City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: 07/20/2009 Item Number: JPH-1_
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD AGENDA ITEM:
PUBLIC HEARING – 1) City Council Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning
Commission’s Approval of Site Plan Review, SPR P-2008047 to Allow the
Construction of a 43 Foot High, Commercial Building and Parking Structure with
775 Parking Spaces, 41,520 Square Feet of Retail, and 10,000 Square Feet of
Restaurant at 8511 Warner Drive in the Industrial General (IG) Zone (the “Project”);
and 2) Redevelopment Agency Board Consideration of a Determination that the
Project is Consistent with the Redevelopment Agency Plan.
Contact Person/Dept.: Jose Mendivil,
Associate Planner and Joe Susca,
Redevelopment Project Manager
Phone Number: (310) 253-5757 and (310)
253-5763
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [X] No []
Public Hearing: [X] Action Item: [] Attachments: [X]
Commission Action Required: Yes [X] No [] Date: Planning Commission on
05/13/09 and Cultural Affairs Commission (Date To Be Determined)
Public Notification 06/29/09: sign posted on site; notices mailed to the Rancho Higuera
HOA and all the property owners and occupants in Hayden Tract and Schaefer Street
(beyond 500-foot radius); notice emailed to the Planning Commission Master Notification
List on 06/29/09; and on 7/15/09: City Council and Redevelopment Agency Master
Notification List:
Department Approval:
Sol Blumenfeld (07/09/09)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker (07/14/09)
Agency General Counsel Approval:
Murray Kane (07/8/09)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by N. Kimball) (07/15/09)
City Manager/Executive Director Approval:
Mark Scott (07/15/09)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends:
1. The City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment No. 1) denying the appeal and
upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of Site Plan Review, SPR P-
2008047 to allow the construction of a 43 Foot high, commercial building and
parking structure with 775 parking spaces, 41,520 square feet of retail, and 10,000
square feet of restaurant at 8511 Warner Drive in the Industrial General (IG) Zone.
AND
2. The Redevelopment Agency Board makes a determination that the proposed
development project for the 8511 Warner Drive property is consistent with the
Redevelopment Plan for this location.
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
PROCEDURE:
1. Mayor calls on staff for a brief staff report.
2. Mayor seeks a motion to open the public hearing to allow for public comment, if
any.
3. Appellant given first opportunity to speak.
4. Applicant given second opportunity to speak.
5. Receive comments from the public.
6. Opportunity for rebuttal given to appellant and applicant.
7. Mayor seeks a motion to close the public hearing after all testimony has been
presented.
8. Council discusses the matter and arrives at its decision.
9. Agency discusses the matter and arrives at its decision (if necessary).
BACKGROUND:
On May 13, 2009, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding
Samitaur Constructs (the “Applicant”) request for a Site Plan Review approval to
allow the construction of a 43 foot high, commercial building and parking structure
with 775 parking spaces, 41,520 square feet of retail space, and 10,000 square feet
of restaurant space in the Hayden Tract at 8511 Warner Drive in the Industrial
General (IG) Zone (the “Project”). The Project proposes to include:
• Three levels of subterranean parking with some retail;
• One at-grade level with parking and retail/restaurant;
• Second level above grade with parking and retail.
Originally the site was a City owned parking lot that was sold to the applicant/owner.
The applicant/owner originally planned to construct a much larger multi-story theatre
complex and parking structure on the site. That project request was discontinued in
favor of the proposed Project. As part of the sale of the lot, the City required that the
current 242 parking spaces on the lot be covenanted to allow their availability to
surrounding businesses.
At the public hearing the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2009-P002
adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) finding that the Project, as mitigated, would not have significant
adverse impacts on the environment and approved the Site Plan Review subject to
the conditions of approval contained in said Resolution (Attachment No. 2).
On May 27, 2009, Hayden Tract property owners Michael Wellman, Aaron Kay,
Greg Toomey Sr., and Scott Martin (the “Appellants”), filed a timely appeal of the
Planning Commission’s decision (Attachment No. 3).
