without 1,200
additional residents. I don’t see how you are going to be able to
mitigate that. You can’t change the alley, but you will increase the
number of cars.
Mary Banks Levine, Sunkist Park resident: First, I have lived almost
20 years in Sunkist Park. The area does need renovation. At the
last meeting there was mention of taxes. If you don’t have new
developments to tax, you have to tax existing to maintain the same
level of City services, right? Basically if you don’t get new projects to
provide additional taxes to the City, then existing property owners
have to pay more by levying creased taxes, is that correct?
Allan Goldman: We’ll answer all the questions all at once.
Mary Banks Levine: Also, are you considering solar energy, so not to
put an additional strain on resources we now have?
Carlos Gutierrez, Orville Street resident: I grew up in the City. I am
40 something years old and have lived for 30 years in the City. If you
are going through with this project, think of the children. At least have
something for the kids included within the project. I live on Orville,
and want something like a movie theater, or family fun center --
something we can walk our kids to. Traffic on Sepulveda is
horrendous. You can get stuck in it for hours. You are getting rid of
three bars. I would like to walk to a place to relax and get a drink, a
place to get away from my home, where I don’t want to drive home
drunk. (Right now he can walk home from the bars). How many
40
tourist dollars are we going to get? Think of the neighboring dads like
me who want to have a beer at the bar.
Parvis Shahabi, Segrell Way resident: #1- Thousands of cars are
going to go through our neighborhood as a result of this project. We
are going to suffer. After 4:30 p.m. every day on Segrell it is horrible.
Lots of these people have grandkids. They can’t walk on Segrell. I
hope this project will not be approved. There’s going to be eight to
ten people living in these condos and it’s going to be worse. Ms.
Anderson talked to me, but I don’t understand. Are you (CAC) here to
push the project through or are you here to listen? According to one
of my neighbors, they got a meeting notice flyer two days after the
last CAC meeting was held. We have lots of senior citizens (on
Segrell) with no where to go. I’ve been here for over 40 years. We
are going to be living in Hell (if this project goes through). Next time,
send a flyer for the next CAC meeting ahead of time.
Charles Holt: Unfortunately I had to run here from work. The reason I
want to address you is because what really bothers me is finances to
the City. I don’t live on Segrell, but have friends who live there.
We’re going to need more infrastructure; such as schools, Police, and
Fire. Somebody needs to give us an estimate to determine if this
project will pay for itself or not, from the City’s perspective.
Female Audience Member: Where is Fire Station going to be moved
to, because if we will have 800 new residents, we need one to be
nearby.
Mike Casey, resident in neighborhood: Are you (CAC)
representatives of us, or of the City Council? Are you your own
voice? Do you have their ear more than we do? Written Comment
submitted for the record: Traffic congestion, over development and
greed are just a few of many problems with the current plans for
development. Mike Casey was the last speaker card.
CAC members Marianne Kim and Howard Lichtman spoke further:
Marianne Kim: Increased traffic has come up over and over again. I
want to know more about the economics of how much and to what
extent existing infrastructure will be impacted. With or without this
project, traffic will get worse. It’s getting worse. To the extent this
project impacts existing traffic, Bob Champion will have to address
this. I see an absence of analytical data from the City for the
members and public to make a decision. (Addressing question about
whose side CAC is on). I can’t speak for everyone, but I didn’t come
into this process with prejudice. Public Works, Finance,
41
Redevelopment, and Transportation can provide some answers. I
would like to see that type of independent data analysis will be
generated by them.
Howard Lichtman: I want to follow up on comments people have
made. I found out about this position from the local newspapers. I’ve
lived here since 1983, and I love living here. I’m serving on the CAC
because I want what is best for the community. I’m not here to
represent the City Council.
Allan Goldman: Ms. Gross, would you like to respond to any of the
questions?
Vice Mayor Carol Gross: Let me answer a few questions that pertain
to the City Council. At this point it would be very inappropriate for any
City Council or the CAC to go on record one direction or another. It’s
our job and their job to listen to what everyone says. When the time
comes for them to collectively make decisions, it will come. It’s not
right for someone to demand them to say where they stand now.
We’re sitting here tonight to be a resource and listen and address all
of you. Regarding the Fire Station; it is moving to Bristol Parkway in
Fox Hills. Some of projects in Fox Hills are at least as dense as this
project. Regarding the old Fire Station parcel being sold to construct
single family homes – we have contemplated that idea. I know we
have advanced the City’s General Fund money to get the new Fire
Station built that would be paid back by the old stations land sale. We
asked the County, the State, and went all the way to Washington DC
in hopes of securing additional funds for the new Fire Station
construction, but a good portion of its construction cost will be funded
by the sale of the former station’s land. Secondly, the City Council
hasn’t voted on this project yet. The only thing the City Council has
voted to do is to have a conversation with Bob Champion. We are
listening to his ideas, and have been asked to contemplate them.
We’ve included you in this conversation. This CAC committee is seen
as another means to include the community in that conversation.
Because we are at the beginning of the process in evaluating the
feasibility of a project, no one has all the answers. In answer to the
question of “Why didn’t you talk to us from the beginning of the
process?” and “Why don’t you (City Council) have all the answers?”
The thing is you can’t have it both ways. If we move forward with the
project, an Environmental Impact Report will be done. It will take a
look at traffic, noise, and the impacts during construction. It will also
look at impacts on all City services and infrastructure. In building of
this project, a lot of existing infrastructure will be improved and
upgraded at the expense of the developer. This is what we get from
other projects in the City. You guys can contact us at anytime. We
42
(she and Gary Silbiger) are the two that comprise the Subcommittee
who represent the City Council on this project. We are always willing
to talk. I want to point out, some years ago; we had the Sepulveda
Streetscape Master Plan, which was created through input from a
number of community visioning meetings and design guidelines were
adopted at that time. As for the façade improvement program the
Redevelopment Agency had, which put money out there to get
business owners to improve their own buildings; I think only three --
the Serrano Market, Hardware store, and Big Lots took advantage of
it. Even though we went door to door offering them the program
which included payment of the majority of the expense to rehabilitate
their buildings. Regarding taxes; the economic reality of it, as one
lady pointed out tonight, is our expenses continue to grow. So to
preserve our existing high level of City services, the choices become
economic development, increased taxes or fees to our businesses
and residents, or lowering the quality and level of services the City
now offers. This is the kind of discussion we City Councilmembers
have to look at. Max Paetzold (the Traffic Engineer associated with
the City) - can clarify what’s happening with traffic issues in Sunkist
Park. Can you speak about traffic?
Max Paetzold came up to the podium to talk about traffic mitigation
issues and measures independent of the Sepulveda project that are
taking place in the adjacent Sunkist Park neighborhood.
Max Paetzold: I do know the Public Works Department has been
sponsoring meetings in the Sunkist Park neighborhood and has
developed a Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Plan. Sunkist Park has
been divided into four parts in that plan. There is questionnaire being
mailed out soon asking the residents to provide a simple yes/no to
whether or not they vote to proceed with implementing the proposed
plan. I am not really in touch with that project as it has been overseen
by Gabe Garcia. Regarding the oil pipeline, it is a Mobil 75 pipeline
that was abandoned 10-15 years ago and has subsequently been
steam cleaned and given to City as an asset. Now the pipeline has
fiber optics running through it, and the City gains fee from it. It would
be expensive for you to pick up and move it. It is an asset to the City
and an ongoing source of revenue. As far as traffic goes, Bob
Champion’s project is a moving target based on the desires of
community. There was mention of 800 + units, but there is also retail
involved. When the time comes for a project to be analyzed, we’ll do
a traffic study. I can give you some numbers though. Average trips
for a single family home is 9.5 daily trips. For condos it is less than
that six daily trips, for apartments, seven. On retail it depends on the
value, if it is a restaurant versus a mortuary, they will have different
traffic trips associated with them. It’s something we have to evaluate
43
as it is determined in order to do a thorough and accurate traffic
impact analysis. If a particular business was a big draw- it would
generate a different number of trips as well, but usually something like
a big draw (e.g. a movie theater) it would only be busy at a particular
time of day or week. If it were offices, it would be busy during peak
hour traffic.
Allan Goldman received one final speaker card and asked Peter
Messinger to come up to the podium.
Peter Messinger: I am the owner of The Aquarium on Sepulveda and
Sawtelle. What makes me very upset is that you keep bringing up the
fact that businesses were offered money to make them look better,
and that little businesses took the money to make their places look
nice. You don’t bring up fact that businesses that look shabby and
the two that were fixed up are all going to be bulldozed anyway. I
know personally four to five property owners are not interested in
selling, which means that the only way to do this project is by eminent
domain, to take the parcels by force because they most won’t sell.
Councilmember Gary Silbiger: Thank you for coming today. The
reason we established the advisory committee is to be able to more
effectively communicate with the community and its formation is
somewhat of an experiment, as the City Council and the Agency were
trying to figure out what would be the best way to obtain input from
the community. At any point if we can improve the process, we are
open to hearing your suggestions. We have a variety of possibilities
regarding this project at this point, and we are nowhere near making a
decision about it yet. We thought this time we’d have a different way
of getting information from the public, through establishment of an
advisory committee. They would give us advice. I think these kinds
of forums are helpful to us. No one has made any decision and we
are looking at the information we are receiving. This is my feeling on
the type of relationship you CAC members have to City Council. It’s
like taking an exam; you do your homework first before being faced
with a decision to make. Regarding the pubic notices not getting to
people, this is something we can deal with. It shouldn’t be difficult,
but often is. If you have suggestions on how to better publicly notice
the meetings, please let us know. Regarding traffic, I think we should
have more information on it as well. Keep letting us know, by email,
phone, or coming to our house. This is the only way democracy will
work.
Woman in the Audience: A lot of people have made comments to us
about where we are in the process. When I talk to other people, the
biggest question that comes up is why? He (Bob Champion) had a
44
nice idea, but I haven’t seen anyone else’s visions, because the City
Council voted only to look at Bob Champion’s vision. So, if you (the
public) don’t like this vision, you’re automatically assumed to be in the
category that seems like you want things to stay the same. So I feel
like there’s only one choice at this point. We only have the choice to
see this vision whittled down, rather than built another, different
vision.
Vice Mayor Carol Gross responded to the woman’s comments with a
little background on how the relationship was established with Bob
Champion and how his project was started.
Vice Mayor Carol Gross: Bob Champion originally came to us three
years ago, with an idea that no one had talked about or looked at.
We played around with it. Then the project kind of went away for a
while. We came back to his idea and thought maybe we should take
a more serious look at it. As you become more serious with a
developer, you enter into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with
them. It does not bind us to anything except while we are talking to
him (Bob Champion) we aren’t talking to other developers at the
same time. When someone comes to you and says they have a great
idea for you and for your business, do you say hey, let me get
someone else to implement your idea? That doesn’t mean we go on
and do it. We give him (Bob Champion) the respect to have the
conversation only with him, and then we turn around and see what
else we can do if it doesn’t pan out.
An outburst occurs and a man yells about representation on the City
Council and other audience members begin talking at the same time.
Bob Champion comes back up front to address the crowd.
Bob Champion: I think there are a few misconceptions voiced tonight
that I’d like to address and clarify. First, the overriding concern that
you aren’t being listened to; The mere fact that this CAC exists means
you are voicing your concerns now and in fact is the process you
want. This is not being done in a vacuum. There is a huge difference
in this process than other projects I see being developed. As far as
my involvement, I will tell your story quickly. There was an RFP for
developing in the City’s Downtown area a few years ago. I responded
to it, but wasn’t chosen. Then Assistant Executive Director of the
Redevelopment Agency said to me- “I’m familiar with your work,
would you be interested in looking at other parts of the City’s
redevelopment areas where you could make a positive contribution to
the City?” I took a look at different areas in the City and saw the
potential of the Sepulveda site. All you people are here to oppose my
project. I’ll tell you this. The project I propose won’t be built. The
45
project that will be built if at all will be based on your input. A project
that is best for the community as a whole, not just the Sunkist Park
neighborhood. Is everyone in this room going to be happy? This
process will make sure all these issues will are raised and addressed.
The decision whether or not to proceed with a project won’t be made
by me.
Outburst from a Male Audience Member: What percent you think in
this room will be happy (Bob)?
Bob Champion: Every community I’ve been in, when you check my
record, has embraced the project I constructed. I’m known as a
consensus building developer. This project adheres to the City’s
General Plan. I was asked to propose a project based on your City’s
General Plan. This project is within the scope of the General Plan
and the City’s existing Zoning. In fact, in the most recent reiteration, it
goes beyond the Code requirements. The (General) Plan doesn’t
require my project to be tiered as much as it is, to have more and
larger courtyards, or for windows to face inward instead of the back.
But my project does. Regarding why this is a monolithic project? This
project isn’t going to be built all at one time. It will be done in a series
of four stages for a number of reasons. If it was built all at one time,
the construction activities would have a huge impact. It’s done in
phases to accommodate relocation of desirable business tenants
back into the earlier phases. Why not have individual property
owners do their own piece-meal redevelopment projects? Trust me
this is what you want to see because if you do it with a bunch of
individual developers, you’ll end up with hodge-podge development.
Let’s see how parking is going to work, how retail is going to interact.
Let’s look at it in the totality. How do we address egress and ingress?
How do we integrate parking so it’s properly designed? I walked the
street today. Almost all properties have walls. You can’t drive across
to the other shops since they don’t share parking areas. That’s not
good planning and development. I walked the streets top to bottom.
I had to continually confront cars. There was no pedestrian
orientation; no livable street. The reason people do these types of
pedestrian-oriented projects is to look at the area in its totality. I have
said at two other meetings, that I have taught planning and real estate
at USC for 9 years. Right now market forces have made housing
projects the lands highest and best use. If this site was broken apart
and developed by different developers, they are going to have all
housing. Let’s not have the tail wag the dog. Just because housing
justifies best and highest use, I didn’t just put in all housing. I wanted
to have other uses too. (Regarding The Aquarium owner’s concerns
about losing his business) I never said I was going to not allow The
Aquarium back into the project. Ultimately the decision to do this
46
project will be made by the City Council. It comes down to money.
The only use and tenant I find offensive is the Just Tire store. It’s just
not a good use to be located next to the remainder of the project. I
don’t think Just Tires should have a prime place at the gateway
entrance into the City. I think a lot of existing tenants there should
remain there. Let’s talk about specifics. If we are going to build out
this project in its entirety, it should be built in four phases. So, I am
not proposing 800 units to be built at one time. 250 residential units
in the first phase comprising 90,000 square feet. There is 170,000
square feet of retail right now in this first phase. I’m replacing it with
more viable retail. In urban planning, you look for a good urban mix:
such as an anchor, sub anchor, smaller shop space, in appropriate
percentages and complimentary adjacent uses. You don’t have it
today. Not a single restaurant there.
Male Member of the Audience interrupts: King Kabob.
Bob Champion: Oh yes, that’s right. I like King Kabob. Here’s the
beauty you don’t understand. If we do this together, define this
project area, what the project will become, you will have the
opportunity to add controls that you wouldn’t get with an individual
developer if you want to enact specific improvements, we can do that
now. If you want to take the loading docks which are exposed and
incorporate them, so you won’t see them, we can do that. Those are
conditions that we can work on together to make the project better.
You won’t have the chance to do that unless you have created a
forum such as this. We can talk about the tenants you want to see.
The City Council wants to create vibrancy. You can’t do that if you
built the area out as 30 different projects. Regarding the comment
about there being only one owner; what’s the purpose? I am not
proposing that I own everything. If we build the project in phases, I
am open to have others own other phases. There are some real
advantages to having one to four property owners, rather than 30
property owners that exist today as follows. 1. Cohesiveness of traffic
mitigation measures: You have raised traffic issues over and over.
