City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
1
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council continue this public hearing to Monday, October
27, 2008 at 7:00 PM.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On August 7, 2008, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding Axis
Mundi’s RE II, LLC (the “Applicant” and “Developer”) for a Site Plan Review to allow
the construction of a 3-story, 37,450 square feet commercial building with one level
of subterranean parking (the “Project”); a Tentative Tract Map No. 65473, TTM P-
2008080 to subdivide the property into 26 commercial condominium airspace units
(not for residential purposes); and an Administrative Use Permit to allow tandem
parking.
At the public hearing the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2008-P009
adopting a Negative Declaration finding pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and approving the Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map and
Administrative Use Permit for the Project subject to the conditions of approval.
In preparation for this Public Hearing, staff provided public notice on August 28,
2008 to meet the 21 day minimum advance notice required by the Culver City
Municipal Code (Sections 15.10.270 and 17.630.010). Subsequent to release of
Meeting Date: 9/22/08 Item Number: PH-1
AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING - Adoption of a Resolution Approving
Tentative Tract Map No. 65473, TTM P-2008080, for a One Lot Subdivision for
Twenty Six (26) Commercial (Retail and Office) Condominium Airspace Units
located at 12803-12823 Washington Boulevard (Between Meier and Moore
Streets).
Contact Person/Dept.: Susan Yun/CDD Phone Number: (310) 253-5755
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [x] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [X] Action Item: [] Attachments: [X]
Public Notification: Notices were mailed to all property owners and occupants, within a
500 foot radius of the project site, extended to the end of City block (8/28/08). A sign
announcing the public hearing was posted onsite (9/1/08) and notice was emailed to the
Master E-Mail Notification List (9/3/08 and 09/17/08).
Department Approval:
Sol Blumenfeld (9/10/08)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (09/16/08)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by M. Noller) (09/16/08)
City Manager Approval:
Jerry Fulwood (09/17/08) City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
2
that notice, on September 16, 2008, the applicant submitted a letter requesting
continuance of this item (see Attachment 1).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Public Hearing Continuance Request by Applicant dated September 16, 2008.
MOTIONS:
That the City Council:
Continue the Public Hearing to Monday, October 27, 2008 at 7:00 PM. City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
3
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the Ordinance (Attachment 1) amending
Chapter 9.11 of the Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC) relating to smoking
regulations to 1) add new regulations prohibiting smoking in outdoor dining areas; 2)
relocate existing regulations prohibiting smoking in City parks from Subchapter
9.10.500, et seq. to Chapter 9.11; and 3) update existing regulations contained in
Chapter 9.11 to be consistent with state law, and waive further reading.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
At the City Council meeting of September 8, 2008, the City Council introduced the
Ordinance, with revisions, by a unanimous vote (4-0). From the dais, the City
Council made the following revision to the Ordinance prior to adoption:
• §9.11.105 – that the definition of “Outdoor Bar Patio” be revised to include
language that a minor is not allowed to enter and remain in the area in order
Meeting Date: 09/22/08 Item Number: C-4
AGENDA ITEM: Adoption of Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.11 of the Culver City
Municipal Code Relating to Smoking Regulations to 1) Add New Regulations
Prohibiting Smoking in Outdoor Dining Areas; 2) Relocate Existing Regulations
Prohibiting Smoking in City Parks from Subchapter 9.10.500, et seq. to Chapter
9.11; and 3) Update Existing Regulations Contained in Chapter 9.11 to be
Consistent with State Law.
Contact Person/Dept.: Heather
Baker/City Attorney’s Office
Phone Number: (310) 253-5660
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [X] No []
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [] Attachments: [X]
Public Notification: County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services; Culver City
Chamber of Commerce; Downtown Business Association; restaurant owners;
individuals who spoke at prior Council Meetings and Community Meetings; Master E-
Mail Notification List (09/17/08); Coalition for a Tobacco Free LA County (comprised of
over 70 organizations – this notification was emailed courtesy of the County of Los
Angeles Department of Health Services) (09/12/08)
Department Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (09/10/08)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (09/10/08)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by M. Noller) (09/16/08)
City Manager Approval:
Jerry B. Fulwood ( City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
4
to further clarify the exception to the smoking prohibition in outdoor dining
areas is limited to bars only.
This revision is not considered to be substantive in nature; therefore, it does not
require re-introduction of the Ordinance. The Ordinance, as revised, is brought back
tonight for adoption.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
The additional regulations prohibiting smoking in Outdoor Dining Areas may require
increased enforcement activity by City staff, particularly the Police Department and
City Attorney’s Office. These costs cannot be easily quantified.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance
MOTIONS:
That the City Council:
Adopt the Ordinance amending Chapter 9.11 of the Culver City Municipal Code
(CCMC) relating to smoking regulations to 1) add new regulations prohibiting
smoking in outdoor dining areas; 2) relocate existing regulations prohibiting
smoking in City parks from Subchapter 9.10.500, et seq. to Chapter 9.11; and 3)
update existing regulations contained in Chapter 9.11 to be consistent with state
law, and waive further reading. City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
5
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council accept the work performed by the Contractor,
Steiny and Company, Inc., and authorize filing a Notice of Completion for the
Higuera Street and Eastham Drive Traffic Signal and Intersection Upgrade (P-741),
STPL-5240(004).
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION:
The project scope involved the replacement of the aging traffic signal system at the
intersection of Higuera Street and Eastham Avenue and the installation of a median
island on Eastham Avenue to improve the pedestrian and vehicle traffic flow through
the intersection.
On March 24, 2008, the Council awarded a construction contract to Steiny and
Company, Inc. for the Higuera Street and Eastham Drive Traffic Signal and
Intersection Upgrade (P-741), STPL-5240(004) in the amount of $203,946. The
project was successfully completed by Steiny and Company, Inc. One change order
was issued due to extra work items as requested by staff. The total amount of the
change order was $20,192. The majority of the change order cost was used to
address the failed concrete asphalt pavement at the new crosswalk, to add bollards
to protect newly installed signal poles, and to relocate the electrical meter pedestal
for wheelchair passage.
Meeting Date: 09/22/08 Item Number: C-5
AGENDA ITEM: Acceptance of Work Performed by Steiny and Company, Inc.
and Authorization to File the Notice of Completion for the Higuera Street and
Eastham Drive Traffic Signal and Intersection Upgrade (P-741), STPL-5240(004)
Contact Person/Dept.: Hong Wang/PW Phone Number: (310) 253-5604
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [] Attachments: []
Public Notification:
Master E-Mail Notification List (09/17/08); Steiny and Company, Inc., via telephone on
September 17, 2008
Department Approval:
Charles D. Herbertson (09/10/08)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (09/16/08)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by N. Kimball) (09/17/08)
City Manager Approval:
Jerry B. Fulwood (09/17/08) City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
6
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
The following tables summarize the budget and expenditures on this project. There
are sufficient funds in the project budget for the final construction cost. Staff
anticipates receiving the full $97,383 federal STPL reimbursement.
Total Adopted Project Budget by Funding Source
Funding Source Amount
Gas Tax $ 50,059
Capital Improvement & Acquisitions Fund $ 90,000
Federal STPL Fund (reimbursable) $ 97,383
Total Budget (FY 08/09): $237,442
Total Project Expenses
Total Construction Contract Cost $203,946
Change Order No.1 $20,192
Subtotal: $224,138
Construction Inspection and Management cost
(as of 9/9/08)
$8,520
Total Project Cost $232,658
MOTIONS:
That the City Council:
1) Accept the work performed by the contractor, Steiny and Company, Inc., for the
Higuera Street and Eastham Drive Traffic Signal and intersection Upgrade
(P-741), STPL-5240(004);
2) Authorize the filing of a Notice of Completion; and
3) Authorize the release of the retention funds in the amount of $22,414 to Steiny
and Company, Inc., following the expiration of the 35-day lien period.
City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
7
Meeting Date: _09/22/08__ Item Number: C-6
AGENDA ITEM: Approval of a Professional Services Agreement and Approval of
Amendment #1 to Said Agreement, to Kurt Swanson for Temporary Management
Services for the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department.
Contact Person/Dept.: Bill La Pointe,
Director of Parks Recreation and
Community Services
Phone Number: (310) 253-6655
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [X] No []
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [] Attachments: []
Public Notification: Master E-Mail Notification List (09/17/08); Kurt Swanson (09/17/08).