Planning Commission Staff Report City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Attachment No. 4 contains the May 13, 2009 Planning Commission staff report, with
all attachments including the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study as
revised by the Planning Commission at the Public Hearing. The report describes the
Project in detail, including analysis on architectural design, parking, traffic and
circulation, landscaping, noise, construction and area compatibility.
DISCUSSION:
Planning Commission
At the May 13, 2009, public hearing, the Commission received input from
approximately 9 members of the public. The concerns noted included: not enough
time given for public review; the traffic study did not adequately address potential
impacts; impacts resulting from the loss of street parking spaces; and overall
potential impacts not addressed in the staff report and attachments.
Following thorough discussion of the matter, the Commission recognized the
concerns raised by the public, but felt that they were sufficiently addressed in the
Applicant’s proposal, the conditions of approval with some additional conditions, and
the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) with some clarifying
language. The Commission made modifications to the MND (contained within
Attachment No. 4) in order to clarify certain descriptions of potential environmental
impacts and to strengthen one mitigation measure relating to paleontological and
archeological resources. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(c)(1) and
(4), such revisions did not require recirculation of the MND. Resolution No. 2009-
P002 was revised with added or revised conditions that address shoring during
construction (Condition No. 27), paleontological and archeological resources
(Condition No. 79), coordination with the Willows School during construction
(Condition No. 100), traffic (Condition No. 134), reservation of parking spaces for
short term hourly use (Condition No. 137), Transportation Demand and Trip
Reduction Measures (Condition No. 142), and a voluntary fee contribution for a
street segment study on Higuera Street between Lucerne Avenue and Hayden
Avenue (Condition No. 143). Attachment No. 5 contains the minutes of the meeting.
One Commissioner expressed a concern that the parking garage will generate trips
that are not addressed in the traffic study. The City’s Traffic Engineer addressed
this comment and stated that a parking garage without an associated land use is not
usually considered to be trip generator. Further explanation on this topic is given
below in the Appeal discussion.
Appeal
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
The concerns raised in the appeal documentation (Attachment No.3) state the
Planning Commission approval of the Site Plan Review should be overturned due to
a flawed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study and that an Environmental
Impact Report should be required for this project. Below is a summary of and
response to the appeal components.
1. The Traffic Study ignores the traffic generated by the parking garage component
of the project and does not analyze traffic generated by the new parking spaces.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manuel does not have a Parking
Structure land use category; consequently the traffic study should have surveyed
and preformed traffic counts at existing similar parking garages. The traffic study did
not take into account the possibility that the new parking structure will bring new
visitors and employees to the Hayden Tract impacting traffic circulation; the parking
structure has an indirect growth-inducing impact by providing additional parking
spaces (an ITE article analyzing traffic generated by parking structures was also
included with the appellant’s appeal).
Response:
The appeal received May 27, 2009 indicates that the parking garage is the primary
component of the Project, and since the traffic study does not analyze the traffic
generated by the new parking structure, the traffic study underestimated the trips
generated by the Project. The appeal referred to an April 1992 article in the ITE
Journal entitled, “An Innovative Technique for Estimating Trip Generation for Parking
Facilities”, which indicates how to calculate traffic generation from this type of facility.
The traffic study for 8511 Warner Drive was prepared in accordance with industry
standards from the ITE Manual, analyzing the traffic generated by the retail and
restaurant component and not adding any additional traffic for the parking structure
component of the project. The Project’s parking facility will contain 775 parking
spaces. There are 242 existing parking spaces in the surface parking lot which, per
conditions of the Purchase and Sale Agreement with City, will be replaced in the
parking structure as covenanted parking spaces made available to surrounding
business. The retail and restaurant component of the project requires 219 parking
spaces. Therefore, there are 314 [775 – (242+219) = 314] parking spaces in excess
of City code (considering both the covenanted 242 spaces and 219 spaces together
as code required).
The excess spaces in the parking structure are intended to support the existing
parking demand in the Hayden Tract and will not generate trips. The proposed
parking structure will satisfy the current Warner lot parking demand (the 242
covenanted spaces noted above) plus the parking demand by the businesses
currently on the waiting list for the Warner lot. The applicant surveyed tenants of
properties in the project area to determine who might lease spaces in a new garage.