Part of the reason is because there is no traffic plan covering all
parking in the area. You have 30 walls separating the properties
unless they go through the rear alley. That is why the alley is a
freeway. 2. With one to three property owners you can enact rules
and regulations that they must adhere to. If the project is built, those
rules and regulations will be Codified on the land and be listed within
its Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. With 33 different property
owners with different tenants you won’t have the ability to do so,
because they won’t come to an agreement. As you said, only three
property owners took advantage of the Façade Improvement Program
to rehabilitate their buildings. In truth, everyone has self interest.
47
What is best for all of us and the greater good? To all the people who
are living across the alley on Segrell, if you have the attitude of let’s
not do anything, then if you do nothing, you are making a bigger
mistake because what’s going to happen is something is going to
eventually happen anyway in non-cohesive, piece-meal fashion. In
this form and process your opinions and desires will be addressed,
whereas if 30 different developments were to occur, they won’t be. I
have the ability to incorporate desirable features into the project.
Regarding the 65 units per acre. I didn’t grab that number out of the
air -- it is from the City’s Zoning Code. The problem is that since it is
in the Code, other developers will want to try to maximize and build to
its full capacity. The project as depicted is allowed by Code. There
was a public vote that approved the 56 feet height limit. I didn’t
approve it. I was given guidelines by the City. I will go out on limb to
say this is what I suspect you are all feeling – it’s not that Bob
Champion is proposing a project that is too big, it’s that the Code
allowances are too big for the area. If so, then that’s a different issue.
With a larger single owner, you have a better chance getting these
types of concerns addressed. “I don’t want anyone looking in my
backyard.” Well at the December, 2006 meeting I was asked, can
you create a buffer to the adjacent single family homes in your
project? I came back with set-backs and tiered the buildings back.
These kind of things happened as a result of your input. I’m not the
devil. I am the agent of change, but I think I can create change for
the good. That’s what I do, I work for change. 3. Traffic; let’s talk a
minute about economics. This project is in a redevelopment area.
The reason is, when a project is built in a redevelopment area, to the
extent that it creates additional property taxes, your City gets a
percentage of that increase in property taxes. Let’s say it’s 60%. Is
that right Joe?
Joe Susca: Actually, the Agency receives 80% of the incremental
increase in property taxes in this component area.
Bob: Okay, let’s say 80% for purposes of illustrating an example. The
next step is when that increased property tax increment is created by
the project, it can be bonded to create funding now. It means the City
can choose to use those bond revenues for off-site public
improvements. A project creates a tremendous amount of dollars to
fund other City services and infrastructure projects. The Sepulveda
Streetscape Master Plan cost $4 million, but wasn’t implemented.
Funds created by this project could pay for it. We talked about
tentative approval of the creation of an extra southbound lane on
Sepulveda. Its creation will be a substantial improvement on traffic.
4. Currently there are over 40 curb cuts, or driveways, going in and
out of the development. This causes a traffic jam. In our project,
48
there will be four entrances that are signalized. The dwelling units will
generate new vehicle trips. If this project mitigates those new vehicle
trips, and addresses other concerns prior to the project being built,
then that’s a good thing. The City is going to make me do an
Environmental Impact Report. We will hire a dozen consultants who
work for the City to follow the required California Environmental
Quality Act process, not for me, and they will analyze all of the
impacts generated by the project. They will come back with list of
impacts on traffic. A traffic study will be done by 3
rd
party traffic
engineers. Here are the things that need to be done. I will give you
the phone number of an official in Pasadena who can vouch for this
process. Regarding view obstruction; The way the Zoning Code and
General Plan are written, I can obstruct the view 100% if I chose to do
it without the involvement of the Redevelopment Agency’s input. I
said I don’t want to do one project, but create a master plan for the
area. If you look at the building “fingers” (openings to courtyards that
face the rear alley) that are on the upper floors, we have done this on
purpose to create open space and introduce light into the courtyards.
Someone said, “Well Bob, you didn’t show us a direct view (in the
photo mock-up renderings). You can’t see anything. “Well you need
perspective to show distance. The angle of the drawing wasn’t done
to trick anyone. The truth is the alley is 30 feet wide. This particular
home is set 30 feet from the alley. The first three stories comprise 39
feet, which is better than a 56 feet high wall. In-between the fingers
are 40 feet of open space so you are really looking back 120
additional feet. You have a 30 feet yard plus 30 feet alley. Then 39
feet high three story building and then the upper two floors are 120
feet away. We can do further refinements to make this better. That
can happen through consensus development. We are not doing this
in a vacuum. This is my third meeting. I have addressed some of the
concerns, and I am sure some of the project will change. 5. Loss of
tenants. I have said before, I have no problem reincorporating them
back into the project. It is up to the City Council. The truth is these
tenants have leases. When their leases expire, every one of those
tenants will be faced with their landlords. When their lease is up, they
will have their rents increased up to market rates. Some tenants are
paying $1 per square foot. Some are paying $3 per square foot,
which is closer to market rent. When you’re favorite tenant’s lease
expires, and their rent goes up, and they will have to pay or leave the
shop they occupy. But this is a Redevelopment Agency project, so
we can help those tenants relocate back into the project. By state law
the Redevelopment Agency pays reimbursement for relocation and
loss of business goodwill because it’s part of an Agency project. If a
lease expires and the project doesn’t happen, then they don’t get any
money from their landlord, because it’s not an Agency project any
longer. Let’s focus on structuring a deal on how those tenants can
49
stay – we can use the Redevelopment Agency’s powers and funds to
do that. Regarding children and schools. If the CAC representative
to check my references talks to the City of Burbank officials; they will
confirm what kinds of people are buying those dwelling units. Less
than 10 of those units have families at all. The average cost of the
Burbank condos is $600,000, with some as low as $400,000. The
people buying those condos are typically those people who work
within the Burbank City limits so they can afford to live there and stop
commuting. Regarding the impact on schools and services that will
be analyzed as part of the Environmental Impact Report.
Male Audience Member interrupts: Who at the City does that?
Joe Susca: The Economic Development Department prepares
economic impacts of a project and the Planning Division oversees
environmental and other impacts. When the proper analysis and
reports are generated, they will be made available for everyone to
see. Regarding new traffic signals and other traffic mitigation
measures – what will occur is we will see what is recommended for
implementation through completion of the traffic study. Regarding the
56 feet height limit, as I understand it, the only architectural features
allowed above 56 feet is architectural fenestrations such as an
elevator tower, HVAC equipment, etc.
Laurel Gillette: An example of something that could be above 56 feet
is if an elevator that goes above top floor, you’ll need extra space
above the roof line to be able to have the elevator stop on the roof.
Bob Champion: I am saying publicly that I am not building above 56
feet.
Chip Netzel from the audience interrupts: What happens if you
change your mind?
Bob Champion: Then I won’t be allowed to build the project. There
will be a public hearing process to review and entitle the project. I am
saying right now, I am not proposing anything above 56 feet.
Regarding the Fire Station, I think that question has already been
answered. Regarding overhead power/cable/telephone lines; these
lines already exist. Regarding loading docks and children. Regarding
shade and shadows studies. I didn’t read that it in meeting notes that
I said that I would bring shade and shadow studies to this meeting,
but I will do so at the next meeting, and show shadows at different
times of the day, including one from 8:00 a.m.
Dorothy Inman: I have to leave. This should be a shorter meeting. I
50
have to take my mother home. My last words again are that this
project is too big.
Bob Champion: Only three more things. Regarding Solar energy,
there hasn’t been a mixed use project that I am aware of or my
architectural team is aware of that has been LEED Certified.
Marianne Kim: You should explain LEED again.
Bob Champion: A discussion about LEED certification took place at
the last meeting. It is a movement taking place in the USA, primarily
in the office building market, in which developers are building with
more environmental and sustainable impacts being addressed. They
do things to those buildings to make them more energy efficient.
There is a whole list of things you do to get LEED certified. Last
question regarding the absence of analytical data. That is something
I cannot really do, it is up to staff to prepare the analysis.
After Bob Champion finished answering concerns, Chair Allan
Goldman invited any last questions from the audience to address Mr.
Champion.
Allan Goldman: We have other items on the agenda. So we will limit
the remaining questions to ten minutes.
Chip Netzel: Regarding the timeline. When is this going to be
scheduled to go to the City Council?
Joe Susca: No date has been set. It is not scheduled at this point, so
we have some flexibility. Once the CAC has concluded their
consideration of the project, I will publicly announce the date of the
Agency meeting in which the project will be considered either through
letter or postcard to the adjacent neighborhoods as I have done so in
the past.
Peter Messinger: Regarding who’s going to go into new project. I’ve
heard your comments regarding 30 curb cuts. I don’t see how a few
new signals will solve the existing or increased traffic impacts
generated by this project.
Bob Champion: This is a comment, not a question. This ten minute
period was meant for questions.
Male Audience Member: You did not answer the distance question
from vehicles exiting the alley from the project. I commented that
sometimes there are more than seven cars backed up in the alley
51
waiting to exit during rush hour periods, and they can’t turn onto
Sawtelle, creating traffic congestion.
Bob Champion: When a traffic study is done, we can look at that
issue. For now here is list of possible solutions off the top of my
head. We can create right turn only lanes, add speed bumps, or
make the alley a one-way. There are a whole lot you can do when
designing traffic flows for the project.
Male Audience Member: Is there Section 8, or low income housing in
this project? You make us worry about another developer coming in
and building to the 56 feet height limit, but I’ve never seen that
occurring in the last 40 years here, so why would the City Council
approve a project like that.
Bob Champion: There is no Section 8 housing in the project. Your
City changed its Zoning Code to allow mixed use. This project is
result of that change.
Resident on Segrell Way: As far as shade and shadow, I thought of
possibly adding solar voltaic or solar heat and water. This
development may block my access to the sun for this purpose.
Female Audience Member: How much parking do you have planned
for customers and employees?
Bob Champion: One parking space per 1,000 square feet of
commercial, If you have a sit down restaurant, it would be more like
one parking space per 350 sqaure feet. For a one bedroom condo, it
would be 1 parking space, 2 bedroom, 2 parking spaces and so forth.
Typically you build excess parking and can allocate them to the
excess parking or have people buy parking for excess spots.
Female Audience Member: You mention a market, how many parking
spaces will be created for that?
Bob Champion: For a 30,000 square foot market, 120 spaces.
Female Audience Member: I thought the alley will be eliminated.
Bob Champion: Not true.
Female Audience Member: What happened to the office space? Last
time I saw the plans I thought there was an office building.
Bob Champion: I got rid of it because office space requires a lot of
52
parking and due to the exiting office space market.
Male Audience Member: Is it standard to scale back? When does
commerce become more important than quality of life?
Bob Champion: I am interested in building a project. I am willing to
work with the City Council and the CAC on a project that is viable.
When we go to assemble the land, we must pay fair market value for
it. What dictates fair market value of land for an appraiser is what has
been sold in the surrounding area. If the Code allows 65 units to the
acre and nearby someone built 65 units to the acre, then I need to
pay the value of that land based upon it. It’s hard to compare apples
to apples. I built a project that was over 100 units to the acre in Gas
Lamp District in San Diego. You can’t operate in a vacuum and do
nothing because market forces will continue to occur in this area.
Already by doing nothing, you are making decisions that are
negatively affecting the City. It is a balancing act where you have to
accept a certain amount of negatives in exchange for the positives
you want to get out of a project. To the extent you want me to build
something less big; we will need to work out tradeoffs.
Allan Goldman: Last question.
Male Audience Member: You said the State won’t allow you to pay
less than fair market value. There is an implication that we won’t be
able to agree on a price. It sounds like you are gong to take my
property and the State says you can’t pay less than the fair market
value.
Bob Champion: What ends up happening with most property
acquisition deals is that there is usually no eminent domain taking.
Usually negotiations take place prior to that step and a price is agreed
upon by both parties. When you sell your property, when you have
the potential for eminent domain, the Redevelopment Agency has
rules to give you incentives you normally wouldn’t get if someone else
bought the property, such as the ability to preserve existing property
taxes when acquiring replacement property. I don’t know the track
record in the City, but my guess is that most time they haven’t used
eminent domain to acquire the land.
Allan Goldman: There was a question asked who we (the CAC)
represent. We represent the entire community, including its
residents, businesses and property owners. We will make up our
minds when Ms. Kim comes back with references from Pasadena and
Burbank. We will have a better understanding of what the impacts
Champion Development has had upon those communities. Then
53
we’ll continue to listen to what everyone has to say about density,
height, etc. As far as the City Council’s decision, we can’t address
that. But I am sure they will take everything said here into account.
Thank you everyone for hanging in so late.
Marianne Kim: I think we’ve asked this question before. This is a
question to City staff. In terms of loss of tenants, can you describe
how you brought tenants back into other projects.
Joe Susca: I have been with the Redevelopment Agency for two
years and in a few of my projects, I have successfully relocated the
majority of those tenants. As far as those tenants who want to come
back into my projects, none have, but those were individual choices,
partially stemming from having to await completion of construction of
the project. There are a number of incentives staff can work in
harmony with a developer for a tenant to come back into the project if
it is a use the neighborhood desires.
Loni Anderson: I know that one of our members is calling Pasadena
and Burbank, but I would like to ask staff to get Ms. Kim to talk to a
member of one of those neighboring community groups (who are
affected by those projects).
Laura Stuart: I live at 11389 Segrell Way. Come by my house.
Come see me. Write me notes and share with me your concerns and
questions. We can sit there, or walk the streets if you like. I
understand.
Allan Goldman: Joe, I believe some questions were asked of staff.
Any more comments to make?
Joe Susca: I wanted to comment on public noticing. A notice was
posted six days prior to the meeting, which I believe is more than the
72 hours required by the Brown Act, but we can do better. This
meeting was also posted on the City’s website. After the May 2
nd
meeting there hasn’t been any other meetings discussing this project,
and the next CAC meeting is on June 6, 2007 at the Rotunda Room
in the Veterans Memorial Complex.
J. Marvin Campbell: Joe, isn’t there a form on the website they can
submit comments to?
Joe Susca: Yes, if the community would like to directly communicate
with the CAC member, they can fill out the form on the web page.
Also on the web page is the ability to be added to the e-mail
distribution list used for public noticing that members of the audience
54
are encouraged to fill out. Regarding the distribution of flyers for prior
meetings and their arriving two days late, I didn’t distribute any flyers,
so that must have been someone else.
Chip Netzel: I asked a question about the view preservation, and a
similar question was asked about what Sunkist Park views would be
toward the Crest mountains, and whether or not those views are in
jeopardy of being taken away or not.
Carol Gross: I may be wrong, but there may be a view shed
ordinance that applied to Culver Crest.
Gary Silbiger: Yes. It was limited and had to do with views on hilly
areas, where residents who purchased homes with a view have those
views protected.
Howard Lichtman: The ordinance that was passed relates to plant
foliage of an adjacent home owner that may be trimmed as a result of
view obstructions. It has to do with foliage, not building heights.
Allan Goldman: The next CAC meeting is scheduled to meet on June
6, 2007 at the Veterans Memorial Complex. Because the length of
that meeting will probably be longer, I am going to ask the committee
to have follow up with an additional meeting after that. That should
be the fifth and final meeting as part of this review process. Everyone
is curious as to where each committee member stands and wants to
hear our opinions. At our next meeting we will have actual facts as to
impacts of Champion Development’s projects to other communities to
aid us in our consideration of the project.
Asher Schechter: I will make the motion to have additional meeting on
June the 27, 2007.
Laura Stuart. Culver Expo is on the 27
th
.
Allan Goldman: It ends at 7:00 p.m.
J. Marvin Campbell: I second the motion for June 27
th
.
Allan Goldman: All those in favor.
Vote: All Ayes.
Allan Goldman: Could staff secure a location for us and announce it
at the June 6, 2007 meeting so there won’t be any questions as to
where it will be?
55
Joe Susca: Yes.
Adjournment
A call for adjournment was made. Loni Anderson made the initial
motion and J. Marvin Campbell seconded the motion.
Meeting adjourned at 9:44 p.m.
