City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution establishing community
benefits related to the Washington National District.
PROCEDURE:
1. Mayor calls on staff for a brief staff report.
2. Mayor seeks a motion to open the public hearing.
3. Receive comment from public.
4. Mayor seeks a motion to close the public hearing after all testimony has been
presented.
5. Council discusses the matter and arrives at its decision.
BACKGROUND:
On March 10, 2008, the City Council approved a Resolution (Attachment 1) to
establish a Community Benefit Incentive Program in connection with Section
17.400.065 of the Zoning Code – Mixed Use Development Standards. This Section
of the Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC) allows mixed use development on certain
commercially zoned property at a base residential density of 35 dwelling units per
acre (du/a), but allows the density to increase to 50 du/a, and up to 65 du/a in a
Transit Oriented Development Zone (TOD Zone), provided the project incorporates
community benefits as established by the City Council.
Meeting Date: 07/28/08 Item Number: PH -1
AGENDA ITEM: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of a Resolution
Establishing Community Benefits for the Washington/National District.
Contact Person/Dept.: Sol Blumenfeld
Elaine Gerety Warner
Phone Number: 310.253.5702
310.253.5777
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Public Notification: Master Notification List on July 9, 2008; Residents, Property Owners
and Business within 1,000 feet of proposed district boundary (approx, 2,000 notices),
East Culver City Neighborhood Alliance Meetings on June 27
th
and July 3
rd
. Master E-
Mail Notification List (07/24/08).
Department Approval:
Sol Blumenfeld
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (07/09/08)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by N. Kimball)(07/09/08)
City Manager Approval:
Jerry B. Fulwood (07/23/08) City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A community benefit is defined as a project amenity that achieves a particular
community goal. The list of community benefits outlined in the Ordinance includes,
but is not limited to, the following:
A. Streetscape Improvements
B. Pocket Parks and Public Open Space (minimum 5,000 sq. ft.) in
addition to park space otherwise required by the CCMC
C. Metered Public Parking in Excess of CCMC requirements.
D. Other Community Benefits as approved by City Council.
On May 12, 2008, the City Council established the boundaries for the Washington
National Community Benefit District (District). This District encompasses the
commercial areas extending from Robertson Boulevard/Higuera Street to the West,
Venice Boulevard to the North, Helms Avenue to the East and Lindblade Street to
the South and is coterminous with the TOD Zone in the Mixed Use Ordinance.
On May 21, 2008, a community meeting was held to discuss the Community Benefit
Incentive Program and garner informal recommendations from residents, business
and property owners as to what benefits may be beneficial to the area. The meeting
notice was mailed to more than 2,000 individuals and a large ad was placed in the
Culver City Observer per Council direction. The meeting, however, was not well
attended.
On June 9, 2008, staff returned to the City Council for direction. At that time, a
representative of the East Culver City Alliance and the Rancho Higuera
Neighborhood offered their community meeting at the end of June as a forum to
present the Community Benefit program and garner feedback. In addition, the
representative requested that progress related to the Washington/National project
also be presented. In response, the City Council directed staff to conduct the
meeting with the neighborhood group rather than re-notice the 1,000 foot radius as
specified in the Ordinance. It is important to note that this change is inconsistent with
the specific requirements established in the resolution for community benefits which
is intended to ensure that the area immediately abutting proposed mixed use
projects is included in the decision making process. Henceforth, to ensure neutrality
in this process, staff will follow the noticing requirement as specified. At that time,
this public hearing was continued to this evening.
On June 27, staff presented the Community Benefit Incentive Program and
Washington National Development Program to approximately 50 community
members. There were a number of questions related to density, massing and
existing development rehabilitation vs. new development parking requirements.
Individuals expressed concern about circulation, bike paths and open space for
children and animals as well as the perception that their neighborhood would be City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
“changed” due to the project at Washington/National. Since a number of issues that
were raised, staff offered to attend another meeting to answer additional questions.
Staff further invited concerned individuals to call or e-mail their questions so they
could be answered directly. In addition, a “Question” Sheet was put out in which
individuals could write questions they would like addressed on July 3, 2008.
On July 3, 2008, staff adjusted the Community Benefit presentation for July 3, 2008
to include more clarification related to density, the mixed use ordinance and the
community benefit options and did not present further information regarding the
Washington/National development program. The July 3
rd
meeting was attended by
more than 20 people. The group discussed the following items:
Residential Permit Parking funded by the developer for the area (including
parking permit fees and operational costs)
Parking and traffic enforcement for the residential neighborhood.
Streetscape Improvements with emphasis on promoting biking in and thru
the area.
Bike path improvements and bike storage.
Transit passes to encourage Metro ridership at TOD projects.
Open space and children’s open space.
Parking that is convenient, low cost, easily found and designed so that it
does not produce more through traffic in the neighborhood.