According to the applicant, the current waiting list for parking in the Warner Lot is
383 parking spaces. City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
The reuse of many of the Hayden Tract properties was carried out without a
corresponding increase in the supply of off-street parking but has resulted in a
positive economic revitalization of the area. The current demand for parking in the
Hayden Tract has resulted in spillover parking in the adjacent residential areas.
The City recently conducted parking surveys for two neighborhoods adjacent to the
Hayden Tract and adopted preferential parking areas for both (See Attachment No.
6 - Map of Preferential Parking District). The excess parking demand in the Hayden
Tract is generated by the insufficient supply of parking that is a result of the adaptive
reuse of industrial properties in the area to more intense office and studio-related
businesses that generate and attract higher volumes of employees and vehicles
than anticipated when the buildings were originally designed and permitted.
Currently employees and visitors to the Hayden Tract must circulate the area to find
an on-street parking space unless an off-street space is available for their use. This
results in excess traffic movements throughout the day. Further, as a result of the
preferential parking districts, available parking on residential streets will become
increasingly constrained. The proposed parking structure will help to alleviate the
excessive traffic movements and parking on residential streets by providing
additional parking for the employees and visitors to the Hayden Tract. The
development of the parking structure will reduce neighborhood intrusion, improve
traffic circulating and congestion impacts, lessen air pollution and noise. The
resulting change in localized travel patterns is expected to be generally beneficial as
a result of less circulating traffic searching for parking.
It is widely accepted in the traffic engineering profession that a parking facility by
itself, without an associated land use, does not generate any traffic. The ITE
publication Trip Generation does not have an entry for parking lots because of this
reason. In researching this matter, City staff contacted traffic engineers Randy Mc
Court and Patrick Gibson who were involved with the trip generation studies
conducted for ITE’s publication Trip Generation. Both traffic engineers confirmed
that a parking facility without an associated land use does not generate traffic.
People will not drive to the project’s parking facility without a reason to do so or an
associated land use. The reason motorists will park in the project’s parking facility is
get to their destination, which is in the immediate area. As stated above, the
Hayden Tract has a shortage of on-street and off-street parking. Because of this
shortage of parking, motorists who park on the street near their destinations may
find it more convenient to park in the project’s parking facility and walk to their
destinations. This does not create additional trips. Although more motorists will
enter the project’s driveway, the short change in driving patterns, from a nearby
parking space to the project’s driveway will not create a significant change in traffic
patterns, nor would the change have an impact at any intersections in the area.
The Hayden Tract is not a downtown with retail, restaurant and entertainment uses
attracting numerous discretionary trips. Nearly all trips in the Hayden Tract are City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
work-related and therefore not discretionary. There are few opportunities for
shopping, dining or entertainment; a limited number of restaurants are available –
most of which are frequented by employees in the tract. Therefore nearly all the
trips in the Hayden tract are non-discretionary (mostly people traveling to and from
work); while people could use transit to get to the area, it is unlikely that they would
forgo employment related trips. The Hayden Tract has limited bus service and it is
not anticipated that a substantial number of people would switch from transit to
passenger vehicles with more parking available (because they are currently not
taking the bus and already driving into the Hayden Tract).
Parking supply in the immediate vicinity of the project site while limited, does not
constrain full use of the developed adjacent land uses. Presently, parking spills over
in to adjacent neighborhoods, and these neighborhoods have become impacted by
this parking (as documented in the City’s implementation of two preferential parking
districts on neighborhood streets in the project vicinity, see discussion below).
Additional development in the project area is not anticipated as a result of the 8511
Warner Drive project, which is simply designed to meet the existing demand and
relieve the spillover problem on neighborhood streets.
Further Discussion on Preferential Parking Districts in Neighborhoods Adjacent to
the Project Area Document Parking Deficit (Attachment No. 6)
In May 2009, the City of Culver City approved a preferential parking district along the
9000 block of Lucerne Avenue (located adjacent to the Hayden Tract); adjacent
streets were also included in the district in order to prevent displaced parking
demand being shifted on to those streets (including Ince Boulevard, Higuera Street
between Lucerne Avenue and Poinsettia Court, Carson Street and Hubbard Street).