56
SEPULVEDA REDEVELOPMENT
CITIZENS ADVISORY CAC
DRAFT (UNADOPTED) MINUTES OF THE
JUNE 27, 2007 MEETING
Call to
Order:
The meeting of the Sepulveda Redevelopment Citizens Advisory CAC
(the “CAC”) was called to order by Allan Goldman, Chair at 7:45 p.m.
at the El Marino Language School, 11450 Port Road.
Roll Call: Members present: Allan Goldman, Chair
Loni Anderson, Vice Chair
J. Marvin Campbell
James Jun
Howard Lichtman
Marianne Kim
Asher Schechter
Laura Stuart
Marla Osband
Excused Absence:
Staff
Present:
Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director
Joe Susca, Redevelopment Project Manager
Todd Tipton, Redevelopment Administrator
John Fisanotti, Acting Redevelopment Administrator
Max Paetzold, Traffic Engineering Manager
Sherry Jordan, Senior City Planner
Carol Schwab, City Attorney
Jerry Fulwood, City Manager
Council
Present:
Alan Corlin, Mayor
Carol Gross, Vice Mayor
Gary Silbiger, Council Member
Scott Malsin, Council Member
Absent: Steven Rose (due to conflict of interest)
57
Development
Team
Present:
Bob Champion, Champion Development
Staff from KTGY Group, Inc. Architects
Project
Manager’s
Report:
Approval of
Minutes:
Allan Goldman: Requested a motion be made to accept the Project
Manager’s Report of public noticing.
Vice Chair Loni Anderson offered a motion and it was seconded by
Laura Stuart.
Vote: All ayes.
Marianne Kim motioned, and Marla Osband seconded the motion for
approval of the minutes from the May 22, 2007 meeting.
Vote: All ayes.
Conceptual
Plans
Discussion:
Allan Goldman stated that at this time we are going to move forward
and invite Bob Champion up to discuss additional shade and
shadows he has brought. Allan also introduced City staff present that
evening, including Joe Susca, Project Manager for this project; Bob
Champion developer, Todd Tipton Redevelopment Administrator; and
Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director.
Bob Champion: At the last meeting, we were asked to do two things.
One by the CAC and one by staff. We were asked to do more
extensive shade studies. If you look on the right side wall, we’ve
done more extensive shade studies of the project at any given time of
the year both at 9 a.m. and 12 noon which shows the variations of the
shade throughout the seasons. The other thing that we were asked
to do was to go back by staff, and look at redoing a revised
landscaping plan whereby we would have landscaping both on the
west side of the alley and also, in the raised planter areas on the east
side of the alley in order to diffuse the new building’s view from the
alley and residents on the west side of that alley and that rendering, I
believe, is on the back wall. The third thing we were asked to do was
to create a straight on perceptive view from the backyard of an
adjacent Segrell house. People said they felt the prior perceptive we
did didn’t give as good a view of what the project would look like from
the backyard of the adjacent residents. We did another rendering
which shows a straight on view as if you are looking at the backyard
looking straight at the building. I believe those three things are the
things we were asked to bring to the meeting tonight. One final thing
was that there were questions regarding the setback of the project. In
the last meeting, I stated that I believe that our project exceeded the
setback requirements set forth by the City. Although I said I wasn’t
positive about that but I would have our architects check. I believe on
the back wall there is a schematic that shows the proposed project,
58
the alley, and the wall. It shows the line of where the project could
have been built as it relates to the current Code and it shows where
the project actually is in relationship to that line. I think you will all see
when you look at that that the project is set back on the average, 8 to
10 feet further away from the setbacks that would normally be
required by the City, meaning that the project exceeds the setbacks
by that degree. If there are any questions that the CAC would like to
ask me, I am more than happy to answer them.
Joe Susca: I want to mention that in addition to the agenda that is
being passed out at the door when you came in; there are a number
of additional documents, including one called “Frequently Asked
Questions” that I would like the audience members to review. It is a
lot of additional information and, indeed, they are frequently asked
questions we thought would be useful information to everyone at this
time.
CAC Member
Comments:
Allan Goldman: At this time, I would like to call upon CAC Member
Marianne Kim to give her report on the background check that we
have done on the other projects that Champion Development has
built. I want to thank Marianne first of all as a volunteer as she took
her own time and a lot of hours to perform this task. I know the CAC
appreciates her time on the fact finding mission she did.
Marianne Kim: Basically, I checked out all three projects that Bob
Champion had been involved in the recent past. These were his
references. I did not really expect to see anything really terrible
because these are his references. It is very rare that someone would
give you bad references. It is still a good exercise in learning how
these experiences he had gone through in the past with these other
projects. I looked at three projects. One had to do with the Gas
Lamp City Square, which is in San Diego, the Burbank Collection and
the Pasadena Collection. I had a chance to look at the Gas Lamp
City Square. The Gas Lamp is very close to the Convention Center,
down the street from Petco Park. It is about 65,000 square feet of
retail and restaurant space. It has fours floor of condos and about
580 parking spaces. There are a lot of mixed use projects and it is
very similar to different types of projects in that area. The Burbank
Collection has about 180 condominiums. It is part of the Burbank
Entertainment Village. I am not sure how many of you have been
down to the Downtown Burbank area, but it has 40,000 square feet of
retail shops, 180 condominiums and is part of Phase 2 for
revitalization of the area. Phase 1 was the AMC Theater that was
built. The Pasadena Collection is also a mixed use project. It has 72
condos and 20,000 square feet of retail and restaurants. It has office
spaces and some lofts as well. It was one of the first mixed use
59
projects that Pasadena was involved with. I had several questions
and these questions to ask that were already developed by the CAC
before I went to them. One had to do with impact to City services.
The housing development initially affecting the infrastructure for the
community and specifically has to do with fire, police and those types
of mitigation measures. A lot of these projects are in downtown areas
and, as a result, the situation is a little different than what is going on
over here on Sepulveda Boulevard. Their requirements are a little
different and the setting is a little different. The Gas Lamp district is in
a special downtown development zone. They have their own
requirements. It is a very nice building. Bob Champion was required
to install some amenities and improve sidewalks, and mitigate dust
and noise pollution during construction. He had to play into a
downtown feel, where downtown development zones that compliment
fire, police, infrastructure and all those other things. It is not similar to
here because we don’t have a separate overlay zone, or separate
development fee for specific impacts. He had to pay into a fund to
mitigate the project’s impacts. I think it was noted that it was required
that everyone else didn’t pay and he didn’t pay for anything beyond
what was required in the EIR. In Burbank, the extra burdens were
taken on because of the additional residents and retail generated
sufficient additional revenues for the City to be able to pay for the
additional services necessary. One of the interesting things that
happened in Burbank was that the city saw this as an opportunity to
build some additional parking spaces and so they worked with
Champion to do so. They paid for their portion of additional parking
spaces themselves, but if they had constructed them alone, by
themselves, it would have cost them more money. It shows the
opportunity that if the city wants something they can work with the
developer to implement it in a faster and less costly manner than if
the city had done it themselves. In the Pasadena Collection,
Champion was required to complete an EIR and traffic analysis.
Pasadena requires a lot of things from its developers. They threw in
everything they could plus the kitchen sink. One of the things Public
Works required was to conduct a sewer study and upgrade the sewer
system. Those were examples of what Champion paid for. They all
said they were happy with the projects results.
The other question that everyone was concerned about was density.
In Culver City, which is 65 units per acre and we wanted to know
based on the impact of the project in their city did there city want to go
forward with similar density levels. I think their dwelling units were
pretty high because it is a downtown area. In the Gas Lamp area the
buildings were tall. I wish I was able to show it to you on PowerPoint
because you can see the giant buildings that are surrounding
Champion’s buildings. Building a very tall building with lots of
60
dwellings per acre is not as big an issue there because there are so
many other buildings that are like that. In Burbank, the area was
known for 58 units per acre which is lower than Culver City has.
Burbank was interesting because they actually down zoned after the
Champion project and they made a point that it did not have anything
to do with the Champion project at all. They went from the 58 units
per acre to 43 units per acre. The Council simply made a decision
that they did not want to grow as fast. Pasadena was all over the
place with their dwellings per acre. They were happy with what was
produced in the end.
In terms of height, height is another concern that a lot of people have
here. We asked the question what the city height limit is and did
Champion build up to the height limit. In Culver City our height limit is
56 feet or five stories. We asked the question were they happy with
this height limit. With Gas Lamp the height limit was 75 feet and they
built about 68 feet. In all of these cases, they built to what the zoning
allowed them to build to. With the Burbank Collection, Champion built
75 feet. Height is consistent with the surrounding buildings. There
are no single family homes around the Burbank area or the Pasadena
area. In Burbank the closest residential unit was a senior building
and that was a high rise so they did not care that this project was tall.
In Pasadena the project area was mostly commercial and the heights
varied. Pasadena seems to be that their zoning and building
requirements were all over the place. At one point you could have
four different height limits. Champion built up to what zoning
allowed. City staff mentioned that they were very happy with the
height. Champion built a second four-story residential unit next door
afterward.
A lot of people were concerned about property values and that is
another question we asked about. We said members of the
community, especially those that resided in single family homes, felt
that their property values would decline, and what is your experience
with this issue? In all three cases, they said both commercial and
residential property around the area increased as a result of the
development. We asked questions about displaced businesses.
Some of these places don’t track property values but based on their
experiences property values increased. In a conversation with the
Executive Director of the Downtown Business District in Long Beach,
he stated their experience in the downtown Long Beach area is that
property values and businesses around the development all improved
as a result of the development because it brought additional foot
traffic.
We asked the question is the developer paying for any of the
61
infrastructure improvements in the area. This would include street
widening, traffic lights, sidewalks, trees, lighting etc. In the Gas Lamp
area Champion paid for new sidewalks, trees, lighting around the
public street area. Champion paid into a downtown development fee
which was a clean and safe program that maintains and upkeeps the
property. In Burbank, Champion resurfaced some adjacent streets
and added pedestrian lights. In all these places, Champion did what
the EIR required. They added landscape improvements also. With
Pasadena, along with the sewer system, similarly they added
sidewalk and trees which made the aesthetics around buildings much
nicer. Average buyers for these types of projects, multi-dwelling
units, tend to be single people, young married, no children, retirees,
very few families, usually couples. This is difficult to tell with the
Burbank Collection as they actually haven’t completed construction
yet.
We asked the question about the business partners. We wanted to
know of any business partners or owners had worked with Champion
and were involved in the new development. In Gas Lamp, it was one
property Champion bought, the Goodwill building. It was in a blighted
area and people were very happy to see them there. With the
Burbank area it was a more complicated deal. Again, Champion
bought the property from one property owner. AMC, the movie
theater company, Champion bought the area to do a two phase
building and they couldn’t do the second phase so they sold it to
Champion. In the Pasadena collection, they bought six to eight
properties. None of those businesses actually returned to the
building.
The last question had to do with displaced businesses. We asked if
the closed businesses were asked to come back into the project after
completion and did they have different rents as a result, and if not, did
the City help with relocation expenses or anything like that. Gas
Lamp, because there were no businesses there, it really didn’t make
a difference. You just have the Goodwill and they relocated from the
property. In Burbank, it wasn’t applicable. One thing the city did do in
Burbank was, I don’t know if we would do this in Culver City, but I am
sure a lot of cities do this, is negotiate what types of businesses to
bring in. They were concerned there were too many restaurants there
so they worked with Champion on those issues. In Pasadena the city
didn’t help in bringing back the former tenants because it wasn’t a
redevelopment project. They were offered to come back but there
was no requirement to make them come back or to make Champion
provide additional incentives to bring them back. City staff expressed
again a lot of happiness with the types of businesses that Champion
brought in. It is hard again with these projects because they are so
62
different from what Champion is proposing here. At the same time,
you have to look at process too.
What kind of developer is he -- is he responsive, does he work with
the community and in all cases . . . in the back of my mind, is this is a
job reference……… everybody I spoke to was thoroughly impressed
and happy with the work that Champion produced for the city. With
that I will conclude.
Audience
Participation
Allan Goldman: Marianne, thank you for your time on that. There
were approximately 8 to 10 questions asked which the CAC proposed
and those are the questions Marianne asked. We only had one
person contact the cities and the developments. I also went to three
developments to look and must concur with what Marianne said.
Burbank is being built as we speak and if any where there was a
variance probably allowed would be absolute what Culver City is
because there you had a situation where the people are going to
impact it are the people who are actually buying those condominiums
because they are adjacent to ingress/egress to the AMC multiplex
theater that is there. The concern there is just one there are no single
family homes adjacent to that project. There is no residential area
within blocks of that development. Pasadena is not quite that far
away but it is also, and so is the Gas Lamp district, which is more a
commercial area as Marianne explained. You have to understand
that we did our homework on this; however, because of the projects
that were built they do not necessarily relate100 percent to what is
going on here because they don’t abut an area like Sunkist Park so I
want to make everyone aware of that. Once again, Marianne, thank
you very much for your time because that was a lot of work.
Is there anything, Mr. Champion that you want to correct or say
before turning this over to the CAC to ask Marianne questions since
she spoke to the references?
Mr. Champion: I would just want to ask a few things and that is,
number 1; all those projects that were described by the CAC are
projects that did go through a process where there was community
input involved. Different types of community groups than we are
dealing with here but definitely we are known for being consensus
developers. We go into areas where people want to see the
movement. We work with the community to create those
improvements and in all cases our track record has been successful.
What wasn’t mentioned is that the Pasadena project won what is
called a Gold Nugget Award and voted to be the best mixed use
project in the country for 2004. Our Gas Lamp project was the first
mixed use project in Downtown San Diego which served as the
63
catalyst for the rebuilding of all the Downtown Gas Lamp area.
Absolutely these are different projects and different areas and they
relate differently but the one thing she did say that I am glad she said
and I want to reiterate it is that in all cases property values around
where we developed rose without exception. The reason why they
rose is because we improved the community and when buyers of the
homes perceive that they are moving into a community that is being
improved they perceive that as having value. The final comment that
I would like make is that in regards to this particular project I have
never tried to imply that this project is like my other projects. What I
did say is that every project that I do take on personally. I am the
owner of my company. I have worked on my projects myself. I go to
the community meetings. I take the input I take that input to express
in terms of how the project changes over time to meet the consensus
of the community and that’s what I definitely am interested in trying to
do here. Thank you.
Allan Goldman: Thank you. At this time before we go on to with
audience participation does the CAC have questions of Marianne on
her trip down to the three projects?
CAC Member: One question. I was just wondering for any of these
projects were LEED certified, was there any degree of sustainability
or design that looked at community conservation and the other
question is to what degree were the projects pedestrian friendly and
the overall feel of the projects -- were they residential or were they
commercial feeling. What was the sense that you got.
Marianne Kim: The whole question of environmental sustainability
didn’t really come up. I think in a prior meeting here we did say there
weren’t any mixed-use LEED certified buildings in California yet.
Your second question you asked was about pedestrian feel. All three
projects were built in areas that were mixed use projects. They were
built in downtown areas where they were trying to make an effort to
be more pedestrian friendly and so, yes, you had nicer sidewalks,
wider sidewalks, more plants, they were all very walkable. You had
front shops in the beginning. That is how they were designed to be
built.
Allan Goldman: The Burbank Collection is actually located within a
pedestrian walkway. There won’t be any vehicular traffic directly
surrounding the site.
CAC Member: We have noticed that all the references were referring
to projects that were not quite apples to apples like our case right
here. Is there anything in this portfolio of work that you’ve perceive
64
that might be more relative to what we are going through now. Does
anyone know if there is a more appropriate project located in our area
by any other developer that might shed a little light on how the
projects went and what the results were?