Staff attempted to get consensus on a benefit recommendation at these meetings
but was unsuccessful. However, the group did request to see a summary of the
items discussed (above) and offered to get back to staff with a recommendation.
This list was made available on Tuesday, July 8
th
however, at the writing of this
report, staff had not received a response.
In addition to the comments heard at the meeting, staff also received detailed and
thoughtful comments from some of the attendees which are attached to the report
(Exhibit B). They reported that they are generally very excited about the prospect of
transportation serving the area but concerned about the scale of potential
development around the transit station and the current level of traffic in the area.
They also expressed concerns about the coordination with Metro construction and
the community and the need for shuttle bus service. These written communications
noted that streetscape improvements, added parking, commuter transit passes for
EXPO, and park space may be more of a benefit to the tenants of the development
than the community unless the development is “connected” to the surrounding
neighborhood. So the actual design of the benefit was noted as an important issue.
The written correspondence also included comments about multi-family
development standards related to parking, open space and sustainability, potential
parking in other areas of Washington/National and commercial development City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
standards for TOD projects that staff will address in follow-up meetings with the
neighborhood group.
The meetings did generate significant discussion about a general undersupply of
parking throughout the East side and that residents were concerned about visitor
parking on their neighborhood streets. To this end, parking opportunities that are
open and accessible to the community and that discourage trips in the neighborhood
through appropriate signing and location may be a suitable Community Benefit for
the area.
DISCUSSION:
As noted in the Ordinance, the ultimate determination of the Community Benefit for
the Washington/National District rests with the City Council. As indicated in the
ordinance, the Council may establish more than one benefit in each district. Since
the catalytic projects are relatively large, the Council may want to exercise the option
to provide more than one benefit since no consensus was achieved through either
the June 27
th
or July 3
rd
meetings. Further, the Council may want to consider
adopting all three of the prescribed benefits listed in the Ordinance (Open Space,
Streetscape and Parking) to allow greater flexibility to the catalytic projects already
in process and to address the broadest number of community concerns. Following
Council adoption of the Community Benefit resolution, each mixed use development
project discretionary permit for the area will include the required Community
Benefits. The draft resolution attached to the report lists the Community Benefits,
because the City Attorney has recommended that it not contain blank space. Any
changes to the resolution will be read into the record and reflected in the final
resolution. It is important now to complete the Community Benefit process by
completing the hearing and adopting the Community Benefit resolution for the
Washington National area.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
The selected community benefits will provide a much needed amenity at little or no
capital cost to the City. If parking is selected, related parking enforcement costs
may be offset by additional meter revenues. If open space or streetscape
improvements are selected, the capital costs shall be absorbed by the related
project. All of these benefits would be incorporated within development projects and
all related maintenance would be paid for directly by the developer/development in
perpetuity.
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
Culver City is a built out City, which makes it very challenging and costly for the City
to provide additional parking or open space using City funds. Additionally, the City
does not have sufficient funding to build adequate parking or provide adequate open
space in this area without taking advantage of programs such as a Community
Benefit Incentive Program. This program will provide much needed parking or open
space while shifting the cost of building and maintaining those community benefits to
the developer.
To date staff has dedicated approximately 20 hours identifying a community benefit
for the Washington/National area, which equates to approximately $1,200 to $1,500
in staff time (including salary and benefits). Additionally, Public notification for this
project was provided in two steps involving two postcard mailings. The estimate
direct cost for providing this notice is $1,300.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 2008-R015: Community Benefit Incentive Program
2. Washington National Community Benefit District Boundaries
3. Community Comments related to June 27, 2008 and July 3, 2008 community
meetings
4. Correspondence on behalf of the Brentwood Fairfield Project
5. Proposed Resolution
MOTION:
That the City Council:
Adopt a Resolution establishing the benefit(s) for the Washington/National
Community Benefit District.
MEETING DATE: 7/28/08
AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Resolution
Establishing Community Benefits for the Washington/National Area.
ATTACHMENTS
Pages
1. Resolution No. 2008-R015: Community benefit Incentive Program 1-7
2. Washington / National Community Benefit District Boundaries 8
3. Community comments related to June 27 th and
July 3 1d community Meetings 9-17
4. Brentwood Fairfield Correspondence 18-21
5. Proposed Community Benefit Resolution 22-23RESOLUTION NO. 2008-Rol s
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A
COMMUNITY BENEFIT INCENTIVE PROGRAM IN
CONNECTION WITH SECTION 17.400.065 OF THE
ZONING CODE — MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS.
The City Council of the City of Culver City DOES HEREBY RESOLVE as
follows:
Section 1, The City Council, pursuant to applicable law, held a duly noticed
hearing on February 11, 2008 to consider proposed amendments to the Culver City
Municipal Code (GCMG) related to Mixed Use Developments Standards and to adopt a
resolution authorizing Community Benefit Incentives and establishing the process and
procedures for implementation of Community Benefits, as defined below.