Department Approval:
Bill La Pointe, (by P. Mooney) (09/11/08)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (09/16/08)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by M. Noller) (09/16/08)
City Manager Approval:
Jerry B. Fulwood (09/17/08)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council approve an existing Professional Services
Agreement (Contract No. 2008-133) with Kurt Swanson for Temporary Management
Services for the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department, and
approve an Amendment to that Agreement of an additional amount not to exceed
$10,000.
BACKGROUND
Due to a number of vacancies in the Parks, Recreation and Community Services
(PRCS) Department, earlier this year staff requested that the City Manager’s Office
administratively authorized staff to hire a consultant, for an amount not to exceed
$10,000, to assist the PRCS Department on some time sensitive and critical issues
that are difficult to complete without sufficient management–level staff. In response
to this request, on August 18, 2008 the City entered into Contract No. 2008-133 with
Kurt Swanson for Temporary Management Services.
The City Manager is authorized to approve and execute contracts, on behalf of the
City, for professional services that are not in excess of $10,000 (Culver City
Municipal Code § 3.07.075). However, since Mr. Swanson was previously employed
in a similar capacity by the City, staff was advised that the existing agreement
between Mr. Swanson and the City should be brought before the City Council for
consideration. In the interim, staff has determined that Mr. Swanson’s services are City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
8
needed for an additional length of time. Therefore, staff is requesting that Council
also approve an Amendment to the existing Agreement in an additional amount not
to exceed $10,000.
DISCUSSION:
Kurt Swanson has over thirty years of park and recreation experience at the highest
management level. Before his retirement, he served as the Director of Parks and
Recreation for the City of Cerritos, including the operation of the Performing Arts
Center. He has also served as the President of the Parks, Recreation and
Community Services Department of the League of California Cities and has served
on the League Board.
This is the third time that Mr. Swanson has been called upon to assist the Parks,
Recreation and Community Services Department. He was hired as Acting Director
of Parks, Recreation and Community Services on August 16, 2004. Mr. Swanson
contributed significantly to the PRCS Department and his 2004 contract was
extended twice by the City Council.
In 2007, Mr. Swanson entered into an agreement with the City to provide temporary
management services for PRCS. One of his primary tasks was to evaluate, create,
recommend and implement the cash handling system for the ride vendor at last
year’s Fiesta La Ballona. Mr. Swanson’s plan was so successful that it set the
standard and was implemented at the 2008 Fiesta La Ballona.
Since Mr. Swanson has experience and knowledge of the Culver City Parks,
Recreation and Community Services Department, he seemed to be the logical
choice when an additional staff person was needed to provide temporary
management services for the Department earlier this year (Contract No. 2008-133).
He has already proven himself to be an invaluable member of the PRCS team by
successfully overseeing the cash handling system for the Fiesta ride vendor again.
In addition, he is assisting the PRCS Director with several issues that only a
professional manager with his experience and vision can address. For example,
there are current projects in need of immediate attention and executive assistance
such as the management of CIP projects, Departmental personnel and
organizational issues and strategic planning for Fiscal Year 2009-10.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
The total amount needed to cover both the existing Professional Services
Agreement with Mr. Swanson (Contract No. 2008-133) and the requested City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
9
Amendment is $20,000. There is sufficient funding available to be transferred to
cover this request due to current Departmental salary savings in the PRCS Division
Administrative Budget (10130100.411100 - Regular Salaries) in fiscal year 2008-09.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
MOTION
That the City Council:
1. Approve the existing Professional Services Agreement (Contract No. 2008-133)
with Kurt Swanson for Temporary Management Services for the Parks,
Recreation and Community Services Department in an amount not to exceed
$10,000; and,
2. Approve Amendment #1 to that Agreement of an additional amount not to exceed
$10,000 (for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $20,000); and,
3. Authorize the City Attorney to review/prepare the necessary documents; and,
4. Authorize the City Manager to execute such documents on behalf of the City. City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
10
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution of Intention to: (1) vacate a
portion of Wrightcrest Drive between the intersection of Wright Terrace and
Wrightcrest Drive and its southerly terminus, adjoining the rear of properties located
at 6020 and 6030 Wright Terrace, Tract 24413; (2) order the setting of a Public
Hearing to consider such vacation on October 13, 2008; (3) order the posting of the
area with the appropriate notices and public notification of a 500 foot radius; and (4)
order the publishing of a Notice of the above Public Hearing for at least two
successive weeks in Culver City News.
BACKGROUND:
A petition to vacate a portion of Wrightcrest Drive was submitted by the property
owners of 6020 and 6030 Wright Terrace (attached). The petitioner’s major reason
for the request to vacate a portion of this street is that it has become an attractive
nuisance for late night parking and other activities. The property owners were
required to obtain a Title Search (Street Search) for this portion of Wrightcrest Drive
and Fidelity National Title Company has determined that the aforementioned
property owners own the underlying fee to this portion of Wrightcrest Drive.
The State law governing street and alley vacations is the Streets and Highway Code
§§8300, et. seq. This law requires the Council adopt a Resolution of Intention. For
the final Council hearing adopting the vacation, the State law requires a notice of the
hearing be posted in the local newspaper at least two successive weeks prior to the
hearing and at least two weeks prior to the final hearing the area to be vacated shall
Meeting Date: 09/22/08 Item Number: C-7
AGENDA ITEM: Adoption of a Resolution of Intention to Vacate a Portion of
Wrightcrest Drive Between the Intersection of Wright Terrace and Wrightcrest
Drive and its Southerly Terminus, Adjoining the Rear of Properties Located at 6020
and 6030 Wright Terrace, Tract 24413
Contact Person/Dept.: Andy O’Connell/PW Phone Number: (310) 253-5606
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [X] No []
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Public Notification: Master E-Mail Notification List (09/17/08)
500 ft. radius postcard mailing to residents and businesses (09/02/08)
Department Approval:
Charles D. Herbertson (09/02/08)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (09/16/08)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by M. Noller) (09/17/08)
City Manager Approval:
Jerry B. Fulwood (09/17/08) City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
11
be conspicuously posted. Should the City Council adopt the Resolution of Intention,
then staff will prepare the notice required by State Law and also provide a courtesy
notice to property owners and residents located within a 500 foot radius (to the end
of the City block) of the area proposed to be vacated.
DISCUSSION:
This portion of Wrightcrest Drive is 20 feet in width and was dedicated as a street
easement on Tract Map No. 24413, as recorded on August 30, 1960. The street
extends approximately 100 feet southerly from the intersection of Wrightcrest Drive
and Wright Terrace and dead ends at a property owned by Los Angeles County.
Since the adjoining property will be developed as a Los Angeles County park, it is
highly unlikely that this portion of Wrightcrest Drive will be extended in the future.
Properties that abut this portion of Wrightcrest on its easterly side are the rear of two
lots having addresses at 6020 and 6030 Wright Terrace. The property that abuts
this street on its westerly side is owned by the California State Parks Department.
There are no properties that need access from this portion of Wrightcrest Drive. The
only known utility within this street is a Southern California Edison pole that has
power lines extending southerly beyond the end of the street onto the adjoining Los
Angeles County Parks Department’s property. All utility companies will be formally
notified if the City Council adopts this Resolution of Intention to Vacate.
While the Director of Public Works/City Engineer has completed his initial evaluation
of the merits of the vacation of this easement, staff will present its formal
recommendation to the City Council during the public hearing tentatively scheduled
for October 13, 2008.
Refer to Exhibits “A” and “B” for an accurate legal description and plat of the portion
of Wrightcrest Drive to be vacated.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
There is no fiscal impact associated with the adoption of this Resolution of Intention.
A Fiscal Analysis of the proposed vacation of the right-of-way will be included with
the staff report presented on October 13, 2008.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Petition June 25, 2007
2. Letter from property owners dated August 21, 2008
3. Resolution of Intention that includes Exhibits “A” and “B” City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
12
MOTION:
That the City Council:
Adopt a Resolution of Intention to: (1) vacate a portion of Wrightcrest Drive
between the intersection of Wright Terrace and Wrightcrest Drive and its
southerly terminus, which adjoins the rear of those lots located at 6020 and 6030
Wright Terrace, Tract 24413 as shown on attached Exhibits “A” and “B;” (2) order
the setting of a Public Hearing to consider such vacation on October 13, 2008;
(3) order the posting of the area with the appropriate notices and public
notification within a radius of 500 feet; and (4) order the publishing of a Notice of
a Public Hearing regarding the proposed vacation for at least two successive
weeks in the Culver City News. City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
13
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council: 1) Approve the classification specification for
Deputy Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director; and 2) Adopt a
resolution revising the salary schedule to include the position of Deputy Parks,
Recreation and Community Services Director and rescinding Resolution No. 2008-
R056.