Marianne Kim: I think that one of the things I mentioned was what a
responsive developer Bob is, and that is one of the things I talked to
city staff about. Just because there weren’t any single-family homes
around those communities in those development areas doesn’t mean
that people were not participating in community meetings like this
one. In Pasadena, in all those areas, there were people who were
going to be affected by these projects who attended those meetings
and asked specific types of mitigation and other items related their
proposed development. In all cases, I think it kind of speaks to how
you can work with a developer. Maybe not all those mitigations
issues are going to pop up as an issue in this project. That’s not the
point; it’s whether or not you can work with the person. The other
issue had to do with whether or not Champion built a good building in
the end. Did he build a good product? Again these are job
references. Champion gave me three references for projects he did a
good job on, and so in all those projects city staff was very happy with
the projects that he delivered regarding their quality and success. It
means he did a very good job. I think that is one thing we need to
keep in mind. Then lastly, I think I gave some examples about how
there were cases where the cities asked for certain things that
wouldn’t have normally appeared in the EIR, like the sewer upgrades
in Pasadena or Burbank to ask him to build those extra parking
spaces. Even though the city paid for it, they still asked him to build
it. Those are areas where they were able to work out agreements
with him. Whether it is in this project or another project I would like to
see him as a developer.
CAC Member: Was there any provision made for continued
community input during the actual building once the project began?
Marianne Kim: I don’t think I can answer that question. My guess is
that, maybe I’ll defer to Bob Champion on this. My guess is that all
the things that he would have done for the project were probably
listed ahead of time, once you start the project it not like you’re going
to stop. I don’t know if he is keeping a continued relationship with the
community.
CAC Member: Thank you, Marianne, for making the calls and I think
that what we are hearing is that you keep saying that this is like a job
interview, that someone is going to give you the best references, and
I think the folks here tonight want to hear what is comparable to their
65
situation. In other words, homeowners and I actually don’t know,
maybe Bob can speak on this. Whether there are any projects that
he has had that might be comparable to ours to hear from those
adjacent residents. Lets hear what they have to say. Also, if there
was some community input I’d like to hear from those groups whether
they were business groups or homeowners groups. I would actually
like to get more in detail in references and I know this is not
something you are going to respond to but just kind of opening up to
the group here about trying to get a little more detail so that we can
look at apples to apples, instead of apples to oranges, but that was a
good review in terms of job references and what the other cities had
to say. I hope that the city staff was happy with the projects but I
want to hear what the residents around those projects had to say as
well.
Marianne Kim: Let me quickly say this, I did ask a lot of city staff for
community references as well, for information purposes community
organizations. It is just that without single family homes around the
area, they weren’t as organized as some of you folks are around
here. So again that doesn’t mean that there weren’t business groups
and some community groups near the place that weren’t interested in
the project development and had their own concerns and issues that
they brought forward to the city or developer – what I think is that in
these particular projects there simply were not any community groups
that city staff people could refer me to.
CAC Member: Actually I want to ask Bob a question regarding the
Wilshire project -- is that up against the O’Malley Hall and was there
community input on that project?
Allan Goldman: Bob, why don’t you respond, but if you prefer, we can
hold off all the answers from you till the end.
CAC Member: In the course of conversation, did anyone touch on the
pros or cons of the process? Did they say anything to you that they
felt good about the way it was handled or something that would
indicate that they were comfortable with Mr. Champion’s process and
the city’s processes?
Marianne Kim: We didn’t really talk about the city’s process as
much. We did talk about how, I think I kind of mentioned this already
in terms of the different types of Projects, what the different
mitigations were and what aesthetic improvements that the cities
wanted and put into the EIR so and said those are things that they
had to work with Champion on. They had to negotiate back and forth
and they found him responsive to their desires. I didn’t get a lot of
66
negative comments and I said before why but I didn’t so there is really
nothing to report on that side.
Allan Goldman: Asher, please introduce yourself as you were not
here for roll call. Introduce yourself and who you represent.
Asher Schechter: My name is Asher and I am the general manager
of Westfield Fox Hills Shoppingtown in Culver City.
Allan Goldman: Okay, Bob, at this time I will pass the microphone
onto you but the things that I think the people want to know about first
of all is if you can give some input into the environmental impacts of
the projects that you have done that we have mentioned. Did the
residents continue their input once it had passed after the point where
you were approved for the development?
Bob Champion: Am I supposed to remember all those at one time?
Allan Goldman: I’ll repeat them.
Bob Champion: Let’s take the first one. We had a community
meeting here one or two times ago where we went through a whole
education process of what LEED Certification is. It started in office
buildings and has worked its way into residential now, but as of this
moment, we don’t know any mixed use projects that have been
certified. We checked with the LEED council and there are no
parameters yet in place for how to go about getting a mixed use
project LEED certified. And that really brings up another point, which
is that the community members have asked about looking for other
similar examples like Culver City. One of the problems we are having
doing that is mix uses; the concept of bringing work/live/play
environment into our communities is a concept that started less than
ten years ago. Our project in the Gas Lamp which we built in 1992
was the first in that area. Our project in Pasadena was the first in
2004. Now since we have finished building our project in Pasadena,
Pasadena has had over 30 additional mixed use projects built. So
every project is different and what you do is you try to take this
process of gaining a community consensus of what you want to do
and applying to an opportunity and making it successful. It is those
procedures that you follow, those guidelines that you use, that make
any project work. That is what we are trying to do here. In regards to
my Brentwood project, this is built on Wilshire Boulevard and Bundy
and is anchored by Ross Dress For Less and a Sav-On Drug Store.
It was a vertical project, meaning that the retail stores are on the
ground level and we actually built the parking and that structure up
above the stores and that project is about 65 feet high. That project
67
actually abuts two apartment buildings that are typically two to three
stories in height. In the Pasadena project, South Lake Avenue which
is where our project is located is a commercial street that is
surrounded by residential areas. When we went through our
approvals for the Pasadena Collection, we actually worked with the
South Lake Homeowners Association, the Madison Heights
Homeowners Association and one other one that I can’t remember
because it was back in 2003. We had meetings not as big as these,
but we had meetings with those homeowner groups when we went
through our initial plan concepts, then our second concepts and then
when we went through our final concepts. The difference between
what was initially proposed and what was finally approved are two
different things. I have said that all along regarding this project.
When we approached this project, we were given an envelope. The
envelope is what the City of Culver City’s zoning and General Plan
allow for this property and proposed development and meets those
zoning requirements. That’s what we proposed and I think there has
been a lot of concession about the fact that what is allowed by Code
which many of you do not believe is appropriate and that’s not an
issue I can address. That’s what your Code says, and that’s what I
build too. So if there is an issue regarding what is appropriate, that’s
something for this community to decide should be built for the
project. Do you have any other questions you would like to ask?
Allan Goldman: Not at this time, Bob. We will come in with questions
after the audience participation. Joe at this time would you bring the
microphone up to the podium. Before we start the audience
participation, I do have quite a few cards people would like me to read
into records which I will gladly do. Excuse me if I mess up your name
to bad but I’m not sure if it is my eyes or your writing. Anyway, here
we go.
Jane Glade: Why was only one firm chosen to submit plans for
redevelopment? Other considerations in regards to redevelopment of
Sepulveda Boulevard infrastructure, sewer, water, power, roadways,
traffic control, and refuse.
Irene Guglielmino: Of the proposed redevelopment plan Mr.
Champion is overbearing and not compatible with the existing houses
and businesses in the area.
Joanne Morrissey: The proposed Champion project is not
compatible with the neighborhood. All the other businesses along
Sepulveda, Jefferson Boulevards are either one or two stories in
height. Proposing a height of five stories is going to look terrible. It
destroys the harmonious feel of the community. We all enjoy the
68
small town feel we have now.
Pauline Post: What is the rush? I have a feeling this development is
being pushed through too fast. Meetings April 25, May 2, May 22 and
June 6 was cancelled and tonight at El Marino. According to the
statement by Joe Susca at the May 22
nd
meeting, the Exclusive
Negotiations Agreement can be extended by staff up to six months so
we may slow down to obtain additional input. Half the city doesn’t
know about this outrageous development.
Michelle Boatwright: We have been paying an 11 percent utility tax
for many years. Far higher than any city of our size or larger. And
yet when in 2004 a measure was put on the ballot to reduce those
taxes to between 2 and 3 percent comparable to other cities our size
the voters rejected the measure by 4 to 1. That’s quite a vote of
confidence in the City and please don’t destroy the confidence by
allowing this totally incompatible project to proceed.
Peggy Ishida: Just because eminent domain is legal, doesn’t make it
ethical or right. In its present context it’s morally indefensible.
Beverly Weatherly: Mr. Champion has stated publicly that the South
Sepulveda corridor is not pedestrian friendly. He is right. The air is
filled with car, bus and truck fumes. If he gets to build his project, the
traffic will become much worse. For him to suggest that if this area
would lend itself to outdoor cafes and dining while a constant sea of
metal spews noxious gases into the environment borders on the
absurd. I dare say he won’t be among the patrons putting their lungs
in danger. In stark contrast the lovely outdoor eateries in our
redeveloped downtown area which have a pleasing ambiance
because that project had input and cooperation of residents and
business owners and city officials.
Ginee Boatwright: Definition of progress. One, a movement toward a
goal or to further a higher stage; two, developmental activity in
science, technology, etc. especially with reference to the commercial
opportunities created thereby or to the promotion of material
wellbeing of the public to the goods, techniques or facilities created;
three, advancement in general; four, I hope the development
continues improvement; five, the development of an individual or
society in a direction considered more superior to its previous level.
The only thing beneficial about the Champion Sepulveda proposal is
expected financial windfall that some city official anticipates. That
does not offset the affected long time small businesses and the
eradication of cooling breezes and privacy of the homes in the
surrounding areas. The project is definitely not progress.
69
Tim Boatwright: I am not an activist by nature but when I feel
threatened I will respond. I consider this project a threat. The
residents to the east will lose their afternoon sun and also the
westerly breezes that make air conditioning unnecessary in this area.
A project of this size and scope is not compatible with the small town
nature of the surrounding area and does not belong in Culver City.
Rosalind Bergstrom: I am 100 percent against the proposed project.
There is too much traffic already. Also we like and go to the
businesses that are already there.
Allan Goldman: That concludes the written public comment cards
submitted.
Applause.
Allan Goldman: At this time I would like to call upon the following
persons to speak. Nancy Joujon-Roche. We are going to try to keep
this to three minutes.
Nancy Joujon-Roche: I specifically am directing these comments to
the Redevelopment Agency, Members Malsin, Silbiger, Gross, Rose
and Corlin. If you were to poll Culver City residents as to why they
lived here, the majority of people would site our excellent Police
Department, Fire Department and schools. They would undoubtedly
also site Culver City’s community feeling; its small town feeling. Well,
anyone who drives down Sepulveda during rush hour experiences
anything but a small town feeling. Gridlock is already alive and well in
Culver City. Does anyone really want to provide a recipe to worsen to
the point of being unmanageable? We have already seen the impact
that Playa Vista has had on traffic in the Sepulveda corridor. We
have yet to see the impact of Symantec once it’s up and running.
One can only imagine the nightmarish scenario that would occur
should the ill-conceived Champion project materialize. Many people
probably remember that 20 to 25 years ago the City was dealing with
a proposal from Milton Berle to build a casino here. This is a very
contentious issue because while the casino surely would have
provided good revenue for the City, questions were raised about how
it might affect the quality of life. What kind people it might draw to the
area are very tangible issues. Paul Jacobs, who is I believe was
mayor at the time, maybe just a city council member, but he made a
statement that I thought hit the nail on the head. He said that the
value of Culver City has to be measured in more than monetary
terms. Truer words were never spoken and they are applicable now
as two decades ago. I urge every member on the Redevelopment
70
Agency to keep Mr. Jacobs’ words in mind and to realize who the
people of Culver City are, and to remind you that you are all elected
to represent those people who want to maintain the quality of life
which has brought to; and kept us in; Culver City. Thank you.
Applause.
Ed Ryba: Good evening everybody. At previous meeting, someone
brought up the subject of oil pipelines in the alley behind the proposed
project and our homes. My bedroom is 50 feet away from your
project, sir. Now at that meeting, a man by the name of Max
Paetzold, a city consultant and former city employee, said there is no
pipeline back there in the alley that is active anymore and that it’s
been steam cleaned and full of fiber optics now. That’s true as far as
it goes. However, I have right here a letter from the Exxon Mobile
pipeline company that states that there is a sixteen inch high pressure
160 degree oil line in that alley which is very active. Furthermore,
according to Dave Kingston of Exxon Mobile, this is the main feeder
line between Exxon’s Bakersfield oil pumping facility, their oil fields,
and the big refinery on 190
th
Street down at Torrance. A funny thing
that Mr. Paetzold didn’t mention was that this pipeline pays $1.2
million a year to Culver City just for being there. Now, Mr. Dave
Kingston of Exxon Mobile as well as Jim Brannon of the Crimson
Pipeline Company, told me that should this pipeline be disturbed or
maybe undermined remember this entire city is built on beach sand.
What happens when you dig beach sand? Remember trying to build
sand castles. Ever try to dig dry beach sand. What happens? Okay,
should that pipeline be disturbed or undermined as a result of digging
underground parking or compacting soil, a breech of that pipeline
would likely result and the entire area would be covered in hot
carcinogenic flammable crude oil. Now most of the water heaters in
our neighborhood are in the backyards facing that alley. There goes
your ignition source and the town could catch fire before they could
shut off the pipeline. Since we were not told anything about any of
this and I had to make a few dozen phone calls to find out this
information myself, which incidentally I have a hundred copies of this
letter for anyone who would like to see it. What else are you not
telling us about this project and what you have got up your sleeves?
Mind your own citizens instead of catering to the wishes and whims of
a rich out of town developer. Thank you.
Applause.
Jennifer Ryba: Thank you for this opportunity to talk to you again. As
Mr. Champion has mentioned several times, it’s not him we should be
angry with. It’s the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency, and
71
we are. Champion you are just doing your job. You are out to make
a buck or maybe a lot of bucks. You are building to maximize the
Code that exists and we understand that. So we are working to
change the Code. That’s already in process. We are wondering if
this is something that has affected our neighborhood but this is also
something that should be of concern to everybody else in Culver City
because what’s to stop the City Council or the Redevelopment
Agency from going to any other neighborhood and saying oh your
neighborhood is blighted. We’re going to tear it down and start over.
Our neighborhood is not blighted. I’ve lived in a blighted
neighborhood. What they had was much higher density than we what
we have. Probably not quite as high as you would like us to have.
We had shops that did not have businesses in them, empty
storefronts. We had prostitutes and their clients in our yards. We
don’t have that in Sunkist Park and we don’t want it. You’re out to
make a buck. We’re fighting to save our homes. The proposed
project simply does not fit in Culver City. In this part of Culver City or
any other part of Culver City. It’s too dense, it’s too tall. Again, we
are working to change those so you can’t do that. The traffic you
keep promising us that you’ll mitigate; I am really confused about how
reducing the ingress and egress to 2 or 3 points is going to mitigate
adding to the volume -- if you do the math what works out to about
16,000+ extra car trips a day and this is based on the Institute of
Traffic Engineers estimates for 800+ condominiums plus over
200,000 square feet of retail. The project might be really nice some
place else. It might be even some place I would like to shop, but I
don’t want to live next to it. I don’t want to live in its shadow. Would
you like to live in a shadow? Would you like to build this in your
neighborhood? I don’t think so. And finally, we are all focusing on
the final outcome of this project. Though I have serious concerns
about living in the shadow or next door to five plus years of ongoing
demolition and construction. I am concerned about the noise and the
vibration and the dust. I am concerned about what is going to be
done with that dust. These buildings are 50 plus years old. I know
and you know that they have asbestos and lead in there. I also don’t
know what’s in the ground that’s going to be disrupted and put into
our air. My understanding is there used to be an airport in this area.