Section 2. Section 17.400.065 of the CCMC allows mixed use
development on certain commercially zoned property at a base residential density of 35
dwelling units per acre, but allows the density to increase provided the project incorporates
Community Benefits established by resolution of the City Council.
Section 3. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby establishes:
A. The types of Community Benefits.
B. Process for establishing Community Benefits.
C. The process for Community Benefit approval.
D. The Community Benefit contribution; and
E. Procedures for providing the Community Benefit.
-1- 2008-R015|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(7)Section 4. Type of Benefit —A Community Benefit is defined as a project
amenity that achieves particular community goals such as providing neighborhood
streetscape improvements, in addition to what may be required as part of a discretionary
review and approval of a project, or public parking, in addition to that required by the
CCMC. The following list of Community Benefits may be included in mixed use
development projects. The list of Community Benefits includes, but is not limited to the
following:
A. Streetscape Improvements — As Part of an Area
Improvement Plan, in addition to what may be required as part of a
discretionary review and approval of a project.
B. Pocket Parks and Public Open Space (Minimum 5,000
sq. ft.), in addition to park space otherwise required by the CCMC.
C. Metered Public Parking in Excess of that Required by the
CCMC. (Minimum of 10 Public Parking Spaces -Applies Only to
Project Sites of 20,000 sq. ft_ or Greater).
D. Other Community Benefits as Approved by City Council.
Section 5. Process for Establishing Community Benefits — The City Council
shall establish Community Benefits through the following process:
A. Identify commercial areas (districts coterminous with
commercial corridors) that may utilize the community benefit
incentives.
B. Identify a menu of select community benefits applicable
to each district.
C. Arrange community meetings for various districts to
-2-
2008-R015
CD)|101010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28prioritize benefits.
D. Community meetings to be conducted in nearby City or
school facilities.
E. Provide memorandum to City Council regarding outcome
of meetings.
F. City Council deliberates on specific benefits and adopts
resolution identifying benefits for each district.
G. Applicant for each mixed use project will be apprised of
required community benefit during Preliminary Plan Review.
H. Planning Commission conducts discretionary hearing
and community benefit is codified in project conditions of approval.
Section 6. Process for Community Benefit Approval — The City Council
shall establish certain commercial neighborhood districts for consideration of Community
Benefits through a City Council hearing. The City Council hearing shall identify Community
Benefits which could be applied to any project located within the commercial neighborhood
district boundary. The commercial neighborhood district hearings shall be conducted
following adoption of the amendments to the CCMC related to Mixed Use Developments
with public notice provided to all business owners, residents and property owners within a
1000 foot radius of perimeter of the subject commercial neighborhood district boundary.
Said notice shall be provided pursuant to Section 17.630 of the CCMC.
Section 7. Community Benefits Contribution Amount — The method for
establishing the developer's contribution shall be based upon the proportionality of the
benefit relative to the developer's profit for the project. The Community Benefits
Contribution is proposed as a proportional share of the Additional Base Density Value.
-3-
200$-R015
n;'
I|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28The Community Benefits Contribution shall be defined as the developer's cost to provide
2 the Community Benefits. The Additional Base Density Value shall be defined as the
3 additional profit derived from the additional number of dwelling units permitted through
4 increase density allowed for providing the community benefit. The Community Benefits
5 Value shall be defined as the total cost of providing the required Community Benefit and|1010|calculated as follows:|1010| 8 A. Community Benefits Contribution: 50% of the Additional
Base Density Value.|10 10| 10 B. Additional Base Density Value: Additional Number of
11 Dwelling Units Allowed x Market Value Sales Price x .15
12 (Developer's Assumed Profit).
13
Section 8. Procedures for providing the Community Benefits — The
14
15 Community Benefits shall be incorporated into the project design, directly on-site and
16 maintained for the life of the project unless it is part of a public improvement, whereupon it
17
I
shall be provided with an in lieu fee contribution.
A. In Lieu Fee Contribution — When the Community Benefits
are part of off-site public improvements, the developer shall provide
the Community Benefits Contribution in full to an in lieu fund
established for the sole purpose of funding the public improvement,
unless it is feasible for the developer to pay and install the required off-
site public improvements.
B. Community Benefits Provided On-Site — The Community
Benefits shall be incorporated on development plans and in the
Conditions of Approval as part of the project discretionary review
-4- 2008-R015
(1 -P -)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28process.
