title
CC - PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to Adopt Resolution No. 2025-P015, Approving Site Plan Review and Administrative Use Permit, P2024-0246-SPR/AUP and an Addendum to a Mitigated Negative Declaration to Allow a New 147-room Hotel with Ground Floor Coffee Shop and Restaurant Spaces at 11469 Jefferson Boulevard.
body
Meeting Date: February 9, 2026
Contact Person/Dept: William Kavadas/Assistant Planner
Emily Stadnicki/Current Planning Manager
Phone Number: (310) 253-5706 / (310) 253-5727
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [ ] General Fund: Yes [X] No [ ]
Attachments: Yes [X] No [ ]
Commission Action Required: Yes [X] No [ ]
Commission Name: Planning Commission Date: November 12, 2025
Public Notification: (Email) Public Notifications - City Council (01/16/2026); (Posted) City website (01/16/2026); Social Media (01/16/2026); (Mailed) Property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius (01/13/2026); (Posted) on-site sign (01/16/2026); (Email/Posted) Meetings and Agendas - City Council (02/05/2026)
Department Approval: Mark E. Muenzer, Planning and Development Director/Interim Housing and Human Services Director (01/29/2026)
______________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the appeal of Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2025-P015, approving Site Plan Review and Administrative Use Permit, P2024-0246-SPR/AUP and an addendum to a Certified Mitigated Negative Declaration, to allow a new 147-room hotel with ground floor coffee shop and restaurant spaces located at 11469 Jefferson Boulevard (Project), and adopt a Resolution denying the appeal and affirming the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2025-P015 (Attachment 1).
PROCEDURES
1. The Mayor seeks a motion to receive and file the affidavit of mailing, publishing, and posting of public notice.
2. The Mayor calls on staff for a brief staff report and the City Council poses questions to staff.
3. The Mayor seeks a motion to open the public hearing, providing the appellant the first opportunity to speak, followed by the applicant, and then the general public.
4. The applicant and appellant are given one opportunity to provide rebuttal comments.
5. The Mayor seeks a motion to close the public hearing after all testimony has been presented.
6. The City Council discusses the matter and arrives at its decision.
REQUEST
On December 1, 2025, UNITE HERE Local 11 ("Appellant"), filed an appeal to the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2025-P015 for the above-described Project. The Appellant's appeal letter is included as Attachment 2.
BACKGROUND
The Project site is a 33,813 square foot parcel located on the northwest corner of Jefferson Boulevard and Slauson Avenue. The subject property is zoned Mixed Use Corridor 2 (MU-2) but was deemed complete before the October 2024 Zoning Code Update and thus was reviewed under the previous Commercial General (CG) zone standards. The site is currently occupied by a single-story, 13,000 square foot commercial shopping center including retail and restaurant uses with a surface parking lot.
The subject property was approved for a 5-story, 175-room boutique hotel with restaurant, rooftop pool and bar, and two levels of subterranean parking, on July 12, 2021. Since that entitlement was granted, that applicant has applied for 4 time extensions as they sought the necessary funding to construct the project.
On October 8, 2024, a new applicant team, Verdant Culver City, LLC, (the "Applicant"), obtained permission from the owner to file an application for Site Plan Review (SPR) and Administrative Use Permit (AUP) for a new hotel project with reduced scope to better reflect current market conditions that made the original project infeasible. The modified Project has less square footage with fewer rooms and amenities.
The proposed Project will demolish all existing on-site improvements and construct a 5-story, 147-room hotel with one level of at-grade and one level of below grade parking. Ground floor amenities will include a lobby, fitness room, employee offices and rest areas, a restaurant/bar, and a coffee shop space. The upper floors will include guest rooms with a pool and amenities deck on level 2.
Planning Commission Public Hearing and Decision
On November 12, 2025, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Resolution No. 2025-P015, approving Site Plan Review (SPR) and Administrative Use Permit (AUP), P2024-0294-SPR/AUP and made the associated findings for the SPR and AUP and the addendum to the Certified Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
The approved Resolution, Staff Report, Project Summary, Certified MND, addendum to the MND, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, and Preliminary Development Plans provide more detailed information (Attachments 5 through 11).
DISCUSSION
Appeal
In the appeal letter, the Appellant contends that the approval of the SPR and AUP without limits on permit extensions will result in entitlements that reflect outdated zoning rules and missed opportunities for alternative projects. The Appellant's arguments are summarized below and further detailed in the appeal letter (Attachment 2).