What got put in the ground when that was there and it’s still there and
it’s going to be disturbed and released so that we can breathe it. You
talked about increased property values and I appreciate Miss Kim
your doing all the research that you did and I also understand that
your other projects have probably have raised property values in the
area but again they weren’t built right up against single family
houses. I fail to understand how living in a shadow of this thing is
going to increase my property values. I don’t think it is. In fact, I have
been told that they probably have dropped already just because this
72
thing is looming over us waiting to happen. If I were to put my house
on the market right now, I’d have to disclose that this is going to be
built or potentially could be built.
Allan Goldman: Jennifer, could you rap up please, you are exceeding
the three minute limit.
Jennifer Ryba: Yeah, I would just like to finish by the drawings are
really nice and it’s a shame you couldn’t bring a projector and show
them so they were easily seen by everybody like we did at one of the
other meetings. That was really nice.
Applause.
Paul Madison: Members of the City Council, members of the Citizens
Advisory Committee, thank you for this opportunity and this forum.
Thank you for listening. I am a homeowner near the development. I
naturally want to see my property continue to grow in value and I am
glad we are talking about developing along Sepulveda corridor
because there are a lot of things that I would like to see changed
along Sepulveda and I think a lot of the neighbors would like to see a
lot of things changed. But almost the unanimity of the voices I have
heard tonight is opposed to this project and I am particularly opposed
to the smart growth that this project proposes. Smart growth
threatens, I think, the Culver City’s village. Culver City attracts new
small businesses and homeowners, such as me, who fled from the
dense congestion of Los Angeles. Too much. Too dense, too many
cars, too much craziness and that’s why we came here. That’s what
we are looking for when we moved into this community. Smart
growth promises less congestion by packing people into denser areas
near mass transit but the reality of this is that the people who are
going to buy these condos are not going to be crossing the street to
catch a bus at the Fox Hills Mall to get to their work and very few, if
any, are going to be living or working in the businesses that are
downstairs from them. The reality is that they are going to be driving
cars and as Jennifer knows the estimate today that was published as
16,000 trips that are going to be made from this project every day.
16K trips in cars. Mixed use smart growth project of this size or even
a quarter of this size belongs somewhere else that can handle the
influx of traffic. I ask the CAC and the City Council to terminate the
Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Mr. Champion and to begin
conversation with the residents and businesses along Sepulveda to
determine what we as a community we want Sepulveda to look like in
the future. Thank you.
Applause.
73
George Laase: On the City’s website it shows the Sepulveda project
is going to be built in the middle of a liquefaction zone that goes from
Culver City all the way to the Pacific Ocean. We’re in a drought now
and the water table is probably very low but what would happen with
such an immense project five stories high. What would happen
during a serious wet season and when the big one hits?
Applause.
Mitch Means: I want to talk about the particular issue concerning
property values. I am a little concerned and confused because my
property values went up in the last ten years without this facility in my
backyard. I am not going to readdress some of the reasons why we
have but I am here on part of the Culver Alliance and we are a group
of homeowners and residents and business owners who are trying to
figure how we can get back on track with the City and the
development and as such we have serious concerns about the
proposed plans for the development and I invite anybody, if they have
not already, to sign our petitions. We already have over a thousand
people who have signed. I’ll be in the back collecting signatures. We
also have an online site where we have collected over 200. The thing
I’d like to stress is I would like to read it to you. This is not just a
Sunkist Park issue. Here are just a few comments that I brought
down. My family owns and lives in lower Culver Crest. We are
against development at this site based on increased population, traffic
and the largeness of the buildings themselves. Please submit more
plans from our homegrown citizenry. As a current renter and active
voter, I urge the City to work more closely with residents and
businesses before allowing large developments like this to go
forward. Another one, please do not allow this intrusion in our town
having lived in West L.A. all my life. I can tell you the worst blight on
our city is the traffic congestion. Please I urge you to stop the
proposed project.
Male audience member: Nobody is going to buy a house with a five
story building behind it. We have a great state, we have an excellent
Police Department, we have an excellent Fire Department, and we
have a lot of good city officials. Why do you want to make more work
for these people? If the city is going to have more revenue, than they
can hire more people. Ladies and gentlemen, we don’t need no five
story building because no city official or city elected official they will
vote this down because we live in the greatest country in the
universe. We live in the U.S.A. and have voting rights. If one
hundred percent of us are against this project, the City Officials will go
against it too. Thank you!
74
Applause.
Allan Goldman: Chris Georges.
Chris Georges: I would like to thank the CAC and the members of the
Redevelopment Agency for this opportunity. I will be brief. Most of
you have heard where we stand. We own the CompUSA Center on
Jefferson. We are opposed to the project as it is currently proposed
primarily because the process that was used to arrive at it. I was
reading through the Frequently Asked Questions on the website and
came across question number 11 which says “As proposed the
project is too big. Can’t we start over again and begin a study
process that involves visioning meetings where input from local
community members is obtained so we may collectively reach a
consensus for what the desired future is for this redevelopment site
and its surround areas?” To which the answer is, if the Agency
Board Members determine that with input obtained from the CAC
meetings that the public would be better served through a study
process, then it may be done. I think what has happened here in the
process has been like the city has been presented with a multiple
choice question. You wouldn’t want this project to look like this, this
or this. Pick A, B or C but really the choice is D, which is none of the
above and I think we have to know that is a possibility as well. The
issue is not with Mr. Champion. He is doing what he does. He is
doing it exceptionally well. He always does and I find no fault with
him. I am in the same business so I understand where he is coming
from. I think that what it is that the validity of the project and a
process by which it came into being. The tone of these meetings, just
by the existence of the CAC, is the project as proposed is a done
deal. It is not a done deal. At least I hope it’s not. I would like to
believe its not. I would like to believe this entire time that we all
spent so many hours involved in hasn’t been a mere exercise in
futility. I would like to believe there is still an opportunity for the input
of this group to affect the decision of the City Council and the
Redevelopment Agency. I don’t know if that’s the case. I think the
results will bear that out. The City Council and Redevelopment
Agency are supposed to represent us. You can’t twist the desires of
the people of Culver City. They’re not supposed to dictate to the
people of Culver City; I’m not a voter so I can’t speak to that. There
are people in this room who are so this is really more about you than
me. We just have the privilege of doing business here but I think the
people of Culver City make their desires clear in all these meetings
almost without exception. It’s clear to me what the elected
representative, what the choices of the elected representatives,
should be. Whether that happens or not remains to be seen. As
75
John alluded to, and this is something that just came to me as I was
sitting here, without exception when you think of the best parts of
Culver City that have been redeveloped with a vision, you think about
the Downtown area, you think about East Washington, you think
about the Hayden Tract, you think about Helms Bakery. All of those
involved existing buildings, every single one of them; they didn’t tear
down buildings and build new. They took what was there and they
made improvements to them. Applause. All those projects reflected
the character of Culver City. I first became involved in Culver City
almost 30 years ago as a swimming coach with the swim team and
Culver City hasn’t changed that much in 30 years. It pretty much
looks the same as it did and I think that’s part of its charm. As
somebody else pointed out, their property values have gone up
because people want to live here. I think that this process can be
started over from scratch. The result might come all the way back
around. We might be going to Bob Champion at the end and, hey
Bob, we want this other project. Can you do this but it will be a
project that the City stakeholders, that’s the voters, the business
owners, property owners of the redevelopment area have a stake in.
Thank you.
Applause.
Caroline Cicero: My name is Caroline Susirow. I am a ten year
homeowner in Culver City. My kids go to school right here at El
Marino Language School. This project affects people who live all
over the city because this school is a commuter school. Everyone
who drives their kids to school here, a few live in Sunkist Park and
walk. First of all, I would commend the city on what you have down in
downtown. As all of us have said many of believe it to be very
successful. I did not support the current Sepulveda development as
proposed. However, it is clear that there are some façade
improvements that are needed. Many of us might disagree or agree
on that but I have three main concerns. Traffic which has been
addressed, housing and money. One thing that has not been
mentioned in traffic. The City is proposing to open up a third lane on
Sepulveda. That will cause the current traffic problems. That will
solve the current traffic problems possibly. That is not going to
mitigate any problems that will result from the 2,300 new parking
spaces that are on the poster. I had to sit in back to look at the poster
but I counted up the parking spaces. I don’t know how many are at
the commercial area now but I doubt its 2,300. Have any of you ever
tried to cross Sepulveda on foot. Terrorizing, terrorizing. But I do
support a more livable environment that focuses less on cars and
more on livable streets or walkable community. These are current
trends in planning. Smart growth is a current trend in planning as well
76
but we need to look at all the different kinds of trends and see what
the best is. I am a little confused. I have been told by a CAC
member and a City Councilmember tonight that is not a
redevelopment project. That the City is not taking this land, these
properties by eminent domain. I am wondering what is exactly going
on. I think there are some things we don’t know. Housing, I have
some real issues about the redevelopment project areas and
housing. The City is required by Redevelopment Law to provide low
and moderate income housing. By law, 20 percent of all tax
increment money from redevelopment project areas must be spent on
low and moderate income housing. I have seen none in Culver City
except for the two senior buildings. Many people balk at low and
moderate income housing because they don’t know what it means.
Moderate income is up to 120 percent of the county’s median
income. That’s about $60,000. Okay, I know there are people in this
room who can live off of $60,000 and many of us do. So I don’t know
what was said in previous meetings about who is going to live in
these apartments but the thing is that those residents aren’t here
tonight. So someone needs to speak from them and I am not sure
where the City is, why the City has not fulfilled its legal obligation to
provide the low and moderate income housing. They are opening the
City up to lawsuits and we will hold them accountable. The other
issue is money. The increased property tax revenue normally in a
redevelopment project area, the redevelopment project can keep
most of the money in its own coffers. I keep being told tonight that,
earlier privately, that this is not a redevelopment project. Really, but
I’m not sure what is really the case. We demand that there will be
fees from any development here that will support our infrastructure
and our schools because those two things are sorely needed
improvement and there are many parents who are getting very, very
active in the school setting. We are paying $5,000 to $10,000 a year
in property taxes and we are not getting what we deserve as far as
our schools. Thank you.
Applause.
David Lowpe: You are probably not going to hear about the same
thing you’ve heard from me but basically one thing. I think the project
on Sepulveda is too big and I think we all agree on that. It’s just too
much, too dense for such a small area. I think the stores on
Sepulveda, some of them, could use a little bit of uplifting. Some of
them it’s already happened within the last ten years. Big Lots,
Kinko’s, where unfortunately CompUSA was and is no longer. Those
buildings I see nothing wrong with them. My wife and I were eating,
well shouldn’t have eaten, at Del Taco today. She looked across the
street and she looked at those buildings and she said “you know, I
77
don’t really see anything with those buildings. Why are they going to
knock them down? To me they look fine. There’s lot more blighted
areas in town that we can look at.” My main thing is the traffic. I’ve
lived on Culver Park Drive for 40 years and I’ve seen what happened
with the traffic situation in the last 40 years. Over the last 14 years
there has been a traffic mitigation survey ongoing for Culver Park
Drive and for Segrell. Nothing has happened in 14 years. Mr.
Champion says don’t worry about the traffic. We’ve got that all taken
care of. I don’t care if they make Sepulveda 10 lanes wide through
that corridor. When they get to that Marina freeway, it’s back to four
lanes. Unless they build a bridge over the freeway, which I don’t see
happening, you’re going to have the same problems. We are also
into only one and a half phases of Playa Vista done. Can you
imagine when it’s finished and we have two and a half northbound
roads on this side of town. Lincoln, Sepulveda and little Centinela
that handles 95 percent of the traffic north and southbound. It’s not
going to work and he can talk all night if he wants, to there is no way
they are going to handle the traffic. Thank you very much.
Applause
Robin Reed: My name is Robin Reed and I am here for my mother,
Esther Reid who this October 50 years on Segrell Way. When she
purchased her house they were to build this great park across the
street on Slauson. Well its been various things, Earl Schieb, some
auto place where they put in alarms that would go off 500 times a
day, now … They play movies there on Friday nights. Have you
been there? It is interesting. I don’t know what it is but it’s probably
not what it is supposed to be on some nights. But is supposed to be
a park when my parents bought their house. Instead it’s the 405 and
the I90 and my mom is 86 and she is looking across at the sign now
and it’s going to be a five story building. My dad always said that
Culver City was the oasis surrounded by the cesspool that Los
Angeles is and part of that is because Culver City is probably 90
percent single family ownership. Now the good thing is that Mr.
Champion is going to build condos and not apartments. However,
400 to 800 condominiums with how many people going to live there
and all of them will have a car. And we know they will because we
are not pedestrian oriented. We are Californians. We drive cars. I
don’t care how many buses you drive down my street, I am taking my
car. I don’t care where the new transportation run from downtown
L.A. through Exposition all the way to Santa Monica is going to go. I
won’t take it. I drive a car. I plan to drive a car. I bet everyone else
plans to drive one too. You had the opportunity to do a multi-family
project at the Studio Drive In and you didn’t do it. Why not. All kinds
of open land there. Could have built one. Looks bigger but you didn’t
78
do it. Now you have decided this little area on Sepulveda Boulevard
is going to handle all this traffic and all these people. That’s
interesting and you are calling it a blighted area. I have to get the
definition of blighted for this area. I don’t think there is an area in
Culver City that is really blighted. I’ve seen some areas around. I am
a commercial real estate appraiser and I have been on the other side
of the situation helping some other cities. But it didn’t impact my
mother, who is livid by the way, and she’s 86. She is sending me
here to let you know about it because she is 86 and didn’t feel like
coming but if she did, whoa, the comments you be hearing now won’t
be as nice as the project is the comments I have been making. I have
seen the Brea project which Mr. Champion didn’t have anything to do
with which had commercial development on the ground floor and
upstairs it has condominiums and apartments and that really
interesting at night when all the people run out of their condos and
apartments and down to the retail and fast food. That’s like only one
block and it’s not even very large. I can’t imagine this in Culver City
at night when you have 400 to 1,600 people living upstairs and they’re
all going to run downstairs and make a lot of noise. One thing I want
to say is that a lot of other cities have a three story, 35 foot height
limit. Maybe we should consider it. My dad worked against the
project that you previously considered, several of them, the 10 story
or 11 story, I can’t remember, office building on the corner. That was
changed to an 8 story one and I am sure that’s why we now have the
5 story limit. When maybe it should be 3.
Applause.
Marta Zaragoza: Good evening. I do not live in this area. I live in
East Culver City. I can bring you to memory. You don’t have to wait
for this to be built to know what’s going to happen. It takes us 25 to
35 minutes to travel two blocks. If you live between Helms and La
Cienega, right now on Washington Boulevard we can’t get in or out of
our streets because of what staff, the paid consultant they paid with
our tax dollars, and the City planners or our Planning Commissioners,
our City Council members approved. So if their lips are moving, they
are lying. The other thing is take the time to go down between
Washington Boulevard between Helms and La Cienega. It’s a
rollercoaster ride both sides. I am very happy Mr. Paetzold is here
because he was employed during the time that the plans and the
recuse and everything were done. You have to be very careful. Be
careful who they appoint to these CACs. I commend some of you.
You have remained objective but many of you have not. You are
favoring this project. I would be very careful with the Planning
Commissioners too. Just remember what happened with the Hayden
Track. Remember they hired attorneys. They hired consultants and
79
they went through a lawsuit and it was reversed. So just because
they go into exclusive negotiations doesn’t mean its right. They are
here to represent all of us. Not just developers or heavy dipper
donors. It is your responsibility to hold them accountable and most of
you are not. This room should be standing room only. The reason for
that impacts whether you want part of it, all of it, or nothing. Your
neighbors need to be more involved. The other thing eminent domain
they are using that exclusively for areas in which they want to take
over private property for their developers benefit. Had Mr. Champion,
I don’t blame you at all, you’re in for it for the buck, and … That’s
called the United States’ capitalism. All of you are also …If you want
it. You will have to undermine your neighbors. Unfortunately he has
to do it in order to get his project done. The other thing if you have
forgotten for those of you who have mentioned the Expo, how long
has that been coming before City Council, before the community and
many of you had you supported it or not, we have just found out this
year that there is high levels of arsenic in two parts of the proposed
Expo in East Culver City. None of the members from
Council ever told us that. If they didn’t know, why didn’t they know
and if MTA knew, why didn’t they dig that information out. But the last
thing I would like to leave you with as far as the development
beginning it doesn’t always mean it is going to end that way and I
have a project on Washington Boulevard between Cattaraugus and
Hutchison. It started out with community involvement like Mr.
