City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council consider the appeal of the Planning
Commission’s denial of Conditional Use Permit Modification, CUP/M 2011-175, to
allow the addition of 200 students to The Help Group private school facility at 12095-
12101 Washington Boulevard and either:
1. Deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission’s denial of CUP/M 2011-
175.
OR
2. Grant the appeal and (i) reverse the Planning Commission’s denial of CUP/M
2011-175 and (ii) approve CUP/M 2011-175.
PROCEDURE:
1. Mayor calls on staff for a brief staff report and the City Council poses questions
to staff as desired.
2. Mayor opens the public hearing, providing the applicant the first opportunity to
speak, followed by the general public.
3. Mayor seeks a motion to close the public hearing after all testimony has been
presented.
Meeting Date: 9/10/2012 Item Number: PH-2
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING – Consideration of an Appeal of
Planning Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit Modification (CUP/M
2011-175) to Allow the Addition of 200 Students to The Help Group Private School
Facility at 12095-12101 Washington Boulevard.
Contact Person/Dept.:
Thomas Gorham, CDD
Joshua Williams, CDD
Phone Number:
(310) 253-5710
(310) 253-5706
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [X ] Action Item: [] Attachments: [X]
Commission Action Required: Yes [X] No [] Date:
06/20/12_______________
Public Notification: Notices mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-
foot radius of the project site (8/20/12); Meetings and Agendas – City Council (9/5/12);
Applicant and property owner (8/20/12).
Department Approval:
Sol Blumenfeld: (08/29/12)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (08/29/12)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (09/05/12)
City Manager Approval:
John Nachbar (09/05/12) City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
4. The City Council discusses the matter and arrives at its decision.
BACKGROUND:
Appeal
On June 20, 2012 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P2012-005
(Attachment No. 1) denying a Conditional Use Permit/Modification (CUP/M) request
by The Help Group school to increase its enrollment by 200 students. On July 5,
2012, a timely appeal was filed pursuant to Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC)
Section 17.640.030 by Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP (representing The Help
Group) regarding the Planning Commission’s CUP/M denial.
The basis for the appeal is summarized as follows:
• The Planning Commission’s finding (Finding “C”) that the project will result in
negative impacts related to noise and traffic is unsubstantiated by the
evidence in the record including the project noise analysis and traffic study.
• The Planning Commission’s finding (Finding “D”) that the substantial increase
in student enrollment is not compatible with the existing site configuration and
means of access is unsubstantiated by evidence in the record including the
project’s Traffic Management Plan.
• The Planning Commission’s finding (Finding “D”) that the project will result in
noise and traffic impacts that are detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety or general welfare is unsubstantiated by the evidence in the record
including the project noise analysis and Traffic Management Plan.
• The Planning Commission considered a policy issue related to the presence
of non-profit schools in the City that denied The Help Group due
consideration of its specific application to increase student enrollment.
A copy of the entire appeal is included as Attachment No. 2 – Appeal Document,
dated July 5, 2012.
Project
On December 13, 2011, The Help Group school (the “Applicant”), located at 12095-
12101 Washington Boulevard, submitted an application to modify its existing
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in order to add 250 students, thereby increasing
student enrollment from 400 students to 650 students. The request has since been
modified to add 200 students for a total of 600 students. The Help Group was
originally established through the approval of a Conditional Use Permit in 1999 to
operate a 400 student private school at the subject location, and all of the buildings City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
on the site are approved for school uses. The school operations have not been
modified for thirteen years. The Help Group campus is occupied by two separate
private school facilities, Summit View School and Village Glen School, both under
The Help Group umbrella organization. The Summit View School serves
approximately 100 students with specific learning disabilities, from grades 1 through
12. The Village Glen School serves approximately 300 students with social and
communicative disabilities, including Asperger’s Disorder, high-functioning autism,
and nonverbal learning disabilities, from grades Pre-K through 12.
In order to accommodate the 200 student increase, The Help Group proposes to
convert the building at 12095 Washington Boulevard from medical offices, a
pharmacy and a second hand clothing store operated by the school into classrooms,
staff offices, a multi-purpose room, and support facilities (See Attachment No. 3 –
Project Plans). The rooftop of the building will also be converted to play area as
provided under the prior 1999 CUP approval. The CUP Modification request is only
for the additional 200 students.
On April 11, 2012, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the applicant’s request for Conditional Use Permit Modification (CUP/M) P-
2011175 and determined to continue the item to May 9, 2012, with a request that
staff and the applicant address the following: 1) identify business tax revenues
generated by the uses at 12095 Washington Boulevard between 2000 to the
present; 2) clarify the methodology used for the project’s traffic study from the City’s
traffic engineer; 3) provide a letter from the project acoustical engineer identifying
potential noise impacts from the proposed rooftop play area; and 4) provide an
updated Staff Report and Environmental document clarifying that the analysis
includes the overall impacts of 650 students, not just the additional 250 students.
At the continued hearing on May 9, 2012, the Planning Commission considered the
supplementary information and voted 3-2 to deny the project and the related
Negative Declaration. On May 23, 2012, following receipt of new information from
the applicant and prior to adoption of the Resolution denying the application, the
Planning Commission, by a vote of 3-2, approved a motion to reconsider its denial of
the CUP Modification and disapproval of the related Negative Declaration.
On June 20, 2012, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to
reconsider the Help Group’s application. Prior to the hearing, the applicant revised
its application in order to address concerns the Commission presented as reasons
for its original denial. Project changes and voluntary conditions of approval included
the following:
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
• Student Enrollment: In order to address concerns from the Commission
regarding potential traffic and circulation impacts, the applicant proposed to
reduce the total enrollment increase from 250 students to 200 students. The
applicant further explained that the 200 student addition would not occur all at
once. An increase in enrollment would occur over at least a three year period,
allowing them to modify on-site circulation over time if issues were identified.
The reduction in student enrollment would result in a decrease in trips to and
from the school each day by bus, taxi vans and parent transportation.
• Noise: In order to address concerns about noise from neighbors and the
Commission, the applicant also agreed to build a 14-foot high wall along the
shared property line with residential properties located in the City of Los
Angeles, which abut the school’s central play area. The applicant agreed to
work with its neighbors regarding a design for the wall, before seeking
approval for the higher wall from the City of Los Angeles (the portion of the
school campus where the play area and wall are located is in the jurisdiction
of the City of Los Angeles). The applicant’s acoustical consultant identified
that the increase in wall height will result in a reduction of 10 decibels in noise
impacts from pick-up and drop-off activities and playground usage at the
school. After construction of the higher wall, noise levels will be a minimum of
15 decibels lower than the allowable noise levels identified in the City’s Noise
Element of the General Plan.
• Financial Contribution: The Help Group has volunteered to compensate the
City for lost revenues due to the conversion of the building at 12095
Washington Boulevard from medical offices and a school operated retail store
to school facilities. As part of their proposal to the Planning Commission, The
Help Group voluntarily offered to pay an amount of $14,650 annually to
reimburse the City for lost property tax and business tax revenue ($11,650)
from the building that will be converted into classroom use. This figure is
based on the amount of annual property tax the City would have received
from the property if it was not non-profit exempt and the amount of annual
business tax the City is losing by the building no longer being used for
medical offices. The additional amount ($3,000) is to cover cost for
emergency services. The Fire Department has reported 96 calls to The Help
Group campus since 2002. The Fire Department does charge for transport
and at the current billing rates a total of $34,900 was charged for those calls
for an average of $1,586 per call. The remaining 74 calls out of the 96 total
had no charges. The Fire Chief has provided an estimate of what the cost for
services for those calls was to the City. The costs are based on the number of
units responding and the actual time committed per incident based on an
hourly rate. Of the 74 calls, 9 calls were handled by a single unit response City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
and 65 were handled by 3 units. Based on the Chief’s estimate, the 9 single
unit response cost to the City was $885.37 and the 65 three unit responses
cost to the City was $19,183.09 for a total cost of $20,068.46 over the 10 year
period for an average annual cost for emergency services incurred over a 10
year period of $2,000. The Help Group has proposed to add an additional
$1,000 to account for the increase of 200 students for a total of $3,000 per
year.
The Help Group has proposed to augment their voluntary financial
contribution by $2,400 per year to account for police calls to the school
campus. Since the Police Department does not currently assign a cost to
police calls, this number has been extrapolated from the Fire Department’s
10-year cost of unreimbursed fire/paramedic calls on a per unit basis for The
Help Group (see below).
Calls # of Vehicles Cost Cost per Vehicle
9 1 $885.00 $98.33
65 3 $19,183.00 $98.37
The CCPD reports 164 police calls over the past ten year period. Using a
rounded up cost of $100 per call for the average of 16 calls per year, the
estimated cost for emergency service would equate to $1,600.00. In keeping
with The Help Group’s voluntary contribution for unreimbursed fire/paramedic
calls, an additional 50% ($800) would be added to reflect the 200 student
enrollment increase. With this augmentation, The Help Group proposes a
total annual payment of $17,050.
As noted above, the Help Group has agreed to this voluntarily financial
contribution as a Project condition in order to make the City whole.
• Circulation: The project’s traffic analysis, reviewed and accepted by the City’s
traffic engineer, identified that the project will not result in any significant
impacts at any of the studied intersections. As part of the traffic analysis, the
applicant submitted a Traffic Management Program (TMP) which identified
the methods the school will use to conduct an orderly drop-off and pick-up of
students from the campus using a combination of buses, contracted taxi-vans
and parents’ private vehicles. The TMP included a suggestion (provided by
the City’s traffic engineer) to restrict five metered parking spaces on
Washington Boulevard during the morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up
periods only if the queuing of vehicles entering the site began to block traffic
on Washington Boulevard. The Planning Commission requested the removal City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
of this suggestion, citing the potential lost revenue from on-street parking
meters.
• Future Development: The Help Group has volunteered a condition of
approval to waive its right to file for any future increase in the number of
students beyond the requested 600 student enrollment for the properties
included in the CUP.
The Planning Commission considered the above information and determined that it
could not support the proposed expansion and adopted a motion (3 to 2) to deny the
project and the related Negative Declaration, finding that the increase in student
enrollment would create noise and traffic impacts. (See Attachment No.1).
Response to Appeal
Traffic Impacts
The project’s traffic analysis, reviewed and accepted by the City’s traffic engineer,
identified that the project will not result in any significant impacts at any of the
studied intersections. As part of the traffic analysis, the applicant submitted a Traffic
Management Program (TMP) which identified the methods the school will use to
conduct an orderly drop-off and pick-up of students from the campus using a
combination of buses, contracted taxi-vans, and parents’ private vehicles. The TMP
implements a staggered drop-off and pick-up of students so that all activities take
place on campus. The reduction in the requested student enrollment from 250
students to 200 students reduces the number of busses transporting students from
11 to 9 and the number of cabs transporting students from 47 to 43.
Culver City’s traffic study criteria are similar to the traffic study criteria used
throughout Los Angeles County, statewide and nationwide. Culver City’s traffic
study criteria state, “The traffic study shall assess the ability of the transportation
system to accommodate additional traffic generated by the related projects and the
subject project.” All traffic studies consider the incremental increase in traffic caused
by the subject development, and the traffic generated by existing school use is
included in the traffic counts. The project’s traffic study correctly calculated the
increase in traffic generated by the project based on 250 additional special
education students. There are 400 special education students currently enrolled in
the school. The traffic counts were taken on a day when school was in session.
Therefore, the traffic counts recorded all the traffic on the highway system, including
the traffic generated by the 400 students presently attending the school and the
resulting traffic was determined not to result in any significant impacts at any of the
studied intersections. City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Noise
As noted above, the applicant has agreed to build a 14-foot high wall along the
shared property line with residential properties located in the City of Los Angeles,
which abut the school’s central play area. The applicant agreed to work with its
neighbors regarding a design for the wall, before seeking approval for the higher wall
from the City of Los Angeles (the portion of the school campus where the play area
and wall are located is in the jurisdiction of the City of Los Angeles). The applicant’s
acoustical consultant identified that the increase in wall height will result in a
reduction of 10 decibels in noise impacts from pick-up and drop-off activities and
playground usage at the school. After construction of the higher wall, noise levels
will be a minimum of 15 decibels lower than the allowable noise levels identified in
the City’s Noise Element of the General Plan. Further, the noise at this playground
location is not expected to increase from the additional 200 students. The additional
200 students will be located in the 12095 Washington Boulevard building with a
playground for those students located on the building’s rooftop. The location of the
building is not directly adjacent to residential neighbors to the north and is buffered
by the adjacent existing 4–story building. Further, the rooftop playground will be
enclosed on three sides by a 10-foot high parapet wall. The noise analysis
concludes that the noise emanating from this playground will be approximately 15-20
decibels below the current ambient levels.
Special Conditions of Approval
The proposed conditions of approval for the Conditional Use Permit Modification
(See Attachment No. 6 – Exhibit A) that mitigate project impacts are as follows:
• The Project shall provide up to a 14-foot high wall along the shared property
line between the school’s playground and the abutting residential properties
(12028 to 12042 Sylvester Street) in the City of Los Angeles. Plans for the
wall shall be provided to the Culver City Planning Division and abutting
property owners for review and comment prior to submittal to the City of Los
Angeles.