As described in the January 27, 2009 Parking Study Report to the Culver City Traffic
Committee, the parking intrusion experienced by the 9000 block of Lucerne Avenue
resulted from the success of local businesses and an apparent shortage of parking
for those businesses.
Prior to adopting the 9000 Lucerne preferential parking district, the City conducted a
parking occupancy and parking intrusion survey of the 9000 block of Lucerne
Avenue adjacent to the Hayden Tract. The results of their survey indicated that the
parking occupancy along Lucerne Avenue ranged from 81% to 92% (based on six
site visits). It was further determined that intrusion parking ranged between 73%
and 81%. City staff commented that there appears to be an unmet need in parking
availability from the local business community in the Hayden Tract. They observed
that the parking intrusion of business related parking into the residential
neighborhood may be caused by shortages in parking supply at the business
locales, growth beyond the existing parking availability by the businesses, or
operational deficiencies of the businesses’ parking lots.
In December 2008, a preferential parking district was approved for the residential
area immediately adjacent the Hayden Tract west of Ince Boulevard. Similar to the City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
9000 Lucerne preferential parking district, this preferential parking district also is a
result of spillover parking from the Hayden Tract.
The preferential parking districts generally restrict non-permitted parking to 2 hours
Monday to Saturday, 8 AM to 6 PM (except Higuera which is restricted to 1 hour).
Nonetheless, many of the streets currently remain parked at capacity (in excess of
permitted time limits) as workers continue to park there due to lack of city
enforcement.
As stated above, construction of the parking structure will alleviate parking, traffic,
and circulation impacts by providing 314 excess parking spaces not for new
developments, but for existing businesses in the Hayden Tract that are already there
and contributing to the current traffic already accounted for in the Traffic Study.
2. The MND does not mitigate for the loss of approximately 22 street parking
spaces due to restriping as required by the Traffic Study. Currently these 22 parking
spaces are available all day at no charge; in contrast the applicant will likely limit the
parking hours and will be free to charge whatever rate desired. A mitigation
requiring replacement of the 22 spaces free of charge should have been required to
offset the impact created by the loss of the 22 spaces.
Response:
The Project is a parking structure that provides more than sufficient parking to offset
the loss of 22 on-street spaces. The removal of 22 on-street parking spaces will be
more than mitigated by the development of a parking structure with sufficient
capacity to accommodate both excess Hayden Tract parking demand as well as the
demand generated by the commercial elements of the project. The Planning
Commission, at the May 13th public hearing, stipulated that at least 150 of the 219
spaces required by the Code for project uses be reserved for short-term users such
as those who might have used the 22 spaces. The net result will be a reduction in
the demand for area-wide on-street parking of substantially more than 22 spaces.
There is no provision in CEQA that requires these offset parking spaces to be
“public” or “free.”
Furthermore, the City is not obligated to provide free street parking on any City
street and the Public Works Department could theoretically with Council
authorization install parking meters along Warner Drive. The Public Works
Department is currently conducting a City-wide parking meter assessment and a
likely outcome of that assessment will be that staff recommend changes to the
current street parking situation (vis a vi parking meters). That change may include
metered street parking in the Hayden Tract, including Warner Drive.
3. A Noise Study was not conducted and the Initial Study does not include a
quantitative noise study analyzing the construction and operational noise impacts of
the project; the Initial Study did not quantify existing or projected noise levels. City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Response:
The adopted MND concludes that with six mitigation measures the Project noise
impacts would be less than significant. These mitigations include: restrictions on
construction hours that is more stringent than the construction hours allowed in the
Municipal Code; location of construction and stationary equipment as far from
nearby sensitive receptors; requirement that all construction equipment be equipped
with mufflers and sound control devices no less effective than those provided on the
original equipment and that no equipment have unmuffled exhaust; proper
maintenance of all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions; servicing of
all equipment to be performed so as to maintain the greatest distance from sensitive
land uses; and a requirement that the name and telephone number of a contact
person be posted on-site and that the construction contractor coordinate
construction activities with the Willows Community school to minimize disturbance to
classes.
