City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A1-1
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council (the “Council”) discuss and provide direction on
mixed use development projects currently in the development process.
BACKGROUND:
On July 2, 2007 the Council conducted a hearing on proposed revisions to Mixed
Use Ordinance in order to consider reducing density in mixed use development
projects. The Council’s concerns on the matter were based upon recent mixed-use
development permit applications that have been disapproved by the Planning
Commission (based primarily on traffic, parking and neighborhood compatibility
issues related to density) and concerns about several currently proposed
Redevelopment Agency mixed use development projects.
The project denials have created uncertainty for developers, staff and the community
about what types of mixed-use projects are permissible and how to evaluate new
mixed-use development applications which otherwise appear to comply with the
provisions of the Zoning Code. Current projects in the development pipeline are in
limbo and further long-range planning by staff has been put on hold until this matter
is resolved. Though several mixed-use projects have been submitted, proposed, or
are in the pipeline for project review since adoption of the mixed use Ordinance,
none have been built.
Meeting Date: 08/20/07 Item Number: A-1
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion of and Comment on Mixed Use Development Projects
in the Development Process.
Contact Person/Dept.: Thomas Gorham
and Todd Tipton
Phone Number: (310) 253-5727 and
(310) 253-5783.
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Public Notification: All Commercial Property Owners in Culver City (08/10/07); Signs
on Planning Counter (08/01/07); All homeowners associations (08/10/07); Architects,
designers and planning related consultants on file with the City (08/10/07); Development
professionals working with the Redevelopment Agency (08/10/07); Speakers at the July
23, 2007 Council meeting regarding 9900 Culver Boulevard (08/10/07); Master
Notification List (08/16/07).
Department Approval:
Sol Blumenfeld (08/13/07)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (08/13/07)
City Controller Approval:
Marlee Chang (08/15/07)
City Manager Approval:
Jerry B. Fulwood (08/15/07) City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A1-2
Also at the July 2
nd
meeting, the Council requested that staff bring back information
for discussion information about a moratorium ordinance (see below).
On July 26, 2007, staff provided a complete list of mixed use development projects
that were in the “pipeline” (i.e. those which had received entitlements, but had not
proceeded with construction or obtained building permits and those that proceeded
in good faith in obtaining land and preparing pre-development studies based upon
work with the Agency and or Planning staff). The various projects were detailed,
indicating their size and stage in the development process.
On August 6, 2007, after lengthy consideration of the staff report, public testimony
and materials presented at the City Council Mixed Use Development Study Session,
the Council directed staff to focus upon Option 2, tailoring the recommendations to
reflect the residential areas immediately abutting each commercial zone and to more
fully develop the “community benefits” concept. Most of the discussion involved
revisions to the Mixed-Use Ordinance. The collateral issue of “projects in the
pipeline” was not directly addressed, though it is an urgent concern.
Also at the Study Session, staff noted that one mixed-use development project on
the list had matured to the point where a building permit could be issued. The
Council directed staff to not issue any building permits for mixed-use projects until
the mixed-use ordinance was revised or until the matter of a moratorium was
presented to the Council for consideration. Thus, staff is requesting that this item be
considered at this time.
DISCUSSION:
Staff is quickly following-up on the Council direction regarding the mixed-use
ordinance and will return on October 8, 2007 with a draft ordinance addressing
the City Council’s concerns. In light of the progress made at the study session,
the City Council should now consider the disposition of the unresolved matter of
current development projects in the pipeline (whether they should be held to new
standards or be allowed to proceed under the standards that were in effect when
they began the development process) or if a moratorium should be considered.
Staff does not recommend a moratorium because it is unlikely that any additional
projects (beyond those listed below) will be deemed complete before staff is able
to bring the draft mixed-use ordinance back to the Council for consideration (on
October 8). If an application were to be deemed complete during that time, staff
would inform the Council immediately. It is also important to note that four of the
effected projects are small and range from 2 to 8 dwelling units.
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A1-3
Projects in the Development Pipeline
A. Projects Subject to a Specific Plan
Project/Location Description/Status Units/Density/Height
Washington/National
Triangle (Urban
Partners)
Transit oriented
development. Exclusive
Negotiating Agreement
(ENA) w/Agency,
preliminary plans
prepared per draft
specific plan.
