City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: 12/05/11 Item Number: J-1
JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA ITEM: Selection
of a Developer for Negotiations to Redevelop Property Located at 9300 Culver
Boulevard (Parcel B).
Contact Person / Department :
Joe Susca/CDD
Todd Tipton/ CDD
Phone Number:
(310) 253-5763
(310) 253-5783
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: []
Commission Action Required: Yes [X] No [] Date: 10/06/11
Advisory Committee on Redevelopment
Public Notification (E-Mail) Redevelopment Agency Projects (11/22/11); (E-Mail) Meetings
and Agendas – City Council (12/1/11); (E-Mail) The Downtown Business Association
(11/22/11); (E-Mail) The Advisory Committee on Redevelopment (11/22/11); (E-Mail) The
Gateway Neighborhood Association (11/22/11); (E-Mail) The Four Developer
Respondents to the Parcel B RFP (11/22/11); (E-Mail) The Downtown Neighborhood
Association (11/22/11); (E-Mail) The Culver City Chamber of Commerce (11/22/11); (E-
Mail) Members of the public who attended the 11/09/10 workshop on the subject matter
(11/22/11); (E-Mail) Members of the public who pulled speaker cards on the subject
matter during the Agency Board meetings of 10/04/10, 02/14/11, 06/13/11, 09/12/11,
10/03/11, 10/04/11, and 10/24/11 (11/22/11); (Website) The City’s Parcel B Webpage
(11/22/11); (Internet) The City’s Facebook Wall (10/21/11 and 11/01/11); Three 3’ X 4’
signs were erected on Parcel B inviting the public to view and comment on the competing
proposals (10/28/11); (Newspaper) Culver City News ¼ Page Display Advertisement on
10/27/11, 11/10/11 and 11/24/11 inviting the public to view and comment on the
competing proposals; (U.S. Post) A public notice was mailed to businesses, residents,
and property owners in excess of a 500’ radius of the site (11/22/11); (U.S. Post and E-
Mail) Rush Pacifica LLC (11/22/11).
Department Approval:
Sol Blumenfeld (11/22/11)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (11/28/11)
Agency Counsel Approval:
Murray Kane: (11/22/11)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (11/29/11)
City Manager/Executive Director Approval:
John M. Nachbar (11/29/11)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council and Culver City Redevelopment Agency Board
(Agency Board) select a developer for negotiations to redevelop the property located
at 9300 Culver Boulevard (Parcel B).
BACKGROUND:
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
On February 14, 2011 the City Council/Agency Board approved a two-step process
to select a developer for Parcel B. The first step involved issuing a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) to premier firms in order to identify those that are most qualified
to develop Parcel B. The second step involved issuance of a Request for Proposals
(RFP) to the most qualified respondents in order to obtain the best development
proposals for Parcel B.
The RFQ included the list of community goals outlined in a workshop held on
November 9, 2010 and City Council/Agency Board direction to maintain the existing
Parcel B entitlements to reduce project costs and development timeframes and to
ensure an “iconic” design that is “pedestrian friendly” and to avoid development of a
“fortress-like” or “monolithic” building.
On July 8, 2011, the RFP was issued and four responses were received. The City
Council/Agency Board received presentations from the four developers on October 3
and 4, 2011 and took public testimony regarding the proposals. The development
team proposals were posted on the City’s website (with a notice sent to
approximately 8,300 subscribers through the City’s e-mail notification system), and
the presentation boards were placed in the Community Development and Fire
Department lobby at City Hall for public review. Since October 14, 2011,
approximately 1,495 people have viewed the City’s website containing the
proposals, and many have visited City Hall to review the submittals.
On October 24, 2011, a meeting was held in order to provide the public with an
additional opportunity to review the project proposals, ask questions, and provide
input. The site was also posted to further publicize consideration of the
redevelopment proposals for Parcel B.
Discussion of Developer Submittals:
The Parcel B proposals contain distinct differences in building design, development
program, project schedule, and design quality. While each proposal references the
importance of Parcel B as a critical element of the downtown revitalization, they
differ in design and development approach. All of the proposals are consistent with
the property entitlements, though some have included alternative development
programs and parking options for consideration.
Tolkin Group (Tolkin):
Tolkin’s project is an office complex comprised of three similar, contemporary styled
buildings with ground level retail oriented to Culver and Washington Boulevards, an
interior court that opens onto Town Plaza, and connecting pedestrian walks that
open onto street frontage. The project contains 108,066 square feet of gross
building area. The letter “X” is used by Tolkin as a metaphor to identify the “center
of Culver City” near Culver Boulevard and Main Street and to inform the project City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
design and the project name “Culver X”. The project features a central court yard
with benches, fountain planting and seating, stepped building levels and
contemporary storefront design and is pedestrian oriented relative to use and design
features and will contain “creative office tenants. The project parking contains
between 93 and 405 spaces depending upon the parking option selected.