The appeal comment essentially asserts that all construction noise should be
considered significant. Culver City does not use construction noise levels alone as a
threshold of significance. Construction activity generally results in similar noise
levels with larger construction projects resulting in the same levels just over a more-
extended period. Given the temporary nature of construction activity associated with
the Project, as explained in the adopted MND (page 15) Culver City does not have a
specific limitation on temporary construction noise levels, rather it regulates noise
levels by limiting hours of construction activity and applying other requirements such
as equipment mufflers and sound control devices and the maintenance of
construction equipment. Compliance with City Codes and the mitigation measures
is considered to reduce construction noise to an acceptable level. While residual
noise levels after all mitigation measures have been applied may be temporarily
disturbing to adjacent uses, it is not anticipated that such impacts would rise to the
level of a significant impact on the environment. Additionally, as stated above, a
mitigation was included that restricts hours of construction for the current Project
beyond what the Municipal Code allows. The Code allows construction between 8
AM and 8 PM, Monday through Friday; 9 AM and 7 PM, on Saturday; and 10 AM
and 7 PM on Sunday. Noise Mitigation No. 1 allows construction between 8 AM and
6 PM, Monday through Friday; 9 AM to 6 PM on Saturday; and no construction on
Sundays.
4. The Initial Study improperly defers analysis of geology and soils until the final
project design; a comprehensive geotechnical investigation should take place as
part of the environmental review to determine the feasibility of constructing a
subterranean parking structure considering the soil conditions in the area.
Response:
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
The environmental assessment contained in the MND indicates that based on
previous studies in the area, liquefaction potential at the site is considered low as a
result of underlying clayey soil conditions. Nonetheless, the MND requires a specific
mitigation measure: preparation of a geotechnical investigation to identify
construction methods and foundation designs applicable to the site conditions
“pursuant to the guidelines contained in the California Geological Survey, Special
Publication 117, and Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigation Seismic Hazards in
California, 1997.” The measure further indicates that recommendations of the study
“shall be included in the final project designs and prior to Building Permit issuance in
a manner meeting the approval of the Building Official”. That is, the mitigation
measure does require further study but it identifies a performance standard –
appropriate design, according to Special Publication 117, and acceptable to a
building official. This is a standard mitigation measure required of most projects in
California. Detailed technical understanding of soil conditions is not needed at the
concept level at which environmental review is undertaken; rather a general
understanding of conditions and potential hazards is sufficient if compliance with a
specific performance standard and review by appropriate agency staff would
mitigate any potential impact.
In this case, a high groundwater table and (low) potential for liquefaction are
common geotechnical conditions encountered in California; detailed technical
engineering investigation and solutions are used to address such conditions. The
details of any technical engineering solutions would not be appropriate for a CEQA
document that addresses concept level design and is aimed at a non-technical
audience. Rather the MND serves to ensure according to specific performance
standards, appropriate technical design to address site soil and groundwater
conditions. With implementation of the mitigation measure identified in the MND,
pursuant to the details of the technical studies, any potential impact would be
reduced to a less than significant level. Further, the Building Official will require a
geotechnical study as part of any building permit application if it is determined to be
warranted.
5. The Initial Study improperly defers analysis of contaminated soils until excavation
of the site; the project site is an industrial area and many properties in the vicinity of
the project site suffer from soil contamination. Analysis of impacts from
contaminated soils must take place prior to project approval.
Response:
Contrary to assertions in the appeal, the MND (page 10) indicates that a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment Report was prepared for the Project site, and this
report concluded that the site is not on any list or database that identifies potential
contamination of the site. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report is the
first step taken to assess potential contamination issues. Only if a Phase I identifies
the potential for potential for contamination is a Phase II (sampling) Program
initiated. In the case of the 8511 Warner Drive site, the Phase I did not indicate City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
areas for potential sampling. Random sampling of sites (even in industrial areas) is
not undertaken without reason because it would be useless without some indication
of what to test for and where. However, the MND mitigation cautiously requires work
stoppage and testing at the first sign of any (unanticipated) contamination, and
compliance according to specified performance standards of the Fire Department,
Department of Toxic Substances Control and regional Water Quality Control Board.