BACKGROUND
Through the budget process for fiscal year 2008-2009, the City Council approved
the request to include a deputy director position in the Parks, Recreation and
Community Services Department. This position would be responsible for assisting
the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director in the administration of
the department and in providing staff support to the Parks, Recreation and
Community Services Commission.
DISCUSSION
The development of a new classification is a four-part process: 1) identifying the
needs of the department; 2) determining the knowledge, skills, and abilities that
would be necessary for someone to successfully meet the needs of the job; 3)
conducting a labor market survey; and 4) analyzing the impact to internal and
Meeting Date: 09/22/08 Item Number: C-8
AGENDA ITEM: 1) Approval of the Classification Specification for Deputy Parks,
Recreation and Community Services Director; and 2) Adoption of a Resolution
Revising the Salary Schedule to include the Position of Deputy Parks, Recreation
and Community Services Director and Rescinding Resolution No. 2008-R056.
Contact Person/Dept.: Mary Ortiz Bradley Phone Number: 310-253-5650
Fiscal Impact: Yes [x] No [] General Fund: Yes [x] No []
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [x] Attachments: [x]
Public Notification: Master E-Mail Notification List (09/17/08) and Culver City
Management Group on 08/20/08.
Department Approval:
Serena Wright (09/16/08)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (09/17/08)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (09/17/08)
City Manager Approval:
Jerry B. Fulwood (09/17/08) City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
14
external relationships of the proposed classification. Through this process, the
critical components of the job as well as the primary responsibilities were identified.
Human Resources staff analyzed the needs of the department and identified the
essential functions of the position, with the assistance of the Parks, Recreation and
Community Services Director as the subject matter expert. In addition, a
classification study was conducted among the labor market cities. This was done
with the goal of identifying similarly situated positions that assist in the
management of three major divisions: Parks, Recreation, and Community
Services.
The labor market survey revealed that Culver City is unique in having three areas
of major responsibility fall under one department: Parks; Recreation and
Community Services. Most of the cities in the labor market tend to have only two
of the three areas within the same department (see Attachment No. 2). For
example, at the City of Pasadena and the City of Redondo Beach recreation and
community services fall under the same department and parks is based in another
department, Public Works.
The new deputy director classification specification was further developed after the
analysis of the other deputy director classification specifications within Culver City.
Language to two sections (Essential Duties and Knowledge, Skills and Abilities)
was added to ensure consistency among internal deputy director positions. For
example, the language listed below is consistent with that which is found in other
City Culver deputy director positions:
Essential Duties
• Assists in the development of the departmental budget
• Assists in supervising division level management as well as professional,
technical and support staff in the performance of their duties.
• Assists in developing and implementing department policies and
procedures.
Knowledge, Skills and Abilities
• Principles of management, supervision, training and performance
evaluation.
• Principles of organization, planning, and administration.
• Budget development, preparation, and administration.
• Develop cooperation and nurture a collaborative, positive working
environment among staff.
• Develop and present ideas and issues in a persuasive verbal and written
manner. City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
15
The proposed classification is titled Deputy Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Director. The classification specification is reflective of both the essential
and marginal duties associated with the position. The new position would be
responsible for assisting the director in the daily management of the Department,
including capital improvement projects, parks maintenance, recreation programs,
senior and social services programs, facility scheduling and administration, and
day-to-day operations. This position would act as the Director in the Director’s
absence and would be responsible for the supervision of division level
management as well as professional, technical and support staff.
An analysis of the level of responsibility, oversight and independent decision-
making associated with this position clearly indicates that this position should be
included in the management group and, as such, should be represented by the
Culver City Management Group (CCMG). Human Resources Department staff
analyzed the impact that the addition of this new position would have on the
organizational structure of the City and found that this position would be best
served by receiving an “unclassified” designation. The exemption from the
classified service is permissible for this level of position under the Culver City
Municipal Code (CCMC). CCMC, §3.05.015F, allows for the exemption from the
classified service of “staff assistants to the head of a department or division as may
be authorized by the City Council.” Historically, this provision has been utilized to
exempt other deputy director positions from the classified service.
A copy of the new classification specification has been reviewed by the Culver City
Management Group and said classification specification was approved by the Civil
Service Commission on August 6, 2008 (Attachment No. 1).
FISCAL ANALYSIS
Through the FY 08-09 budget process, City Council approved the following range
for the new Deputy Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director
classification:
Range 588 $8,078 - $9,860 Monthly $96,938 - $118,332 Annually
ATTACHMENTS
1. Classification Specification for Deputy Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Director
2. Labor Market Survey City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
16
3. Resolution and Exhibit A
4. Organizational Chart for the Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Department
5. Excerpt from minutes of Civil Service Commission Meeting, 08/06/08
MOTION
That the City Council:
1. Approve the classification specification for Deputy Parks, Recreation and
Community Services Director; and
2. Adopt a resolution revising the salary schedule to include the position of
Deputy Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director, and
rescind Resolution No 2008-R056. City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
17
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council discuss and adopt the September 10, 2008
comments submitted by staff to the LA County Regional Planning Commission on
the Draft Baldwin Hills Community Standards District (“CSD”), Versions dated
August 14, 2008 and September 4, 2008.
BACKGROUND:
On June 19, 2008, Los Angeles County (County) released a Draft Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for a CSD proposed by Plans Exploration & Production
Company (PXP). On July 14
th
the City Council held a public meeting to discuss and
seek early Council and community input on the Draft EIR. On August 13th the
Council adopted Resolution No. 2008-R059 transmitting to the County the official
City response to the June 2008 Draft EIR.
To ensure maximum representation of the City Council’s and community’s interests
in this process, Staff has attended public workshops and hearings on the Draft EIR
and CSD on July 17
th
, July 22
nd
, August 2nd, August 14th, August 27
th
, and
September 10th. Additionally, staff has met with, and continues to meet with, the
Council Subcommittee (Vice Mayor Silbiger and Councilmember Weissman) on a
biweekly basis. On August 14, 2008, the County released its proposed version of
`Meeting Date: 09/22/08 Item Number: A-1
AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of Comments Submitted by Staff on September 10,
2008 to the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission Regarding the
Draft Baldwin Hills Community Standards District, Versions Dated August 14,
2008 and September 4, 2008.
Contact Person/Dept.:
Charles Herbertson/Public Works;
Sherry Jordan/Community Development;
Phone Number: 310-253-5635; 310-253-
5746
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Public Notification: Interested parties, Cable crawler; and Master E-Mail Notification List
(09/17/08); Published in the Culver City News (09/18/09).
Department Approval:
Charles Herbertson (09/16/08)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (09/16/08)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by N. Kimball) (09/17/08)
City Manager Approval:
Jerry B. Fulwood (09/17/08)
City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
18
the CSD followed by a second version released on September 4, 2008 (collectively,
“County CSD”).
DISCUSSION:
Due to the extremely short period of time for review of the County CSD prior to the
LA County Planning Commission’s consideration of this matter (a period of seven
calendar days), staff submitted “preliminary” comments on the County CSD, subject
to the City Council’s final review and approval, at the LA County Planning
Commission hearing of September 10, 2008 (Attachment No. 1).
Staff included a cover letter, signed by the City Manager, explaining to the County
Commission that the comments were preliminary in nature due to the compressed
review period and the difficulty in reviewing and commenting upon a document that
is constantly evolving and changing (and continued to change), and which differs
greatly from the applicant (PXP) proposed CSD evaluated in the Draft EIR. Portions
of this letter were read into the record by City staff during public testimony at the
September 10
th
hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the County Planning
Commission continued the matter to October 1, 2008.
As discussed in the transmittal cover letter and in the comments, although an
improvement from the PXP proposed CSD, the County CSD still needs to be
revised. The County CSD fails to incorporate the mitigation measures proposed by
Culver City in our August 19
th
comments on the Draft EIR, and it further fails to
incorporate many of the other feasible mitigation measures proposed by other public
agencies, private and nonprofit entities, and individuals. The County CSD requires
the applicant to submit and conduct various audits, assessments, reviews and plans.
This acknowledges the lack of information the County currently has to adequately
protect the public and the environment from oil operations within its jurisdiction.
These determinations should have been made during the environmental review
process. Given the County’s substantial revisions to PXP’s prepared CSD, the
County should revise and recirculate the Draft EIR to address these issues.
It is staff’s understanding that the County CSD continues to be revised and a new
version should be available to the public shortly. Given the compressed time period
for review, yet again, staff will submit updated “preliminary” comments to the
updated version of the County CSD at the October 1
st
County Planning Commission
meeting. Those preliminary comments will reflect the significant concerns clearly
expressed by the Culver City Community and the City Council. Further, these
preliminary comments will be subject to the City Council’s final review and approval
at its October 6
th
meeting.