Cardiff/N3:
Cardiff/N3’s project is an office complex of three similar, transitional styled buildings
that mix window forms, materials, a stair feature and outdoor dining on the public
way, art panels, green roof, roof garden and interior courts to create an eclectic
architectural theme. Cardiff’s project, Parc and Main, contains 102,800 square feet
of gross building area and features a brick façade, corten panels, gray and tan
colored plaster and wood details. Ground level retail is oriented to Culver and
Washington Boulevards, and an interior court opens onto Town Plaza and Culver
Boulevard. The second level contains office or “quasi-retail” uses. Creative office
tenants are proposed for the floors above. The project is pedestrian oriented relative
to use and design along street frontage. The interior court contains outdoor dining,
benches and planting. The project parking contains between 120 and 379 spaces
depending upon the parking option selected.
Runyon Group (Runyon):
Runyon’s project, Paseo, is a traditional styled Spanish Revival office complex with
ground level retail oriented to Culver and Washington Boulevards and a building
colonnade that runs for much of the length of the site along the north building
elevation. Building materials are clay tile roof, stucco, decorative Spanish tile, wood
balustrades and corbels. The building contains a traditional building layout with a
central courtyard at the project interior and a bell tower element at the project corner
located at Washington and Culver Boulevards. The project contains 94,989 square
feet of gross building area. “Paseos” (or pedestrian paths) are located along the
Culver Boulevard street frontage and the Town Plaza access road. An optional small
building to be used as an art gallery is proposed entirely in Town Plaza with the
project’s art fund contribution to partially pay the cost of construction. The art
building would require separate permitting as a City project on City property and will
require City or private funding to program and operate the art space. The project has
a pedestrian orientation relative to street frontage. The project parking contains
between 116 and 419 spaces depending upon the parking option selected.
Combined/Hudson Pacific (Combined):
Combined’s project is an office and retail complex of three uniquely styled
contemporary buildings set on a podium of ground level retail.
Stepped roof lines, setbacks, cantilevers and varying window treatment create the
building form for the office which reveals as two or three buildings depending upon
orientation to the project. The project materials include wood, brick, copper, colored City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
metal panels and green glass. The development includes an “Elevated Plaza” and
“Grand Stairs” that front on the adjacent Town Plaza. The project contains 115,108
square feet of gross building area. The Grand Stairs are 50 feet in width, rise one
story and connect at the second level with an elevated plaza, a large restaurant,
retails space, stairs and offices. The project includes both conventional office and
“loft-style” creative office space fronting the Elevated Plaza. The stair and plaza
features are to be dedicated for public use and are intended to be used in
connection with public arts events on Town Plaza. The project parking contains
between 98 and 256 spaces depending upon the parking option selected.
Next Steps:
Upon selection of a developer by the City Council/Agency Board, negotiations for a
Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) for property disposition will
commence. This process includes additional opportunities for public input as the
selected development team refines their proposal.
Selecting a developer for negotiation does not commit the City or the Agency to sell
the property. That cannot happen unless and until an economic report is first
prepared and made available for public review detailing the proposed purchase price
and other terms and conditions of the proposed sale, and until further input on the
report and proposed sale is first obtained at a noticed public hearing.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
Depending upon the project selected, the City/Agency will receive a total of $7 million
to $8.4 million in tax revenue, which includes $257,000 to $338,000 in General Fund
revenues annually. The City would receive approximately $1 million in one-time
building permit and related fees.
Extra public parking options proposed in the four submittals range in cost from
$25,252 to $56,368 per space.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Correspondence
MOTION:
That the City Council and Agency Board:
Select a developer and direct the City Manager/Executive Director to commence
negotiation on a Disposition and Development Agreement with
___________________ for redevelopment of 9300 Culver Boulevard.
MEETING DATE: 12/05/11
AGENDA ITEM: JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY BOARD ITEM: Selection of a Developer
for 9300 Culver Boulevard (Parcel B).
ATTACHMENTS
Item Description Pages
1
Written comments received from the public.
1-36
-----Original Message-----
From: Jennifer Edwards
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 4:28 PM
To: Susca, Joe
Subject: Parcel B Development
Clever City should require the developer of Parcel B to include affordable housing, like other
cities, such as Santa Monica, do.
Jennifer Edwards
25 year Culver City Resident
-----Original Message-----
From: HowardCohen
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 11:15 AM
To: Susca, Joe
Subject: RE: Parcel B Web Page Update
These are some very professional presentations, and I'm sure (if the economic works & the
economy improves) each has the capacity of being successful, but I still believe downtown
needs more "Residential" on Parcel "B" and elsewhere to improve & sustain the downtown
core.
I'm still looking forward to see how the one selected executes it’s Project.
Thank you!
Howard
From: Albert Cutler
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 9:58 AM
To: Susca, Joe
Cc: sginsberg@combined.biz
Subject: Parcel B
Appreciate the detailed Emails on the proposals for Parcel B. If the resident's input
counts, I'm in favor the the proposal by Combined Properties. It is the most
dynamic of the proposals and would spark our rather "stogy" downtown!