6. The Initial Study does not analyze Global Warming and per AB32 this analysis is
now required of all CEQA documents; it was not preformed for this Initial Study.
Response:
Local regional single purpose governments (SCAQMD and SCAG) are still
formulating Climate Change CEQA thresholds and strategies on how to mitigate
Climate Change impacts. Therefore no specific language on this topic was included
in the Initial Study and it is currently not mandated that this analysis be done.
Nevertheless, aspects of this project result in reducing impacts related to Climate
Change.
There are a number of factors relevant to the lack of potential for a significant impact
on global warming:
a. The Project is intended to provide services (retail and restaurant) to support
existing commercial office and light industrial uses in the Hayden Tract, thus
generally reducing trips and air emissions in the project area (Hayden Tract
employees will not have to drive out and back during lunch time and may find
retail options at the project site suitable instead of making extra trips to stores
after work). The parking structure would provide parking for: a) on-site uses, b)
existing uses in the area that currently have a deficit, and c) replacement of
existing spaces lost on-site, in the project area as a result of construction of the
Expo light rail line (the former parking area along the National Boulevard
medium), and from the implementation of residential preferred parking districts.
The overall centralization of parking for these various needs along with the
retail/restaurant use will limit overall vehicle engine start-ups and concentrate
traffic circulation towards the Project site thereby relieving extra distances
travelled for individuals looking for parking.
b. The Project would be required to meet the Culver City Green Building Ordinance
which compels LEED-certification.
c. The SCAQMD has not adopted a threshold for commercial or residential green
house gas emissions. A threshold of 10,000 Metric Tons (MT) per year has been
adopted for industrial projects. Based on Urbemis modeling, preliminary
discussions regarding a potential threshold for commercial projects have
suggested a screening threshold between 3,000 MT and 6,000 MT per year may
be an appropriate project-specific criterion. City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Urbemis is an air quality model (recommended by the California Air Resources
Board and SCAQMD) used to estimate criteria pollutants (SOx, NOx, CO, ROG,
PM10 and PM2.5) and CO2 (the primary greenhouse gas) from construction and
operation of a wide variety of land uses. It includes emissions from project traffic
and electrical and natural gas consumption. Although it does not include a
threshold, SCAQMD is working on a threshold (they have thresholds in their
CEQA Guide, for criteria pollutants). Regulatory discussions by SCAQMD and
the Southern California Association of Governments continues as to the
appropriate level of review (and appropriate CEQA thresholds) – whether it
should be 1) project specific or whether it should be 2) a community level or
regional level of review with requirements imposed on the project level.
Using Urbemis (which assumes 7 days per week full project operation, which is
unlikely for this project given its business focus) unmitigated Project emissions
are anticipated to be about 2,996 MT/year (See Attachment No. 7), which is less
than the lowest threshold suggested in preliminary documentation by the
SCAQMD (no quantification of project mitigation is available; LEED certification
could reduce green house gas emissions by 10% or more).
7. CEQA requires that the City prepare and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
because there is substantial evidence in the record that supports a “fair argument”
that significant impacts may occur.
Response:
The standard for requiring preparation of an EIR is that there is substantial
evidence to support a fair argument that an impact could be significant. An
argument, even when lengthy and supported by substantial but irrelevant studies, is
not sufficient. As documented above, the appellant does not present substantial
evidence to support a fair argument that the Project, as mitigated in the MND, could
have a significant impact on the environment.
Redevelopment Agency
Pursuant to Agency policy, items requiring review by the Culver City Planning
Commission that are within the Culver City Redevelopment Project Area must also
be approved by the Agency.