C. Community Benefits Identified in Project Resolution —
The developer shall sign an Affidavit for Acceptance of Conditions
certifying agreement to provide the required Community Benefits as
part of the project development. The resolution or other approval of a
project shall not become operative if the developer fails to sign the
affidavit, and the project permit granting increased density shall be null
and void. If the developer fails to maintain the required Community
Benefits identified in the project Resolution, then any Conditional Use
Permit or other revocable permit granted by the City as part of the
approval of the project shall be referred to the Planning Commission
for revocation pursuant to Chapter 17.660 of the Zoning Code and the
matter may be referred to the City Attorney for enforcement pursuant
to Chapter 17.650 of the Zoning Code.
D. Community Benefits — Public Open Space or Metered
Public Parking. When the Community Benefits required for the project
are Public Open Space or Metered Public Parking, the developer shall
record a covenant that runs with the land to:
I. Maintain in a clean, sanitary and available
condition the Community Benefits for the life of the project.
IL Ensure the Public Open Space and Metered
Public Parking is open and available to the public during normal
operating hours of the retail/commercial facilities within the
mixed use development project or as determined by the City
-5- 2008-R015 fk)
I|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28ty Attorney
APPROV IA TO FO M:
-6-
2008-R015
rD
Council.
iii. Allow the City to derive any Metered Public
Parking revenue through parking enforcement operations for
the public parking.
iv. Provide an irrevocable easement recorded against
the property to allow the City to enter the site from time to time
to conduct parking enforcement operations for the public
parking.
Section 9. This Resolution shall take effect on the effective date of
Ordinance No. 2008- 006
APPROVED and ADOPTED this loth day of
March
-2008.
I|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
N CORLIN, MAYOR
City of Culver City, California
ATTEST:
1;4 tikleoL47<---
CHRISTOPHER ARMENTA, City Clerk
A08-00030
By Ela Valladares
Deputy City ClerkSTATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
) SS
CITY OF CULVER CITY
I, Do VaIladares, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Culver City, California,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2008—R015 as duly and
regularly adopted, passed, and approved by the City Council of the City of
Culver City, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held at the
regular meeting place thereof, on the 10' day of March 2008, by the following
Councilmember vote:
AYES: Gross, MaIsin, Rose, Silbiger, Corlin
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Dated this9011 day of March, 2008
e2 4ze,
EiCI Voiladares
Deputy City Clerk and Ex—Officio Clerk of the City Council
City of Culver City. State of California1000 ft Radius
WASHINGTON I NATIONAL
CULVER CITY018
MARCH 31, 210814 +-i-ocAk\ v-y-)
&-ç-
From: dino parks [dinoparks@hotmail.comj
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 11:53 AM
To: Blumenfeld, Sol
Cc: Gerety-Warner, Elaine
Subject: RE: Community benefits
Sol,
Thanks again for your presentation last Thursday and for facilitating the meeting. Many great ideas were put
forward and it was a great benefit to allow all neighbors to voice their concerns. I think we have a great
opportunity with the new look at the Washington/National development. I'd like to remind you of my thoughts
on potential community benefits.
I fully support 2 of the ideas for 'community benefits' to be funded by developers who build at the higher density:
1. Create a fund for streetscape improvements, specifically a wide sidewalk (with benches, al fresco dining, etc.)
on the south side of Washington, ideally from Reims, continuing past National and Lindblade and as far west as
possible. This will help to encourage a pedestrian friendly corridor to connect East Culver with the Downtown.
2. Create a fund to provide ongoing support for some type of bicycle facility at the new train station. (This
would be in addition to the city encouraging bicycling in the area, hopefully with a new designated bike path.) A
secure locker facility would make it easier to park and store bikes at the station, for both residents and
commuters. This will encourage more people to use the train and bikes.
The high-end option is for a 'BikeStation.' This is what they have at the Long Beach train station. Or we could
just have lockers and security.
http://bikestation.org/index.asp
article about Long Beach becoming bike-friendly:
http://vvww.gazettes.conn/bikes03172008.html
If the support for bike facilities is better found elsewhere, it doesn't have to be funded by the community benefits
fund. BUT, support for greater bike use and accessibility is widespread among all the neighbors I ever speak
with, and I don't think it should be neglected or put off as the planning for this project goes forward.
EVERYONE AGREES that bicycles and cyclists have been underserved, and this is a great chance to make
improvements.
My other idea was regarding the Transit Oriented Development,' which will include residential as well as
commercial units. I think we should do one of the things Berkeley recently instituted in an attempt to be
sustainable. Require any apartments or condominiums in this new district to provide a Transit Pass to all
residents. So the cost of the Transit Pass becomes part of the cost of housing, so this will encourage people who
are going to use transit to move in. This means fewer car trips in and out of the housing that is built here.
Obviously, this is going to be an easier sell to new residents once the train is completed to Santa Monica, but I
think we should demand the program now. It'll be almost impossible to institute later; now is the time to make
demands on developers, so all the costs can be known and factored in.
Thanks again for your time and consideration. We're hopeful that the development can brighten up this side of
utown!