City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
19
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
There is no fiscal impact to the Council’s adoption of the attached comments. For
the Council’s information, a July 3rd City-wide public notification was produced at a
direct cost of $14,637.08 (which amount was taken from appropriated reserves) and
the contract amount approved by City Council for Aspen Environmental Group to
assist staff in the review of the Draft EIR and revisions to the City’s current oil well
regulations was $148,770. In addition, the notification for tonight’s meeting was
published in the Culver City News at a cost of $228.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. September 10, 2008, cover letter and attached comments to the Los Angeles
County Draft Baldwin Hills Community Standards District, versions dated August
14, 2008 and September 4, 2008.
MOTION:
That the City Council:
Approve the preliminary comments submitted by staff on September 10, 2008 to
the County of Los Angeles’ Regional Planning Commission regarding the Los
Angeles County Draft Baldwin Hills Community Standards District, Versions
Dated August 14, 2008 and September 4, 2008.
City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
20
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council discuss proposed green building standards and
provide direction to staff.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this report is to provide a menu both to require and encourage
green building in the City. The recommendations contained herein are intended to
build on the successful work that has been accomplished over the last two years.
These efforts are summarized on the attached chronology. (Attachment No. 1).
DISCUSSION
In keeping with Culver City’s leadership in the areas of environmental stewardship,
the City has taken certain steps regarding the problems of rising energy costs and
global warming have prompted the City to consider a more sustainable approach
to the way buildings are planned and constructed. “Green” buildings are more
energy efficient, reduce solid waste during construction, reduce environmental
pollution and conserve natural resources. Green buildings create healthier work,
learning, and living environments with more natural light and cleaner air,
contributing to improved health, comfort, and productivity.
Staff has focused initially on green building as an important component of
sustainability. Other program considerations and sustainable measures may be
Meeting Date: 9.22.08 Item Number: A-2
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion of Green Building Standards in Culver City
Contact Person/Dept.: Craig Johnson
Sol Blumenfeld
Phone Number: 310-253-5802
310-253-5702
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [X] No []
Public Hearing: [X] Action Item: [] Attachments: [x]
Public Notification: Master E-Mail Notification List (09/17/08), public stakeholders,
public speakers at past green building City Council discussions. Advertisement in
Culver City Observer (9/18/08)
Department Approval:
Sol Blumenfeld (09/16/08)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (09/16/08)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by N. Kimball) (09/17/08)
City Manager Approval:
Jerry Fulwood (09/17/08) City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
21
coordinated through the Sustainable City Plan and focus on the areas of
conservation, land use and waste diversion.
In looking at best practices of current green building programs operating in Santa
Monica, West Hollywood and other nearby cities (Attachment No. 2), staff has
prepared three green building options for the City Council’s consideration. These
options range from incentive programs to mandatory construction requirements for
new development. Staff recommends that the City Council consider implementing
one or more of the following green building options:
Option 1: Incentive Program for LEED Certification and “Green Zone”
Program
Option 2: Mandatory New Development Requirements
Option 3: Mandatory Green Building Point System.
Option 1: Incentive Programs for LEED Certification & Green Zone Program
LEED Certification Incentive Program
This option proposes a partial permit fee refund for projects obtaining Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certification. Building permit fee
refunds are an incentive to developers, but do not fully cover the costs of obtaining
LEED certification. LEED is the third party review and green building rating system
which offers four certification levels for new construction: Certified, Silver, Gold,
and Platinum. These levels correspond to five green design categories:
sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and
resources and indoor environmental quality. The LEED certification adds from 6%
to 9% to overall building permit costs.
Staff proposes the City establish a fee refund schedule as follows:
20% of the building permit fee for projects obtaining LEED certified status
30% of the building permit fee for projects obtaining LEED silver status
40% of the building permit fee for projects obtaining LEED gold status
50% of the building permit fee for projects obtaining LEED platinum status
Example of New Development and LEED Certification Costs:
New
Development
(square
footage)
Valuation Approximate
Building
permit fees*
Certified
6% of
project
valuation
Silver
7% of
project
valuation
Gold
8% of
project
valuation
Platinum
9% of
project
valuation
117,000 $14.7 Million $90,000 $882,000 $1,030,000 $1,176,000 $1,323,000 City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
22
• excluding plan check fees and all other City fees and charges, and excluding the costs of the other civil, fire,
mechanical, electrical, and plumbing permits that may be typically expected with a project of this type.
It is important to note that the typical Culver City building permit fee cost, if
refunded in full, would probably only cover the cost of a project to obtain LEED
certified status. Since a full refund would significantly reduce City building permit
revenues, staff recommends a cap of $60,000 for any individual project. Staff
proposes administering this program by collecting the full building permit fees prior
to construction. Upon presentation of LEED certification, a refund would be
generated (subject to the annual cap as recommended by staff and approved by
the City Council).
“Green Zone” Demonstration Program
This program would allow for building permit fee waivers for installation of any
approved energy saving construction within the City’s designated “green zones.” It
is proposed that these green zones be the current Phase I and Phase II Area
Improvement Project Demonstration Areas (West Washington Blvd from Wade to
Beethoven Avenues (Phase I Shown on Attachment No. 3) and Centinela
Boulevard to Colonial Avenue (Phase II)). A list of approved energy saving
construction efforts would be culled from the proposed Mandatory measures
(Option 2) and the points based system (Option3).
Staff recommends a 100% building permit fee refund as illustrated below within the
green zones with a maximum cap of $5,000 for any individual project.
Project
Scope
Project
Valuation
Total Permit
All Fees
Building
Permit
Fee
Total Amount
of Incentive
Improve energy efficiency
through upgraded insulation,
exterior doors and windows.
$40,000 $2,200 $650 $650
Staff recommends that the Green Zone program remain in effect for five years for
each zone designated in order to provide time to encourage business and property
owner’s participation. There are approximately 40 properties and businesses that
could benefit from this option. This option would provide a financial incentive in a
highly visible demonstration program for the City.
Option 2: Mandatory Requirements Program for All New Development
This option involves the creation of a list of mandatory prescriptive measures that
would apply to new ground-up construction. A building permit will not be issued until City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
23
adherence to the program requirements is achieved. Over time, zoning
considerations and new technology may require updating this list to ensure program
effectiveness. This option does not provide any financial incentive; but would be
effective and relatively simple to administer.
The following mandatory green building requirements are proposed for all new
development:
1. Minimum 17 Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ration (SEER) for all new ac units in
new construction (The efficiency of air conditioners is often rated by SEER.
The SEER rating is the Btu of cooling output during a typical cooling-season
divided by the total electric energy input in watt-hours during the same period.
The higher the SEER rating of a unit, the more energy efficient it is. A
minimum SEER rating of 13 is currently required under the Building Code??.)
2. All new gas heating units in new construction to be minimum 92% efficient
(96.6% efficient is the highest efficiency generally available).
3. All heating and cooling ducts to be within heated or cooled space for new
construction.
4. Minimum R-38 roofs and floors (to exterior spaces), minimum R-28 walls in
new construction. (R–rating is an index of the insulation value. The higher the
rating, the higher the insulation value.)
5. Radiant barriers under roof sheathing in new construction. (Possible
additional measure: also require radiant barriers under all west, south, and
east wall sheathing in new construction.)
6. Current code allows exterior glass to be U .38 and SHGC of .31; require all
new glass to be minimum U .35 and SHGC of .30 in new construction and
additions and remodels. (U-rating is an insulation rating of the glass. The
lower the U-rating, the higher the insulation value. SHGC is the Solar Heat
Gain Coefficient which is a measure of glass resistance to radiant heat. )
7. All new low-slope roofs to have a minimum SRI of 75% in all new
construction and all low-slope re-roofing permits. (Solar Reflectance Index is
a measure of reflectivity of the roofing surface.)
8. Exterior shading over all glass on the west, south, and east sides of all new
construction. (Alternate: require all glass on the west, south, and east side of
new construction to be upgraded performance.)
9. All new interior and exterior lighting to be fluorescent or Light Emitting Diode
(LED) or other high efficiency lighting in new construction.
10. All bathroom lighting (fluorescent or LED) and exhaust fans to be motion
sensor controlled in new construction.
11. All corridors (and any other typically unoccupied spaces) lighting
(fluorescent or LED) to be motion sensor controlled in new construction.