• Follow-up review reports on the operation of the Traffic Management Program
(TMP) shall be submitted to the Planning Division after six months and after
one year of full operation. The Applicant shall enter into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the City which outlines the scope and content of
the reports. If it is determined by the Planning Manager and the City’s Traffic
Engineer that the goals of the TMP are not achieved, additional requirements
may be imposed as determined by the Planning Manager and the City’s
Traffic Engineer.
• The maximum number of students for the combined Village Glen School and
Summit View School shall not exceed 600. A letter verifying the student City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
enrollment shall be submitted annually to the Planning Manager no more than
30 days after the commencement of the school year.
• No more than 15 permits shall be issued for students to drive to the Summit
View School.
• The maximum number of staff for the combined Village Glen School and
Summit View School shall not exceed 177. A list of all staff shall be submitted
to the Planning Manager annually 14 days prior to the commencement of the
school year.
• Transports dropping-off and picking-up students in the Grand View Boulevard
parking lot and drop area (adjacent to the Washington Boulevard and Grand
View Boulevard intersection) shall be permitted to exit the area using a left
turn or right turn onto Grand View Boulevard.
• Metered street parking shall not be used for a queuing area to the site. No
School-operated vehicles shall use the metered street parking at any time.
• The Applicant has voluntarily agreed that it shall waive its right to request any
future increase in the number of students beyond the 600 students permitted
by this Conditional Use Permit Modification.
• To alleviate the financial impact on City resources due to its non-profit status,
and to help ensure the public health, safety and welfare are provided, the
Applicant, on behalf of itself and each of its successors and assigns, has
voluntarily agreed, for as long as the Applicant and any non-profit successor
or assign takes benefit of this Conditional Use Permit, to reimburse the City
for lost property tax and business tax revenue, and cost for emergency
services, in the amount of $17,050 annually. Applicant shall make said
payment to the City’s General Fund on or before June 30 of each year. The
payment shall be increased annually based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics
Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County
Metropolitan Area published in June of each year.
Required Findings in Support of the Project Approval
Zoning Code Chapter 17.530 – “Administrative Use Permits and Conditional Use
Permits” outlines procedures for reviewing AUP and CUP applications that are
intended to allow for specified uses as identified in the various zoning districts,
whose effect on surrounding area cannot be determined before being proposed for a
particular location.
A. The proposed use is allowed within the subject zoning district with the
approval of an Administrative Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit and
complies with all other applicable provisions of this Title and the CCMC.
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
B. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable
Specific Plan.
C. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed
use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity of
the subject site.
D. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of use
being proposed, including access, compatibility with adjoining land uses,
shape, size, provision of utilities, and the absence of physical constraints.
E. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use will not
be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, or general welfare, or
injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zoning
district in which the property is located.
The Planning Commission determined that there was insufficient evidence in the
record to make findings C, D and E and, therefore, denied the CUP Modification and
disapproved the related Negative Declaration.
Environmental Determination:
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, a Negative
Declaration has been prepared; the project has been determined to have less than
significant impacts on the community (Attachment No. 3). If the City Council grants
the applicant’s appeal and approves the CUP Modification, it must also take action
to approve the Negative Declaration.
City Council Review Authority:
The City Council’s consideration of the appeal is “de novo.” In essence, this means
the City Council is holding a new hearing. In that regard, the City Council is not
solely limited to considering the record that was before the Planning Commission.
The City Council’s review authority for this appeal is governed by CCMC Section
17.640.030.D, which provides that the City Council may consider any issue involving
the matter that is the subject of the appeal in addition to the specific grounds that
form the basis of the appeal. In its consideration of this matter, the City Council may
take the following actions:
• Affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the Planning Commission’s decision. City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
• Amend or adopt additional conditions of approval that may address issues or
concerns regarding the Project (regardless of whether they were raised in the
appeal).
• If new or different evidence is presented on appeal, the City Council may, but
is not required to, refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for
further consideration.
CONCLUSION:
The applicant has attempted to address all of the questions and concerns raised
during public testimony received at four public hearings regarding the project. The
concerns addressed included: 1.) Noise impacts, addressed by the construction of a
14 foot high wall along the property line abutting residential neighbors to the north;
2.) Traffic impacts, addressed by the reduction of the student enrollment from 250 to
200 thereby reducing bus and cab trips to the campus; 3.) Traffic study accuracy
questions, addressed by the City’s traffic engineer who concluded that the project’s
traffic study is accurate and that the 600 student school enrollment will not result in
any significant traffic impacts and that the traffic management plan is acceptable and
adequate to mitigate any potential traffic impacts from student transport activities.
Further, the use is permitted in the zone subject to conditions to mitigate any
significant impacts, and special conditions have been prepared to address any
potential project impacts.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This is a private venture project with no City funding for the project. If the appeal is
denied and the Planning Commission’s denial is upheld, then there would be no
fiscal impact on the City other than cost for emergency services. If the appeal is
approved and the Planning Commission’s denial is overturned, then the City would
receive an annual payment of $17,050 that The Help Group has volunteered as a
condition of approval to reimburse the City for estimated foregone property and
business tax revenue and to compensate the City for emergency service response
to the school.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No 2012-P005, Denying Approval of the Conditional Use Permit
Modification, CUP/M P-2011175, to allow for a 600 student private school for
special needs students at 12095-12101 Washington Boulevard in the
Commercial General (CG) zone, dated June 20, 2012. City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
2. Letter of Appeal for CUP/M P-2011175, dated July 5, 2012
3. Project Plans
4. Written Correspondences
5. Initial Study/Negative Declaration
6. Draft Resolution No. 2012-R___ Denying the Appeal
7. Draft Resolution No. 2012-R___ Granting the Appeal
8. Planning Commission Minutes April 11, May 9, May 23, and June 13, 2012
9. Additional Correspondence
MOTION:
That the Council:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 2012-R____, denying the appeal and affirming the decision
of the Planning Commission to deny the Conditional Use Permit Modification for
the increase in enrollment of The Help Group school and disapprove the related
Negative Declaration.
OR
2.A. Adopt a Negative Declaration, in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), finding the Project will have less than significant impacts on
the environment; AND
2.B. Adopt Resolution No. 2012-R______, granting the appeal and (i) reversing the
Planning Commission’s denial of the Conditional Use Permit Modification for the
increase in enrollment of The Help Group school and (ii) approving Conditional
Use Permit Modification CUP/M 2011-175.
MEETING DATE: 09.10.12
AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION (CUP/M
2011-175) TO ALLOW THE ADDI TION OF 200 STUDENTS
TO THE HELP GROUP PRIVATE SCHOOL FACILITY At
12095-12101 WASHINGTON BOULEVARD.
ATTACHMENTS
Pages
1. Resolution No 2012-P005, Denying Approval
of the Conditional Use Permit Modification,
CUP/M P-2011175, to allow for a 600 student
private school for special needs students at
12095-12101 Washington Boulevard in the
Commercial General (CG) zone, dated June 20, 2012 1-4
2. Letter of Appeal for CUP/M P-2011175,
dated July 5, 2012 5-11
3. Project Plans 12-20
4. Written Correspondences 21-37
5. Initial Study/Negative Declaration 38-63
6. Draft Resolution No. 2012-R___ Denying the Appeal 64-67
7. Draft Resolution No. 2012-R___ Granting the Appeal 68-89
8. Planning Commission Minutes April 11, May 9,
May 23, and June 13, 2012 90-111
9. Additional Correspondence 112-126ATTACHMENT 1
1 ATTACHMENT 1
2 3 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 CH ATTA ATTA
17 ATTA ATTACHMENT 4
21 22 ATTACHMENT 4
23 ATTACHMENT 4
24 ATTACHMENT 4
25 ATTACHMENT 4
26 ATTACHMENT 4
27 ATTACHMENT 4
28 ATTACHMENT 4
29 ATTACHMENT 4
30 ATTACHMENT 4
31 ATTACHMENT 4
32 ATTACHMENT 4
33 ATTACHMENT 4
34 ATTACHMENT 4
35 36
ATTACHMENT 4 ATTACHMENT 4
37
(310) 253-5710
?
FAX (310) 253-5721
9770 CULVER BOULEVARD, CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA 90232-0507
Form Updated 2/22/10
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Project Title:
The Help Group
CUP/M-P2011175
Lead Agency Name & Address:
City of Culver City, Planning Division
9770 Culver Blvd., Culver City, CA 90232
Contact Person & Phone No.:
Joshua Williams, Associate Planner
(310) 253-5706
Project Location/Address:
12095 Washington Boulevard
Nearest Cross Street:
Washington Boulevard and
Grand View Boulevard,
Washington Boulevard and
Inglewood Boulevard
APN: 4232-004-033,
4232-004-084,
4232-004-021,
4232-004-086
Project Sponsor’s Name &
Address:
The Help Group
13130 Burbank Boulevard
Sherman Oaks, CA 91401
General Plan Designation:
General Corridor
Zoning: Commercial General (CG)
Redevelopment Project Area: Component Area No. 4
Overlay Zone/Special District: Commercial Zero Setback
Project Description and Requested Action: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited
to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach
additional sheets if necessary)
The Help Group (the “Applicant”) is requesting a Modification to an existing Conditional Use Permit
(CUP P1999-017). The Help Group provides educational, counseling and therapeutic services to
children and families with special needs. The Help Group comprises two schools, Village Glen and
Summit View, serving 400-students grades K through 12. A conditional use permit to operate The
Help Group was approved in 1999 for the property located at 12095-12101 Washington
Boulevard, converting the former Washington Ho spital Medical Center property into a private
school facility.
The requested modification will permit the addition of 250 students to the 400 student school,
bringing the total school population to 650 students (200 students in Summit View School and 450
students at Village Glen School). The project will include the conversion of a 20,090 square foot
medical office building, previously approved for school uses under Conditional Use Permit CUP
P1999-017, into classrooms, offices and related facilities for the school. The project will also result
in the addition of 67 new full and part-time staff, bringing the total staff from 110 (existing) to 177
(proposed). As part of the project, a new traffic management program will be instituted to allow for
the efficient movement of vehicles during the drop-off and pick-up of students.
ATTACHMENT 5
38The Help Group
Revised April 30, 2012 March 15, 2012
Form Updated 2/22/10 Page 2 of 26
Existing Conditions of the Project Site:
The project involves the conversion of an existi ng two-story, 20,090 square foot medical office
building into facilities for a school use. Presently the building is fifty percent occupied, with
approximately 10,045 square feet of space used for offices and a retail store operated by the
school as part of their education program. The building is located in the center of the Help Group
campus, adjacent to a three level parking structur e serving the Kaiser Permanent medical office
facility located at the corner of Inglewood Boulevard and Washington Boulevard. To the north of
the building is a four story office building with three levels occupied by school offices and the on
floor occupied by medical offices and a two level parking structure, which provides parking for
Help Group facility staff and the medical offices. The primary campus structure, located on the
western portion of the project site, is located adjac ent to the intersection of Grand View Boulevard
and Washington Boulevard, and is comprised of a one story, 61,108 sq. ft. structure.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project’s surrounding)
West: The property to the west, across Grand View Boulevard, is zoned for Commercial General
(CG) land uses and is developed with a one story commercial office building.
East: The property abutting to the east is developed with Kaiser Permanente’s Culver Marina
Medical Offices, located in the CG Zone/
North: The properties to the north of the school are located in the City of Los Angeles and are
zoned R3-1 “Multiple Dwelling.” The properties are presently developed with multi-family
residential developments.
South: The properties to the south of the project site, across Washington Boulevard, are located
in the CG Zone and are generally developed with small commercial uses, including offices,
restaurant and retail, and service uses.
Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement)
None
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a ‘Potentially Significant Impact’ as indicated by the checklist on the following pages:
Aesthetics Land Use / Planning
Agriculture and Forestry Resources Mineral Resources
Air Quality Noise
Biological Resources Population / Housing
Cultural Resources Public Services
Geology /Soils Recreation
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Transportation/Traffic
Hazards & Hazardous Materials Utilities / Service Systems
Hydrology / Water Quality Mandatory Findings of Significance
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
ATTACHMENT 5
39The Help Group
Revised April 30, 2012 March 15, 2012
Form Updated 2/22/10 Page 3 of 26
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed
to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a ‘potentially significant impact’ or ‘potentially significant
unless mitigated’ impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applic able legal standards, and 2) has been addressed
by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyz e only the effects that remain
to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant
to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that
are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Joshua Williams, Associate Planner Date
ATTACHMENT 5
40The Help Group
Revised April 30, 2012 March 15, 2012
Form Updated 2/22/10 Page 4 of 26
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Responses:
a) – d) No Impact. The project will not result in any aesthetic impacts. The project includes the conversion of a
20,090 square foot medical office building on the Help Group campus into classrooms, offices and
related facilities for the school. There are no scenic vistas or resources in the vicinity of the subject
property. The project site is presently developed with multiple buildings, a parking structure and surface
parking lots occupied by the school campus. The exterior of the existing medical office building will be
remodeled to include new accent features, including wrought iron grilles along the roof parapet, exterior
plaster panels, new storefront doors and windows wi th dark bronze frames, and a slate accent band
feature. The project is not proposing any new source s of light on the exterior of the building. However,
any new exterior lighting shall be shielded, pursuant to the Culver City Municipal Code, to limit light
intrusion onto abutting properties.