Best,
Dino Parks
Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger. Get started.From: Bettina Wiesenthal-Birch [mailto:BI3ircmg npf .vi yj
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 12:24 PM
To: Blumenfeld, Sol
Cc: brchfarm@inreach.com
Subject: EAST CULVER CITY
Dear Mr. Blumenthal:
Thanks so much for your presentation last week. As a 26 year resident of East Culver
City I continue to enjoy the integrity of our quiet, tree lined streets and
unpretentious neighborhood. I am very excited about public transportation coming to
Culver City and realize that there are both positive and negative aspects.
My goal as a responsible and concerned resident is to address the impacts of the
impending development on our neighborhood. Following are the issues I care about:
I) That there is direct communication between MTA and Culver City, so that the affected
residents/community know what, when and where is going on.
2) Connectivity to Downtown Culver City
3) Safe and accessible bike path
4) Additional Parking, perhaps multi-story in the Helms complex and also on La Cienega
Place, since these are already commercial properties, there would be minimum impact
on the residential neighborhood.
5) You spoke a lot about the density issues and providing services and open space for
the neighborhood; but it seems as though these new services and open space would
actually be serving the new residents of the proposed housing development.
6) The new services that would be an asset to our community would be: Book Store,
Drug Store, Open Space, Bike Locks, Small Outdoor Marketplace, with kiosks
of fruits and vegetable/flower vendors at Metro Station, a water feature and perhaps a
community study garden where classes could be given in sustainable gardening/living
techniques.
GD7) For Safety Reasons: Traffic diversion to Venice Blvd, because Washington between La
Cienega and National is residential. Currently, in rush hour traffic, the impatient
8) The architecture of the development surrounding the Metro Station to be based on
environmentally friendly principles and materials as well as architecturally significant
and people friendly.
You mentioned that you will repent for your sins, but not for the sins of those before
you; and I appreciate and understand your position. The following are my concerns
about past planning/lack of vision and although I know that you are not directly
connected with the MTA, it seems that there should be
a conduit or process by which the city, the affected community and MTA know what the
other is doing in a timely manner.
1) A huge air conditioning company right smack dab in the middle of East Culver City
and Downtown.
2). An installation of a traffic light just west of National about which the
residents/neighbors were never informed.
3) The desecration and destruction of twelve Chorizia Speciosa trees at the cul de sacs
at the ends of Wesley, Helms, Caroline, Sherbourne. This act was both environmentally
and economically irresponsible and really undermines the community's confidence in
the process of the impending development of
East Culver City.
I very much appreciate your taking the time to meet with us and hope that these
sessions will result in a positive and constructive process and
an environmentally responsible and sustainable Culver City.
IF YOU WISH TO REACH ME PLEASE ALSO CC ME AT
brchfarm@inreach.com
My cell phone # is 559-804-6448
Kind regards,
BETTINA BIRCH
n p r west 9909 Jefferson Blvd Culver City CA 90232-3505
p. 310.815.4202 I f. 310.815.4329
I
e. bbirch@npr.orgFrom: Gita O'Neill [mailto:gita15@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 9:28 PM
To: Blumenfeld, Sol
Subject: new project on Washington and National
Hi,
I met you at the neighborhood meeting last Friday night in East Culver City. I
just had a few questions and suggestions-
I understand what you said about not having the building be like a fortress (the
first design you discussed) but National Blvd. is a very, very busy street at rush
hour (so 7 am to 9:30 am and again 4:30 pm to 6:30 pm). I am not sure many
people would enjoy outdoor dining on such a busy street. Washington is also
quite congested at rush hour.
Perhaps a design like the one Manhattan Beach did at the old Metlox Pottery
factory (where Shade hotel is) might be a good design for this area as well. They
picked some very good retail stores and restaurants. I am not sure what you
meant by "high end" stores because that seems to be a relative term, but it
would be nice to have some smaller, upscale retailers rather than large chain
stores.
Also, we would very much like to have an open space designed for children and
also lots of mature trees and native vegetation (as you discussed).
I think many people from our area will be at the City Council meeting on July
14th. Some of us are very in favor of the rail program and of upgrading the area
but it would be great if you could speak on the tax benefits of this development.
I think that sort of argument would appeal to the older residents of the area.
thank you,
Gita O'Neill
resident on Fay Avenue.July 3, 2008
Sol, I thought it would be best to email you my ideas about the presentation you made
last week to the East Culver City Neighborhood about "Community Beneifts" and the
Triangle Project. I will not be able to stay for the entire meeting tonight so I hope you
will keep these comments in mind.
My Background
So that you can understand where I'm coming from, let me give you my professional
background. I have been a licensed architect for 23 years, am a LEED AP, GreenPoint
Rater and Certified Sustainable Building Advisor. After 20 years in traditional
architectural practice I left a large architectural firm a year and a half ago to begin my
own environmentally friendly/LEED consulting firm. (During the time I was with WWCOT I
managed the construction of the Culver City Senior Center.)