Al Cutler
Culver City, CA
From: Maya Mallick
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 12:15 PM
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 1To: Malsin, Scott; Armenta, Christopher; Cooper, Jeffrey; michal.oleary@culvercity.org; Weissman,
Andrew
Cc: Nachbar, John; Blumenfeld, Sol
Subject: Parcel B presentations
Good Afternoon Mayor and Council Members,
Thank you for offering the community a chance to participate in this month’s developer
presentations of Parcel B. The Culver Hotel along with the rest of the community is
very much looking forward to the successful development and completion of the
project. It is clear to me that all 4 developers have put a tremendous amount of effort
and expense into understanding that we are a special city that will embrace and benefit
from a project that places value on architecture, pedestrian friendly open spaces and as
many green areas as possible.
Per Mr. Malsin's request, I would like to share additional comments and a few questions
on the four presentations:
The Spanish Steps, the Art Pavilion and the Green Roof were 3 of my favorite features
throughout the presentations. I believe that those are excellent concepts which would
be great to combine on some level in the same development with whomever you select
if at all possible.
Additional ideas which I felt were strong and seemed to carry out throughout the
presentations were the terraced/stepped buildings, high ceilings on the ground level,
light color materials as well as floor to ceiling glass in certain areas creating a more
updated feel. Passageways, open spaces and separate buildings are of course
necessary features and creating a venue which could call for a weekly/monthly cultural
or music event would be a great draw to the area. This could also tie into the existing
Third Wednesdays which the DBA currently organizes.
There are a few things which I would love to see some of…
More green on the ground level and additional water elements, or one central and larger
water element to create a focal point. Too much concrete does not promote a
neighborhood feel. Also, the model presented by the Tolkin Group was a very nice
touch as it helped feel the scale of the project. I would encourage a physical model for
the other developers if at all possible to help put their project into perspective with
regards to how it would flow with the surrounding areas.
Last but not least, a complete interior renovation of the theatre would greatly enhance
the entire area and certainly complement whatever is going to happen on Parcel B.
With Culver City being the heart of Screenland, it is a perfect opportunity and an
absolute must to create something spectacular and unique in a city with so much movie
making presence and history.
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 2Although the presentations nicely outlined the architecture and ambiance of the
projects, there was not much information as to the actual details of impacts of noise,
dirt, traffic flow, dust, road closures and how the site will be contained to minimize
impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
How will the selected developer ensure the timely completion of the project and what is
the projected timeline from start to finish? Are there any incentives to completing on
time or early? What are the financing criteria? The community is concerned that the
site is actually going to be completed, especially given these financial times.
As the operator of The Culver Hotel, I am interested in late night and early morning
noise both during the construction phase as well as after completion, when the
businesses and outdoor entertainment are in full operation. What will these noise
guidelines follow and will there be any negative noise impact for our hotel guests?
In closing, I appreciate the developers sensitivity towards developing something
complimentary to the Historic Culver Hotel and Culver Studios and creating an
environment that promotes people friendly and open areas, interesting and inviting
buildings which tie in art, food, entertainment and culture. We wholeheartedly look
forward to embracing the best project as our new neighbor.
Sincerely,
Maya Mallick
T 310.558.9400 | F 310.815.0797
THE CULVER HOTEL
9400 Culver Blvd. Culver City, CA 90232
HOTEL BEVERLY TERRACE
469 N. Doheny Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 90210
www.hotelbeverlyterrace.com
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 3ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 4ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 5ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 7
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 8
From: r sergant [mailto:rsergant@msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 5:39 AM
To: Susca, Joe
Subject: Downtown CC plan
I looked at the four power point proposals for parcel B (near Trader Joe's)
My favorite was the Runyon plan. I liked the emphasis on the Mission Style.
Plenty of parking below.
I also liked the presentation by Tolkin.. but the design was a bit too glitzy
for that area.. It seems like parking is the main focus of that plan...
Elements of the other two plans were good, but also w/ a downside.
I liked the rooftop growing great garden.
I worry about all of the steps and possible problems w/ skateboards, etc.
Any elevators for the disabled? limited mobility?
Question: Will any of these plans impact our Farmer's Market? In what way?
Any protection during the winter rains?
Thank you, r sergant
From: Schafer, Ron
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 2:57 PM
To: Susca, Joe
Subject: Parcel B comments
Hey Joe,
As an Architect and Culver City Resident, I thought I would present my opinions related to the developer
designs presented to the Council earlier this month. In my opinion the method to create a project that is of
its place and creates a welcoming sense of place; would be a combination of Cardiff Realty’s façade
treatments and Runyon Group’s plan arrangement.
Why?
Façade:
The more contemporary façade treatments by the Cardiff scheme brings a more contemporary style yet
maintains the pedestrian scale truly needed to continue the success of the existing downtown district.
Plan:
The key to having an internal shopping environment “work” visitors need to have many views into the
space and vice versa the visitors need to have many exits from this space. It may reside in the animal
DNA in each of us, but I believe it has to do with our survival instincts that we really want to have multiple
ways “out” to feel comfortable.