Mitigation Measure(s): None Required
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whethe r impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refe r to information compiled by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment
Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest
Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section
12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
ATTACHMENT 5
41The Help Group
Revised April 30, 2012 March 15, 2012
Form Updated 2/22/10 Page 5 of 26
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in t he existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
Responses:
a) - e) No Impact. The project site is located in area predominant ly urbanized with commercial storefronts, a
hospital use, surface and multi-level parking lots, and single family residential uses. The Culver City
General Plan Land Use Element map identifies no agricultural land or uses within the city boundaries.
Abutting zoning in the City of Los Angeles is designated for Low and Low Medium Residential uses.
The project area is not identified, utilized, or zoned for agricultural purposes, and there is no known
Williamson Act contract in effect on the project site. In addition, the project will not result in the loss or
conversion of farmland or forestland into another use, as the project site is located in a fully developed
urbanized area. Therefore, no impact will result from the project.
Mitigation Measure(s): None Required
III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality sta ndard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
Responses:
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The entire South Coast Air Basin (which includes Culver City) does not
meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Future new development (or redevelopment) in any
portion of Culver City will contribute, both at the project level and cu mulatively, to pollutant emissions
over this existing non-attainment area (at both construction and operation phases). For projects
proposed within Culver City or elsewhere in the So uth Coast Air Basin, the applicable plan is the 2007
Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which is prepared by the South Coast Air Management District
(SCAQMD). The SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control
in the South Coast Air Basin. SCAQMD develop s rules and regulations, establishes permitting
requirements, inspects emissions sources, an d enforces such measures through educational
ATTACHMENT 5
42The Help Group
Revised April 30, 2012 March 15, 2012
Form Updated 2/22/10 Page 6 of 26
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
programs, or fines, when necessary. Projects that do not exceed or are consistent with the projections
of employment and population forecasts identified in the Growth Management Chapter of the Regional
Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) are considered consistent with AQMP growth projections,
since the Growth Management Chapter forms the basis of the land use and transportation control
portion of the AQMP. Since SCAG’s regional growth forecasts are based upon, among other things,
land uses specified in city general plans, a project that is consistent with the land-use designated in a
city’s general plan would also be consistent with SCAG’s regional forecast projections. Subsequently, a
project that is consistent with SCAG’s regional fore cast projections would then also be consistent with
the AQMP growth projections.
As noted above, the project is subject to SC AQMD’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The
AQMP promulgates policies, programs, and measures to achieve Federal and State standards for
criteria pollutants and other smog-forming gases, as we ll as to reduce emissions of toxic air pollutants.
These programs include measures such as balancing jobs and housing within the region, promoting
infill development close to existing infrastructure and public transit, and a variety of other measures
designed to reduce vehicular travel.
The project will adapt an existing 20,900 square foot buildin g, previously approved for use as school
facilities under CUP P1999-017, into classrooms and offices for The Help Group. The project will also
result in the addition of up to 250 more students to the campus, increasing the population of the school
from 400 students to 650 students. Thestudents. The increase in student population would serve the
existing need for school services and employment in the project region. The project will not conflict with
or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
b) and c) Less Than Significant Impact. A project may have significant impacts where project-related emissions
would exceed federal, state, or r egional standards or thresholds, or where project-related emissions
would substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from existing operations are generated by the consumpti on of fossil fuels necessary to
produce electricity, provide heating and hot wate r for the on-site land uses, propel landscaping
equipment, and convey, transport and treat water. Fuel is also consumed by on-road mobile vehicles
associated with the existing uses of the project site.
Construction Emissions: The proposed project will generate pollutant emissions from the following
construction activities: 1) demolition; 2) travel to a nd from the project site by construction workers; 3)
delivery and hauling of construction supplies and debris to and from the project site; 4) the fuel
combustion by onsite construction equipment; and 5) building construction, including the application of
architectural coatings. It is antici pated that the above construction ac tivities will result in temporary
emissions of dust, fumes, exhaust and other air cont aminants. Construction activities involving site
preparation would primarily generate PM 10 emissions. Mobile source emissions (use of diesel-fueled
equipment on-site) and traveling to and from the pr oject site) would primarily generate nitrogen oxide
emissions (NO x). The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the
amount and types of construction activities occurr ing at the same time. As part of the project,
appropriate dust control measures will be implemented during each phase of development, as required
by SCAQMD Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust. Rule 403 requires that water is sufficiently added to the
construction site to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes; that soil binders are applied to
uncovered areas; and that ground cover is reestabl ished as quickly as possible. In addition, a wheel
and undercarriage washing system are required to remove bulk material from vehicles leaving the
construction site. The amount of emissions generat ed by construction activities on-site are not
expected to exceed current SCAQMD thresholds, base d on an analysis of peak construction days for
each of the construction activities. Therefore, project impacts will be less than significant.
Operational Emissions. Operational emissions generated by both st ationary and mobile sources will
result from normal day-to-day activities on the pr oject site after occupation. Stationary emission
sources would be generated from school operations (primarily natural gas consumption) and landscape
maintenance. Mobile emission will be generated by v ehicles travelling to and from the project site. The
amount of emissions generated by operational activities for the 650 student school will not exceed
ATTACHMENT 5
43The Help Group
Revised April 30, 2012 March 15, 2012
Form Updated 2/22/10 Page 7 of 26
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
SCAQMD thresholds for any phase of development. T herefore, impacts associated with operational
emissions from the project will be less than significant.
SCAQMD states that if an individual development pr oject generates less than significant construction
or operational emissions, then the development project would not generate a cumulatively considerable
increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment.
The proposed project will not generate emissions from construction or operational activities in excess
of SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the project will not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in
emissions. Cumulative impacts will be less that si gnificant with the implementation of recommended
measures per SCAQMD – Rule 403.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. A sensitive receptor, as defined by AQMD, is a person in the population
who is particularly susceptible to health effects due to exposure to an air contaminant. The following
are land uses (sensitive sites) where sensitive re ceptors are typically locate d: schools, playgrounds,
and child care centers; long-term health care facilit ies; rehabilitation facilities; convalescent centers;
hospitals; retirement homes; and residences.
Analysis of project emissions identified that the potential for exposing sensitive receptors to a pollutants
is less than significant. At both the construction and operational phase of the project, pollutant levels
will be below thresholds set by the SCAQMD. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. The project is not anticipated to result in the generation of any
objectionable odors. During the construction phase, building materials, including paint and adhesives,
may produce discernible odors typical of most cons truction sites. These odors would be temporary in
nature and will not result in a si gnificant environmental impact. Theref ore, the impact of objectionable
odors in the project vicinity will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure(s): None Required.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural communi ty identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regul ations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
ATTACHMENT 5
44The Help Group
Revised April 30, 2012 March 15, 2012
Form Updated 2/22/10 Page 8 of 26
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Responses:
a) – f) No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area and is surrounded by existing disturbed land
and development. The area around the project site is located in the Commercial General zone in the
City of Culver City and in the Medium Residential (R-3) zone in the City of Los Angeles. The Neither the
increase in student population from 400 to 650 students, nor the expansion of school classrooms and
facilities into the existing two-story, 20,095 square foot medical office building will not result in a
substantial effect on habitat for any protected species, will not result in a substantially adverse effect on
protected wetlands, nor or conflict with any local policies, ordinances, or plans protecting biological
resources. Therefore, no impacts will result.
Mitigation Measure(s): None Required.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Responses:
a) – d) No Impact. The project site is presently developed and used for a private school use. No buildings on
the project site have been identified for designation as a landmark at the national, state or local level,
nor have they been identified as being potentially significant in any historic resource survey for the
area. The subject building proposed for conversion from medical offices to school related uses is not
identified as being a historical resource, therefore no impact will result.
ATTACHMENT 5
45The Help Group
Revised April 30, 2012 March 15, 2012
Form Updated 2/22/10 Page 9 of 26
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
While the project will result in the interior remode l of the medical office building for conversion into
school uses, disturbance of subsurface soil will be minimal. Preliminary architectural plans have
identified that some new pad footings will be built by underpinning and widening existing footings. A
new elevator pit will be constructed and the low area fo r the existing elevator pit will be raised by filling
in with compacted soil. No significant grading or site grade changes are proposed. Due to the limited
scope of development, no impacts are anticipated to potential archaeological, paleontological, or
human remains on the project site.
Mitigation Measure(s): None Required
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquak e fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1 994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
Responses:
a) i. No Impact. The project site is not located on a known fault line, as depicted in the City of Culver City
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone map (2007). Therefore, no impacts will result.
ii. Less Than Significant Impact. The conversion of the existing medical office building to uses for school
facilities, including classrooms and offices, shall require that the building be structurally upgraded to the
current 2010 California Building Code. In addition, per Building & Safety requirements, an outside
structural review is required. Therefore, project impacts will be less than significant.
iii. Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is defined as a loss of strength of saturated
cohesionlesscohesion less soil caused by seismic shaking. A Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering
Report prepared by Earth Systems Southern California (dated September 14, 2011) identified that the
ATTACHMENT 5
46The Help Group
Revised April 30, 2012 March 15, 2012
Form Updated 2/22/10 Page 10 of 26
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
project is not located within a defined liquefaction haza rd zone, but it is very close to the edge of the
zone. Based on liquefaction analyses, soils beneath the site are not expected to liquefy in the event of
a significant nearby earthquake during a period of high groundwater.
iv. No Impact. The subject property is not located in a lands lide zone (Culver City Seismic Hazards Map,
February 2007). The project site is mostly flat and is not near a slope that may be prone to landslides.
Therefore, there is no impact from landslides.
b) No Impact. The project will result in minimal disturbance to top soil on the subject property, specifically
through changes to on-site landscaping and the elevator pit. Therefore, there will be no impact.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within a liquefaction zone, and is not
located on or near a slope that may be prone to lands lides nor is it located within any known landslide
zones. The conversion of the exis ting medical office building at 12095 Washington Blvd to uses for
school facilities, including classrooms and offices, shall require that the building be structurally
upgraded to the current 2010 California Building Code. In addition, per Building & Safety requirements,
an outside structural review is required. Therefore, project impacts will be less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. Based upon results of the Expansi on Index (EI) Tests (ASTM D 4829),
conducted for this investigation, and presented in the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
prepared by Earth Systems Southe rn California (dated September 14, 2011), the upper on-site soils
are considered to have a medium expansion potent ial. The foundation and slab-on-grade design
recommendations, presented in the report, include generally used guidelines in the Los Angeles area
for foundation design for soils with the indicated degree of expansiveness.
As noted in the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report, design recommendations included in the
report are minimums and comply with normally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. However,
actual foundation and slab-on-grade construction reinforcement should be determined by the structural
engineer based upon site specific conditions such as foundation loading and engineering
characteristics of the subgrade so ils. Compliance with recommendations will therefore result in a less
than significant impact.
e) No Impact. The project will not utilize septic tanks or alte rnative wastewater disposal systems. It will be
served by the City of Culver City wastewater services. Therefore, there will be no impacts.
Mitigation Measure(s): None Required.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS --Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Responses:
a) - b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis (July 2011) prepared by CAJA
Environmental Services identified that greenhou se gas emissions associated with the proposed
project, the 650 student school and improvements to the building at 12095 Washington Boulevard, will
be less than significant. In addition, the project w ill not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
ATTACHMENT 5
47The Help Group
Revised April 30, 2012 March 15, 2012
Form Updated 2/22/10 Page 11 of 26
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The emissions generated by Tthe Help Group project (and any project) are too small to influence global
climate change individually. Even if an individual project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were
large enough to influence global climate change, the significance of the impact of a single project on
the global climate cannot be determined at this time. Fi rst, no guidance exists to indicate what level of
GHG emissions would be considered substantial enoug h to result in a significant impact on global
climate. Second, global climate change models are not sensitive enough to be able to predict the effect
of a single project on global temperatures and the re sultant effect on climate; therefore they cannot be
used to evaluate the significance of a project’s impact. In addition, there are currently no adopted
thresholds or guidance adopted by the SCAQMD or other agencies in California to assess the
significance of potential impacts associated with Gr eenhouse Gases. In the absence of established
GHG thresholds, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) recommends in its 2008
technical advisory that lead agencies should make a go od faith effort to calculate, model, or estimate
the amount of CO2 and other GHG emissions from a [project. In an effort to calculate, model, or
estimate the amount of CO2 and other GHG emissions from a project. In response to the Governor’s
Executive Order (S-3-05) to reduce statewide GHG emissions to targeted levels (specifically to reduce
GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050), the Secretary of Cal/EPA created the
Climate Action Team (CAT), which in March 2006, published the Climate Action Team report to
Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature (t he “2006 CAT Report”). The 2006 CAT Report
identifies a recommended list of strategies that could be implemented by various State agencies to
ensure that the Governor’s targets are met and ca n be met within the existing authority of State
agencies.