I was actively involved with the development of Los Angeles' Green Building program. I
participated in Culver City's AIA Sustainable Neighborhood Analysis a year ago with
Cathi Vargas. I have taught for the City of Santa Monica and the County of LA on
green rating systems and sustainable design.
In addition to consulting to other architects, developers, building owners and
contractors, I teach and coordinate 24 other professionals to offer the National
Sustainable Building Advisor program through Santa Monica College. One of my
developer clients has referred me to other developers stating that I understand the
realities both sides and the realities of "green" construction costs and benefits.
I have owned a duplex in East Culver City on Caroline for over eight years.
The Issue of Community Benefits -
I think this phrase may be bit of a misnomer. Providing streetscape, added parking and
parks is really more of a benefit to the tenants of that development if the development
doesn't "connect" to other developments.
To allow the developers to almost double their density seems overly generous to me
unless they do A LOT of other stuff. I'm not familiar with Culver City's exterior space
requirements for multi-family developments. If developers double their rentable area I
think they ought to be required to increase the amount of outdoor space per unit. This
could be accomplished by a larger commun area or enlarged individual patio/deck
areas. The minimum outdoor area should not be decreased for any reason.
It is likely that providing more outdoor space would require parking be placed
underground. That should be the cost of building beyond zoning allowances.Traffic, Always the issue
As I heard from residents during EVERY public hearing of projects I worked on, increased
traffic is the ONLY issue. All communities would benefit from developments that are
oriented to the pedestrians and get people OUT OF CARS. When/if you provide
developers with the ability to increase their density by providing more parking spaces
than what is required it will only:
1 encourage people to drive because parking will be convenient
2 increase car traffic
3 may require that streets be wider to handle the increased traffic which makes
streets less safe for pedestrians.
Unless told to do so, the public will not look within a residential developments for public
parking but will look for street parking. Now, speaking as a developer, providing "extra"
parking spaces in my gated or secured community creates difficulties.
With that in mind...
There are real benefits to building higher density housing, especially around a transit
centers and public transportation corridors. I think the issue of density bonuses should
be handled differently in these areas versus those that abut single or R-2 housing.
Suggested Community Benefits/Density Trade Offs
Other community benefits would be reducing the development's demand on the
existing infrastructures AND the environment. Creating pedestrian friendly designs,
requiring commercial properties provide showers for bike riding staff, making payments
for a city wide bike lanes/trails program would be more benefitial to the community.
Recognizing the need to reduce our reliance on petroleum, demanding that
developers that want to increase their profits provide solar panels and/or solar thermals
for a large percentage of their project's demand doesn't seem unreasonable.
Requiring low flow faucets, showers, dual flush toilets, etc. along with low water plants
should be a requirement for EVERY multi-family development (no matter what size).
As I said, I've worked with many developers. I've found that they can make almost
anything work on the west side of LA. As much as they moan and groan, with rebates
and tax incentives, many of the things I've mentioned above are doable.
Possible Parking Solutions
Parking is a real problem throughout the city. The parking structures in downtown have
been a godsend to neighborhoods. For the neighborhoods abutting commercial
properties (and transit corridors) providing more parking spaces in nodes of larger
residential developments won't address the problems where they are.As a possible solution along Washington east of National I think the city should talk to
Wally Marks (the owner of the Helms Bakery) about building a parking garage behind
the Beacon Laundry or purchase the properties to the east of the Laundry for a
structure. To serve parking needs further down Washington I think it makes sense to look
at the properties on the northwest corner of the Washington and little La Cienega
where there is a band of multi-story buildings.
I haven't had time to look at the south side of Washington but I can imagine a two story
structure on that side somewhere between the Helms Bakery and the little La Cienega
intersection. Of course the key is getting a site with the right proportions to make an
efficient parking structure.
While I mention the trade off of density for solar panels I want to make clear that [totally
disagree with LA's McMansion program. As I understand it LA allows single family
homes to be larger than allowed by code if they are built "green". First, simply stated,
building "green" is about building what is needed, not what is wanted. It's about
recognizing the importance of having light, air and pervious surfaces around a home
for the health of the occupants and the community/watershed/ocean, etc.
The Triangle Development
I want to thank you for a much more environmentally sensitive plan than Johnson Fain's.
The Johnson Fain team assigned to the Triangle project before obviously didn't have
the knowledge or a sensitivity to low-rise, neighborhood friendly buildings.
The site offers an immense opportunity. I understand Culver City's interest in having a
hotel on the site but I'd like to offer a couple of thoughts:
1. High end shops should be within the hotel. Culver City is not Beverly Hills but has
it's own unique character.
2_ As a transit stop the best match of retail to supporting that traffic are basic
services such as a small grocery store, pharmacy, dry cleaners, shoe repair,
stationary/office supply, etc.