Note:
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 9I do believe that the Combined great Stair has a considerable amount of merit. It would be a unique
feature in Culver City, but it really relies very heavily on what is happening on the second level. You may
be able to achieve the draw using multiple restaurant tenants, the stair does allow a considerable amount
of viewing of the tenants from afar. The only drawback with this scheme is the façade treatment on the
corner.
Thanks for accepting comments,
Best,
Ron E. Schafer, AIA
DESIGN LEAD, SENIOR ASSOCIATE
R N L | www.rnldesign.com
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 10ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 11
From: Holly Burrell [mailto:hburrell@mac.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 2:08 PM
To: Susca, Joe
Subject: Paseo Project
Dear Mr. Susca,
I am a Culver City resident and am writing you to let you know I support Runyon Group's Paseo
project and encourage you to vote for it. The Millers have been in Culver City for 57 years.
They are local people with a proven track record of success.
Sincerely,
Holly Burrell
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 12ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 13ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 14BYCO, INC.
commercial development C 2025 Newport Blvd, Suite 200, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 (949) 645-2251 Fax (949) 645-4137
SENT VIA Email
November 3, 2011
CULVER CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY & COUNCIL
9770 Culver Boulevard
Culver City, CA 90232
RE: PARCEL “B” DEVELOPMENT
Dear Mayor O’Leary, Council members Malsin, Armenta, Weissman and Cooper and Community
Development Director Blumenfeld:
My apology from the start for the length of this letter, but I felt it important to express my thoughts on this very
important project and it’s difficult to do in an abbreviated fashion. Allow me to first commend the council and
agency members for the thoughtful and effective process in presenting the four Parcel B proposals before the
city at large. The process enabled its citizens and business owners an effective opportunity to explore the
various projects and get to know each developer, and become comfortable with the city’s options. Having
attended all of the city’s presentations, talking with all of the developers and even hosting all of them at our
quarterly DBA membership meeting last Wednesday, I feel I have a solid understanding of the various
proposals as well as the developers qualifications. I also believe I understand the criteria the city will use in
determining which project and developer should be awarded the project. This is why I’d like to provide my
“two cents worth” on my observations and recommendation for this site. And let me add that generally prefer to
withhold my opinion of what goes on with other people’s property or business, or make suggestions to the city
of how to handle its city business. I limit my comments to only that which I feel strongly and passionately
about, and I guess this project qualifies.
First, I trust all of you realize that my family and company have made a significant investments in Culver City
and continued that commitment for the past 50 years. This commitment is not for a season, it’s not for a quick
buck, it’s a lifetime commitment. So suffice it to say, our success is intertwined deeply with that of the city’s.
Therefore, the nature of the project that ends up on parcel B will not only determine the success of that block,
but also define the future success for all of downtown. With that in mind, and without knowing what the short
term economic benefit might be to the city from each developer’s purchase offer, I wanted to repeat at point
that it is incredibly important. The choice made by the city should not be disproportionately weighted by a one
time financial gain generated by its sales price if that option ends up with a design or developer who may
produce a project with a lower potential of success over the long term. The challenge with this statement is that
determining the best project is somewhat subjective. It’s also possible that the better developer may not have
presented the best project for the site, or worded differently, the project with the highest potential for success
may have been presented by a developer the city may not have as their number one choice.
Before seeing and hearing about any of the proposals my initial thought for what belonged on that site mirrored
three of the four proposals, an interior (or courtyard) oriented mixed use project with access from many
locations. When the first three projects were presented I felt my initial thought was confirmed. Then Combined
Properties presented their very interesting Grand Staircase project which was so “outside the box” that I was
immediately swept away. Part of my reaction was based on the fact that this developer partnership appeared
very qualified and to have the financial resources to complete this project. The project itself was so creative that
I thought it might provide exactly what was need, something different, something that hadn’t been thought of
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 15before. It created a very unique point of interest and seemed to do it in a fashion that offered something for the
entire community. Their explanation of “outward facing” was logical, and the second level public area surreal.