Champion a developer that promises the world. It included many
community meetings. We were at first not supportive and many of us
supported because they made agreements in writing mind you. Half
way down with the project it was sold and it was converted to condos
and mixed use. Like I said before, if the lips are moving, don’t trust
them. Thank you.
Applause.
Paul Ehrlich: Good evening. My name is Paul Ehrlich and I have
lived here in Sunkist Park for 30 years. I also worked for an
organization called ISO and its been brought up and I just wanted to
tell you what ISO is. As I said I have been working for many years.
ISO basically tells the insurance companies the quality of the fire
department, the sprinkler systems, code enforcement, hindrance, etc.
etc. and they give the city and all communities in the United States a
rating. There are tens of thousands of communities in the United
States and of those there is only about 25 communities who have a
Class 1 and Culver City is one of them. Applause. I had nothing to
do with it because this is not my particular territory, but I do work for
the organization. One of the person came up and said that if this
project goes through it going to have all kinds of dire effects and one
80
of the dire effects is that he is making allegation that the rates would
increase throughout the City because we would lose our Class 1
rating. It’s more complicated than that because there are many
factors that go into determining what a Class 1 rating is. It’s the fire
department, I’ll break it down briefly, it’s the number of vehicles we
have, the location fire stations, the amount of training, how well the
equipment is maintained as far as the waters concerned and it has to
do with …… pressure, how much volumes, what our water supply is,
where the hydrants are, the City wide alarm system, how good is the
code and how well is it enforced. It is technically possible that a
major project could have an affect on that rating except that in my
opinion this project relative to the entire City and how much progress
has been going in the City in my opinion you would have little if any
effect. I just wanted to make that very clear. I hate to say it and I
can’t say for sure but I talked with … privately outside and my guess
is this is a little bit closer to the overstatement or even I’ll say the red
herring. I just want to make that clear.
Applause.
Madeline Ehrlich: I have lived in Sunkist Park for 32 years. Have
certainly been married … to the community. I have been to these
meetings and I see people just come out as soon as we say change
just pull up the blanket we don’t want any change. No, I don’t care
what it is. We don’t want any change. I think we do need some
change here. I think that we need some improvement and, if Mr.
Champion doesn’t do it, okay, whose going to do it. Do you think that
the man that came up here and said that from CompUSA that their
going to come and build a one story building for you or two story.
Folks, we live in a very high area, expensive area. We are close to
the airport, we close to the beach, we have great schools, and we
have great fire department. We have a lot of wonderful things in
Culver City. Our land values have gone up, up, up. I have never
seen my land values go down and I am telling you this is only land in
a better place. I just heard tonight and if you think that Mr. Champion
doesn’t build it, we’re going to get somebody here that’s going to keep
us looking like a country bumpkins. Well folks you are wrong. This is
not going to happen. We are not going to keep Culver City with dirt
roads. Not where it is situated. Okay. I understand tonight that the
area 2 is right now in escrow with Mr. Hooman, or Mr. Hoonam , I
know that man. …Car dealership. Do you think he is going to buy
that property and put five cars on it? Come on. Let’s not fool
ourselves. I look at some of the people that came up an spoke to
you. I mean some of the stuff they said was totally in error. But you
people said oh yeah its right, its right. I think you are pulling the wool
over your eyes. So I think you need to look at this and look at some
81
good change and not just say well have over 200 signatures. Oh my
goodness. Well there are 48,000 people in this city too. So I don’t
think 1,200 out of 48,000 is a great number and I certainly would not
sign that petition. Thank you.
Peter Messinger: Good evening. My name is Peter Messinger. I am
the owner of the Aquarium company. I wanted to talk to you about
the small business owner that has been there for a long time.
Started this store about 18 years ago, maybe a little bit longer. I was
her second employee. I have worked in that location for 18 years,
ever since it started. I finally took over the business from her about a
year and six months ago and a month after I took over I got a letter
saying that basically it’s going to be redeveloped. If we were
interested in being a developer which of course is ridiculous. So I
have only owned the business for a year and a half. At the last
meeting, Carol Gross brought up the fact that the business owners
were offered Redevelopment money to remodel the outsides of the
stores and most of them turned it down so there you have it and now
we are going to come in and we’re going to bulldoze all of you. My
question is why Redevelopment money can’t be used instead of hiring
lawyers to force the businesses out, hire lawyers to get the business
owners kicked out by eminent domain. Why can’t this money be used
in partnership with the building owners and the business owners to do
what they tried to do a few years which is remodel the outsides of the
store. I am sure a lot of business owners if we dodge that bullet that’s
coming right now are more than happy to step up to the plate and
remodel the outsides of the stores, the parking lots, whatever else is
needed. Basically what I am asking you is to be part of the
redevelopment, not a victim of redevelopment. Thank you.
Applause.
Allan Goldman: That was the final card. At this time I would like a
motion from the CAC to receive and file a petition that was handed to
us. Moved by another CAC member, seconded by another CAC
member Let us proceed. Thank you.
Mr. Champion, at this time before the CAC has their own thoughts
and what not, would you like to respond to the audience, to the parts
you can and maybe Joe from the City staff. I’ve written down some
questions that more relate to you.
Bob Champion: A few …comments from a few minutes ago, I told you
all when I first came that I would be guided by your Redevelopment
Agency to look at this Sepulveda corridor and figure out the best way
to redevelop it. I was told to work within the confines of the existing
82
zoning that is in that corridor. Many of the comments that I am
hearing tonight I really don’t think relate to the project as much as
they relate to the zoning that your city has approved for this area. I
find myself in a difficult situation because the way that … United
States and this is a capitalistic society, but the way it works is that
properties are always built to the highest and best use. And that
highest and best use is based on what is allowed to be built on those
properties. Given the zoning that exists in this corridor, I believe that I
proposed a project to would confine to the parameters of the general
plan that would adhere to all the zoning and would. I so believe that
and I do believe that the area does need some change. I do believe
that if left without a specific plan that what will happen is that you’ll
see spot development take place in your corridor that will not be
consistent with a well planned development of it. I will use as an
example when I met yesterday with Mr. Hooman, who is the
gentleman who is in escrow to buy the property at the corner of
Sepulveda, not Sepulveda, Slauson and Jefferson and what he is
planning to propose is that he is planning to propose a three story 56
foot car dealership. He’s got plans and he came to me to ask if I
would incorporate those plans into the project that I am proposing.
What I said to him who is what I’ve said to all of you is that is not my
decision to make. That is the decision to be made by your
Redevelopment Agency, by your City Council. But I will give you my
opinion and that my opinion is that if you think that the plan
development that I have proposed which would integrate pedestrian
activity all on the street which would provide the dollars to be able to
address a lot of the traffic issues that exist to build a infrastructure to
create a pedestrian environment. I guarantee you that the kind of
project that he proposes wouldn’t do that. And that is just one
property within this project area. Now multiple what he wants to do by
30 different properties and what you find you will find 30 different
projects along this corridor without a cohesive plan, that all are within
the existing general plan and zoning requirements for this City and
don’t achieve anything that you want to achieve. But I have heard
loud and clear tonight is that everybody wants to preserve their quality
of life. I mean that is literally what we are talking about. What I have
said from the very beginning is I believe if you make no change you
won’t preserve your quality of life. Your quality of life will change.
What I said is if we work together to create change that is a
partnership which is really what these meetings have been about is to
get your input and find a project that would work for community. You
can assert control. As some of the CAC members said earlier when
they were talking about checking my references, when cities and
developers work together to create projects there are concessions
that are create. There are exactments that are imposed on those
developments and it’s good. The reason why it’s good is because
83
they use development as a way to address problems that you couldn’t
address otherwise. For example, we talked about the South
Sepulveda plan for the redevelopment of the boulevard Culver
Boulevard improvement plan which didn’t happen because there
weren’t sufficient funds to do it. A project like what I am proposing
could accomplish that. Could fund that kind of improvement. As well
as many other community improvements that could take place. Why,
because the project would create the tax base to do that. So I would
just like to conclude by saying a few things. One is contrary to what
somebody said, I am not in violation of any real estate license, and I
don’t have a real estate license. I’m not required to have a real estate
license to be a real estate developer. Number two is I was invited to
this City to look at this corridor and propose improvements to this
particular corridor. It’s not that I came here to be a robber baron and
to steal your community. I participated in five of these meetings now
which have been very vocal and I have responded to every question
that has been asked. I have had a lot of assertions thrown at me that
I haven’t responded to. I have tried to demonstrate that I am very
level headed, I am very common sense oriented. I am a consensus
builder. I want to build projects that are embraced by the community
and I want this project to be embraced by the community as well. I
realize that I can’t do it without you. What I’ve said to everybody over
the last three or four meetings is this project is a proposal and its
based on which a discussion can take place to figure out what is the
appropriate development for this project area and once that’s
determined I believe you believe I have demonstrated and I think your
CAC has done its research to confirm that I am the kind of developer
that can do it. Get the job done and I have a lot of faith in the project.
I am a believer in it and I would like to see it take place and I would
like to be part of it. Thank you.
Applause.
Allan Goldman: Joe, could you speak to a couple of points that were
directed to the City regarding the pipeline, one, and the person that
was at an earlier meeting regarding low income housing and why, if it
was not necessary for the City, included in this.
Bob Champion: Actually I am asked to address that because we’re
not proposing to develop any alley. So the pipeline in the alley is
really .to what we are proposing to do.
CAC Okay, Chairman, addressing the questions about infrastructures
or questions about infrastructure and some land use questions; I am
going to try to answer those. Firstly regarding whether or not the City
has the ability to absorb this kind of development. Any time a project
84
is built, it is a requirement under California law to comply with the law
called a CEQA, California Environmental Quality Act. Any project that
is submitted has to be reviewed and approved pursuant to that law. It
must with a project of this size, it would be reviewed and an EIR
would be prepared. When an EIR is prepared, one of the
requirements is to look at all the infrastructure elements, of water,
power, sewer, utilities, and schools. If a project is going to create
significant effect under the law, then it’s required to mitigate the
problem to a level of insignificance. If you can’t do that, it can’t be
approved. So the short answer is that the project must comport to
CEQA if the project will exceed the ability of the city to city systems to
support the project that it cannot be approved under CEQA. So that
is the first answer in respect to infrastructure. The next question had
to do with liquefaction zone and in order for a project of this size to be
built, it would be required to, the owner would be required and the
developer would be required to prepare a geotechnical study. That
geotechnical study establishes design criteria for the project. If the
project is not designed pursuant to that geotechnical study, it will not
be permitted. The City will not issue a building permit unless the
project is demonstrated to be designed in accordance with the soils
for the area. So the short answer is that whether or not it is in a
liquefaction zone, it has to be designed to accommodate development
and you can build wet sandy soils or even build in granite and
whatever the soil is you have to design for and you have be able to
design a building that will be supported by the soil and with the
foundation to accommodate it. So that was the second question
about liquefaction. There was a question about land use with respect
to mixed use developments. There was an assertion that mixed use
development is not permitted and in fact the City adopted a mixed use
development ordinance that does allow mixed use development and
this project if it was recommended by approval by the CAC and it was
recommended for consideration by the Agency, then they would have
to comport with the land use regulations and mixed use development
is permitted. So I think, Chairman, those were all the land use or
development related issues that were a question.
Chip Netzel: Thank you for allowing me to do that. I apologize for not
having the card turned in. I want to encourage the City Council
Redevelopment Agency I know you are going to be talking about the
land use regulations coming up and I think that is critical but don’t just
talk about it. Make the changes that this community needs, not just
about this project 65 units per acre needs to be brought down.
Parking requirements need to be looked at, building heights, all those
factors. I know the Planning Commission has started that process but
it would be a shame to move this project forward as that discussion is
just beginning. So however we have to go about putting this project
85
on hold in whatever form or fashion while this discussion is going on
about land use regulations, I think that would be a smart thing to do.
References. I didn’t really hear much about how traffic congestion
impacted those areas that you checked on the references. That
would have been a great question to ask, how’s your quality of life,
how’s the traffic. I think those are great questions. Don’t look at just
Champion projects. Go find projects that are similar in size, 12 ½
acres, 800 residential units, and 25,000 square feet of retail. Go find
projects like that. It doesn’t have to just be a Champion project. Go
ask those city staff members, ask the residents of those areas. How’s
your quality of life. I really would like to hear tonight, I have asked this
question before, you’ve been through many meetings now and you’ve
all patiently sat through everything everybody had to say, but I would
like to know tonight I don’t know when we get to hear this, where do
each of you stand on this project. We’ve been waiting and waiting. I
will give credit to Mr. Schechter. Right from the very first meeting,
you said you’d put your hand up if you had your chance to …You said
that from the very first meeting and I give you credit. I give you credit
and I don’t necessary agree with it but you liked what you saw and
you raised your hand so I know where you stand but I’d like to know
where the rest of the CAC stands. You are working on behalf of us
and this is our fifth meeting. I think it’s pretty clear where the
community stands so I hope that you will have heard that and make
that a basis for your thinking. Fox Hills Mall development, Symantec,
Playa Vista, the new Radisson office tower that’s being proposed 13
story office tower, the whoops factor keep that in mind I think that’s
critical. I don’t want anybody to come back later and say whoops.
You know there is so much going on. We didn’t think it through and
whoops you can’t get from here to there. Those things haven’t even
materialized yet. We can barely get there now. Whoops. I think that
would be the worst work for me to hear later on and I think it’s critical
that we stop and really think about this. Mr. Champion mentioned a
master plan. I agree with you 100 percent. Stop this process and
actually go through a master planning process for this project area. It
hasn’t been done. We just jumped right in and here are the boards.
Here are pictures, here’s your project but we don’t have a master
plan. I think that’s a heck of an idea. Let’s stop this right now. Put a
master plan together and funny I will say that there are City Council
candidates sitting in the room tonight and you know who you are.
Keep in mind what you have heard. Whether you are maybe a
candidate sitting up here or whether you are sitting in the audience,
please listen to what you have heard from the community. If this
project is still ongoing, it needs approvals. We will remember. We
won’t forget. Okay, thank you very much.
Applause.
86
Allan Goldman: At this point, it is time for the CAC to roll up their
sleeves and do some dirty work. What I would like to do is have each
of us ask the tough questions that need to be asked so that we can
begin the process of making the decision as to where we do stand on
this proposal. If we can do that, this CAC whether we can do that
tonight, or whether or not we will ask the tough questions and if we
are not satisfied with the answers, to come back for one more
meeting to solidify our points and then make a decision. But at this
point I would like to start with the CAC. We will stand with Mr.
Schechter at the end there. If you have any questions, then Mr.
Champion, if you want instead of waiting to the end you can answer
the questions per member.
Asher Schechter: I think, give and take one of the important factors
that has been raised on one occasion is traffic congestion on the
commercial and residential streets. I think the group here is looking
for something more succinct in regards what will be done to stem the
flow of traffic into the residential neighborhoods. People who will be
shopping and living in the complex would feel the flow of traffic on
Sepulveda. I think it would behoove go ahead with something
concrete. A direction to look forward to justify the expansion project.