12. All garage and parking structure lighting (fluorescent or LED) to be motion
sensor controlled in new construction. (Minimum base level lighting allowed.) City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
24
13. Dual flush water closets in new construction.
14. Only waterless urinals in new construction.
15. Tankless water heaters in new residential construction.
16. Two(2) - 2" electrical conduits to be installed from the roof to the electrical
panels for future photovoltaic installation for each unit in all new residential
construction and in all new commercial construction. (Of less than 10,000 sf
which doesn't qualify for mandatory photovoltaic installation.)
17. A bike parking area in all new construction.
18. A recyclables collection area in all new construction. (Possible additional
measure: require 2 trash chutes in all new multi-floor construction; routed
directly to 2 different dumpsters in a trash room below; one for trash, one for
recyclables.)
19. One (1) duplex ground fault circuit interrupter outlet for each eight parking
spaces in new residential construction. (For future plug-in vehicles.)
20. Require all new construction to have smart irrigation controllers.
Option 3: Mandatory Green Building Point System.
This option involves the establishment of a mandatory point system to help achieve
energy efficiency in new development and building improvement. A building permit
will not be issued unless there are a minimum number of points received pursuant to
the table below. The points based system is a compilation of the most effective items
from several points based systems from other cities as well as LEED checklists and
would be administered in addition to the mandatory items prescribed in Option #2.
Each item on the list would equal one point and would apply to all remodels, tenant
improvements, additions, and new construction. Projects of varying scopes must
meet a thresholds of the available points based on new construction square
footage.
An example is illustrated below:
Square footage Mandatory list Points required
10,000 – 25,000 sq. ft. All items 13 points
25,000 – 50,000 sq. ft. All items 16 points
Over 50,000 sq. ft. All items 22 points
Site
Preserve all existing site and/or street trees.
Provide additional drought tolerant landscaping and shade trees, minimize
turf areas. City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
25
Install efficient irrigation system (minimize spray heads, maximize use of
bubblers and drop irrigation.)
Natural Heating and Cooling
Provide operable windows for ventilation in all new construction.
Provide ceiling fans in all habitable areas.
Minimize air conditioning.
Foundation
Incorporate fly ash or recycled content in all paving and foundation concrete.
Structure
Use engineered wood or steel for 90% of the floor and roof framing (to reduce
amount of wood consumption.)
Use FSC certified wood framing for 20% of all wood framing materials.
Use structural insulated panels.
Plumbing
Insulate the full length of all hot water piping.
Install faucets of less than 2.5 gpm.
Insulation/ Energy
Minimum 25% of insulation formaldehyde free, recycled content.
Minimum 60% of wall insulation cellulose, cotton ball, or bio-based foam.
Minimum 60% of ceiling insulation cellulose, cotton ball, or bio-based foam.
Pre-plumb for future solar hot water heating.
Install solar photovoltaic (for projects less than 10,000 sf not qualifying for
mandatory solar pv.)
Install Energy Star programmable thermostats.
Perform duct testing.
Indoor Air Quality
Use low Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)sealants and adhesives.
Use composite wood with no added urea formaldehyde for counters and
countertops.
Use carpet Carpet and Rug Institute Green Label certified.
All wood flooring bamboo or other renewable material. City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
26
Roofing
Use 25% recycled content roofing materials.
Roofing materials warranty minimum 40 yr. for asphalt shingles, 15 yr. for
built-up.
Exterior Finishes
Minimum 30% of exterior surfaces integral or no color stucco, or durable
surface panels.
Interior Finishes
Minimum 20% exposed concrete floors.
Minimum 25% recycled content countertop materials.
General
Divert minimum 75% of construction demolition by weight to recycling.
Innovative design as determined by City staff.
Costs and Benefits of Potential Culver City Green Building Programs
Staffing
Option 1 and Option 2 would not require additional staffing to implement.
Staff estimates, however, that Option 3 would require, at minimum, one additional
full time City staff member and one additional City vehicle. (Attachment No. 3)
Energy Costs and Annual Emissions Illustration
In an effort to illustrate the relative benefit of these programs/options against the
current Energy Code, an example of a commercial project (totaling 282,000 sq. ft.)
and nine new residential units (totaling 49,000) is highlighted below:
City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
27
Options Annual
Commercial
BTU’s
Annual
Residential
Btu’s
Annual
Carbon
Emissions
Annual
Energy
Costs
Construction
Cost Increase
Additional
Staffing
Standard
California
Energy Code
25.5 billion .78 561 tons $392,000 (0) n/a
Option 1 –
LEED
certification*
21.7 billion .66 477 tons $333,000 $376,000 n/a
Option 2 –
Mandatory
Program **
22.9 billion .70 505 tons $353,000 $188,000 n/a
Option 3 –
Points based ***
20.4 billion .62 448 tons $313,000 $564,000 1 additional
staff
* assumes Silver certification level, 15% energy improvement and additional $1.00 square foot construction cost.
Does not include green zone program.
** assumes 10% energy improvement and an additional $.50 per square foot construction cost.
*** assumes 20% energy improvement and an additional $1.50 per square foot construction cost.
General Assumptions;
That under each option all annual 282k s.f. of new commercial space and all 9 new residential units fully
comply with that option.
That the consumption of each 45,000 btu’s produces 1 ton of carbon emissions
The btu cost is estimated at 70,000 btu’s per $1.
The estimated construction cost increase is an additional cost to the developer of a building.
SUMMARY
Staff is proposing three green building program options for Council consideration.
Option 1 is an incentive program that could offer a refund of up to 50% of the
building permit fee for LEED certified projects. It is proposed that a cap be put in
place of at least $60,000 for individual projects and $225,000 annually for the
program as whole. This option also includes 100% building permit refunds for
“green zones” within the City. As a pilot program, staff recommends that the first
green zone be coterminous with the current West Washington Demonstration
Project – Phase I. Based on the current property and business constitution, the cost
for this program could be up to $15,000 in building permit refunds and would not
require any additional staffing.
Option 2 is a mandatory checklist of standards applied to all new development. The
list represents a number of effective and straightforward prescriptive measures that
would effectively reduce carbon emissions and increase sustainability within the
City. Staff believes that this program could be absorbed with current staffing levels
and would not require any additional staffing.
City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
28
Option 3 is a hybrid program that would require adherence to all of the measures
listed in Option 2 as well as additional requirements, via a point system, based on
building square footage. This option would be case specific for each new project
and would require more in depth inspection to ensure compliance. This option
would require an additional staff person and associated resources.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
All three options would forward the City’s general policy goal of obtaining a more
sustainable environment. However, there is a fiscal cost to the City to implement
each option. All three options would have the consequence of a loss in Utility Users’
Tax (UUT) revenue. There is a direct relationship between UUT revenues and a
building’s energy efficiency. As energy efficiency increases, the amount that a
business pays per square foot in utilities (such as electricity, gas and water)
decreases, consequently decreasing the amount of UUT paid by the consumer.
Currently, electricity, gas, and water UUT combined generate approximately $8
million in revenues, with the primary piece of that being electricity at approximately
$6 million. As the number, size, and level of energy efficient projects increases over
time, the City can expect to see a proportionate decrease in UUT revenue over what
would be generated by a traditional project. That being said, the economic cost to
clean the environment in the long run may far exceed the potential loss of UUT
revenue.
If Option #1 were pursued (LEED Certification and Green Zone incentives), staff
recommends the City Council determine annual cap limits for building permit refunds
and incentives that would result in a decrease in net revenues to the General Fund.
As proposed, these discounts would not fully cover the actual cost of LEED
certification, but could substantially subsidize consultant fees to achieve certification
and/or make sustainable improvements to an existing structure. The cost of this
program is whatever the City Council ultimately determines as an annual cap for the
program (see next paragraph) plus loss of UUT revenue.
For example, in Option #1 a total annual program cap of $225,000 ($60,000 per
individual project), or approximately 10% of annual Building Safety revenues, could
include three commercial projects refunded $30,000 each and nine residential
projects refunded $15,000 each or any other combination within this limit. This
would, in essence, cost the City up to $225,000 plus ongoing lost UUT revenue plus
staff time to develop the necessary applications, rating processes, benchmarks, etc.
Additionally, the “green zone” program could refund an additional $15,000 in building
permit fees if approximately 50% of the business participated in the West
Washington Demonstration Project, Phase I. Based on the location of these City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
29
businesses, staff anticipates that most of the sustainable upgrades would be limited
to energy efficiency efforts to include glass/window upgrades, insulation, and HVAC.
As proposed, Option #2, a Mandatory Green Building Program, would not have
additional cost to the City beyond the potential loss of UUT revenues and some
additional staff time to implement the additional requirements for developers.