At the conclusion of the presentations on October 26
th
I walked to Parcel B and envisioned how each of the
projects would appear on that lot. There’s nothing like gaining perspective by actually standing on the site and
walking it to envision how the proposals would appear verses as presented. One of my initial concerns with the
concept of a “courtyard” development was the concern over it feeling too narrow, and based on the height of
some of the buildings as proposed, too confining. Given the size of the parcel, and after walking it, I could see
that a project designed too vertical would seem to create that situation. As I walked around the lot, I imagined
how the pedestrian traffic pattern would work in and around each development, and explored whether any or all
of them might have certain limitations. The first realization that came to mind was that Washington Boulevard
(south of Culver between Trader Joes/Ince parking structure) is not pedestrian friendly. In fact, the traffic signal
to cross Washington is not only long, it’s prohibitive, making it just the opposite. With the rerouting of this
section of Washington Boulevard, it has become auto intensive and does not lend itself to pedestrian foot
traffic. There also is no retail currently along that stretch of Washington, with the entrance to Trader Joe’s
located at the corner facing Culver. That being the case, I believe there would be limited desire for pedestrian
traffic to use any retail frontage along Washington or the frontage between the Culver Studios and the new
project. Any foot traffic that might walk these sections would possibly be a few Culver Studio employees,
making any retail with access facing Washington only a challenge to succeed. There also is virtually no
pedestrian influence coming down Washington from the east to provide any significant foot traffic along this
stretch. This would indicate that the vast majority of exposure and likely pedestrian shoppers will continue to
be generated from the Culver Boulevard facing side of the development (across from the Citizen Building and
Native Foods), and more likely from the west through Town Plaza, Culver Hotel and the rest of the downtown
district to the west. The remaining small balance of any pedestrian traffic would have to be generated from the
project itself (which would depend on whether there is ample parking on site) and the Ince parking structure,
which will suffer from that Washington Boulevard barrier. What would this mean to retailers looking to locate
in this new development? Those retailers not facing Culver Boulevard would probably see lower pedestrian
volume, unless they had additional points of access. This would likely be true of any retail business facing only
Culver Studios. Without another attraction along that portion of the plaza, exposure and thus, customers would
be a challenge. If there are Grand Stairs occupying a significant corner and high visibility portion of the center,
stairs which in and by themselves don’t produce or sell products, then a significant and potentially more
valuable portion of the project has been taken off the market and would instead be a non economically
productive feature of the project. From a revenue generating standpoint, it provides little unless there’s an event
which might draw visitors, and those types of events are infrequent. I believe in essence that the Grand Stair
development would be trading a “cool idea” for more revenue generating retailers and the tax revenues that
accompany it.
That got me to thinking, just how significant and practical will those “unique” Grand Stairs be for the success
of the project in particular and the downtown in general. I don’t believe I need to state the obvious, but the
downtown is craving more retail businesses. And the more retail opportunities that are available in this
development the greater the likelihood that the development will be successful, and with that, the downtown.
The Grand Stairs as a plaza feature does not provide this retail benefit, and in fact, it reduces the availability of
prime retail space. It became evident to me that these Grand Stairs, while incredibly unique, offers limited
benefit to the other downtown businesses, at least in providing what is most needed,...retail. Having the use of
these stairs for the very limited times when there might be entertainment in the plaza is far less beneficial than
what solid retailers located in this same location would add to the area. The Grand Stairs would be utilized
infrequently, and when they are, it will be by a limited number of people who are not necessarily shoppers, but
simply spectators. Our downtown area offers other venues which have ample area to enjoy the environment,
like city hall plaza, Town Plaza, Ivy Park, and the added pedestrian walkways which will be a part of the
development on this parcel. While it’s a “neat” concept, it’s not as if it’s the only area in downtown where
people can congregate, there are many others. I’m also not sure that being able to sit on the second level of this
Grand Staircase development, with the primary benefit being to look out over Culver Studios, is in and of itself,
a benefit that outweighs the need to provide a development which will add to the overall financial success of
downtown and its businesses. It’s a great idea, but when weighed against the other opportunities proposed, its
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 16long term economic benefit seems lacking.
What I am trying to say is that I believe that given what really is a relatively small parcel of land, the ground
floor of the development must maximize its exposure to the pedestrian shoppers, and the Grand Stairs, with the
majority of its retail opportunities primarily facing and access from Culver Studios and Washington Boulevard,
severely limits that potential. Without additional access points for those few retailers who would be located
there, the rental value of those lease spaces, and the potential success of its tenants, will be limited.
As a result the above observations I have come full circle with my opinion on the best option and now believe
that a project which opens to its center, and does so in way so as to minimize the vertical features of the
development, will provide many more retail opportunities. And with those additional opportunities there will be
more entrances, which increase the number of pedestrian entry points and allows the retailers who’ll locate
along the Washington and the Culver Studio frontages to have multiple access points from the courtyard. It
likely was not a coincidence that three of the four developers designed a courtyard oriented project. In my
opinion a courtyard design will provide the greatest potential for financial success, and the project’s potential
success should be decision number one when evaluating the best concept.
This brings me back to the “vertical” aspects of the various proposals. The only one which seemed to combine
both relief, as the project ascended, and varying widths of its courtyard, was the Tolkin plan. The other two
were too confined and I personally feel were to contrived, for lack of a better word, to fit their footage on the
site. That may also be why Tolkin’s proposal consisted of less total footage within the development. It would
be better to have 5,000 less square feet in a successful project than necessarily maximize the parcel and crowd
out potential success. There are numerous examples of other projects which have maximized density and failed
because they were over crowded and under parked.