In analyzing potential impacts related to construction and operation of the project, the report notes that
in the absence of regulatory guidance, evaluation of the project’s impacts associated with GHG
emissions is done qualitatively by determining cons istency of the project to any of the emission
reduction strategies identified by the CAT Report and by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). If
the project is consistent with the guidelines established by the CAT Report and by the ARB, project
specific impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant, and the project’s contribution
to any potential cumulative impact related to GHG emissions would not be considerable.
The project’s impacts from GHG emissions will be less than significant due to improved sustainability of
modern construction and design compared to the ex isting building. It is anticipated that greenhouse
gas emissions will be reduced by the following sust ainable design and construction features integrated
into the project:
? Insulation of all interior and exterior walls;
? Use of duro-last vinyl roofing material (87 percent reflective);
? Installation of 14 SEER heating, venting and air conditioning (HVAC) units;
? Replacement of existing fluorescent lighting with LED lighting throughout the building;
? Installation of dual-glazed bronze anodized doors and windows throughout the building;
? Installation of motion-sensor restroom light switches;
? Replacement of existing toilets with auto-flush toilets;
? Replacement of existing urinals with waterless urinals;
? Installation of hands-free faucets;
? Installation of high-efficiency water heaters
In addition, the project will be subject to the City of Culver City’s Mandatory Green Building Program.
Projects under 49,999 sq. ft. ar e required to comply with Cate gory 1 Requirements of the Green
Building Program. By complying with the City’s Mandatory Green Building Program and employing the
sustainable design features ident ified above, impacts from Greenhouse Gases will be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure(s): None Required
ATTACHMENT 5
48The Help Group
Revised April 30, 2012 March 15, 2012
Form Updated 2/22/10 Page 12 of 26
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school??
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving w ildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Responses:
a) - b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will utilize potentially hazardous materials as part of its
construction and operation, including solvents, paints, petroleum products and pesticides. All
potentially hazardous materials will be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’
instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. The use and
transport of these materials, typically sold as consumer goods, will not pose a significant hazard to the
public or the environment. Therefore project impacts related to the routine transport, use or disposal of
hazardous materials will be less than significant. In addition, the project will not result in an impact nor
contribute to a significant hazard through reasonab ly foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will involve t he increase in st udent population
from 400 students to 650 students and the convert conversion of an existing two-story medical office
building into school facilities for the existing Help Group campus. The operation and maintenance of
the proposed school facilities are not considered to be sources of hazardous emissions and are not
ATTACHMENT 5
49The Help Group
Revised April 30, 2012 March 15, 2012
Form Updated 2/22/10 Page 13 of 26
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
expected to result in the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials., substances, odors,
or, or waste and would not require the daily us e of chemicals outside of the day-to-day cleaning
materials. Therefore, the project is not expected to result in emissions of hazardous materials within
the proximity of the existing school facilities.
d) No Impact. The school is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, there is no impact.
e) No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of any
airport. Therefore, there is no impact.
f) No Impact. The project site is not located within the vicini ty of a private airstrip. Therefore, there is no
impact.
g) No Impact. The project will not inhibit access to hos pitals, emergency response centers, school
locations, communication facilities, highways and bri dges, or airports. The adjacent Culver Marina
Medical Offices operated by Kaiser Permanente do not provide “emergency services” or “urgent care
services.” Services at the facility include diagnostic imaging (mammography), family medicine, internal
medicine, podiatry, physical therapy and a phar macy. Therefore, the project will not impair
implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan,
and no impact will occur.
h) No Impact. The project is located in a highly urbanized area of Culver City where the possibility of wild
land fires is remote. Implementation of the project w ill not result in any increase in exposure of people
or structures to wildfire dangers, therefore there is no impact.
Mitigation Measure(s): None Required.
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete ground water supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existi ng drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existi ng drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substant ial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
ATTACHMENT 5
50The Help Group
Revised April 30, 2012 March 15, 2012
Form Updated 2/22/10 Page 14 of 26
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Responses:
a) No Impact. The project does not propose any long-term activi ties that will result in regular discharge
into surface water bodies. The project will conform to all requirements of the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) and Municipal Code and will not result in unpermitted discharges into the
sanitary sewer and storm water systems. Therefore, implementation of the project will not result in any
impacts related to the issue.
b) No Impact. The project site is fully developed and cover ed almost entirely by impervious surfaces in
the form of buildings, drive aisles and parking lots . Presently, stormwater does not infiltrate into the
ground, but sheetflows across the site to the local stormdrain system. The site is not a significant
source or area for groundwater recharge. The proj ect will not result in any change to lot coverage or
create new impediments to water flow. Therefore, the project will have no impacts.
c) – e) No Impact. The project will result in the conversion of an existing medical office building into school
facilities. The project will not result in new floor area or a change in the footprint of the building, nor will
the project result in an increase of impervious surfaces on the site, therefore the project will not result
in a substantial change to the existing drainage pattern on site. The project will not result in a change
in the existing drainage pattern that would result in s ubstantial erosion or siltation either on- or off-site.
In addition, the project will not result in any increase in runoff to local storm drains. Therefore, the
project will have no impacts.
f) Less than Significant Impact. The applicant shall be required to prepare and implement a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which details the construction activities, materials, and wastes
and lists the best management practices (BMPs) to control pollutant discharge during construction.
Preparation of the SWPPP and compliance with the City’s Minimum Storm Water Protection
Requirements would ensure that the project will not violate any water quality standards. Therefore, the
project impacts related to water quality will be less than significant.
g) – h) No Impact. The project site does not include any housing nor is it located within a 100 year flood
hazard area. Therefore, there will be no impacts.
i) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located wi thin the Stone Canyon Dam Inundation
Zone. The project will not impede escape routes or access of emergency vehi cles in the event of
major flood incident. The project will adhere to all emergency procedures to minimize impacts to
building occupants.
j) No Impact. The project impact is not located within an area subject to tsunami and seismic sea waves
pursuant to the Culver City Tsunami Map (dated April 22, 2010). Therefore, there are no impacts.
Mitigation Measure(s): None Required
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
ATTACHMENT 5
51The Help Group
Revised April 30, 2012 March 15, 2012
Form Updated 2/22/10 Page 15 of 26
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to t he general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
Responses:
a) No Impact. The project site is currently developed with two existing scho ol facilities under Tthe Help
Group umbrella – Summit View School and Village Glen School. The project will result in the increase
in student population from 400 students to 650 stud ents and the conversion of an existing medical
office building into school facilities. No additional st ructures or floor area is proposed, and the use will
be consistent with existing uses on adjoining properties. Therefore the project will not physically divide
an established community. There will be no impact.
b) No Impact. The project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project. Private school uses are a permitted use in the Commercial
General (CG) Zone with a conditional use permit. The private school use was permitted on the project
site, including all four buildings addressed 12095-12101 Washington Boulevard, under Conditional
Use Permit No. P1999-017. The project will r equire a Conditional Use Permit Modification, a
requirement for expansion an increase of the priv ate school’s operations enrollment.in the CG Zone.
Because the use is permitted under existing entitlements and within the CG Zone and the General
Plan, there will be no impact.
c) No Impact. The project site is developed and is located in a highly urbanized area that is not known to
support any non-avian candidat e, sensitive, or special status spec ies. The project will not involve the
removal of any habitat areas, as the project work will primarily result in tenant improvements to the
existing structure.
Mitigation Measure(s): None required.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of av ailability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Responses:
a) No Impacts. There is no knowledge of the presence of mineral resources that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the State on the project site, therefore the project is not expected to result
in the loss of availability of said mineral resource s. The project area is predominantly urbanized, and
the project site occupies a site that has previously been disturbed for construction of the existing
buildings on Tthe Help Group campus and the abutting Kaiser Permanente facilities. The project site
is located adjacent to residential uses, commercial retail and office, and medical office uses, and is
therefore not likely to be a suitable site for drilling or mining. Therefore, the no impacts are anticipated.
b) No Impacts. The City does not identify the availability of a locally-important mineral resource at the
project site in any land use plan. The project site is not identified in the City’s General Plan, any
specific plan, nor any other land use plan as a lo cally-important mineral resource recovery site.
Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
ATTACHMENT 5
52The Help Group
Revised April 30, 2012 March 15, 2012
Form Updated 2/22/10 Page 16 of 26
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Mitigation Measure(s): None Required.
XII. NOISE --Would the project result in:
6
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or app licable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
Responses:
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts related to the generation of noise levels in excess of
community standards are analyzed separately, as part of construction and school operation activities.
The Culver City Noise Ordinance (Chapter 9, Section 9.07.035 “Construction”) exempts noise sources
associated with construction when performed bet ween the hours of 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM on
weekdays, 9:00 AM and 7:00 PM on Saturdays, an d 10:00 AM and 7:00 PM on Sundays. The project
will require the use of equipment for demolition on the inside of the building, as part of tenant
improvements. During the demolition and construction, activities will not be co nstant. A different mix
ofThe equipment operating and noise levels will va ry based on the amount of equipment in operation
at any given time and the location of each activity on the project site.
Land uses on the properties surrounding the project site are primarily developed with commercial
retail and office, multi-family residential, and medical office uses. Due to the use of construction
equipment during the construction phase, the projec t will expose nearby residents, and students and
staff associated with the school to increased ambi ent exterior noise levels, typical of any tenant
improvement activities in nearby businesses. The pr oject applicant will notify surrounding residential
neighbors in advance of construction activities, and both the Applicant’s and City’s contact
information will be posted on the project site to direct residents wishing to report noise and other
construction activity complaints. Through compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance, temporary
ATTACHMENT 5
53The Help Group
Revised April 30, 2012 March 15, 2012
Form Updated 2/22/10 Page 17 of 26
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
noise levels associated with construction activities will be less than significant.
During the ongoing operation of the project, on-site operational noise on-site operational noise will
typically be generated by heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. Through the
use of Code required screening and adherence to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations,
which requires interior noise levels not to exceed 45 dBA, occupants of the school and adjoining uses
will not be exposed to excessive interior noise levels.
Additional noise will be generated by the project from use of the playground facilities. The Culver City
Noise Ordinance (Chapter 9, Section 9.07.060.C) provides that “permitted activities conducted on
public playgrounds and public or private school ground s, including but not limited to school athletic
and entertainment events” are exempted from the Noise Ordinance provisions.
The school’s playgrounds have staggered use sche duled, meaning that not all 650 students will be
using the three playground areas (1. located adjacent to Grand View Boulevard; 2. at the center of the
property partially within the City of Los Angeles; and 3. as proposed, atop the two-story building
located at 12095 Washington Boulevard) at the same time. Nor will the additional 250 students be
located into one playground at one time. Students are rotated into the play areas during various times
throughout the day to avoid having students of differing ages sharing the same play area (i.e., high
school students would not utilize the same areas as elementary school students during the same
time).
However, as part of the project review, a nois e impact study was submitted on June 6, 2011 by
Veneklasen Associates on behalf of the Applicant. T he purpose of the noise study was to assess the
existing impact of the sound produced at Tthe He lp Group’s playgrounds on the adjacent residential
area to the east of the project site in response to comments from residential neighbors abutting the
playground area. The Help Group agreed to conduct the noise impact study to determine if additional
mitigations were needed to immediately address a noise problem caused by school activities on the
playground. The acoustical engineer took Nnoise measurements were perfor med at the playground
areas during periods when there were no activities. These measurements represent the in order to
determine ambient conditions at this location. Measurements were also performed during typical
activities in the playground. The ambient noise le vel in this area is controlled by general urban
activities and also by the street traffic around the fa cility. When activities are in progress, the ambient
noise levels are impacted at the adjacent areas to the playground. The general ambient noise levels
at the playground area were measured as approximatelyabout 53 dBA. During activities in the
playground, the noise level increased to between 63 and 65 dBA. The existing ambient levels at the
residential area are estimated at 46 dBA which is in creased to 54 dBA during playground activities, a
slight rise comparable to noise generated by street traffic.
The Help Group submitted a letter from Veneklasen Associates, dated April 17, 2012, which
discussed potential noise impacts from the rooftop playground area above the two-story building at
12095 Washington Boulevard. The acoustical en gineer examined noise impacts on residential
properties located in the City of Los Angeles to the north and on the sidewalk along Washington
Boulevard in front of the schoo l. Based upon the maximum occupanc y for the rooftop playground of
185 people, noise levels at the residential properties are anticipated to be below 30 dBA. Noise levels
at the sidewalk level on Washington Boulevard are anticipated to be 40.5 dBA. Both noise levels fall
below the 65 dBA exterior noise level and 45 dBA interior noise level identified by the Noise Element
(adopted 1995) of the City’s General Plan for residential and commercial uses. The acoustical
engineer also determined that the noise generate d from the rooftop play area will not have any
additive impact on noise levels at the ground level play areas or at the nearby residential properties.