230 units
65 units/ac
56’ – 130’ height
30,600 s.f. retail
Brentwood Fairfield
(Former car dealerships)
Preliminary plans
prepared per draft
specific plan and
submitted for Preliminary
Project Review (PPR)
133 units
65 units/ac
56’ height
17,000 s.f. retail
Edward Czucker Site
(Spartan Supply Site)
Preliminary plans
prepared per draft
specific plan and
submitted for PPR
115 units
65 units/ac
56’ height
43,000 s.f. retail
Sepulveda/Jefferson
ENA, project plans and
development studies
prepared. A specific plan
has been recommended
by the Citizens Advisory
Committee for the area.
TBD
B. Projects Subject to a Purchase and Sale Agreement
9900 Culver Blvd Processed entitlement
application and currently
on appeal at City
Council.
21 units
55 du/ac
44’-56’ height
4,750 s.f. retail
4043 Irving Place
Property acquired from
Agency, plans prepared,
and PPR submitted.
Incomplete entitlement
application submitted.
28 units
52 units/ac
43’ height
3,000 s.f. office
C. Agency Sponsored Projects
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A1-4
Washington/Centinela
Request for Offers
issued May, 11 offers
received, all without
plans.
TBD
Baldwin Motel Site Existing entitlements
owned by the Agency for
a 24 unit live
work/residential project.
RFP issued and
conceptual plans
prepared but no final
project selection.
TBD
D. Projects Considered by the Planning Commission
13365 Washington Bl. Reviewed by Planning
Commission on April 11,
2007 and continued in
order to address traffic
issues. Applicant has
prepared revised traffic
study and is scheduled to
go back to Commission in
September.
19 units
65 du/ac
50’ height
4,000 s.f. retail
E. Projects Subject to Administrative Review
11503 Washington Bl. (at
Berryman)
Project has been noticed
and Administrative
Approval is pending.
2 units
11 du/ac
22’ height
3,296 s.f. office
F. Projects Submitted for Preliminary Project Review (PPR)
5813 Washington Bl.
(@Dauphine/Ernest)
Applicant worked with
staff for more than 1 year
and submitted mixed use
project plans to PPR in
June 2007.
33 units
65 du/ac
43‘ height
13,000 s.f. retail
Encore Motel
(across Washington Bl.
from Costco)
Two years ago the
Agency entered into an
ENA that expired and the
owners eventually sold
the site. Current owner
32 units
65 du/ac
55’ height
15,760 s.f. retail City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A1-5
proposed a mixed use
project, and worked with
staff on conceptual plans
for over a year, largely
based upon the prior
information and RFP
issued by the City two
years ago. Submitted for
PPR.
G. Projects Approved but Not Built
11281 Washington Pl.
(@ Sawtelle)
Received entitlements in
January of 2005 prior to
the mixed use ordinance
and new zoning code
being adopted.
Received an extension
prior to permit expiration
date. Project is through
plan check but no
building permit issued.
8 units
28 du/ac
43’ height
5,130 s.f. retail
13340 Washington Bl.
(Burger King site)
Live/Work project part of
larger project in City of
LA. Not subject to mixed
use ordinance. Going
through corrections to
obtain their building
permit.
6 units
30’ height
12601 Washington Bl.
(@ Boise)
Administrative Approval
2005 & plans approved
by Building Safety.
Ready for construction
pending financing.
4 units
34 du/ac
43’ height
1,300 s.f. retail
4,818 s.f. office
Vested Rights
Section 17.100.020 E of the zoning ordinance contains provisions for allowing permit
applications to be processed in compliance with the requirements that were in place
when the application was deemed complete. The code section states:
17.100.020 E -“Effect of Zoning Code Amendments on Projects in Progress.
All land use permit applications that have been determined by the Division to
be complete before the effective date of this Title, or any amendment to this
Title, will be processed in compliance with the requirements in effect when the
application was accepted as complete.”