1. Project site has been rezoned to prioritize mixed-use housing:
* The delay in project construction has resulted in a proposal that runs contrary to newly adopted zoning regulations that prioritize mixed-use housing along major corridors.
2. Project has maximum 5-year deadline based on Code-allowed extensions.
3. Project is a continuation of the previously approved hotel project.
4. Planning Commission was improperly skewed:
* Input from Staff and Applicant led the Planning Commission to believe that imposing limits on extension timeframes was infeasible or unprecedented.
Staff clarifications and responses to these appeal contentions follow later in this report.
Applicant Response to Appeal
On January 16, 2026, attorneys from Best Best & Krieger, LLP, on behalf of the Applicant team, submitted a detailed response to the appeal (Attachment 3). The response affirms the adequacy of the Planning Commission's approval of the Project, citing its conformance with the current Zoning Code and standard conditions of approval.
In summary, the Applicant's response states the following:
1. The applicant intends to advance the project quickly. Appellant characterizes the project as an unnecessary continuation of an outdated project. In response, the Applicant team reiterates that they are a separate entity from the prior recipient of approvals and have gone through separate and new entitlement review processes.
2. The applicant team states that a 12-month time frame does not take into account third-party review approvals that, regardless of applicant's efforts or City's efficiency, could extend timelines. Applicant is required to obtain clearances by State Water Resources Control Board among other state and regional agency reviews which are not predictable or expeditable by the Applicant or City staff.
3. The Project's modified approvals represent a new and distinct entitlement process. Appellant asserts that the current Applicant is inheriting the original project for all purposes including time limits. In response, the Applicant states that the Modified Project includes the issuance of new entitlements for the property such as Site Plan Review and Administrative Use Permit, which effectuated a new entitlement process.
4. The requested condition of approval is not an environmental issue. The Applicant reiterates that new entitlements were requested and obtained for the Modified Project and the original Mitigated Negative Declaration was amended per CEQA guidelines and resulted in no new or more severe significant effects.
5. Appellant fails to establish a legal and factual basis for their claims. Appellant states that the Planning Commission was compromised by flawed reasoning and that the Council should reconsider the Planning Commission's judgement. In response, the Applicant states that the Project record shows that staff correctly advised of a 2-year default time limit and that the Planning Commission had discretion to impose project specific conditions if warranted.
Staff Response to Appeal
Following review of Appellant's letter and the Applicant's response, City staff has provided additional clarifications (below) of the SPR/AUP request.
Staff notes the following:
1. Regarding General Plan and Zoning Code consistency, the proposed project is allowed by right in both the Commercial General (CG) zone under which the project was deemed complete, and the Mixed-Use Corridor 2 (MU-2) zone that is currently in place. While mixed-use/housing projects are allowed in the MU-2 zone, they are not required by the Code. Further, the subject property is not on the City's Adequate Sites Inventory for anticipated housing projects per the Housing Element.
2. Regarding the maximum 5-year deadline, the Municipal Code provides for an initial time limit of two years, and the applicant may request an automatic 2-year extension. Subsequent extensions are for one-year periods and are granted at the discretion of the Planning and Development Director. The Code does not put a limit on the number of such extensions that can be requested for a project.
3. Regarding any relation to the previously approved Jeff Hotel Project, the subject project is under new ownership and was required to go through a new entitlement review process including holding community meetings, preliminary plan reviews, and entitlement reviews. The applicant team used an addendum to a Certified MND consistent with CEQA Section 15164 (a).
4. Regarding alleged misrepresentation, City staff informed Planning Commission that it was neither Division policy nor standard practice to impose stricter expiration time frames on a project. Discussion amongst Planning Commissioner at the November 12th hearing made it clear that they understood they could impose stricter time frames. One Commissioner did propose implementing stricter timelines, but the other Commissioners chose to move forward with the original motion instead of implementing a one-year time frame and the project was approved unanimously. The Zoning Code allows an applicant to apply for and receive an automatic 2-year extension after a project's initial 2-year expiration date. Thereafter, an applicant is allowed to request an additional 1-year extension at the discretion of the Planning and Development Director.
Staff concurs that the Planning Commission did not make an error in approving the Project or the addendum to the Certified MND, and the appeal should be denied.