Based on the noise study and compliance with the City’s Nnoise Ordinance for on-site activities, noise
impacts will be less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. During construction of the project, the use of machinery including
trucks, drills, etc. will be typical. The amount of gro undborne vibrations that is created by the use of
equipment during the construction of the project will not be excessive. As noted previously,
ATTACHMENT 5
54The Help Group
Revised April 30, 2012 March 15, 2012
Form Updated 2/22/10 Page 18 of 26
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
construction will primarily be internal to the existing struct ure, with no exterior demolition or major
construction activities. In regards to the operation of the project, school facilities do not generally
generate significant groundborne vibrations or ground borne noise. Therefore, the project will result in
less than significant impacts.
c) – d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will result in the addition of 250increase of student
enrollment from 400 to 650 students. The increase in students and faculty on-site will be
accommodated who will occupy in existing structur es and in the two story building located at 12095
Washington Boulevard previously utilized for medical offices and non-school functions The additional
students will use existing play area s that are presently utilized by cu rrent students of the school. In
addition, a new playground area on top of the two-story building will serve all students of the school,
allowing for dispersal of students between the three playgrounds. As noted previously (see Response
XII.a), use of the play areas will also be co nducted on a stagger ed schedule, meaning not all 650
students will be using the play areas at one time. In addition, the noise generated by the use of the
new playground area will not result in an additive impac t to noise at existing play areas or residential
properties due to the location of the play area cl ose to Washington Boulevard, separated from the
residential buildings by a four story building, and th e presence of 10-foot high parapet walls along
three sides of the play area. While the addition of students may result in an increase in the use of the
playground facilities, the staggered scheduling of play area usage and the addition of a new play area
will reduce potential noise impacts. The the ambien t noise level is not ex pected to substantially
increase from the usage on a permanent or tempor ary basis. Therefore, impacts will be less than
significant.
e) –f) No Impact. The project is not located within an adopted airp ort land use plan or within two miles of an
airport. Nor is the project located within the vicini ty of a private airstrip. The project will not expose
people in the project area to excessive noise levels, therefore there is no impact.
Mitigation Measure(s): None Required.
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Responses:
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project includes the expansion of school operations and facilities to
accommodate the addition of 250 students inan incr ease in student enrollment from 400 students to
650 students at an existing private school facility. The project includes the conversion of a medical
office building, previously approved for private sc hool uses under CUP P-1999017, to classrooms, a
multi-purpose room, and support facilities for t he school. an existing struct ure on the Help Group
campus. While the project does not involve the addition or removal of housing, the addition of school
facilitiesenrollment capacity may induce population growth in the areas near the school site. However,
as this is a private school, attendance is not limited by geographic boundary. Students attending the
school may live outside of Culver City in a neighb oring jurisdiction. The school’s present operations
and proposed operations utilize buses, private vehicl es and taxi cabs to transport students to the
school from other locations, which may be outside of Culver City. In addition, Tthe Help Group
provides three other campus locations in the Los Angeles region, including facilities in Sherman Oaks,
Valley Glen, and Van Nuys, which provides opportunities for students to attend school at the facility
ATTACHMENT 5
55The Help Group
Revised April 30, 2012 March 15, 2012
Form Updated 2/22/10 Page 19 of 26
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
closest to them. The project is not anticipated to result in substantial population growth, therefore
impacts are less than significant.
b) – c) No Impact. The project will not result in the displacement of any housing units or people. Therefore,
there will be no impacts.
Mitigation Measure(s): None Required
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated wi th the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need fo r new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Responses:
a) Less Than Significant Impact. During internal staff review of the project, neither the Culver City Police
Department nor the Culver City Fire Department i dentified impacts related to their response times.
Further, neither agency identified impacts to their ability to provide adequate services. Therefore,
impacts related to fire and police protection will be less than significant.
The project will result in the expansion of facilitie s and student population at a private school facility
serving special needs students. While the project will result in an increase in the number of staff on-
site, it is anticipated that given the nature of t he jobs to be filled, employ ees would be residents of
communities in the area. As such, implementation of the project will not generate a direct or indirect
increase in the permanent population of the area. Therefore, the project would not result in an
increase in the generation of students and the projec t would not result in substantial adverse physical
impacts with regard to schools.
The Help Group does not presently use any parkland in Culver City for school activities, either during
or after school hours. The school campus provides two outdoor playgrounds and an indoor gym. For
other sports activities, including baseball and soccer, the schools utilize park facilities in the City of
Los Angeles or opposing team fields for away games. As part of the project, an additional rooftop play
area will be provided atop the two-story, former medical office building for use by students.
The project does not propose any significant increa se in population density that would generate the
need to require new roads, additional infrastructure, or other governmental services.
Mitigation Measure(s): None Required
XV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical det erioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
ATTACHMENT 5
56The Help Group
Revised April 30, 2012 March 15, 2012
Form Updated 2/22/10 Page 20 of 26
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or ex pansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Responses:
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project is not proposing a significant increase in population density
that would cause or accelerate a substantia l physical deterioration of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities. The use of off-site parks and facilities in the region by the
school requires the approval of usag e by the agencies operat ing the park facilities, similar to what is
required by the Culver City Parks & Recreation De partment, in order to avoid the overcrowding and
overuse of facilities.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will include new recreational facilities atop the converted,
two story medical office building. The approximat ely 8,000 square foot space has been designated as
a “roof deck playground.” In addition, the Help Group campus will continue to maintain two on-site
playgrounds and one gym. The new recreational playgr ound would not result in a significant adverse
physical effect on the environment,. As noted in Response XII.a, the applicant’s acoustical engineer
determined that the noise generated by students using the new rooftop play area will not exceed noise
standards identified in the Noise Element of the City’s General Plan, therefore impacts will be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measure(s): None Required.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance
of the circulating system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized
travel and relevant components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways
and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion management agency
for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pede strian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
ATTACHMENT 5
57The Help Group
Revised April 30, 2012 March 15, 2012
Form Updated 2/22/10 Page 21 of 26
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Responses:
a) – b) Less Than Significant Impact. This analysis is based on the following report:
The Help Group – Culver City Campus, Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, November 7,
2011.
As part of its analysis for the project, the Applicant’s consultant in concert with City staff selected six
intersections for study:
1. Centinela Avenue and Washington Boulevard
2. Grand View Boulevard and Washington Boulev ard (in the City of Los Angeles and City of
Culver City)
3. Project Driveway 1 and Washington Boulevard
4. Inglewood Boulevard and Project Driveway 2
5. Inglewood Boulevard and Project Driveway 3
6. Inglewood Boulevard and Washington Boulevard (in the City of Los Angeles)
The trip generation for the project has been estimated based upon the specific land uses that exist at
the site (medical office) and that have been planned for the site (special education school facilities).
Based upon the review of the existing and proposed uses, the study identified that the existing
medical office uses (comprising approximately 10,045 sq ft of floor area) generates a total of 363 daily
trip ends, with 23 trips occurring during the AM peak hour (18 inbound and 5 outbound) and 34 trips
during the PM peak hour (9 inbound and 25 outbound). The proposed use (school facilities) are
anticipated to generate a total of 372 daily trip ends, with 114 trips occurring during the AM peak hour
(68 inbound and 46 outbound) and 36 trips during the PM peak hour (17 inbound and 19 outbound).
Therefore, the project will result in 9 additional da ily trip ends with 91 additional trips occurring during
the AM peak hour (50 inbound and 41 outbound) and 2 additional trips during the PM peak hour (8
inbound and -6 outbound).
In order to determine the significance of impacts related to traffic generated by the project (the
increase in student enrollment from 400 to 650 students and the conversion of a medical office
building to private school uses), the study examined the six previously identified intersections,
comparing future conditions with and without the project. The volume of future traffic without the
project looks at existing conditions plus ambient gr owth (estimated to be 1% per year) plus traffic
generated by related projects (lists provided by the City of Culver City and City of Los Angeles). The
volume of future traffic with the project takes into account existing conditions plus ambient growth plus
traffic generated by related projects plus the propo sed project’s traffic. Please note, the “existing
conditions” includes the existing population of the school, including staff and students. The analysis of
future traffic conditions with and without the pr oject found no anticipated sign ificant impacts at the
study area intersections due to the additional project traffic.
During its review of the project’s on-site circulati on, City staff provided requirements to ensure safe
ingress and egress from the project site via its mu ltiple driveways, limiti ng turn-in and turn-out
movements from Washington Boulevard and Inglewood Boulevard.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located near any airports, nor will it include any
characteristics that would result in the alteration of air traffic patterns. Ther efore, impacts will be less
than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not alter the street configuration iIn the area. In addition,
as part of the mitigations to reduce potential conflicts between traffic entering and exiting the site with
normal circulation on surrounding streets, the projec t will restrict movements into and out of the
property and restrict on-street parking during mo rning and afternoon hours in order to provide
additional queuing space as vehicles enter the site on Washington Boulevard.
e) No Impact. The design and construction of the project will be required to incorporate all applicable City
standards related to emergency access to ensure that the emergency ac cess would be adequate.
Therefore, implementation of the project will not result in any impacts.
ATTACHMENT 5
58The Help Group
Revised April 30, 2012 March 15, 2012
Form Updated 2/22/10 Page 22 of 26
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized po rtion of the City. As proposed, the project will
not conflict with any public transit, bicycle or pedestr ian facilities. In addition, the project will not affect
the performance or safety of any alternative modes of transportation. Therefore, there is no impact.
Mitigation Measure(s): None Required.
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS --Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater trea tment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilitie s or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the co nstruction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of exis ting facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand
in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, st ate, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Responses:
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will connect to the City ’s existing wast ewater treatment
system. The proposed project is not expected to resu lt in a substantial increase beyond the projected
development potential, residential population and empl oyment population for that area as permitted
under the General Plan. Therefore, the project is un likely to result in development which exceeds the
current wastewater treatment loads established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Water treatment needs of the City are accommodated by the
Metropolitan Water District’s (MWD) Joseph Jensen Tr eatment Plant in the City of Los Angeles. Due
to the change of use of the building, the project is subject to the City’s Sewer Facility Charge.
Pursuant to requirements from the Public Works De partment, the charge shall be paid prior to the
issuance of any permit and will go towards infrastr ucture improvements related to the cumulative use
of City infrastructure. In addition, pursuant to t he City’s Green Building Program, and as proposed by
the Applicant, the project will include water saving pl umbing features, including the use of waterless
urinals, auto flush toilets, and hands free faucets. Through the use of these features and the payment
of sewer facility fees, the project impacts on the water system will be less than significant.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is developed and is generally covered with impervious
surfaces. The project site is located within an area that includes existing and adequate storm drainage
facilities. A substantial change in surface water runoff patterns is not expected. Therefore, impacts will
be less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project, including the conversion of an existing medical office
ATTACHMENT 5
59The Help Group
Revised April 30, 2012 March 15, 2012
Form Updated 2/22/10 Page 23 of 26
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
building into school facilities and the addition of 250 students to theincrease in enrollment from 400 to
650 students on The Help Group campus, will not result in the requirement for new water resources or
entitlements for water resources. As previously noted, the project will incorporate water saving
features intended to reduce the impact of the project on water resources.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing wastewater treatment facilities will be able to accommodate
anticipated wastewater demands of the project in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
f) Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Culver City operates a transfer station at 9255 Jefferson
Boulevard. The transfer station receives a maximu m of 500 tons of solid waste per day, with an
average of 250 tons of solid waste per day. Solid waste from the transfer station is sent to Puente Hills
Landfill, Chiquita Canyon Landfill, or the Southeast Resource Recovery Facility (SERRF). Existing
uses at the project site generate approximately 0.29 tons of solid waste per day. In compliance with
the City’s Green Building Program, and best practi ces, the Applicant will institute a campus wide
recycling and composting service to significantly re duce the amount of solid waste produced from the
site. Based on existing conditions, both Chiqui ta Canyon Landfill and Puente Hills Landfill have
adequate capacity to accommodate the disposal needs of the facilities. With implementation of waste
reduction programs, identified above, impacts on the landfills will be reduced with the project.
Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.
g) No Impact. The project will comply with all federal, stat e, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste. Therefore, implementation of the project will not result in any impacts.
Mitigation Measure(s): None Required.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE –
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impact s that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? (‘Cumulatively
considerable’ means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Responses:
a) Less Than Significant Impact. With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this initial
study, the project will protect against the potential degradation of the quality of the environment and
the potential of impacting traffic in the immediate vicinity of the project site. In addition, through
adherence to the recommendations from the Geotechnical Report, the project will protect occupants
of the structure from potential harm during seismic events.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not result in any impacts that are cumulatively
ATTACHMENT 5
60The Help Group
Revised April 30, 2012 March 15, 2012
Form Updated 2/22/10 Page 24 of 26
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
considerable. As noted, traffic impacts from the project when considered in light of other
developments in the vicinity remain below the threshold of significance. Any potential cumulative
impacts will be substantially reduced to less than significance due to standard code requirements and
conditions of approval.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not cause substantially adverse effects on human
beings with the incorporation of the mitigations identified in the document. Impacts related to the
project will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure(s): None Required
ATTACHMENT 5
61The Help Group
Revised April 30, 2012 March 15, 2012
Form Updated 2/22/10 Page 25 of 26
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES:
None.
ATTACHMENT 5
62The Help Group
Revised April 30, 2012 March 15, 2012
Form Updated 2/22/10 Page 26 of 26
References Utilized:
Cortese List, Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List, accessed March 5, 2012.
http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm
City of Culver City Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map (2007).