Let hit on a couple additional points, I will attempt to keep them brief. First, whatever project ends up on this
site simply must have more parking than the 84 spaces currently approved. All of the projects incorporate an
office component which consists of more than half the development, and from first hand experience and over
35 years in the business, short of being in downtown LA or Century City (or the like), office users are just not
going to rent at top lease rates and walk across a busy street, especially Washington Boulevard, to get to their
office. Retail shoppers, with a motivation to do so, may. So with upwards of 55,000 square feet of office space,
this project should have no less than 220 on site parking spaces for office users, and another 100 on site spaces
for office and retail visitors. Given that this is likely the last downtown parcel capable of providing additional
parking of this number, this is the time to take action on developing it now while the opportunity presents itself.
If sharing in the cost to add this parking now is necessary, it might be the best investment the city can make.
This additional parking cannot be added later and the cost of not doing it now could result in not only an
unsuccessful Parcel “B” project, but also the failure of the entire downtown as we have come to know it, and
that would be much more expensive than any discount or cost of contributing toward this additional parking.
It appears that possibly all four of the developers are capable of completing this project. I’d assume that
Combined Properties might exhibit the best financial ability of them all. However, with a developer of that size
also comes other concerns, that the very size of their portfolio means this project - while intriguing due to its
proximity to Culver Studios - would be a very small part of a very large portfolio. It is further reduced when
each partner in the group is only responsible for roughly half the project, reducing further the share of their
respective portfolios. This relationship can create as many interesting positives as it can negatives. Here’s my
perspective. I think bringing in some new outside ideas and fresh perspective to our downtown is something
that should be embraced. The various developer’s relationship with the city has been played up as if it was of
primary importance. Under most circumstances I might tend to agree with that. However, when we keep fishing
off the same pier we tend to catch the same fish, and that goes for fresh ideas, too. I like the idea of a developer
who has developed in other similar sized cities and has the experience of what type of businesses fit in a city
such as ours. While I like Joey and his commitment to Culver City, I feel he may be a bit too close to the
process and community and, while he may be able to perform, he might just need a bit more experience in this
arena. Cardiff’s proposal didn’t seem to reflect a significant amount of research and consideration of the
downtown area and, instead, seemed to try to win supporters via a beauty contest, eg: a green project. The
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 17practicality of its design just didn’t come though in the end. As for the Tolkin proposal, I have to say that it
appears a lot of thought went into their plan and it reflected their past experience with similar size projects and
market areas. While their design is modern (and I’ve got nothing against the design), it seems to have captured
what is needed in our downtown. Multiple retail space opportunities, including service retail on the second
floor. A courtyard which has vertical and horizontal relief throughout (which minimizes the closed in feel I
addressed earlier) and several entry/access points for its retailers to maximize pedestrian access. I even the like
the family nature of their company (I wonder why), and they bring a passion to their projects. It’s that kind of
investigation and commitment this city needs for a project of this scope, not someone expecting to win because
they happen to live or work in the city.
Finally, let me address the office component of this development. It is apparent that while this is the larger
portion of the total footage, it is second in importance to the overall development and the project needed to
enhance downtown. I also do not believe it is important to have a particular developer do the office portion of
the project just because “they will bring industry tenants with them”. This simply is not a large office
development, it’s a small office project not much bigger than Meralta. If there is demand for office users (with
or without a relationship with Culver Studios or other tech oriented businesses), the project’s developer is really
not important. What is important is that the office portion of the project be designed and constructed to properly
address the actual needs/demands of the office market, and I believe that is provided equally well in Tolkin’s
design. I believe there is a demand for office in the downtown and this moderately sized office component to
the development does not require a developer with connections to a particular industry to be successful. For
what it’s worth, Meralta is fully leased, and I still get calls I can’t satisfy. This component of the development,
assuming adequate parking, will lease up fine regardless of the developer.
I understand that I am actually taking a position on a specific project and developer, something I would
typically avoid. However, I feel compelled to express my perspective given the importance of this parcel to
downtown, using the years of experience we’ve had in Culver City, our development experience, and my
impression of the participants and their proposals. Bottom line, the decision which I understand will be very
difficult, must look beyond the beauty contest and the greatest financial strength of a particular developer. It
must focus on the long term potential for success of not only the project but its impact on all of downtown. The
success the right project can bring to the entire area is so important that a big picture focus must be employed. I
truly believe that provided the Tolkin Group satisfies the city as to their financial ability to complete this
project, which I assume they have through the RFQ, that they bring the freshest ideas, best design and sincere
interest and desire to develop this project and become a great member of the Culver City community. I would
encourage you to give their project serious consideration as the developer of this site.
I would like you to know that none of the developers asked that I petition or endorse them or their project. The
sole motivator for adding my voice and support in this process and for this project is that I feel strongly about
everything mentioned above. As I’ve likely repeated, this project stands to set the direction for the future
success of the entire downtown and basing the winner primarily on financial criteria (specifically sales price,
which is understandably important to the city) or uniqueness, does not guaranty a successful project. The whole
picture needs to be taken into consideration, and while a short term economic bemefit to the city is important,
from a project success standpoint, it should be the least important part of the evaluation process.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my thoughts and perspective. I know the process will not be easy
and maybe not unanimous. But I trust the ultimate decision will be made with the success of downtown Culver
City as it most important criteria.