Option #3, a Points Based System, would require one additional full-time employee
(approximately $100,000 including salary and benefits, which would increase on an
annual basis), $30,000 for one additional hybrid vehicle, and $5,000 annually for
related amortization and garage expenses.
Based on the City Council’s desire to explore implementation of one or more of the
proposed options, the further fiscal impacts would need to be refined.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Green Building Chronology
2. Green Building Programs in Other Cities
3. Deomonstration Area Map
4. Staffing Requirement Calculation for Option 3
5. Culver City Mandatory Solar Photovoltaic Information
6. “Building Green with Carrots and Sticks”, Western City Magazine, May 2008
7. Los Angeles Business Journal Article, August 18, 2008.
8. Other Programs for Consideration
MOTION:
That the City Council:
Receive and file this report and provide direction regarding proposed green
building standards. City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
30
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council receive and file the report on community input on
discretionary development projects and direct staff as deemed appropriate.
BACKGROUND:
At its August 13, 2008 Council meeting the Council requested information about the
process for obtaining community input on discretionary development projects.
Typical development projects which are reviewed by the Planning Commission and
the City Council include site plan reviews, conditional use permits, tentative tract
maps (subdivisions), variances, and general plan and zoning code amendments also
referred to as “entitlements”. The Planning Commission and the City Council have
discretionary authority to approve or deny these entitlements based on required
findings.
The typical path for a discretionary project starts with the applicant meeting with
Planning Division staff to discuss their proposed project at a preliminary stage. At
this time staff goes over the development standards the project will be subject to as
well as the entitlements (i.e. site plan review, conditional use permit, tentative tract
map, etc.) the project will need, and the review process through which the project
must proceed. At this preliminary stage staff encourages the applicant to meet with
the community or neighborhood adjacent to the project to obtain early input on the
proposed project prior to submitting an application. Staff provides the applicant with
the name and contact information for any Homeowners Association (HOA) or other
citizen group and any businesses in the vicinity of the proposed project.
Meeting Date: 09/22/2008 Item Number: A-3
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion of Community Input on Discretionary Development
Projects
Contact Person/Dept.: Thomas Gorham,
Planning Manager
Phone Number: (310) 253-5727
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [ ] Action Item: [X] Attachments: []
Public Notification: Master E-Mail Notification List (09/17/08)
Department Approval:
Sol Blumenfeld (09/11/08)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker)(09/16/08)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by M. Noller) (09/17/08)
City Manager Approval:
Jerry B. Fulwood (09/17/08) City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
31
The first step in the application process is Preliminary Project Review (PPR). At this
stage preliminary plans (typically a site plan and elevations) are submitted by the
applicant. The plans are routed to the various City departments for internal review
and comment. Approximately two weeks following PPR submittal, the applicant
meets with the City’s Project Review Committee (PRC) which is made up of
representatives of the various City departments (Public Works/Engineering, Building
Safety, Fire, Transportation, Police, City Attorney, and Redevelopment) that review
the plans and provide comments and direction to the applicant. This is a staff only
meeting where the various departments go over their comments on the proposed
project with the applicant. The PPR process is intended to help streamline the
application process by providing the applicant with early input on entitlement and
code requirements, design recommendations, environmental issues, neighborhood
issues, noticing requirements, fees, and identification of any necessary technical
studies to which the project may be subject. The applicant can then decide if they
want to continue in the application process and, if so, proceed to prepare refined
plans and any necessary technical studies (i.e. traffic study, noise study,
geotechnical study, etc) that may be required for the project prior to formal
application submittal.
Following the PPR stage, an applicant then submits a formal application which
includes a formal written project description, detailed project plans addressing any
issues identified at the PPR stage, any necessary technical studies and reports, and
payment of all applicable fees. Submittal of the formal application can take up to six
months following the initial PPR review. Once a formal application is submitted, a
Project First Notice Letter is sent to all properties owners and occupants within a 500
foot radius (extended to the end of the block if mid block) of the subject site and to
all HOA’s within the vicinity of the project. The First Notice Letter describes the
proposed project, provides the applicant information, and contains information on the
availability of the plans for review. The letter also notes that once a hearing date for
the proposed project is determined, an official public hearing notice will be mailed
out at least 21 days in advance of the hearing. At the formal application stage, staff
again encourages the applicant to meet with the community for comment and input
on the proposed project prior to the public hearing.
Following submittal of the formal application, the project plans are routed again to
the various City departments and a second PRC meeting is held where staff
provides the applicant with final comments and recommended conditions for the
project. Following the PRC meeting, the planning staff makes a determination on
whether or not the application can be deemed complete. If deemed complete, the
project is then scheduled for a public hearing which typically occurs within 60 days.
If staff cannot deem the application complete, the applicant is informed of what
additional information is required before the application can be deemed complete
and scheduled for public hearing. City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
32
Once a public hearing date is established, a formal public hearing notice is mailed to
all owners and occupants of property within a 500 foot radius (extended to the end of
the block if mid block), all HOA’s within the vicinity of the project, any interested
party, and the master e-mail notification list at least 21 days prior to the public
hearing. In addition, a sign is posted along each project street frontage with
information about the project and the date of the public hearing.
DISCUSSION:
As outlined above, the pubic input and participation occurs at various stages of the
application process. First, the applicant is encouraged to meet with the community
prior to fully developing project plans and formal application submittal to identify and
address any neighborhood concerns early on. Second, once a formal application
has been submitted, a project First Notice Letter is sent out and the applicant is
again encouraged by staff to meet with the community. Finally, once a public hearing
date has been set, an official public hearing notice is mailed and the project site is
posted with a sign at least 21 days in advance of the hearing date inviting the public
to participate in the hearing process.
The City Council has made it clear that public participation in the development
process is important to the Council and to the community. In recognition of the
importance of community involvement throughout the application process, staff
recently commenced with requirements for applicants to submit a plan for
community involvement outlining proposed outreach, meetings, and any other
methods they intend to use or have used to adequately present the project to the
community and to solicit community input outside of the public hearing process.
This Public Participation Plan must be submitted as part of their formal application
submittal. The applicant is also required to submit a summary of the results of any
community meetings and outreach and how the applicant addressed the public
concerns and what if any changes to the project were a result of community input.
The following summarizes the development application process and opportunities for
community input:
1. Initial meeting with Planning Division staff to discuss proposed
project at a preliminary stage
2. Applicant solicits community input
3. Preliminary Project Review (PPR) submittal
4. Applicant meets with community
5. Formal Application submittal
6. Project First Notice Letter sent
7. Applicant meets with community City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
33
8. Public Hearing Notice sent
9. Public Hearing
10. Project Decision
Based upon the City Council’s direction, staff has prepared this report to both
provide the City Council with information on the City’s current process and allow the
City Council an opportunity to provide comment and direction on this subject. The
City Council may determine that the current process meets the City Council’s goals
or the Council may determine to provide additional measures related to public
participation in the development process.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Discussion of this topic does not create a fiscal impact. However, based upon any
modifications the City Council may deem necessary, additional notification efforts
would have an associated cost.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
MOTION:
That the City Council:
Receive and file this report and direct staff as deemed appropriate.
City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
34
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council consider a position of Support for Metropolitan
Transportation Authority’s Measure R on the November 4, 2008 ballot.
BACKGROUND:
On July 24, 2008, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Board of
Directors placed a new half cent sales tax measure for Los Angeles County on the
November 4, 2008 ballot. According to Metro this ballot measure, known as
Measure R, would finance dozens of transportation projects ranging from pothole
repairs, major highway construction, the purchase of clean fuel buses, and the
construction of new rail lines spread throughout the county. This is part of Metro’s
effort to keep pace with major population and job growth. The Board of Directors
approved an ordinance including an expenditure plan that spells out in project detail
how the sales tax – estimated to generate $30-$40 billion over the next 30 years –
would be spent. These monies also could be leveraged with state, federal and
private sector funding. The Metro Board also passed a resolution formally requesting
the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to place the ordinance on the ballot
for the Nov. 4, 2008 countywide general election.
If the measure garners at least a two thirds vote, it would become law in January
2009. The ballot measure also is contingent on Governor Schwarzenegger’s
signature of AB 2321 (Feuer), which would give Los Angeles County authority to
levy the tax if voters approve it. The City Council took a position of Support for AB
2321 on July 21, 2008.
Meeting Date: 09/22/08 Item Number: A-4
AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a Position of Support for Metropolitan
Transportation Authority’s Measure R on the November 4, 2008 Ballot.
Contact Person/Dept.: Shelly Wolfberg Phone Number: (310) 253-6008
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Public Notification:
Master E-Mail Notification List (09/17/08).