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis, prepared by CAJA Environmental Services, July 2011.
Noise Impact Study for School Playground, prepared by Veneklasen Associates, June 2011.
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report, pr epared by Earth System s Southern California,
September 2011.
Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads, December 12, 2011 (revised)
Letter from Veneklasen Associates to The Help Group regarding Noise Impact Study for the Roof
Deck Playground, dated April 17, 2012.
ATTACHMENT 5
63ATTACHMENT 6
64 ATTACHMENT 6
65 ATTACHMENT 6
66 ATTACHMENT 6
67 ATTACHMENT 7
68 ATTACHMENT 7
69 ATTACHMENT 7
70 ATTACHMENT 7
71 ATTACHMENT 7
72 EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-R-____
Case No. CUP/M P-2011175
12095-12101 Washington Boulevard
Page 1 of 17
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency Source
Compliance
Verification
GENERAL
1. These Conditions of Approval are being
imposed on a 600 student private school for
special needs student s and the concurrent
conversion of an exis ting two-story medical
office/retail building into school facilities (the
“Project”), for the pr operty located at 12095
Washington Boulevard (the “Property”).
All Standard
2. A copy of the Resoluti on approving the Project,
and a copy of these Conditions of Approval,
shall be printed on the plans submitted as part of
any building permit application for the Project.
Planning Standard
3. All building permit applications for the Project
shall include sufficient information and detail to
clearly reflect compliance with all applicable
requirements of the Culv er City Municipal Code
(the “CCMC”) and with these Conditions of
Approval.
Planning Standard
4. The land use permit to which these Conditions
of Approval apply (the “Land Use Permit’) shall
expire one year from the date of final approval of
said Land Use Permit, if the use has not been
exercised. As provided in CCMC Section
15.595.030 –“Time Limits and Extensions”, an
applicant may request an extension of said
expiration date by fili ng a written request with
the Planning Division prior to the expiration of
the land use permit.
Planning Standard
5. The Project shall be developed pursuant to
CCMC Chapter 17.300 – “G eneral Property
Development and Use Standards”.
Planning Standard
ATTACHMENT 7
73EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-R-____
Case No. CUP/M P-2011175
12095-12101 Washington Boulevard
Page 2 of 17
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency Source
Compliance
Verification
GENERAL
6. All planted areas on t he Property shall be
landscaped and irrigated pursuant to CCMC
Chapter 17.310 - “Landscaping”.
Planning Standard
7. All parking areas on t he Property shall be
developed pursuant to CCMC Chapter 17.320 -
“Off-Street Parking and Loading”.
Planning Standard
8. Signs proposed for the Project shall meet all
applicable requirement s of CCMC Chapter
17.330 - “Signs”. All signs require a separate
permit and approval.
Planning Standard
9. All permits and licenses required in connection
with the development or us e of the Project shall
be applied for and obtained separately.
All Standard
10. All work within the public right-of-way (including
but not limited to curb, gutter, sidewalk, and
driveways) shall be designed and completed to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Public
Works
Standard
11. Drainage devices, concrete curbs and gutters,
sidewalks, drive approaches, and roadway
pavement shall be designed in conformity with
all provisions of the latest edition of the
American Public Works Association Standard
Plans (“APWA Standards”).
Public
Works
Standard
ATTACHMENT 7
74EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-R-____
Case No. CUP/M P-2011175
12095-12101 Washington Boulevard
Page 3 of 17
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency Source
Compliance
Verification
GENERAL
12. At the sole cost and expense of the Property
Owner, any broken or damaged curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, and street pav ement resulting from
construction of the Project shall be repaired and
reconstructed in conformity with APWA
Standards.
Public
Works
Standard
13. Trash enclosures shall be provided and shall
each have a minimum insi de dimension of 10
feet x 12 feet, a gated open ing that is at least 8
feet wide, and a 6 inch high by 6 inch wide
concrete curb along the inside perimeter wall.
Each enclosure shall also have at least a 6 inch
thick concrete slab that drains at a one percent
gradient out of the enclosu re. Final approval for
the size, location, and type of equipment needed
for the adequate storage and disposal of all solid
and recyclable waste generat ed by the Project
shall be obtained from the City’s Environmental
Programs and Operations Manager. A fire
suppression sprinkler system shall be provided
within any covered trash enclosure area as
required by the Fire Marshal. All refuse
containers assigned to or otherwise used by the
Project shall be stored on-site in the trash
enclosures.
Public
Works/
Fire/
Planning
Standard
14. All Project related so lid and recyclable waste
material handling sha ll be in accordance with
CCMC Section 5.01.010 – “Solid Waste
Management”, which outlines the Sanitation
Division’s exclusive franchise for this service.
Public
Works
Standard
ATTACHMENT 7
75EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-R-____
Case No. CUP/M P-2011175
12095-12101 Washington Boulevard
Page 4 of 17
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency Source
Compliance
Verification
GENERAL
15. All buildings and structures to be constructed as
part of the Project s hall be designed and
constructed in accordance with all applicable
regulations and standards of the City’s Building
Code, Fire Code and any related codes as
determined by the Buildi ng Official and Fire
Marshal; and all other applicable provisions of
the CCMC which are adopted and in effect at
the time of issuance of a building permit.
Building/
Fire
Standard
16. Any new utilities shall be placed underground or
enclosed within the build ing construction; no
new overhead utilities shall be permitted.
Building/
Planning
Standard
17. The Project shall comply with all applicable
requirement of the Culv er City Green Building
Program as set forth in CCMC Section
15.02.1100, et.seq.
Building Standard
18. The Project shall comply with the all applicable
requirements relating to solar photovoltaic
requirements as set forth in CCMC Section
15.02.100, et. seq.
Building Standard
19. Changes to the Project or use approved as part
of the Land Use Permit may only be made in
accordance with the provisions of CCMC
Section 17.595.035 – “Changes to an Approved
Project”.
Planning Standard
20. The Project shall provi de up to a 14-foot high
wall along the shared pr operty line between the
school’s playground and the abutting residential
properties (12028 to 12042 Sylvester Street) in
the City of Los A ngeles. Plans for the wall shall
be provided to the Culver City Planning Division
and abutting property owners for review and
comment prior to submi ttal to the City of Los
Angeles.
Planning Special
ATTACHMENT 7
76EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-R-____
Case No. CUP/M P-2011175
12095-12101 Washington Boulevard
Page 5 of 17
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency Source
Compliance
Verification
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE
21. A covenant and agreement, on a form provided
by the Planning Division and in form and
substance acceptable to the City Attorney,
acknowledging and agreeing to comply with all
terms and conditions established herein, shall
be signed by the Property Owner and recorded
in the County Recorder’s Office. The covenant
and agreement shall run with the land and shall
be binding on any subsequent owners, and
tenants or occupants of the Property. After
recordation, a certified copy bearing the
Recorder’s number and date shall be provided
to the Planning Division.
Planning/
City
Attorney
Standard
22. The Applicant and Property Owner shall
indemnify and agree to defend (at the
Applicant’s and Property Owner’s sole expense,
with legal counsel appr oved by the City) and
hold harmless the City, and its elected and
appointed officials, officers, employees, agents,
contractors and consult ants from and against
any and all loss, damages, injuries, costs,
expenses, liabilities, claims, demands, lawsuits,
attorneys’ fees and judgments, arising from or in
any manner connected to any third party
challenge to the City's approval of the Project.
The obligations required by this Condition shall
be set forth in a written instrument in form and
substance acceptable to the City Attorney and
signed by the Applicant and the Property Owner.
City
Attorney
Standard
23. A minimum of three sets of final landscaping and
irrigation plans (separ ate from the plans
submitted for the build ing permit) shall be
submitted to the Planning Division for review
and approval.
Planning/
Parks &
Rec.
Standard
ATTACHMENT 7
77EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-R-____
Case No. CUP/M P-2011175
12095-12101 Washington Boulevard
Page 6 of 17
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency Source
Compliance
Verification
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE
24. A Construction Managem ent Plan prepared by
the construction contractor, which identifies the
areas of construction staging, temporary power,
portable toilet, and trash and material storage
locations, shall be submitted to and approved
by the Building Official. Prior to commencement
of work the construction contractor shall advise
the Public Works Inspector and the Building
Inspector (‘Inspectors”) of the construction
schedule and shall meet with the Inspectors.
Building/
Public
Works
Standard
25. A Pedestrian Protection Pl an shall be submitted
to and approved by the Building Official. Such
plan shall identify all areas of pedestrian
protection and indicate the method of pedestrian
protection or pedestrian diversion when
required. When pedestrian diversion is required,
the Pedestrian Protection Plan must also be
approved by the Public Works Director.
Building/
Public
Works
Standard
26. Plans submitted as part of the building permit
application shall include a schedule of the
special inspections anticipated, the firm
proposed for the special inspections, and the
resumes of all proposed special inspectors. The
Building Official reserves the right to reject any
special inspector at any time for the duration of
the Project. All specia l inspection reports shall
be made available to the Building Official and to
any Culver City Building Safety inspector as
required by the Building Official No work shall
be covered without a Culver City Building Safety
inspection, whether or not a special inspection
was performed on such work.
Building Standard
ATTACHMENT 7
78EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-R-____
Case No. CUP/M P-2011175
12095-12101 Washington Boulevard
Page 7 of 17
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency Source
Compliance
Verification
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE
27. A Construction Traffic Management Plan shall
be prepared by a traffic or civil engineer
registered in the State of California. The
Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be
submitted to the City Engineer and Planning
Manager for review and approval prior to the
issuance of any Project demolition, grading, or
excavation permit. The Construction Traffic
Management Plan shall al so be reviewed and
approved by the City’s Fire and Police
Departments. The City Engineer and Planning
Manager reserve the right to reject any engineer
at any time and to require that the Plan be
prepared by a different engineer. The
Construction Traffic Management Plan shall
contain, but not be limited to, the following:
A. The name and telephone number of a
contact person who can be reached 24 hours
a day regarding construction traffic
complaints or emergency situations.
B. An up-to-date list of local police, fire, and
emergency response organizations and
procedures for the continuous coordination of
construction activity, potential delays, and
any alerts related to unanticipated road
conditions or delays, wit h local police, fire,
and emergency response agencies.
Coordination shall include the assessment of
any alternative access r outes that might be
required through the Property, and maps
showing access to and within the Property
and to adjacent properties.
C. Procedures for the tr aining and certification
of the flag persons used in implementation of
the Construction Traffic Management Plan.
D. The location, times, and estimated duration
of any roadway closures , traffic detours, use
of protective devices, warning signs, and
staging or queuing areas.
E. The location and travel routes of off-site
staging and parking locations.
Planning/
Public
Works
Standard
ATTACHMENT 7
79EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-R-____
Case No. CUP/M P-2011175
12095-12101 Washington Boulevard
Page 8 of 17
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency Source
Compliance
Verification
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE
28. Reasonable efforts shall be used to reuse and
recycle construction and demolition debris, to
use environmentally friendl y materials, and to
provide energy efficient buildings, equipment
and systems. A Demolition Debris Recycling
Plan that indicates where select demolition
debris is to be sent shall be provided to the
Building Official prior to the issuance of a
demolition permit. The Plan shall list the
material to be recycled and the name, address,
and phone number of the facility of organization
accepting the materials.
Building Standard
29. A vector/pest control abatement plan prepared
by a pest control specialist licensed or certified
by the State of Californi a shall be submitted for
review and approval by the Planning Manager
and the Building Official. Said plan shall outline
all steps to be taken pr ior to the commencement
of any demolition or construction activity in order
to ensure that any and all pests (including, but
not limited to, rodents, bees, ants and
mosquitoes) that may populate the Property do
not relocate to or impact adjoining properties.
Building/
Planning
Standard
30. Prior to issuance of a building permit, notice of
the Project construction schedule shall be
provided to all abutting property owners and
occupants. Evidence of such notification shall
be provided to the Buildi ng Division. The notice
shall identify the co mmencement date and
proposed timing for all construction phases
(demolition, grading, excavation/shoring,
foundation, rough frame, plumbing, roofing,
mechanical and electrical, and exterior finish).
Building Standard
31. The building shall be structurally upgraded to the
current, 2010 California Building Code. An
outside structural review will be required at an
additional cost to the Applicant.
Building Special
ATTACHMENT 7
80EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-R-____
Case No. CUP/M P-2011175
12095-12101 Washington Boulevard
Page 9 of 17
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency Source
Compliance
Verification
DURING CONSTRUCTION
32. During all phases of construction, a
“Construction Rules Sign” that includes contact
names and telephone number s of the Applicant,
Property Owner, construction contractor(s), and
the City, shall be posted on the Property in a
location that is visible to the public. These
names and telephone numbers shall also be
made available to adjacent property owners and
occupants to the satisfaction of the Planning
Manager and Building Official.
Building/
Planning
Standard
33. The Property shall be maintained daily so that it
is free of trash and litter.
Building Standard
34. During construction, dust shall be controlled by
regular watering or other methods as
determined by the Building inspector.