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A1-6
The City Attorney has reviewed the matter and has determined that the City Council
has legal authority to allow projects in the pipeline to proceed pursuant to the
existing mixed-use ordinance even if revisions to the ordinance are subsequently
adopted, if there is a rational approach for doing so.|1010|
Staff believes the following would qualify:
The City Council determines that projects in the pipeline should proceed
based on the fact that the developer relied on the existing regulations and
staff’s contact and communications during the planning stages, incurred good
faith design expenses and executed agreements to purchase land based on
those communications.
If Council decides to allow projects in the pipeline to proceed pursuant to the existing
Mixed-Use Ordinance, then all 15 exempt projects will be permitted to continue
through the development process.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
Due to the number of variables and unknowns associated with the development
projects listed above, it is difficult to calculate a meaningful fiscal impact at this time.
However, a number of general statements can be made in relation to each project.
|1010| The City’s current Zoning Code (CCMC Section 17.100.020.E) adopts one rational based approach. That
subsection provides if a project application has been deemed complete before new regulations are adopted, then that
application would be complete. Two of the applications for the projects listed in the table have been deemed
complete.
The City Council could determine that a rational basis could be based on all the pertinent facts, such as, but not
limited to, Agency subcommittee/staff and Planning staff contact and communications in the planning stages to date,
good faith expenses incurred by the potential developers on design based on those communications, and agreements
to purchase land between the Agency and potential developers. Also, although not legally obligated to do so, the
City has in the past permitted projects, which have been in the “pipeline” for an extended period or before any
changes to the City’s regulations were contemplated, to proceed under previous Zoning Code provisions. One or
more of the above-described considerations would meet the rational basis standard for permitting some or all of the
projects in the “pipeline” to proceed under current zoning laws.
Whatever criteria is proposed for permitting projects in the “pipeline” to continue through the process, once that
criteria is adopted, all of the projects that meet that criteria must be permitted to continue through the process.
Depending on which approach the City Council decides to use, subsection 17.100.020.E should be amended to
reflect that decision so the Zoning Code language will be consistent with that approach. Those revisions can be
made to apply only to modifications to the mixed-use regulations the City Council may adopt. City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A1-7
A zoning change that decreases height and density from what is currently allowed
may:
• Decrease Utility Users Tax and Tax Increment revenues generated by a project;
• Decrease land value;
• Decrease the total maximum number of housing units, resulting in slower growth
of Culver City’s housing supply; and
• Reduce the impact of a project on the City’s services.
Conversely, a zoning change that increases height and density from what is
currently allowed would have the opposite impacts as those described above.
Additionally, there are a number of potential indirect benefits to mixed use that would
also decrease as height and density allowances are reduced (and vice-versa),
including:
• Reduced short-haul trips and subsequent reduced traffic and environmental
impacts as residents live closer to retail/commercial areas where they may more
easily access work, shopping and entertainment without need for a car; and
• Increased desirability for commercial corridor reinvestment that promotes the
City’s economic development and redevelopment goals.
There are several options for Motions that the City Council may want to consider
relative to projects in the pipeline. These range from the least restrictive to most
restrictive in terms of the number of effected projects as noted below.
MOTION:
That the City Council:
1. a. Allow all mixed-use development projects in the development process to
proceed (Items A-G in the table above);
and
b. direct staff not to proceed further with a moratorium ordinance; or,
2. a. Allow only mixed-use development projects that are subject to a Specific
Plan to proceed (Item A in the table above);
and
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A1-8
b. direct staff to draft a limited moratorium ordinance exempting therefrom
Item A projects; or,
3. a. Allow only mixed-use development projects that are subject to a Purchase
and Sale Agreement or are Agency sponsored to proceed (Items B and C in
the table above);
and
b. direct staff to draft a limited moratorium ordinance exempting therefrom
Items B and C projects; or,
4. a. Allow only mixed-use development projects considered by the Planning
Commission or subject to administrative review and those submitted for
Preliminary Project Review and approved under these processes, but not
built, to proceed (Items D, E, F and G in the table above);
and
b. direct staff to draft a limited moratorium ordinance exempting therefrom
Items D,E,F and G projects; or,
5. a. Direct staff to draft a moratorium ordinance for mixed-use development;
and
b. do not allow any mixed-use development projects in the development
process to proceed.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Building Permit Report 7/9 – 8/10/07
2. Correspondence from interested parties