3. There need to be lots of bicycle storage opportunities. Dare I recommend a
shower that is accessed by putting in $1 worth of quarters to open the door?
As part of your Triangle plan you discussed "connecting" the northwest and southwest
corners of National and Washington together. Creating a gateway there is admirable
but I hope that someone at the City has strongly made the case to maintain the (fig or
ficus) tree at the southwest corner. It's age, place and overall beauty should be
respected and incorporated into any plan for that area.As an architect and resident I am very interested in making Culver City a great place to
live. We can learn a lot from communities around us and northern California. I would
be happy to work with Community Redevelopment or give you names of other local
folks that are knowledgeable about sustainable planning and design.
V. Blair Seibert, AIA, LEED AP, GPR, CSBA
Princiapl
Verde Concepts
10215 Santa Monica Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90067
310-203-0896
blair@verdearchitects.com
F- -D1gJUUL
a_ck, e,11-
UU/UU/LVVO TI:V g FAA OIV IOU ilaU rf Jmna
Rof
S ke
JA4BM
Jeffer Mangels
Butler & Marmara LLP
David P. Waite
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
Direct: (310) 785-5319
Los Angeles, California 90067-4308
Fax: (310) 712-3319
(310) 203-8080 (310) 203-0567 Fax
DWalte@jmhm.com
www,imbm.com
June 9, 2008
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
City of Culver City - City Hall
9770 Culver Blvd.
Culver City, CA 90232
Re: Community Benefits for Washington/National Area
Hearing Date: June 9, 2008
Dear Mayor Malsin and Members of the City Council:
This office represents Brentwood Capital Partners ("Brentwood Capital") with
respect to the development of a transit oriented mixed-use project on the property located at
8810-8850 Washington Boulevard and 3920 Landmark Street in Culver City (the "Property").
The Property is a catalytic project within the Washington/National Community Benefit District
(the "District") as identified in Resolution No. 2008-015, which established a Community
Benefit Incentive Program in connection with the City's Mixed Use Development Standards.
At the community meeting on May 21, 2008, Brentwood Capital submitted a card
proposing the following community benefits for the District: (i) environmentally sustainable
design in excess of Municipal Code requirements (i.e. LEED Silver); (ii) streetscape
improvements; (iii) open space; and (iv) public parking. In addition, we now request that the
City also consider as a community benefit: (a) financial contribution to City infrastructure costs
in excess of the cost amount attributed to a specific project's impact, and (b) a flexible catch all
provision allowing any future community benefits approved by the City Council on a per project
basis. The City Council staff report recommends that the City Council consider providing more
than one community benefit for the Distiict in order to provide flexibility for the large catalytic
projects. We believe that a menu of community benefits is a practical necessity for the large
development projects, because the City requires a significant value as a Community Benefit
Contribution Amount ("Contribution Amount") from each project, which cannot be physically
and practically accommodated on one site utilizing only one type of community benefit. In
addition, the City should consider the needs of the community as a whole, and allow the multiple
projects to provide benefits in the most economic and physically efficient manner. For example,
one project could provide most of the public parking, and another project could develop a larger
pocket park.
A Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations I Los Angeles • San Francisco • Orange CountyUU/UU/GVUO 1i:U4 rt. 01U IOU OOV% JMDM
Lai uu
City Council
June 9, 2008
Page 2
As such, we recommend that the City Council adopt the following items as
community benefit alternatives for the District:
1. Environmentally Sustainable Design. The future Exposition Light Rail Station
will create a horizontal concrete plane adjacent to the Property. The development of a green
garden project will balance the effect of the new infrastructure and provide a welcoming
environment for living, eating, shopping and commuting. A sustainable project will also reduce
the impact of the development on the City's infrastructure, including water, waste water, power,
storm drains and traffic. The City currently supports and requires sustainable construction
practices, and incentivizing sustainable construction at an elevated level (e g LEED Silver) will
encourage development practices that provide the highest level of design, construction and
sustainability.
2. Streetscape Improvements. The Community Benefit Incentive Program lists
streetseape improvements (in addition to those required for discretionary review of a project) as a
potential community benefit. The City planning department is currently developing streetscape
standards that will allow greater use of sidewalk and outdoor areas along Washington Boulevard.
However, the Washington/National Area can significantly benefit by additional thoughtful
streetscape improvements such as paving of usable open space, creation of outdoor seating and
public amenities, and development of areas for outdoor farmers markets. By incentivizing
attention to public streetscape improvements, the projects will create a pedestrian friendly
experience that supports outdoor dining and shopping and other commercial and retail uses.