Building Standard
35. The Building Division may apply administrative
assessments and/ or pos t general stop work
notices for any violations of the Conditions of
Approval for the Project, and any violations of
the CCMC.
Building Standard
36. During all phases of construction, best efforts
shall be used to ensure that all construction
workers, contractors and others involved with
the Project park on the Property or at designated
offsite locations approved by the City, and not in
the surrounding neighborhood.
Building Standard
37. When foundation shoring and/or foundation piles
will be part of the Projec t, the engineer of record
shall use noise dampening measures such as
the drilling of shorin g supports and piles as
determined by the Building Official and Planning
Manager.
Building/
Planning
Standard
ATTACHMENT 7
81EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-R-____
Case No. CUP/M P-2011175
12095-12101 Washington Boulevard
Page 10 of 17
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency Source
Compliance
Verification
DURING CONSTRUCTION
38. Prior to the commencement of any excavation, a
temporary construction f ence shall be installed
around the site. The height and fence material
is subject to approval by the City Engineer and
the Planning Manager.
Building/
Planning/
Public
Works
Standard
39. Hours of construction sh all be limited to the
following: 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday through
Friday; 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM Saturday; and 10:00
AM to 7:00 PM Sunday and National holidays.
Dirt hauling and construction material deliveries
or removal are prohibited during the morning
(7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and afternoon (4:00 PM to
6:00 PM) peak traffic periods. All construction
workers shall be respectful of the surrounding
neighborhood and keep non-construction related
noise to a minimum prio r to, during, and after
permissible construction hours.
Building/
Public
Works
Standard
40. All staging and storage of construction
equipment and materials, including the
construction dumpster, shall be on-site only.
The Property Owner must obtain written
permission from adjacent property owners for
any construction staging occurring on adjacent
property.
Building/
Public
Works
Standard
ATTACHMENT 7
82EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-R-____
Case No. CUP/M P-2011175
12095-12101 Washington Boulevard
Page 11 of 17
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency Source
Compliance
Verification
DURING CONSTRUCTION
41. Compliance with the following noise standards
shall be required with at all times:
A. No construction equipment shall be
operated without an exhaust muffler, and
all such equipment shall have mufflers
and sound control devices (i.e., intake
silencers and noise shrouds) that are no
less effective than those provided on
the original equipment;
B. All construction equipment shall be
properly maintained to minimize noise
emissions;
C. If any construction vehicles are serviced
at a location onsite, the vehicle(s) shall be
setback from any street and other
property lines so as to maintain the
greatest distance from the public right-of-
way and from Noise Sensitive Receptors;
D. Noise impacts from stationary sources
(i.e., mechanical equipment, ventilators,
and air conditioning units) shall be
minimized by proper selection of
equipment and the installation of
acoustical shielding as approved by the
Planning Manager and the Building
Official in order to comply with the City’s
Noise Regulations and Standards as set
forth in CCMC Chapter 9.07; and
E. Stationary source equipment (i.e.,
compressors) shall be located so as to
maintain the greatest distance from the
public right-of-way and from Noise
Sensitive Receptors.
Building/
Planning
Standard
ATTACHMENT 7
83EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-R-____
Case No. CUP/M P-2011175
12095-12101 Washington Boulevard
Page 12 of 17
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency Source
Compliance
Verification
DURING CONSTRUCTION
42. In the event three citations are issued in
connection with the Projec t for violations of
these Conditions of A pproval or for other
violations of the CCMC , Project construction
shall be stopped until such time that it is
determined to the satisf action of the Community
Development Director, that causes of such
violations have been eliminated or corrected and
that the Project will be able to proceed in full
compliance with these Conditions of Approval
and the CCMC.
Building/
Planning
Standard
43. Flag persons with certified training shall be
provided for work site tra ffic control to minimize
impacts to traffic flow and to ensure the safe
movement of vehicles into and out of the
Property.
Building/
Public
Works
Standard
44. During construction, trucks and other vehicles in
loading and unloading queues must be parked
with their engines off to reduce vehicle
emissions. Construction deliveries shall be
phased and scheduled to avoid emissions peaks
as determined by the Building Official and
discontinued during second-stage smog alerts.
Building Standard
45. Construction vehicles s hall not be permitted to
stage or queue where they would interfere with
vehicular and pedestrian traffic or block access
to adjacent properties. Off-site staging shall be
at locations approved by the City Engineer and
shall be of sufficient length to accommodate
large trucks without being unduly disruptive to
traffic operations. The drivers of these trucks
shall be in radio or phone communication with
on-site personnel who shal l advise the drivers
when to proceed from the staging location to the
Property. Construction-related vehicles shall not
be permitted to park on public streets.
Building/
Public
Works
Standard
ATTACHMENT 7
84EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-R-____
Case No. CUP/M P-2011175
12095-12101 Washington Boulevard
Page 13 of 17
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency Source
Compliance
Verification
PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OR FINAL INSPECTION
46. All provisions, and requirements set forth in
these Conditions of Approval, in the Resolution
approving the project, in the CCMC, or in any
applicable written comments as provided by City
representatives on January 5, 2012 at the
Project Review Committee meeting on the Land
Use Permit application, shall be fulfilled and
satisfied to the satisfaction of all City
departments before the us e may be established
or the Project occupied.
All Standard
47. All requirements of the City’s Art in Public
Places Program, as set forth in CCMC Section
15.06.100, et. seq., shall be fully satisfied prior
to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
provided, that if such requirements will be
satisfied by the payment of the public art in-lieu
fee, the same shall be paid prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
Cultural
Affairs
Standard
ATTACHMENT 7
85EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-R-____
Case No. CUP/M P-2011175
12095-12101 Washington Boulevard
Page 14 of 17
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency Source
Compliance
Verification
PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OR FINAL INSPECTION
48. All onsite and offsite improvements and all
conditions of approval ex cept those which are
deferred pursuant to a bond or letter of credit as
determined and approved by the Building
Official, Fire Marshal, Pl anning Manager, and/or
City Engineer shall be completed prior to
issuance of any certificate of occupancy. Prior
to issuance of any certificate of occupancy the
following shall be provided to and approved by
the City:
A. Five full sets of as-built plans that shall
include at a minimum the site plan,
grading and utility plan, landscape and
irrigation plan, floor plan for each level of
the Project, parking st ructure plan, roof
plan with all mechanical equipment
identified as to purpose and source and
all offsite improvements; and
B. One set of as-built plans as described
above in a digital format compatible with
the City’s computer system.
All Standard
49. The existing drive approach on Washington
Boulevard west of Inglewood Boulevard shall be
removed and replaced with an ADA compliant,
high-speed drive approach. Obtain a separate
permit form from the Engineering Division.
Public
Works
Special
ON-GOING
50. The use and development of the Property shall
be in substantial conf ormance with the plans
and materials submitted with the application for
the Land Use Permit as reviewed by the City
Council at its meeting on September 10, 2012,
excepted as modified by these Conditions of
Approval.
Planning Standard
ATTACHMENT 7
86EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-R-____
Case No. CUP/M P-2011175
12095-12101 Washington Boulevard
Page 15 of 17
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency Source
Compliance
Verification
ON-GOING
51. Pursuant to CCMC Section 17.650.020 -
“Inspection”, the Property Owner and Applicant
shall allow authorized City officials, or their
designees, access to t he Property where there
is reasonable cause to believe the Property is
not in compliance with these Conditions of
Approval or other requirements of the CCMC.
All Standard
52. Follow-up review reports on the operation of the
Traffic Management Progr am (TMP) shall be
submitted to the Planning Division after six
months and after one year of full operation. The
Applicant shall enter into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) wit h City which outlines
the scope and content of the reports. If it is
determined by the Planning Manager and the
City’s Traffic Engineer that the goals of the TMP
are not achieved, addi tional requirements may
be imposed as determined by the Planning
Manager and the City’s Traffic Engineer.
Planning/
Public
Works
Special
53. The maximum number of students for the
combined Village Glen School and Summit View
School shall not exceed 600. A letter verifying
the student enrollment shall be submitted
annually to the Planning Manager no more than
30 days after the commenc ement of the school
year.
Planning Special
54. No more than 15 permits shall be issued for
students to drive to the Summit View School.
Planning Special
55. The maximum number of staff for the combined
Village Glen School and Summit View School
shall not exceed 177. A lis t of all staff shall be
submitted to the Plan ning Manager annually 14
days prior to the comm encement of the school
year.
Planning Special
56. Transports dropping-off and picking-up students
in the Grand View Boulevard parking lot and
drop area (adjacent to the Washington
Boulevard and Grand View Boulevard
intersection) shall be permitted to exit the area
using a left turn or right turn onto Grand View
Boulevard.
Planning Special
ATTACHMENT 7
87EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-R-____
Case No. CUP/M P-2011175
12095-12101 Washington Boulevard
Page 16 of 17
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency Source
Compliance
Verification
ON-GOING
57. Transports dropping-off and picking-up students
in the Grand View Boulevard parking lot and
drop area (adjacent to the Washington
Boulevard and Grand View Boulevard
intersection) shall be permitted to exit the area
using a left turn or right turn onto Grand View
Boulevard.
Planning Special
58. Metered street parking s hall not be used for a
queuing area to the site. No School-operated
vehicles shall use the metered street parking at
any time.
Public
Works
Special
59. The Applicant has voluntarily agreed that it shall
waive its right to request any future increase in
the number of students beyond the 600 students
permitted by this Conditional Use Permit
Modification.
Planning Special
60. To alleviate the fi nancial impact on City
resources due to its non-profit status, and to
help ensure the public health, safety and welfare
are provided, the Applicant, on behalf of itself
and each of its successors and assigns, has
voluntarily agreed, for as long as the Applicant
and any non-profit succe ssor or assign takes
benefit of this Conditi onal Use Permit, to
reimburse the City for lost property tax and
business tax revenue, and cost for emergency
services, in the amount of $17,050 annually.
Applicant shall make said payment to the City’s
General Fund on or bef ore June 30 of each
year. The payment shall be increased annually
based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics
Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the Los
Angeles-Riverside-Orange County Metropolitan
Area published in June of each year.
Planning Special
ATTACHMENT 7
88EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-R-____
Case No. CUP/M P-2011175
12095-12101 Washington Boulevard
Page 17 of 17
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency Source
Compliance
Verification
ON-GOING
61. The use and development of the Property shall
comply with these Conditions of Approval and all
applicable local, special district or authority,
county, state and feder al statutes, codes,
standards, and regulations including, but not
limited to, Building Divis ion, Fire Department,
Planning Division and Public Works Department
requirements, and shall comply with all
applicable CCMC requirements and all
comments made during the City’s building
permit plan check review process. Failure to
comply with said Conditions, statutes, codes,
standards, and regulations may result in
reconstruction work, dem olition, stop work
orders, withholding of cert ificate of occupancy,
revocation of land use permit approval and/or
any other lawful action the City might deem
reasonable and appropriate to bring about
compliance.
All Standard
62. All graffiti shall be re moved from the Property
within 48 hours of its application.
Building/
Planning/
Public
Works
Standard
63. The Property Owner shall maintain all street
trees along the property frontage at his/her sole
cost and expense.
Public
Works
Standard
64. All mitigation measures set forth in any
environmental document rela ting to the Project
(including any reports of the type contemplated
by the California Envir onmental Quality Act)
shall be completed as specified therein.
Planning Standard
ATTACHMENT 7
89ATTACHMENT 8
90 T 8
91 ATTACHMENT 8
92 93 T 8
94 ATTACHMENT 8
95 ATTACHMENT 8
96 ATTACHMENT 8
97 T 8
98 T 8
99 8
100 NT 8
101 NT 8
102 ATTACHMENT 8
103 ATTACHMENT 8
104
REGULAR MEETING June 20, 2012
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 7:00 p.m.
CITY OF CULVER CITY,
CALIFORNIA
Call to Order & Roll Call
The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order
at 7:01 p.m.
Present: Anthony Pleskow, Chair (via teleconference)
Scott Wyant, Vice Chair
John Kuechle, Commissioner
Linda Smith Frost, Commissioner
Marcus Tiggs, Commissioner
o0o
Pledge of Allegiance
Thomas Gorham, Planning Manager, led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
o0o
Comments for Items NOT on the Agenda
Heather Baker, Assistant City Attorney, discussed Brown Act
issues noting that all requirements had been met; she
clarified that the hearing had been continued; and she
discussed proper public hearing noticing procedures.
Commissioner Kuechle received clarification regarding
notice regarding the continuation of the meeting.
Vice Chair Wyant invited public participation.
No cards were received and no speakers came forward.
o0o
ATTACHMENT 8
105Planning Commission Minutes
June 20, 2012
Page 2 of 7
Public Hearing
Item PH-1
Reconsideration of Denial of Conditional Use Permit
Modification (CUP/M 2011-175) – to permit the addition of
200 students to an existing private school located at
12095-12101 Washington Boulevard
Thomas Gorham, Planning Manager, provided a brief summary
of the material of record.
Discussion ensued between staff and Commissioners regarding
annual payments and adjustments; reimbursement for the cost
of police and fire calls; and lost property and business
tax revenue.
Vice Chair Wyant opened the public hearing and invited
public comment.