A resident said, before I say anything else, I have to say there are a
lot of people who asked a lot questions tonight and they didn’t stay to
hear the answers. That just perpetrates a lot of misconceptions that
are going on and that bother me a lot. I wrote down a bunch of
questions. I live right here. I am very concerned about population
density. I am very concerned, my main point, I am very concerned
about the local business owners. I frequent them and I am concerned
about what is going to happen there. I’m still listening to what is going
on. I am for a lot of it. I’m against a lot of it. I cannot unequivocably
say to you, Chip, or anybody else in the room that I am definitely for
the project. I can’t say I am against it either. I still feel I need to hear
more. I think that we need to get to a point where we can say all
right. At the turn of the last century, there were lots of mixed use
communities. You know, people would live above a store and the
whole community would be there. It was wonderful and terrific and
we went away from that. We went to our suburban areas which is
good too. I not saying any of it am bad but I think that we need to
look to the future and say what is going to work. Now here in Culver
City, but for us, for the City, but for us as individuals. I don’t feel that
by closing our eyes and saying you know what let’s leave it the way it
is. That’s going to work either. Unfortunately, I can’t give you a
definite I’m for it or against it because I am still investigating. I’m still
learning. I’ve learned a awful lot. I would also like know the date of
87
that letter from Exxon Mobile. June 8, 2007,.are we allowed to have a
copy I am very concerned about a lot of the comments made tonight,
and I think a lot of them are just coming from not necessarily what
was being said but how it was perceived. I think that is a lot of our
problems. What is going on with some of these meetings? We are
perceiving things the way we want to hear from rather than what is
actually being said. I think that is a problem as well.
As a resident I actually have a few questions for staff and one of them
is somebody mentioned that this is cash for the city but I don’t know if
that is necessarily true. In talking to some of the other cities that I
have worked with, these development projects and in working with
Champion, someone said quite frankly in reality property taxes never
pay for all the city services that are required. I know the City will
hopefully will make some money from the retail business that comes
in but I am not exactly sure how much of a financial burden or
financial benefit is going to be proposed for the City. I think that kind
of stuff is going to be out later on as they do more studies about this
project. Another thing that needs to be is a specific plan, a DFD,
comprehensive plan, or overlay zone plan in that area and if it did in
the past has it expired. I need a little bit more clarity on that for
myself. If it does, what does it say and, if not, are some of these
guidelines going to be prepared for this area. Are we looking at doing
any of those items that I mentioned for this area? What is the
process for making that happen and what are the considerations for
making that happen. What is the timeline? Those are the kinds of
things I need answers, and I would recommend we meet again
because I feel that are a lot that folks have said. Some of the things
have been repeated. We’ve heard some of the responses. I really
don’t about. A lot of the meetings, those are some things were
important to me because the City is beginning to look at zoning and
some of these issues. It will impact not only this development but
developments in all parts of Culver City. So it is important to have
understandings about these things and how it may relate to this
specific project. Is a construction management planning a
requirement or an optional? Other than that, I think some of my
colleagues have voiced some of the same concerns and thoughts I
have. We’re kind of giving our opinions here tonight as well. I have
spoken to some people in the community who are for the project.
Some of those folks are not willing to come up and speak before a
crowd of folks who are against the project. Even those people say
this project seems too big. That would be my feeling. If the project
isn’t going to be something that’s going to be modified in scope than I
would have to say no to this. If it is going to be modified, is CAC
going to continue to review the project and the modifications. That
would be my preference if the City is going to go forward. Also, the
88
traffic. I know this is something you have to look at If the traffic is
going to be remedied, the traffic is a problem. I know that is part of
the process. You are going to review traffic. I wouldn’t approve the
project if it was going to be a horrendous traffic impact and I think
from what I have heard from staff you’re in agreement on that,
anyway I will pass it along. Those were my questions.
An audience member stated is there a specific plan or some other
developments program for the process that would apply, or that does
apply to this property. The answer is the existing zoning on the site is
the zoning ordinance guides to development of the property. Not a
specific plan. It is important to note the specific plan could be
developed for the area. It was developed, that an ordinance, that’s its
own special zoning. That would apply to the property. You asked
about the timing. Generally a specific plan takes nine months to a
year, sometimes longer, to adopt. It involves a thorough study of the
existing land use, you look at not just the property, but the area
around it and you come up with area wide recommendations. There
is a streetscape plan that was prepared for the area that could be
incorporated into a specific plan. There are also is traffic work that
has been done immediately behind this project site that also could
one of the technical studies to be folded into a specific plan. You
have already done some basic ground work to do a specific plan if
that’s what you want to do. The process takes about nine months to
a year. A specific plan could be developed but there is nothing
except the existing zoning ordinance that applies to the property right
now. You asked about other options. Well, specific plan or a plan
development for the project site could be looked at as an option as
opposed to just simply dealing with the zoning envelope. The next
question you asked about is construction management. Is the
construction management plan required? Well the short answer is if
the project of this scale is proposed then it would be a condition of
approval, and I am confident we would incorporate that as a condition
of approval as has been done with large scale projects. It isn’t a
requirement other than through the discretionary process. You asked
about the review of the modification to the project. I think that what
has to happen there has to be some disposition from the CAC, and
then the Agency will make a determination about how to go forward.
After that the decisions about the project and how it will be developed
would have to be resolved. So the CAC wouldn’t necessarily be
involved in any further modifications but it certainly could be. Lastly,
you asked about traffic volume and traffic review. As part of the
environmental review analysis, the City has to look at traffic. If the
traffic problems cannot mitigated to a level of insignificance, then the
City cannot approve the project. That is a requirement under CEQA.
So I think those were all the questions you asked.
89
An audience member commented, based on what you said, then I
would support looking at developing a specific plan for the area.
An audience member said I am here because my wife was sick of
hearing me complain about all this random development. I have
learned a lot over the past few months. I share everyone here’s
concerns regarding congestion, density, heights of this project, but I
really think that something needs to be done because it is just not
good the way it is now. Not good for the City. Anyway if the density,
something needs to be done, deep down I agree with everything that
was said here tonight. Deep down I want no change. Most people
here want to change. But that’s just not realistic. I am from Little
Rock, Arkansas, and every time I go home every year another
thousand miles of forest has been mowed down and shopping
centers and they learned how to do that here. So we need to stop
that and the fact that you are all involved and we all here because we
care. I am proud to be neighbors with you folks because if we turn
our back, change will occur so we have to stay involved. We can
mold this thing where it will be a good thing. We can control this
thing. We really can and just remember that. Every time you start
blaming the City, the City is just a reflection of us. So you can’t just
blame the City because we couldn’t. If we all stay involved.
(Question from audience) As far as the business owners, I agreed, I
don’t see how bringing in change is going to help change anything. I
don’t want a Ross, I don’t want a Starbucks, I don’t want a Gap, I
don’t want any chain that there is another store within 10 miles of
Culver City because nobody is going to Culver City to go to Gap.
There shouldn’t be any chain in Fox Hills Mall. It’s all real simple
stuff. I think they should go around and a bunch of the businesses in
the strip malls now, you know Giovanni’s has been in a strip center for
12 years. If we could lure Giovanni’s and places like that instead of
chains. If we did this right, it could be a really good thing. But we all
have to stand tall and I intend to stick around and at the first meeting I
told Chip Netzel exactly how I felt about this. I don’t why he stands up
there and asking because I told him at the first meeting. (In response
to question from audience) Too tall, to dense. Also Chip doesn’t like
the way I drop my kid off at school. I want you to know, Chip, that I
will pull over in the teacher’s parking lot now. Is that okay. Anyway I
won’t waste any more of your time. I just want you to know I am one
of you, I am with you. We’re not I am not getting checks from
anybody and I’m just here because my wife sent me.
An audience member said I am actually very glad to finally be able to
say everything that has been pent up inside me. I’ve been put behind
this desk thinking when I first started that I have some great things to
90
do with this whole thing. It’s been frustrating because I think I never
had, I don’t know every names on this board to tell you the truth, and
it’s frustrating from the standpoint as the lone property owner
business run person here, I know Champion is not able to speak for
legal reasons. I believe a lot why we are here is because of us. I
represent this group and the fortunate thing is that hopefully that is a
process and this will come down to what it is we need to get down to.
The unfortunate thing is I believe as a property owner that eminent
domain or really everything we have done so far bypass what I
represent and I am not here to sell my property. I am not here to get
rid of my business in the same building. I have heard comments that
we’re going to win either way. To tell you the truth eminent domain I
am going to get their fair market value. When the property owner
wants to sell their business or their property, they’ll get that fair
market value at any time they want to get out. I don’t think we gain by
being pushed out now or in two years because truthfully I think my
property is more valuable sold separately. There is a lot of stuff going
around everywhere else and I believe it’s a good spot to do business,
to have tenants, to have do all the things I want to do. So I don’t think
it is correct to say we that we win. I am ashamed to say I haven’t
canvassed 100 percent of those property owners to tell you what they
all feel. But the ones I have canvassed all feel “no” we’re not here to
sell. So we can look at all the drawings. I passed on comments
because, you know what, I am sure that they can be beautiful, I am
sure this Champion is going to do a great job. I actually respect all
the stuff he does. I think it’s great. I wish I was in his shoes
sometimes. But from the standpoint of someone whose angered in
this spot you all want to change, I feel a lot of empathy and sympathy
because I do believe change has to happen. I don’t want to be a
property owner where people don’t like to look at our buildings or
want you come in to the stores or anything like that. I think that is an
issue. But having someone come in and tell me they are going to
take away my property is not where I am here at this standpoint. I
believe that this is not the right way. This is incorrect. Eminent
domain, if you are going to do it, bring it on now because I am not
quite sure any property owner at this point is going to just lay down
and say, there give me fair market value and I win. That’s not what
we hear at this point. Thank you.
Applause.
A audience member said, ,first of all, I think that Bob Champion has
been a great asset to our area because he’s gotten us all to think
about what our neighborhood is and what our neighborhood could
be. I think his presentations for the most part are exciting, and I think
his presentations for the most part are exciting and they are clear and
91
they are giving us a lot of information. When I look at the latest
boards that show like what the morning shadow conditions are going
to be for all the homes along Segrell Way, I have real concerns,, and I
have concerns about being one of those homeowners being in their
backyard and looking at a building that is very tall. It maybe more
appropriate for other areas if there were apartment buildings along
Segrell Way. It maybe would be a different story. It just feels like
their too tall and too much is being lost, and the neighborhood is
being hurt. I guess my other concern I’d really tried to grasp the idea
of mixed use and I know in some areas it may be a great thing. I
have concerns about having condominiums on Sepulveda Boulevard
above retail businesses for our particular area. My preference would
be to explore the idea of either doing a major renovation of what’s
there or looking at doing a retail project that’s lower in scale and is not
as impactful. I know in the past Culver City has conducted visioning
workshops and one thing that may be really good for our area is to do
that so that somebody could mediate it, and the community can
create a vision and look at what the possibilities are for our
neighborhood and add that develop a system…That’s my feedback.
Applause.
Allan Goldman: before we continue, I would like a motion from the
CAC to receive and file the letter that we received from the Exxon
Mobile Corporation.
Moved by a CAC member and, seconded by a CAC member. All in
favor.
Thank you.
Let me tell everyone here that they understand and my CAC as well
why we are here. The CAC’s job is not to approve or disapprove this
project. It says here when we filled out the forms to do this, and let
me read it to you, is that if you are selected to become a member
you’ll be asked to attend meetings on an needed basis in regard to
redevelopment to provide staff, the Agency and Champion critical
advise on proposed design, review the traffic study, and it’s
recommendations and to discuss business tenants for the
redevelopment. As a CAC member, you will represent a cross
section of the community and become an important voice in the
redevelopment. CAC meetings will typically be held on weeknights
and will require about per month from each member. Therefore,
what I am saying is that we will have input into what it is that we feel
should or should not be built. We are not going to vote on whether
the project will go forward or not because that is not our mission. It
92
goes on to say that the redevelopment goal is to develop a cohesive
plan for redevelopment of the site and it will include housing, office,
which has been cancelled, and retail/restaurant components. Some
of the objectives of the redevelopment include resolution of the traffic
problem along the alleyway that runs adjacent to Segrell Way. To
build desirable public amenities and enhance economic development
and to employ good urban design and land use policies to create a
unique sense of place in the community. That said, my concerns are
the following. One is density. We have all heard to high, too much.
The Planning Commission is already looking at reducing both those
numbers, the height limit and the density number. I have heard
numbers anywhere 40, 65 units, I have heard numbers anywhere
from 40 to 45…The cohesive plan, my question to the cohesive plan
and to the staff and to the City, is how is Hooman automotive agency
to enter the cohesive for development plan phase 1, phase 2, phase
3, phase 4 without any mention of a possible automotive agency. I
think that needs to be addressed as we go on with this. To Bob, you
said at the last meeting from the minutes the project I propose won’t
be built. The project that will be built, if at all, will be based on your
input. A project that is best for the community as a whole, not just
Sunkist Park. I am not in the building business. I cannot tell you what
size project would be feasible because I don’t have the economics of
scale to do so. I can’t figure out mathematically that if the project is
five stories, the first story being retail, that leaves four stories of
condominiums. There are 800 units. Well it doesn’t take a math
genius to figure out that is 200 units per floor for the whole project.
So if we eliminate one floor, we are down to 600 units. If we eliminate
two floors, we down to 400 units. At what point will the project no
longer be feasible from an economic point of view from the
Champion’s development point to continue with the project. These
are the answers I think we need before we can actually as a
community decide what is right for us. If anybody is really interested
in the Sepulveda Boulevard façade program that took place about 15
years ago, I guess it is now, that the building on the east side of
Sepulveda that was owned by Albert Vera, the Serrento Market
building, was the first one to go under the façade program. Joseph
Sherwood was owner of the building at 5427 and 5429 Sepulveda
which housed a medical building and Culver City Industrial Hardware
and at that point in time was owned by myself. I, as a tenant, went to
the City and asked if I could spend my money to change the façade of
the building because I did not like the way it looked. Mr. Sherwood
and I met. He said to me it wouldn’t be feasible for him economically
to do it for the rent I was paying. But long story short, the of the City, I
believe Miriam Mack at that time was the project chair over that, we
convince the City and Mr. Sherwood that even though I did not own
the property that I would be allowed to remodel it. He then went
93
ahead and remodeled the upper half of the building which was a
medical building. Since then, the other projects that were redone
their’s as well as the Big Lots property was also redone. If a façade
program is feasible, then obviously we should look at that also. I am
not sure if that is going to be enough but that’s another point. I guess
my questions are before can continue we need some direction in
terms of what we are really looking at because we know it’s not going
to be five stories and we know it’s not going to be 800 units and for
us to sit here and hypothetically vote, not for or against, but on
guidelines. Are these going to be our guidelines? Is this our
responsibility or, if we vote and it is not feasible, then you have to tell
us from the City point of view or from the developer point of view that,
you know what, this is no longer the project that can happen. So,
Bob, my question to you sir, is are you ready or what point would you
be ready to say we have to roll up our sleeves a really do the
crunching the numbers and what it is we’re going to do.