3. Open Space. As stated in the City Council staff report, community members
recommended open space as the highest priority for a community benefit for the District. The
Community Benefit Incentive Program lists pocket parks and public open space with a minimum
of 5,000 square feet as a potential community benefit. However, all of the catalytic projects do
not have sufficient lot area to provide a single 5,000 square foot park on site. But, the
community would still benefit from smaller public green open space areas within these proj ects.
Therefore, we recommend that the City Council approve a community benefit for a series of
green open spaces within a project that cumulatively equal 5,000 square feet.
4. Parking. Due to the proximity of the Property to the future Exposition Light Rail
Station and surrounding commercial areas, on-site public parking is a valuable community
benefit. However, the City should not require that the project's entire Contribution Amount be
allocated to any one benefit such as parking. Each catalytic project should contribute the parking
that is reasonably accommodated by each site due to physical site constraints such as lot shape or
parking structure depth and related economic costs.
5. Infrastructure Costs. The City is currently conducting an infrastructure study to
evaluate the costs for upgrading infrastructure to support new development in the District. The
City will benefit by allowing a developer to fund or share in the funding of infrastructure
necessary for future development, which is not directly attributable to the impact of the
3UO/UO/G ILI VO it:UO rtiA alV IOU ;JOU% 4111DM
Lai 1,11/4
City Council
June 9, 2008
Page 3
developer's specific project. Payment of such additional infrastructure funds would be credited
against a developer's Contribution Amount.
6. General Community Benefits. The City Council resolution should also provide a
flexible general catch all provision, which allows the City Council to approve a community
benefit for a specific project that it believes benefits the general health and welfare of the
surrounding community. Inclusion of this item now will avoid any confusion regarding approval
of the specific community benefit program for a specific project at a later date.
The Community Benefit Incentive Program (the "Program") requires a
Contribution Amount for each mixed use project for residential density above a base density of
35 dwelling units per acre. The Program sets forth a practical method for determining the value
of this contribution based on estimated developer profits. However, in order to meet the nexus
requirements set forth in Nona/I/Dolan'
caselaw, the City must also find on a per project basis
that there is an essential nexus between the community benefit and a legitimate state interest, and
that the community benefit is proportional in nature and extent to the impact of each specific
project. Approval of a menu of community benefits will support the City's ability to make these
Endings for each of the catalytic projects in the Washington/National Community Benefit
District.
Sincerely,
D,
rc'13
DAVID P. WAITE of
Idler, Mange's, Butler & Marm.aro LLP
DPW:slb
cc: Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director
Carol Schwab, City Attorney
Thomas Gorham, Planning Director
Todd Tipton, Redevelopment Administrator
Susan Yun, City Planner
'See Nollan v. California Coastal Conun'n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v, City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994).
See also California Government Code Section 66000 et seq.
TA 11-1-31k 1- I Jeer Mange'sULEIUVILVUO if:U4 rAA. oiu rou aav4 OMDM
JMBM
Jeffer Mange's
Butler & Marmaro LLP SEVENTH FLOOR
1900 AVENUE OF THE STARS
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067-43GB
TELEPHONE: (310) 203-8050
FACSIMILE: (310) 203-0557
June 9, 2008
Deliver to Company Facsimile Telephone
Honorable Mayor and City of Culver City City Hall 310-253-6010
Members of the City
Council
From: Sheri L. Bonstelle
Client #: Client Name:
Regarding: Community Benefits for Washington/National Area
Total number of pages (including this page): 4. If you do not
receive this number of pages, please contact our FAX operator at
(310) 201-3520.
Message:
Please see attached. Thank you.
This FAX is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not
the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the
original FAX to us at the above address by the US Postal Service. Thank you.D--(im
eAri
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-R
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE
COMMUNITY BENEFITS FOR THE
WASHINGTON/NATIONAL AREA IN CONNECTION WITH
THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND
SECTION 17.400.065 OF THE ZONING CODE -MIXED
USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
WHEREAS, On March 10, 2008, the City Council of the City of Culver City
adopted Resolution No. 2008-R015 establishing a Community Benefit Incentive Program in
connection with the Mixed Use Development Standards; and,
WHEREAS, this Resolution recognizes that with added development there are
potentially added impacts to the community that can be mitigated, in whole or in part, through
the benefits established for the community; and
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2008, the Council indentified the first Community
Benefit District in the Washington/National area which boundaries are coterminus with the
Transit Oriented Development in the Mixed Use Ordinance as indicated in Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, community meetings were held on May 21, 2008, June 27, 2008
and July 3, 2008 to discuss the benefits applicable to the area.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Culver City DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE as follows:|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
288COWAB, City Attorney MARTIN R. COLE, City Clerk
A08-00282
1. That the prescribed Community Benefit for the Washington National
District shall be Parking, Open Space and Streetscape Improvements in accordance with the
requirements of Resolution 2008-R015.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of 2008_
D. SCO] I MALSIN, MAYOR
City of Culver City, California
-2-|101010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28