Thomas Gorham, Planning Manager, read a written statement
submitted by Alan Corlin.
The following member of the audience addressed the
Commission:
Carlene Brown provided background on herself and expressed
support for The Help Group.
Dr. Barbara Firestone, The Help Group, expressed
appreciation to the Commission for its reconsideration of
the item; summarized proposed mitigations; and noted that
the student population would be gradually increased.
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER KUECHLE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
TIGGS AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Discussion ensued between staff and Commissioners regarding
a belief that the project should go before the City Council
for their consideration; best interests of the City;
negative impacts of numerous schools in the City that
consume resources but do not pay property taxes; analyzing
relevant policy issues; the offer of annual payments to
offset certain losses; the last minute offer by The Help
Group; careful consideration of proposals; whether the
estimate of tax losses is adequate; clarification that the
ATTACHMENT 8
106Planning Commission Minutes
June 20, 2012
Page 3 of 7
site is zoned for commercial use; clarification that the
tax reimbursement figure is only for the additional
students; the need for a full and complete legal analysis;
power of the Commission; legal risks of imposing a property
tax recovery fee; the Emerald Estates lawsuit; whether the
Commission can make the findings called for by the zoning
code; the sound study; noise levels of the outdoor
graduation ceremonies; noise impacts of the project after
mitigation; the noise element of the Culver City General
Plan; the true traffic impact of the project; incremental
increases; clarification that The Help Group studied only
the increase rather than the entire project; language
regarding conflicts between vehicles; original concerns;
concern that The Help Group obscures facts to give their
project a better chance; The Help Group assertion that they
would waive any future right to increase the number of
students; appearing to give concessions without doing so;
the purchase of adjacent property for future expansion;
and a suggestion to adopt the denial resolution and add
language regarding noise concerns.
Additional discussion between Commissioners and staff
ensued regarding rumors; making the necessary findings;
appreciation to the Help Group for their concessions; City
Council changes regarding non—profits; support for the
project; the Emerald Estates matter; public parking spaces;
the established land use; time necessary to consider the
issues; the need for long-term planning; traffic and
parking concerns; the five on-street parking spaces;
reevaluation of the flow of traffic and parking; the need
to observe the situation; additional mitigation measures;
street impacts; the City threshold for significant impact;
the location of waiting vehicles; alerting parents that
they are not to arrive more than 10 minutes early for pick
up; students picked up by other than parents; and
regulating pick up procedures.
Discussion continued between Commissioners, staff and Help
Group representatives regarding where buses and cabs wait
for pick up; space within campus to accommodate all
vehicles; clarification that buses and cabs currently wait
all over the neighborhood; concern with getting the cars in
and out in an efficient manner; a previous condition that
cabs and buses not park in metered parking; the current
plan vs. the future plan; the three story parking
structure; and when the new parking plan would be
implemented.
ATTACHMENT 8
107Planning Commission Minutes
June 20, 2012
Page 4 of 7
Further discussion ensued between staff and Commissioners
regarding concern that the decision is a City Council level
decision but Commissioners are being called upon to decide
anyway; concern with causing undue burden for the Help
Group; the importance of the matter; concern with being
asked to make a judgment without being able to ask all the
questions; concern with setting a precedent; policy issues
vs. the specific project; concern with denying the project
to make a broader point; the response of the Help Group to
mitigate issues; imposition of fees vs. voluntary
agreement; concern with legal issues; and the 6-month and
12-month evaluation periods for circulation.
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER TIGGS AND SECONDED BY CHAIR PLESKOW
THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE THE CUP/M P-2011175 TO
ALLOW FOR A 600-STUDENT PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR SPECIAL NEEDS
STUDENTS AT 12095-12101 WASHINGTON BOULEVARD IN THE
COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG) ZONE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A, AND APPROVAL OF THE
NEGATIVE DECLARATION. THE MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: PLESKOW, TIGGS
NOES: KUECHLE, SMITH FROST, WYANT
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
Commissioner Kuechle added language regarding being unable
to make the findings with regard to noise for the Denial
Resolution which included: on page 3 of the resolution on
the first line where it says ‘related to traffic’ inserting
the words ‘noise on abutting residential neighborhoods and’
before the word traffic; and in the second line of the
finding in paragraph E add ‘and increased noise’ after
‘increased traffic around the school site’.
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER KUECHLE AND SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR
WYANT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2012-P0015 WITH THE CHANGES
DESCRIBED ABOVE.
AYES: KUECHLE, SMITH FROST, WYANT
NOES: PLESKOW, TIGGS
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ATTACHMENT 8
108Planning Commission Minutes
June 20, 2012
Page 5 of 7
Thomas Gorham, Planning Manager, explained appeal
procedures.
o0o
Consent Calendar
Item C-1
Secretary’s Report
Thomas Gorham, Planning Manager, read the Secretary’s
Report and noted that it was no longer required that the
Planning Commission receive and file them anymore.
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER TIGGS, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR WYANT
AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECEIVE AND FILE THE REPORT OF THE SECRETARY REGARDING THE
POSTING OF THE AGENDA FOR THIS MEETING.
o0o
Item C-2
Meeting Minutes – May 9, 2012 and May 23, 2012
A discussion ensued between staff and Commissioners
regarding a statement in the May 23, 2012 meeting minutes
indicating that a portion of the meeting was inaudible;
whether a recording of that portion of the meeting exists;
providing coverage in the minutes for that portion of the
meeting; and agreement to bring back revised minutes with
the missing portion of the meeting included.
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SMITH FROST, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
TIGGS AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 9, 2012.
o0o
Items from Staff
Thomas Gorham, Planning Manager, discussed upcoming
meetings and agenda items.
o0o
ATTACHMENT 8
109Planning Commission Minutes
June 20, 2012
Page 6 of 7
Items from Planning Commissioners
Commissioners thanked fellow Commissioner Tiggs for his
service to the Commission as this was his last meeting.
Commissioner Tiggs thanked his fellow Commissioners, staff
and the City Council for the chance to serve.
Thomas Gorham, Planning Manager indicated plans to honor
Commissioner Tiggs before the July 11, 2012 Commission
meeting.
o0o
Adjournment
There being no further business, at 8:24 p.m. the Culver
City Planning Commission adjourned to the next regular
meeting on Wednesday, July 11, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Mike Balkman Council Chambers.
o0o
YVONNE D. HUNT
SECRETARY of the CULVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED ____________________
SCOTT WYANT
VICE CHAIR of the CULVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Culver City, California
ATTACHMENT 8
110Planning Commission Minutes
June 20, 2012
Page 7 of 7
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
State of California that, on the date below written, these
minutes were filed in the Office of the City Clerk, City of
Culver City, California and constitute the Official Minutes
of said meeting.
_________________________ _________________________
Martin R. Cole Date
CITY CLERK
ATTACHMENT 8
111ATTACHMENT 9
112 ATTACHMENT 9
113
STATE CAPITOL
P.O. BOX 942849
SACRAMENTO, CA 94249-0047
(916) 319-2047
FAX (916) 319-2147
DISTRICT OFFICE
300 CORPORATE POINTE
SUITE 380
CULVER CITY, CA 90230
(310) 342-1070
FAX (310) 342-1078
HOLLY J. MITCHELL
ASSEMBLYMEMBER, FORTY-SEVENTH DISTRICT
COMMITTEES
Committee on Accountability
and Administrative Review
Committee on Appropriations
Committee on Budget
Committee on Health
Committee on Public Safety
Joint Legislative Budget
August 20, 2012
Culver City Council
9770 Culver Boulevard
Culver City, CA 90232
Dear City Council Members:
It is my privilege to represent The Help Group in my Assembly district. Since its founding in
1975, The Help Group has been at the forefront of creating innovative programs for children
with special needs related to autism spectrum disorders, learning disabilities, ADHD,
developmental delays, and valued mental health services that address abuse and emotional
challenges.
As the Chair of the Assembly’s Budget Sub-committee on Health & Human Services, I know the
importance of providing high-quality programs to children with special needs and their families.
The Help Group’s programs have contributed greatly to the health, well-being, and education of
children with autism and other special needs in California, and I strongly support their
application for increased enrollment at their Culver City campus.
In light of the ever-growing number of children affected by autism and other mental health
needs, The Help Group’s work in this area has never been more important.
Sincerely,
Holly J. Mitchell
Assemblymember
47th District
ATTACHMENT 9
114
August 21, 2012
Culver City Council
9770 Culver City Boulevard
Culver City, CA 90232
Dear Members of the City Council:
The welfare of individuals with special needs has always been a passion and focus of my public
service. I became familiar with The Help Group through their sponsorship of the Senate Joint
Resolution that established the California Legislative Blue Ribbon Commission on Autism. After this
legislation was passed with strong bipartisan support, I had the privilege to serve as its Chair. Dr.
Barbara Firestone, President and CEO of The Help Group, served as the Vice-Chair. More recently, I
was pleased to appoint Dr. Firestone as Chair, Statewide Coordinating Council of Autism Taskforces
for the Senate Select Committee on Autism & Related Disorders.
The Help Group is at the forefront of efforts to improve the quality of life for children with autism and
is proactive in its endeavors to help address the demand for services created by the increasing number
of children identified with autism spectrum disorders. Their innovative programs have contributed
greatly to the well-being of children with autism in our state.
I wholeheartedly support the important work of The Help Group and their proposed Culver City
expansion. These new facilities will enable 200 children to receive crucial educational services. Thank
you for your consideration of their application for increased enrollment at their Culver City campus.
Sincerely,
DARRELL STEINBERG
President pro Tempore
DS:kd
ATTACHMENT 9
115CURREN D. PRICE, JR.
26
th
SENATE DISTRICT
August 23, 2012
Culver City Council
9770 Culver Boulevard
Culver City, CA 90232
Dear Members of the City Council:
I am honored to represent The Help Group, a dynamic and vibrant nonprofit organization, whose Culver
City campus is located in my 26th Senate District. The Help Group is at the leading edge of providing
evidence-based treatments and educational programs for children with special needs related to autism
spectrum disorders, learning disabilities, ADHD, developmental delays, abuse and emotional problems.
The well-being of children is of special importance to me. As a member of the California Senate Select
Committee on Autism & Related Disorders, I have become very familiar with the issues and struggles
faced by families who have a child with developmental disabilities. The need for autism programs is
immense. The Help Group’s great breadth and depth allow them to provide a seamless range of services
including early education, therapy, day schools for pre-K through high school students, as well as
vocational education and transition planning to prepare students for increasing levels of independence.
I recently had the pleasure of touring The Help Group’s Culver City campus and meeting some of the
children they serve. The Help Group’s many contributions to our community are truly invaluable, and I
am proud to support their application for increased enrollment in their Culver City schools
Given that the rate of autism has increased yet again to 1 in every 88 children, the work of The Help
Group has never been more vital, and I thank you for your careful consideration of their application.
Sincerely,
CURREN D. PRICE, JR.
26TH SENATE DISTRICT
ATTACHMENT 9
116117
ATTACHMENT 9 ATTACHMENT 9
118 Scott Malsin
4237 Neosho Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90066
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Culver City
9770 Culver Blvd.
Culver City, CA 90232
Monday, August 27, 2012
Dear Mayor Weissman and Councilmembers,
I am writing in support of the application by The Help Group to increase the enrollment at their Culver
City campus.
It goes without saying that The Help Group provides important services to children in our community.
For reasons that are not well understood, an increasing number of children are afflicted by autism. The
Help Group is a highly-regarded service provider, assisting children who need more than our public
school system can offer.
As a west side resident, I am familiar with the school’s operations. I’ve had the opportunity to review
the improvements they will make in conjunction with the increased student population. I believe they
will make a good neighbor even better. Particularly:
1) The revised drop-off/pick-up plan will entirely eliminate the occasional and minor traffic
backups that have occurred in the past;
2) The increased height of the property wall will reduce any noise spill-over generated by activity
on campus; and
3) The pedestrian bridge from the second floor of the parking structure will provide more
convenient access to the existing medical offices on the property, which should ensure the long-
term success of that portion of the site programming.
I encourage you to contact me in the event you have any questions.
Thank You,
Scott Malsin
Former Mayor, City of Culver City
ATTACHMENT 9
119Diana Hauptman
8925 Carson Street
Culver City, CA 90232
310-839-0862
dianahauptman@yahoo.com
City of Culver City - City Hall
9770 Culver Blvd.
Culver City, CA 90232
August 19, 2012
Honorable Mayor
Distinguished City Council Members
We advocate your support for the Help Group to develop the adjoining
building on their property to accomodate 200 more students. We
appreciate the work of the Help Group and the necessary services it
provides for children with disabilities. As co-presidents of the Friends of
the Culver City Y outh Health Center we share similar values and know
how important it is for children to have the opportunities they need for
their deveplopment into functioning members of our society. It benefits
everyone when children are healthy in mind and body and able to
achieve.
We believe the Help Group is an asset to our community and would like
to see their work acknowledged by your positive vote.
Sincerely,
Diana Hauptman Andy Alexander
ATTACHMENT 9
121122
ATTACHMENT 9 123 ATTACHMENT 9
125