Best regards,
John S. Byers
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 18
-----Original Message-----
From: G. Bruce Smith [mailto:gbrucesmith1@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 4:37 PM
To: Susca, Joe
Subject: Parcel B
Hello Mr. Susca,
I've lived in Culver City for two years and I love it! I live near
downtown, about four blocks from Parcel B and I checked out the four
PPT presentations by the four architects who are proposing
developments for Parcel B.
Each one had very interesting ideas and perspectives. I definitely did
not like the Runyon Group proposal. It had no imagination and looks
like any cheap knockoff of faux Spanish developments seen throughout
Southern California. Culver City is hip and classy, and the Runyon
Group proposal does not measure up. I also did not like Runyon's
proposed list of tenants.
The other three are all interesting and, I think, are good designs. I
like aspects of each for different reasons, but slightly favor Parc +
Main because it seems to fit in best with the surrounding
architectural styles.
My concern about all 4 is scale; the proposals seem awfully large for
the scale of the rest of the downtown area. And, of course, such large
developments would generate lots of traffic and parking challenges.
Can you tell me the time line for approvals, construction and opening?
Thank you for the opportunity to give my input.
G. Bruce Smith
8912 Krueger St.
Culver City, CA 90232
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 191
Culver City Downtown Business Association
PO Box 1322
Culver City, CA 90232
Phone: 310-202-6060
Email: executivediector@downtownculvercity.com
November 1, 2011
Culver City Redevelopment Agency
9770 Culver Boulevard
Culver City, CA 90232
RE: Developer Selection for Parcel B
To the Culver City Redevelopment Agency:
On behalf of the Downtown Business Association (DBA), I would like to thank the Culver
City Redevelopment Agency (Agency) for including the DB A in the process of
evaluating the developers for Parcel B. We believe the four developers present solid
concepts, each providing highlights we believe would be a welcome addition to our
downtown. While many members have personal favorites, the DBA as a body, is not
supporting any one proposal/developer, rather we agreed it more important to convey
the critical components we believe the city must take into consideration when selecting
the developer for this project, on the city’s most significant downtown site.
As a result of this process, which included a recent presentation from all four developers
to the DBA membership, as well as countless other discussions the DBA has had over
the past couple of years regarding Parcel B, the DBA feels the most important factors to
consider in this selection process include 1) on site parking, 2) optimization of retail
opportunities, and 3) interaction and consultation with existing downtown stakeholders
(DBA). While there are many other issues that are also important to the success of this
project, these three items stand out as critical. By including the above in the city’s
evaluation process we believe it will result in a project which is not only successful in its
own right, but also will create an environment within which the rest of downtown will
benefit, and this must be a primary consideration.
First, we believe without ample on site parking the project will not experience its greatest
potential for success. The average office user (which will comprise more than half the
project) simply will not put up with off site parking. If they do, it will result in a discounting
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 202
in the value of the space, hurting the project’s economics. The value to the project and
surrounding downtown businesses depend on providing enough on site parking. While
the property is currently entitled for as few as 84 parking spaces, this simply is not
adequate or reasonable. The need for many times this amount can’t be stressed strong
enough. We urge you to consider the alternative parking plans presented by all of the
developers to include up to 400 parking spaces, or more. This may be a one time
opportunity to address the future parking needs of not only this project, but the parking
demands well into the future. Now is the time, perhaps the only time we will have to
make a bold choice and add to our parking resources to benefit downtown.
We also believe the project must provide adequate retail opportunities, IE: multiple first
floor accessible stores. The project should have several retail locations situated in such
a way as to maximize exposure and access for the most retailers possible. Without
enough retail opportunities to create the synergy that will feed off one another, it will be
difficult to bring in complimentary businesses to our downtown. I think we’d all agree
that our downtown’s brand has been established by its excellent restaurants; however,
without plentiful and accessible retail businesses, the restaurants will have an
increasingly difficult time surviving in competition with surrounding areas which have
both restaurants and retail.
The DBA appreciates that its input has been solicited and considered and feels our
continued involvement through the planning, development, and marketing process can
be key to the overall success of the project. While the fresh thoughts from the developer
will promote more ideas for the area, our local property and business owners feel they
have an unique understanding of the uniqueness of the downtown; our own backyard
where many live, work and play every day and are anxious to share them. DBA
involvement, as well as that of the surrounding neighborhood, will help to sculpt a project
in our downtown of which everyone can be proud.
The DBA appreciates you listening to our thoughts and considering our input. We look
forward to working with the Agency and Staff, and ultimately the developer, in achieving
our mutual goal of creating the best project for Parcel B.
Sincerely,
John S. Byers
President
Culver City Downtown Business Association
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 21From: Mike Hong [mailto:mhong@mhongarchitects.com]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 10:49 AM
To: Susca, Joe
Subject: Runyon Group's Paseo Project
Dear Council Member,
I am a Culver City resident and am writing you to let you know I support Runyon Group's Paseo project
and encourage you to vote for it.