This matter is before the Agency to determine if the proposed project is consistent
with the Redevelopment Plan for this location. Typically, the Agency’s evaluation
of a project usually involves comparing the Redevelopment Plan’s goals and
objectives in addition to determining if the project is consistent with the City of
Culver City’s General Plan land use designation. At this location, the General Plan
designation is Industrial General (IG); and the Applicant’s project is consistent with
this designation without exception or variance. City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
There is no applicable Agency Design for Developments, Owner Participation
Agreements or Disposition and Development Agreements affecting the proposed
project. Therefore, staff recommends the Agency determine the project is
consistent with the Agency’s Redevelopment Plan in the form it was approved by
the Planning Commission.
Conclusion:
The Project that was presented to and approved by the Planning Commission has
been designed to address issues of neighborhood compatibility and to conform with
all applicable provisions of the IG Zone and all City development standards. The
project is scaled and massed to fit within the zone. The Project meets all setback
requirements, exceeds parking requirements (more than making up for the loss of
street parking due to the required street re-striping), and does not exceed the zone’s
maximum allowable height. The project will assist in providing for the current
parking needs of the Hayden Tract thereby reducing spill-over parking into
residential neighborhoods. The Project will provide local Hayden Tract employees
with retail and restaurant options diminishing the need for extra vehicle trips by those
same employees.
Therefore staff believes that the Mitigated Negative Declaration finding adopted by
the Planning Commission adequately addresses all environmental issues related to
the Project including potential impacts related to traffic, parking, noise, geology,
potential soil contamination, global warming, and EIR threshold requirements, and
recommends the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve
the Project.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
This is a private venture project with no financial participation by the City or
Redevelopment Agency. If the Project is approved, then the City would gain
commercial taxes (i.e. business tax, sales tax, utility users tax, and additional tax
increment) once construction is completed and all commercial space is leased. It is
estimated that once built, the project will generate approximately $184,000 annually
in various City taxes and $305,000 annually in net new tax increments for the
Redevelopment Agency.
Additionally, there is staff time associated with the initial processing of the Site Plan
Review entitlement and the appeal of that entitlement. A portion of the cost of staff’s
time is recovered through user fees and charges as approved annually by City
Council.
ATTACHMENTS: City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
1. City Council Resolution No. 2009-R___
2. Planning Commission Adopted Resolution No. 2009-P002
3. Appeal filed on May 27, 2009
4. May 13, 2009, Planning Commission Staff Report Including all Attachments as
Listed Below:
• Project Summary
• Public Notice Area Map
• Aerial Photo
• Revised Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration dated May 13, 2009
• Traffic Study prepared by KOA, dated February 23, 2009
• Summary of Community Outreach by the Applicant
5. Minutes of the May 13, 2009, Planning Commission Public Hearing
6. Map of Preferential Parking District
7. Urbemis Modeling Tables
8. Planning Commission Approved Development Plans
MOTION(S):
That the City Council:
1.A. (Staff Recommendation) Adopt the Resolution (i) denying the appeal of the
Planning Commission’s adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Site Plan
Review, SPR P-2008047; (ii) adopting said Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), finding
that no new information has been provided regarding the project and no new
potentially significant environmental impacts have been identified since the Planning
Commission’s adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration that would require
changes to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration or preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report, and the project, as mitigated, will not result in
significant adverse environmental impacts; (iii) denying the appeal of the Planning
Commission’s conditional approval of Site Plan Review, SPR P-2008047; and (iv)
conditionally approving Site Plan Review, SPR P-2008047, as set forth in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2009-P002.
OR
1.B. Grant the appeal in its entirety and overturn the Planning Commission’s
approval of the Project and direct staff to return to the Council with the appropriate
resolution outlining the findings for denial of the Project;
OR
1.C. Grant the appeal in part but modify the Planning Commission’s approval of
the Project and direct staff to return to the Council with the appropriate resolution City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and outlining the findings for modifying
the Project; or
AND
That the Redevelopment Agency Board:
1.A. (Staff Recommendation) Make a determination that the proposed
redevelopment project for the 8511 Warner Drive property is consistent with the
Redevelopment Plan for this location;
OR,
1.B. Take no action on the project’s consistency with the Redevelopment Plan for
this location.