Department Approval:
Martin R. Cole (09/15/08)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (09/16/08)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by N. Kimball) (09/17/08)
City Manager Approval:
Jerry B. Fulwood (09/17/08) City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
35
The new sales tax would fund projects in Metro’s Expenditure Plan to help address
gridlock in the heavy traffic areas of our region. It would finance such new transit
projects as the Westside Subway Extension and Exposition Boulevard Light Rail
Transit line on the Westside, both high priority projects for the member cities of the
Westside Cities Council of Governments. Funding from this measure is also
identified for a rail connection to LAX, extending the Metro Green Line to the South
Bay corridor, a downtown rail connector that would make transfers on the light rail
lines seamless, and much more.
In addition, the 88 cities and county unincorporated areas would receive 15 percent
of sales tax revenue for local transit services, street resurfacing, left hand turn
signals, bikeways, pedestrian improvements and other local transportation priorities.
Twenty percent of the monies would help subsidize countywide bus operations,
which will help keep fares low for seniors, students and commuters. Another five
percent will pay for Metrolink operations, maintenance and expansion and for
purchasing Metro Rail train cars, rail yards and other system improvements.
To ensure that money will be spent in Los Angeles County for exactly what voters
were promised, the ballot measure calls for an annual independent audit and report
to taxpayers and ongoing monitoring and review of spending by an independent
taxpayer oversight committee. The Los Angeles Economic Development
Corporation found the tax increase would cost residents $25 more per person
annually. Residents will pay about 42 percent of the sales tax raised with
businesses and tourists contributing the remaining amount.
This evening, the City Council is being asked to consider taking a position of support
for Measure R, which will appear on the November 4, 2008 County wide ballot.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
There is no fiscal impact for the City Council to support Measure R. If Measure R
passes, the sales tax rate in Los Angeles County would increase from 8.25% to
8.75% and Culver CityBus would receive additional transit funds for operations and
transit capital projects. Staff would return at a later date for any future funding
requests regarding Measure R.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. County of Los Angeles Ordinance #08-01 “Traffic Relief and Rail Expansion
Ordinance” and Expenditure Plan.
City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
36
MOTION:
That the City Council:
1. Adopt a position of Support for Measure R; or
2. Provide other direction to staff. City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
37
Meeting Date: _09/22/08_ Item Number: A-5
AGENDA ITEM: Approval of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Department’s “Wish-List” of City Park Related Projects Eligible for Los Angeles
County Proposition A Excess Funds.
Contact Person/Dept.: Bill La Pointe,
Director of Parks, Recreation and
Community Services
Phone Number: (310) 253-6655
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No []
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Public Notification: Master E-Mail Notification List (09/17/08).
Department Approval:
Bill La Pointe, (09/11/08)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (09/16/08)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by N. Kimball) (09/17/08)
City Manager Approval:
Jerry B. Fulwood (09/17/08)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that City Council approve the Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Department’s (PRCS) “Wish-List” of City park related projects eligible for
Los Angeles County Proposition A Excess Funds.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On September 9, 2008 the City of Culver City received a letter from the office of
Yvonne B. Burke, Supervisor, Second District, and Chair of the County of Los
Angeles Board of Supervisors (Attachment 1). The purpose of the letter is to invite
the City to submit a “Wish-List” of potential Proposition A compliant City park related
projects. As stated in the letter, this list should “a) contain multiple projects, (b) list
the projects in order of priority, and (c) not exceed a cumulative total of
$500,000.00.”
As a matter of procedure, PRCS staff would generally take such a project list before
the Parks and Recreation Commission for review, discussion and possible
recommendation to City Council before bringing the item forward to Council.
However in this case, due to the short turn-around time for the response to
Supervisor Burke’s Office (the list must be received on or before September 30, City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
38
2008) and since regular meetings of the Commission are typically held on the first
Tuesday of each month, staff is bringing this item directly to City Council in order to
get Council’s comment and approval before responding to the County.
Eligible projects for Proposition A Excess Funds must meet the minimum standard
for a capital expenditure as defined under generally accepted accounting principles.
According to the Regional Park and Open Space District (RPOSD) procedural guide,
“A project may consist of an acquisition, development, improvement, rehabilitation
and/or restoration at a single site, or, alternately, may consist of similar activities at
several locations (e.g., restroom accessibility improvements at several parks or
renovation of irrigation systems at several parks).”
In considering the above eligibility criteria, staff referenced the Draft Deferred
Maintenance List (completed as part of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan
process) and reviewed the public comment made at the April 1, 2008 Parks and
Recreation Commission meeting recommending projects for the City’s earlier
$250,000 Prop A Excess Funds Allocation. The minutes of the April 1, 2008 Parks
and Recreation Commission meeting relating to this item are provided as
Attachment 2. The summary of Proposition A project suggestions that were sent by
the public via email was previously provided to the City Council at the April 21, 2008
meeting and is included here as Attachment 3. Although there is no matching
requirement for the allocation of Proposition A Excess Funds, the attached letter
states that, “Projects with matching funds will be given greater evaluative
consideration.” Taking all of these factors into consideration, PRCS staff has
selected the following “Wish-List” projects to send to Supervisor/Chair Burke’s Office
(in priority order, from highest to lowest priority):
PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROP A
FUNDS
ADDITIONAL
FUNDING
PROJECT
TOTAL
1. FOX HILLS PARK PLAYGROUND
REHABILITATION - Replace equipment,
re-surface playground & address ADA
compliance.
$180,000 $30,000 Prop 40 RZH
Block Grant / $40,000
Fox Hills Park
Neighborhood
Association Donation
$250,000
2. SENIOR CENTER COURTYARD
IMPROVEMENT - Demolition and
reconstruction of existing structures &
landscaping to provide more open space
for recreational/leisure activities in the
Courtyard / Installation of shade structure.
$ 65,000 $160,000 Bequest
from Private Citizen for
Senior Center
Improvements
$225,000
3. SKATE PARK DEVELOPMENT -
Construction of Recreation Hut to provide
accommodations for staff to register &
supervise Skaters at the Park.
$128,270 $18,808 Prop 40 RZH
Block Grant / $17,922
Prop 40 Per Capita
(total of $36,730)
$165,000 City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
39
4. SYD KRONENTHAL PLAYGROUND
REHABILITATION - Replace equipment
and/or re-surface playground & address
ADA compliance.
$126,730 $15,000 Acct. #
42000898: Repair
Playground Equipment
– Various Parks
$141,730
PROP A TOTAL: $500,000
PROJECT
TOTAL: $781,730
Proposition A Excess Funds Allocation Procedure
Although not specifically stated in the letter, it is assumed that once the Second
District cities’ projects are approved by Supervisor/Chair Burke’s Office, cities with
approved projects will then be required to follow the Regional Park and Open Space
District’s (RPOSD) guidelines for securing Proposition A Excess Funds allocations.
These guidelines include the following steps:
1. City Council adopts a Resolution approving the Grant Application for the project;
2. A Board Report written by the City’s RPOSD District Administrator is presented
to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors by the Los Angeles County
Director of Parks and Recreation;
3. The Board of Supervisors allocates “Second Supervisorial District Cities Excess
Funds” to the City for the project;
4. The City submits the grant application and supporting documents to RPOSD;
5. The City receives a fully executed Proposition A grant agreement from RPOSD;
and,
6. City Council adopts an “At-Risk Youth Employment Plan” related to the project.
If one or more of Culver City’s proposed projects are selected for funding, staff will
bring the projects to the Parks and Recreation Commission for review, discussion
and possible recommendation to City Council before requesting that Council adopt
the Resolution approving the Grant Application(s). However, it must be noted that
the letter from Supervisor/Chair Burke’s Office requesting submission of a “Wish
List” does seem to state that project ideas submitted by September 30, 2008 will be
the projects potentially approved. Therefore, there may be very little, if any,
opportunity to make significant changes to our City’s “Wish List.”
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
Potential Proposition A Excess Funds projects, requested Prop A funding amounts,
potential additional funding sources and amounts, and total project costs are listed in City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
40
the table above. None of the projects that are listed have funds appropriated in the
Adopted FY 2008-09 Capital Improvement Budget. It should be noted that Los
Angeles County Proposition A – Maintenance and Servicing Funds are available for
the maintenance of projects constructed using Proposition A Funds. Currently,
maintenance expenses of the Culver City Senior Center and the Dog Park in Culver
City Park are being reimbursed from this fund.
City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
41
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Letter from the Office of Yvonne B. Burke, Supervisor, Second District, and Chair
of the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, dated September 5, 2008.