City Council Review Authority
The City Council's consideration of the appeal is "de novo." This means the City Council is holding a new hearing. In that regard, the Council is not solely limited to considering the record that was before the Planning Commission. The City Council's review authority for this appeal is governed by CCMC Sections 17.640.015 and 17.640.030, which provide that the Council may consider any issue involving the matter that is the subject of the appeal in addition to the specific grounds that form the basis of the appeal.
In its consideration of this matter, the City Council may take the following actions:
* Deny the Appeal and affirm the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2025-P015, including the addendum to the Certified MND (Staff Recommendation).
* Approve the Appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2025-P015; direct staff to return to the City Council with a proposed Resolution granting the Appeal in whole or in part.
* Refer the Project and related CEQA analyses back to the Planning Commission for further consideration based on new or different evidence presented at the City Council hearing. The Project would be scheduled for a public hearing to return to the Planning Commission for further consideration, likely not until the second quarter of 2026.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
As part of the review process, 2 hybrid (in-person/virtual) community meetings were held for the Project. The first meeting was held on October 2, 2024, during the preliminary review phase, and the second meeting was held June 17, 2025, during the application review phase of the process. A total of 44 people attended the 2 community meetings.
Public notification for the November 12, 2025, Planning Commission hearing was also conducted pursuant to Section 17.630.010 of the Zoning Code (See Attachment 10 for Meeting Minutes).
Similarly, for the February 9, 2026, City Council hearing, a public notice was mailed on January 13, 2026, to owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius extended to City block and posted on the City website; the notice was distributed electronically via GovDelivery and posted on social media on January 16, 2026. As of the writing of this report, staff has received 22 public comments in support of the appeal (Attachment 12).
FISCAL ANALYSIS
Review of the Planning Commission decision will not result in any direct revenue or expenditures by the City. Although, if the decision is affirmed and the Project is completed, a hotel use will result in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to be collected by the City.
If the appeal is approved, additional staff time will be required on review and preparation of additional documents, posting environmental documents and findings, and further processing (e.g., scheduling public hearings, etc.), which would not be fully covered by associated review fees.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The previous project was approved under a Certified MND (Attachment 8) in 2021. As part of the current Project, an addendum to the MND was prepared (Attachment 9), per CEQA Section 15164(a). The addendum to the MND determined that the revised Project fell below the thresholds, scale, and built area for the Certified MND. All previous mitigation measures from the original MND will be implemented as part of the modified Project.
CONCLUSION
As shown in the preceding analysis, the Project and associated CEQA documentation were reviewed in compliance with applicable requirements and guidelines. The Planning Commission's approval of the Site Plan Review and Administrative Use Permit and adoption of the addendum to the Certified MND is sufficient to meet Zoning Code and CEQA requirements and no substantial evidence was provided to support the claims of deficiencies in Resolution No. 2025-P015.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2026-02-09_ATT_Proposed City Council Resolution Denying the Appeal and 2026-02-09_ATT_Affirming the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2025-P015
2. 2026-02-09_ATT_Appellant Letter, December 1, 2025
3. 2026-02-09_ATT_Applicant Response to Appellant Letter, January 16, 2026
4. 2026-02-09_ATT_Vicinity Map
5. 2026-02-09_ATT_Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-P015 with Exhibit A and B, November 12, 2025
6. 2026-02-09_ATT_Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments), November 12, 2025
7. 2026-02-09_ATT_Planning Commission Project Summary, November 12, 2025
8. 2026-02-09_ATT_Certified MND
9. 2026-02-09_ATT_Addendum to the Certified MND
10. 2026-02-09_ATT_Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, November 12, 2025
11. 2026-02-09_ATT_Preliminary Development Plans, April 2024
12. 2026-02-09_ATT_Public Comments
recommended action
MOTION
That the City Council do one of the following:
1. Adopt Resolution denying the Appeal and affirming the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2025-P015 approving Site Plan Review and Administrative Use Permit, P2024-0246-SPR/AUP, and an addendum to the Certified Mitigated Negative Declaration for a new 147-room hotel at 11469 Jefferson Boulevard (Staff Recommendation); OR
2. Approve the Appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2025-P015; direct staff to return to the City Council with a proposed Resolution granting the Appeal; OR
3. Refer the Project and related CEQA analyses back to the Planning Commission for further consideration based on new or different evidence presented at the City Council hearing.