Bob Champion: I have been sitting here for the last three hours, yes
we all have, I have been very swayed by many of the comments you
have all made tonight and I have been sitting here thinking that the
question just asked to me was probably going to get asked. In trying
to figure out what I thought was the most candid and fair response
that I give to it. Here goes. As I said earlier, the value of property is
determined by what can be built on it and the values that you have
seen occur in this City are the results of the planning that is taking
place to guide how those properties have been developed. A few
years back your city made the policy decisions that it wanted to
promote mixed use. Although I was not there at the time that it made
that policy decision, being a proponent of mixed use I believe they
probably concluded as many cities and communities across the
country that making our communities a more vital, more pedestrian
oriented, creating the same kind of mixed uses that occurred a
century ago, was a good thing. I do believe that. In regards to your
question, you presently have zoning in that area that allows mixed
use of 56 feet, but within 56 feet someone can build a five story
project that is within the envelope of what is allowed. When I was in
the task of looking at proposing how to change the Sepulveda
corridor, I worked within that existing envelope because I knew
anything less would not be competitive of what could happen if there
were multiple projects if they were independently initiated on the
corridor. Meaning that in order for any project that I proposed to be
economically viable, it had to be comparative what any other person
could develop on a property at the same time. Now tonight, what I
have been hearing is, or what I would like to think I hear, is that there
hasn’t been so much an attack on my attributes as a developer, or for
that matter, the merits of my project as much it is as what my project
94
represents. Which is what is the maximum that is allowed in current
zoning for this area. So in answer to your question, if the current
zoning stays in place the way it is, the only project that would be
viable is one that is built to the envelope allowed by the zoning
because the way it works in real estate is that everyone always builds
to the highest and best use and the highest and best use is what’s
allowed. Someone made a suggestion earlier tonight on your board
that perhaps the issue is not the project but the issue the zoning and
perhaps there should be a new look at what the zoning is allowed, not
necessarily on just the Sepulveda corridor but throughout the your city
and perhaps certain areas should be more dense and certain areas
should less dense. If those discussions resulted in a policy decision,
that resulted in an overall amendment to your zoning that changed
what the envelope that’s approved that can be built on property, at
that point what would happen is the highest and best use of that
property would be whatever the maximum envelope is of that revised
zoning. So in other words, if right now we are proposing a five story
project because that is what is allowed, but the zoning for the area
was to change and that four story building was the maximum allowed,
then in that event financially it would have the same chance of being
feasible as if it were five story. In other words, what I am saying and
the same thing I have said in the last three meetings, I feel like I am
not so much defending my project that I have proposed as much I am
defending the zoning that you have all approved. I find myself in the
position of being asked to advocate a zoning when simply I am just
responding to the policies that your city has. I have tried my best to
design the project that meets that policy and from my very first
meeting I have said I don’t intend to develop a project that has
variances or asks for exceptions to what is allowed. I plan to play
within the rule book. I think when you’re looking for a developer you
want someone who has the capacity to figure out how many projects
work and at the same time balance the economic feasibility of that
project with what the community needs are. I think that that’s what I
have done in the past. So in conclusion to responding to your
questions, I think really it’s a matter of public policy and what you as a
community decide is the zoning you want for your city and for specific
areas like the South Sepulveda corridor. Then it’s private enterprises
response to create projects within that envelope that are viable and
successful in your community. Thank you. Applause.
Allan Goldman: At this point I would like to hear from the members of
the CAC in terms of whether they want to create motion tonight in
regards to this matter or do they want time to do some more research
and have another meeting.
95
As a CAC member I would like to recommend we have another
meeting. I’ll second that. Stated a CAC member.
A CAC member asks these questions, What you think we’ll
accomplish at the next meeting?. What do you think we’re going to
hear at the next meeting that we haven’t heard tonight that we can’t
make a motion tonight?
(Talking back and forth from audience and CAC) It’s my
understanding that this CAC is supposed to be going forward even
after we have come up with a decision tonight or next week or
whatever. As the project needs it, so this won’t be over so we are
going to have other meetings anyway. I don’t see any reason why we
can’t come up with something tonight but my personal feeling is that
everyone of us has said something about density, traffic, mitigation.
We might not all agree on whether the project should go ahead or
not. Those are the issues that we have all sort of zeroed in on.
Allan Goldman: Just to repeat, it’s not our motion to proceed or to
halt this project. Our goal is to create the mitigation to make the
project feasible so anybody at this end feel one way or another in
terms of motion versus another meeting.
Laura Stuart: I have been thinking about a motion that we could do
that in an advisory position motion to advise Redevelopment Agency
that we believe we need to return to the beginning with a new study,
new community input and a study of the zoning laws. Because what I
am hearing is that it’s too big and as I hear from Bob Champion and it
makes sense. We build to the envelope because the next guy is
going to build to the envelope. So I think we should entertain the
motion to ask the Redevelopment Agency to explore the zoning laws
and go forward with exploration of development on Sepulveda
Boulevard with that in mind. I don’t know whether or not that means
they say to us we’ll stop while we re-explore zoning or we continue
with our meetings. So, it isn’t quite formed but
A CAC member makes the motion that we propose that the City
prepare a specific plan for the region. Applause. A specific plan for
the region which is exactly what you just said.
The motion is that we ask the City to make a specific plan for this
region.
An audience member stated to the Chair, just as a point of
clarification, you would be making a motion to do a special study or
96
specific plan for this particular area and not the region. It would be for
the West Washington area or Sepulveda area as well?
Allan Goldman: Laura would like add her comments.
Laura Stuart: I would like to add that we have a conditional consent
that if Champion does mitigate the traffic, designated school, police,
fire concerns that we have that we can continue working with him on
this project.
Allan Goldman: We would need reform the motion.
Laura Stuart: That’s not what the intention of my motion was. I think
that when staff talks about the possibility of doing a specific plan nine
months to a year, this is what I am hearing, that folks in the audience
want to have but they want to look at the entire development and my
recommendation would be to suggest a specific plan.
Carol Schwab: I am Carol Schwab, the City Attorney. You just had
two motions on the floor and Allan Goldman said there was not a
motion from Laura. But now she’s asked you to amend your’s to
include
Allan Goldman: We had a motion and a second on the first motion to
have another meeting. Is there any other further discussion.
The Chair said I would like to rescind my motion for the additional
info.
The Chair said, If we in fact go ahead with the motion that is on the
floor now, and Redevelopment Agency meets and decides that they
are changing the zoning laws whatever, this project would have to fall
under the new zoning. Correct. Not the current zoning.
The audience member said That’s correct.
The CAC member said okay, so no matter when our
recommendations go to the Council, they will have to keep within
those guidelines and understand that within the next six months or
something like that the zoning could change, or the height levels
could be change or whatever decisions could be made. Am I correct
to that? Okay.
A CAC member; said one thing that should be looked at is that
Hoonan is in the middle of purchasing this property. Is there going to
be a problem that he is purchasing it under the condition that he is
97
able to do something and that all the sudden he is told he’s not able
to and what about other properties that come up for sale in the
meantime. How’s the project protected or how people are made
aware that there is a pending specific plan which may change the
zoning. (Audience commenting but cannot understand)
Allan Goldman: Does the City want to respond to that.
Joe Susca: On the Hooman purchase of the property, certainly
through the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement that we have with
Champion we have defined a specific area in which he is to study the
feasibility of a redevelopment project. As you can imagine, he had a
certain set of existing property owners going into the process and it
appears we have one being replaced that is currently in escrow to
acquire that property. It doesn’t diminish the oversight of that
particular parcel from Champion’s purview or the review of that site as
a collective CAC. It’s true that if existing property owners want to
improve or sell their property during this process, nothing in the law
would prohibit them from doing so.
Allan Goldman: Thank you Joe. We still have a motion and a second
on the floor. Once again, could you please repeat your motion?
An audience member said that the Citizens Advisory CAC suggest,
advise that the City prepare a specific plan for the Sepulveda
development area.
Allan Goldman: Motion and second. Is there any further discussion.
Laura Stuart: I just think it’s too narrow because it doesn’t really have
any defined timeframes. We have some really important issues going
on in this community and if a developer such as Champion is willing
to work within the parameters, the new parameter, with this
community, I think we should give that an opportunity. I think the
motion is a little narrow.
CAC member agreed with Laura. I think that by just saying that we
should advise the Redevelopment Agency to develop a specific plan
that for the area, we are effectively tabling this project and we’re now
working with the developer to make recommendations to make it
more of what the community wants or what some members of the
community want.
Allan Goldman: Is there any other further discussion on the motion.
CAC member said I disagree. I don’t think that we’re saying that this
98
developer could be part of this. I think it’s saying let’s take a look at
the area and make a plan. Be specific about what the community
wants here.
Applause.
Allan Goldman: Does the CAC feel comfortable with a vote or would
you like to take a break and think about this for a moment. At this
point I will call for a vote. All those in favor of the motion. Ayes,
No Opposed Abstain
The motion is to go ahead and suggest formation of a specific plan.
CAC member stated, It is my understanding that when the City
Council gets whatever input we going to get, they could choose to do
whatever they want. They could choose to table, whatever they
decide to do, okay. But us saying let’s go back to square one, I don’t
feel it’s going to accomplish anything because the City going to do
that again. They’ll have the same impact. I think what we need to do
is to give more specific guidelines of exactly which direction we’re
going and I don’t know exactly how to put it but I think that if we make
as broad as you’re doing at this point, I think we need to pull it in a
little bit somehow.
CAC member, the reason I made this motion was based on what Sol
Blumenfeld said. The groundwork has been laid. A lot of the work
has already been done for the specific plan. They studied land use
area recommendations. This will incorporate everything. I am not a
planner. I don’t want to be specific because the City has already
done a lot of this work. That’s what he said tonight. It seems like this
would allow us to have more specific guidelines which is exactly what
you just said for this area and that’s why I made this motion.
Comments made in the background.
CAC member would it be helpful if there was discussion with Sol
Blumenfeld about what exactly a specific plan is? Would that be of
help because we haven’t really talked much about that?
Sol Blumenfeld: I am going to stand up because sitting at this table is
tough. Okay, let’s briefly say what’s a specific plan is, a specific plan
is an ordinance just like a zoning ordinance, and it can supersede a
zoning for the land so communities often get together, and they do
specific plans or cities get together to do specific plans because they
want to enact very specific rules that will guide land use and
development in an area. So specific plans are written all the time and
99
they are meant to provide very specific legislation to guide
development. So what does that mean for this project? Well, it
means they also tend to involve more than just a particular project.
They involve larger areas; that’s why they are called specific plans.
So it is important to recognize that if you do a plan that’s typically
more than just this project site. It usually is. So you could enact at
the time you put together all the developments standards, not
guidelines, which are more voluntary. You could come out with
specific regulations with a specific plan that would lay out the height,
the bulk and the size, and the open space, and all the other
regulations that would guide the use and the development of the
property. They could be more restrictive, but they could be less
restrictive. The process is a public process. You go through normally
having some workshops and you have some public hearings. The
hearings, the Planning Commission, and then the Planning
Commission makes a recommendation to City Council and then the
City Council enacts the specific plan to new law to guide land use in
the area. So that’s the process and that could very well work in this
area. As was mentioned by Ms. Anderson, there has been some
work done already in the area. I have only worked in the City a
month, but I am aware of some of work that has gone on. There is a
streetscape master plan that was prepared for Sepulveda which could
be incorporated in the specific plan. There is a little bit of market
study work done that is not very old and you probably still have some
shelf life to it. There is traffic work that was done for the Sunkist area
that could be incorporated in this specific plan. So there really are
components that could be used to prepare a specific plan. You have
some of the pieces. So does that answer your question?
Carol Gross: Could I add a postscript to it. Potentially in the process
of preparing a specific plan, you can prepare an Environmental
Impact Report for the specific plan that addresses the numbers of
units, and traffic and all of those other things. So, then if you move
forward with a particular project, Champion or anybody else, pretty
much the Environmental Impact Report its all laid out there. This
process is kind of a way to move forward with a project by looking at
and refining what size, what design, and what can make sense there.
Allan Goldman: We have a motion, we have a second. Is there any
further discussion. Seeing no further discussion, Allan asks that a
vote be taken by his fellow CAC members to “recommend to the
Agency that they consider completion of a Specific Plan for the
project area.”
Vote: All Ayes. The unanimous motion carries.
100
Adjournment
A call for adjournment was made by Allan Goldman, seconded by
Loni Anderson.
Meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
101
TERMINATION OF
EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT
AND RELEASE
THIS TERMINATION OF EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT AND
RELEASE (this “Termination and Release”) is entered into by and between the CULVER
CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public body, corporate and politic (“Agency”), and
CHAMPION REALTY, LTD., a California limited partnership (the “Developer”). Agency
and Developer are sometimes hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
The following recitals are a substantive part of this Termination and Release:
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2006, Developer and Agency executed that certain Exclusive
Negotiation Agreement (the “Agreement”).
WHEREAS, on January 31, 2007, Agency and Developer executed Amendment No. 1 to the
ENA, pursuant to which the due date for the Conceptual Plans and other documents was
extended to March 15, 2007 (the “First Amendment”).
WHEREAS, the Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment, shall be referred to herein as
the “ENA.”
WHEREAS, as a result of concerns voiced by the community and the Sepulveda Citizen’s
Advisory Committee and other reasons encountered during the performance of the ENA, the
parties have mutually agreed that the ENA be terminated.
WHEREAS, on October 22, 2007, the Agency Board approved this Termination and Release.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals, the Agency and Developer
mutually agree as follows:
Accuracy of Recitals; Defined Terms. The Parties acknowledge the
accuracy of the foregoing Recitals, which are incorporated herein by this
reference. Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed
to them in the ENA.
Termination. The Parties agree and acknowledge that the ENA is hereby
terminated, and therefore is of no further force and effect.
Release. Developer hereby forever releases and discharges the Agency
and the City of Culver City (“City”), and their respective successors,
representatives, agents, officers and employees, and the Agency hereby forever
releases and discharges Developer and its respective successors,
representatives, agents, officers and employees, and Developer and Agency each
forever waives any claim against the foregoing parties, from any and all claims,
debts, liabilities, demands, obligations, costs, expenses, actions and causes of
102
action of every nature, character and description, known or unknown, which
Developer or Agency now owns or holds, or has at any time heretofore owned or
held, or may at any time own or hold, by reason of any matter, cause or thing
whatsoever occurred, done, omitted or suffered to be done in connection with the
ENA and/or the termination thereof.
a. Awareness of Civil Code Section 1542. Developer and Agency
expressly acknowledge that each is familiar with and has read the provisions of
California Civil Code Section 1542, that reads: “A general release does not extend
to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor
at the time of the executed release, which if know by him or her must have
materially affected his settlement with the debtor.”
b. Waiver of Civil Code Section 1542. It is expressly stated by Developer
and Agency, that each intends, by executing this Termination and Release, to
fully and forever release any and all claims against the Agency and the City and
their respective successors, representatives, agents, officers and employees, or
against the Developer and its respective successors, representatives, agents,
officers and employees, respectively; including not only those claims presently
known to or suspected by them, but those claims that are unknown to and
unsuspected by them, including claims that have not and may not have arisen as
of the execution of this Termination and Release. Developer and Agency further
expressly acknowledge that each has been fully advised of the purpose and effect
of Civil Code Section 1542 by counsel, and of the effects and consequences of the
waiver of the same. Having been so advised, and with full knowledge and
understanding of the consequences, Developer expressly waives and relinquishes
all rights and benefits afforded it by Civil Code Section 1542.
BY SIGNING THIS TERMINATION AND RELEASE, DEVELOPER AND
AGENCY HEREBY WAIVE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1542 SOLELY
IN CONNECTION WITH THE MATTERS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF
THE FOREGOING WAIVERS AND RELEASES.
CHAMPION REALTY, LTD.,
a California limited partnership
Dated: By: ____
Robert Champion, President
CULVER CITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
Dated: By:
Jerry B. Fulwood, Executive Director
c. General. Developer and Agency have carefully read the contents of this
103
Release and have executed this Termination and Release with full knowledge and
upon independent advice from counsel. Developer and Agency have freely
signed this Termination and Release without relying on any agreement, promise,
statement or representation by or on behalf of the Agency, the City, Developer or
their respective officers, employees, agents or representatives.
The provisions of this Termination and Release shall be binding upon Developer
and Agency and their respective successors and assigns and shall be governed by the laws of the
State of California.
Captions. The captions appearing in this Termination and Release are for
convenience only and are not a part of this Termination and Release and do not
in any way limit, amplify, define, construe, or describe the scope or intent of the
terms or provisions of this Termination and Release.
Counterparts. This Termination and Release may be executed in
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which
together shall constitute but one and the same document.
Effective Date. The effective date of this Termination and Release is the
date it is signed on behalf of both the Agency and Developer.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
104
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Agency and Developer have executed this Termination and Release
as of the dates set forth below:
CULVER CITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
Dated: By:
Jerry B. Fulwood, Executive Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Agency Counsel
CHAMPION REALTY, LTD.,
a California limited partnership
Dated: __________ By:
Robert Champion, President