2. Excerpt of the Minutes of the April 1, 2008 Parks and Recreation Commission
Meeting Relating to Agenda Item A-1.
3. “Summary of All Public Comments Received via Email Recommending Project
Possibilities for $250,000 Proposition A Grant Funds” (previously provided to the
City Council on April 21, 2008)
MOTION:
That the City Council:
1. Approve the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department’s (PRCS)
“Wish-List” of City park related projects eligible for Los Angeles County
Proposition A Excess Funds;
or
2. Provide staff with alternate direction.
City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
42
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution establishing new taxicab
rates within the City and rescinding Resolution No. 2007-R010.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council, pursuant to the authority contained in Culver City Municipal Code
(CCMC) Section 11.10.305, establishes the maximum rates or fares that taxicabs
operating within the City may charge.
While the maximum rates in the City of Culver City remained unchanged between
1986 and 2006, the City of Los Angeles adopted two increases, the first in 2001 and
the second in 2005. This created a disparity between the rates taxi drivers could
charge in Los Angeles versus in Culver City. As a result, the number of taxicabs
actually operating in the City declined from 124 in 1999 to 32 in 2006. This decline
can be attributed partly to the slowdown in tourism, but to a greater extent to the
difference in rates charged in the cities located in the Westside sub-region. Staff
therefore recommended and obtained City Council’s approval for two rate increases,
the first in February 2006, and the second in March 2007, reflecting the rate
increases made by the City of Los Angeles. These actions resulted in an increase in
the number of taxicabs operating in the City, from 32 in 2006 to 53 in 2007, and 61
in 2008, with a noticeable drop in the number of calls received from the City’s
residents complaining about the availability of taxicabs in the City. The figures over
the period 1999 to 2008 are shown in the following table.
Meeting Date: 09/22/2008 Item Number: A-6
AGENDA ITEM: Adoption of a Resolution Establishing New Taxicab Rates Within
the City and Rescinding Resolution No. 2007-R010.
Contact Person/Dept.:
Nagam Rao, Finance Dept./Treasury
Phone Number: (310) 253 5889
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Public Notification: Beverly Hills Cab Company; Culver City Taxicab Company;
Independent Taxi Owners Association; United Independent Taxicab Company; Master
E-Mail Notification List (09/17/08)
Department Approval:
Jeff Muir (09/12/08)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (09/17/08)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by M. Noller) (09/17/08)
City Manager’s Approval:
Jerry B. Fulwood (09/17/08) City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
43
In the year No. of Taxi Cabs
1999 124
2000 101
2001 102
2002 55
2003 45
2004 36
2005 29
2006 32
2007 53
2008 61
With the continued increasing trend in gas prices, the City of Los Angeles has
increased its taxicab rates, effective August 14, 2008. These revised rates adopted
by the City of Los Angeles and which Staff recommends for Council’s consideration
for the City of Culver City, along with the rates currently applicable in the City of
Culver City, are shown in the table below:
Culver
City
Los
Angeles
(proposed
for Culver
City)
Flag Drop
Flag Drop, for the first 1/7 of
a mile $2.45
Flag Drop, for the first 1/9 of
a mile $2.65
Distance
for each additional 1/11 of a
mile $0.35
for each additional 1/9 of a
mile $0.30
Waiting
For each 32 seconds of
waiting time and /or traffic
delay $0.35
For each 37 seconds of
waiting time and /or traffic
delay $0.30
City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
44
DISCUSSION:
With gas prices continuing to rise, the taxi operators have requested a rate increase
in order for them to maintain and sustain their operations.
A journey from City Hall to the Los Angeles International Airport at the current Culver
City rates (established in 2007) and at the revised (i.e. Los Angeles’) rates would
cost $18.03 and $19.93 respectively, a difference of approximately 10.60%.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
While our adoption of rate increases in February 2006 and March 2007 did not have
an effect on City expenditures, these rate increases did result in an increase in the
number of taxicabs applying for operating permits in the City. Revenues from taxicab
operating permits increased by $14,830 between calendar years 2005 and 2008,
and the number of taxicabs increased by 32.
Calenda
r Year
Revenue
s
Number
of
Taxicabs
2005 $13,460 29
2006 $18,560 32
2007 $26,741 53
2008 $28,290 61
While it is likely that the number of taxicabs wishing to obtain operating permits to
operate in the City will continue to rise due to the reduction in the rate disparity
between the City of Culver City and the City of Los Angeles, staff would like to take a
conservative approach and refrain from making any revenue predictions at this
stage.
ATTACHMENTS:
(1) City of Los Angeles, Notification dated August 12, 2008.
(2) City of Culver City, Resolution No. 2007-R010 dated March 26, 2007.
(3) Proposed Resolution
City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
45
MOTION:
That the City Council:
Adopt a Resolution establishing new taxicab rates within the City and rescinding
Resolution No. 2007-R010. City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
46
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council approve a professional services agreement to
Crosstown Electrical & Data, Inc., (Crosstown) for maintenance of the traffic flow
monitoring system in an amount not-to-exceed $25,000.
A four-fifths vote is required to amend the budget.
BACKGROUND:
In October 2006, the City Council accepted the completion of the Traffic Flow
Monitoring Project, P-804, that included the installation of 11 new closed circuit
television cameras (CCTV) at various major intersections. This project added to the
existing 5 CCTV camera system, for a total of 16 CCTV cameras. This required the
upgrade of existing equipment, new fiber optic and copper cable, new cabinets in the
public right-of-way, and supporting data communications equipment. The total
project cost was about $1.6 million and was paid with grant and developer funds.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of the traffic flow monitoring system is to enhance the City’s traffic
management capabilities and provide for improved response time to citizen
concerns and complaints. The system provides an efficient means of viewing
multiple intersections and arterial corridors, identifying and confirming traffic
incidents such as accidents, automobile breakdowns, and debris in roadway, and
understanding traffic flow patterns, especially during public works construction
Meeting Date: 09/22/08 Item Number: A-7
AGENDA ITEM: FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE REQUIREMENT - Approval of a
Professional Services Agreement to Crosstown Electrical & Data, Inc. for
Maintenance of the Traffic Flow Monitoring System (CCTV Cameras,
Communications Equipment, Copper and Fiber Optic Infrastructure)
Contact Person/Dept.: Gabe Garcia/PW Phone Number: (310) 253-5633
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [X] No []
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: []
Public Notification:
Master E-Mail Notification List on 9/18/08 and Crosstown Electrical & Data, Inc by
telephone on 09/19/09.
Department Approval:
Charles D. Herbertson (09/11/08)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (09/16/08)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by M. Noller) (09/16/08)
City Manager Approval:
Jerry B. Fulwood (09/17/08) City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
47
projects. City staff receives many traffic-related inquiries which may involve
responding with a site visit to the area in question. The cameras make it possible to
immediately view some of these areas from a centralized location without staff
having to make a trip to the site. Additionally, the cameras provide a bird’s eye view
of the traffic patterns and tendencies that cannot be observed from ground level.
The traffic monitoring system has assisted the Department in optimizing signal
timing and traffic operations. Overall the system has provided a great benefit to the
traffic engineering operations of the City.
Since installation, the system has needed routine maintenance. In the last several
years, Crosstown has been hired to perform maintenance on the system.
Crosstown has approached the $10,000 administrative authority to perform this
work.
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a contract with Crosstown to
maintain the traffic control monitoring system in an amount not-to-exceed $25,000.
Crosstown performs this type of work for Caltrans and other municipalities in
California.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
Staff proposes that funds from the Playa Vista Traffic Mitigation Funds – Capital
Enhancement (420.212270), be utilized to pay for the maintenance of the system. It
is proposed that these funds be transferred to the Traffic Flow Monitoring Project, P-
804.
In future budgets, other funding sources for the maintenance of these traffic flow
monitoring cameras may be recommended to the City Council.
ATTACHMENT:
1. List of CCTV camera locations.
MOTIONS:
That the City Council:
1. Approve a budget amendment to appropriate Playa Vista Mitigation Funds in the
amount of $25,000 and transfer $25,000 to project expenditure line item
42000804 Traffic Flow Monitoring Project, and, City of Culver City, California
City Council Item Report
48
2. Approve a professional services agreement to Crosstown Electrical & Data, Inc.,
for the maintenance of the traffic flow monitoring system in an amount not-to-
exceed $25,000,
3. Authorize the City Attorney to review/prepare the necessary documents; and,
4. Authorize the City Manager to execute such documents on behalf of the City.
A four-fifths vote is required to amend the budget.