Thank you.
Mike Hong, AIA, LEED AP
Design Principal
MHA ¦Michael Hong Architects
www.mhongarchitects.com
9900 Culver Blvd, Suite 1A, Culver City, CA 90232
T 310.815.8112 F 310.815.1152
__________________________________________________________________________________
From: Neal Tabachnick [mailto:ntabachnick@wrslawyers.com]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 9:22 AM
To: Blumenfeld, Sol; Susca, Joe; Armenta, Christopher; Malsin, D Scott; O'leary, Micheál;
Jeffrey.R.Cooper@wellsfargo.com; Weissman, Andrew; Blumenfeld, Sol; Susca, Joe; Armenta,
Christopher; Malsin, D Scott; O'leary, Micheál; Jeffrey.R.Cooper@wellsfargo.com; Weissman, Andrew
Subject: Runyon Group project
City Council,
I am a Culver City resident and am writing you to let you know I support Runyon Group's Paseo project
and encourage you to vote for it.
Please also note:
Paseo is built in a similar architectural style to the rest of the buildings in Downtown. Paseo is not a
huge bulky building - it has many openings to the street. We support Paseo's concepts of limiting chain
stores, promoting unique businesses, and keeping downtown family friendly. The Millers have been in
Culver City for 57 years. They are local people with a proven track record of success.
Thanks for listening,
Neal and Suzanne Tabachnick
Neal Tabachnick, Esq.
Partner
Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP
11400 W. Olympic Blvd.
9th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90064
PH: 310-478-4100 Ext. 267
FAX: 310-479-1422
E-Mail: ntabachnick@wrslawyers.com
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 22ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 23
From: Jessica Voigt [mailto:Jessica@abramsonteiger.com]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 11:25 AM
To: Blumenfeld, Sol
Subject: PARCEL B
Dear Council Members,
I am writing you as a resident of Culver City (I live at 4105 Duquesne ave apt 4 culver city 90232) and as
an employee (I work at 8924 Lindblade Street Culver City CA 90232), in regards to the development of
Parcel B. While I may have a bias towards one of the projects (I do work for Abramson Teiger architects),
I am writing as a RESIDENT of this great city. Culver is a unique gem in Los Angeles, we have two
theaters (independent and main stream), two stage theaters, a plethora of restaurants (too many if you
ask me), and one of the best art scenes in LA (I should know as I am a both an artist and a collector).
Parcel B would help development greatly of the city, but more than anything Joey’s project “The Paseo”
is the ONLY one of the developments that worked with the neighboring look and feel of this great little
hubbub; the other three, while interesting in design concepts, are (to be quite honest) behemoths, and
not one of them related at all to the spatial context surrounding them. Culver is NOT Santa Monica, it is
not Beverly Hills, but it IS a hub and a great opportunity for people to see what a gem we are, and you
should pick a project that emphasizes our quirky, cozy, and historical setting.
I support the Runyon Group’s Paseo project 100% because it is the only project that actually took the
time to study the look, feel, and character of Culver City and develop it into a meaningful project.
Whereas the others just spent the time stamping their personal architectural/developer mark on the
space, and let’s keep it real, if you want to stamp a well known architects mark on Parcel B, then find a
famous architect to do a remarkable landmark, otherwise pick a developer who cares about the
environment they are building in.
So, I encourage you to vote for the Paseo. It IS the best project of the group, and the best project for
Culver City.
Thank you
Jessica Voigt
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 24
-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah Picone
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 5:27 PM
To: Susca, Joe
Subject: Parcel B
After looking at the proposal pictures, Paseo is the one we believe best represents Culver City
Thank You
Angela and Deborah Picone
Helms Ave
__________________________________________________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Concezio & Roseanne Di Gregorio
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 7:11 AM
To: Susca, Joe
Subject: Parcel B Development
Dear Mr. Susca,
I visited the Community Development Department last week and looked at the proposals for
the Parcel B site. I much prefer the "Paseo" development plan. Paseo is friendly and
welcoming, while all the others are cold and stark. Paseo also matches the Miralta office
building that I think is the most beautiful building in Culver City. Paseo fits with the small
town feeling that makes Culver City such an enjoyable place in which to live. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Roseanne Di Gregorio
XXXX Mentone Avenue
______________________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 25
From: Emelie Gerard [mailto:ecgerard@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 1:35 PM
To: Susca, Joe
Subject: Parcel B: Cardiff/Park + Main
My recommendation is that the City Council select Cardiff's Park + Main project for parcel B.
As we all know, the primary criteria is that the developer have the financial resources to see the
project through, and have the professional credentials to bring appropriate tenants to the project
and manage it well. Cardiff's team has designed an attractive Class A project that does not over-
crowd the lot and brings many benefits to the community. It's a forward-thinking design that
will showcase Culver City's recent growth and development. A win-win for everyone.
Emelie Gerard
_________________________________________________________________________
From: Erin Walker
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 3:30 PM
To: Susca, Joe
Subject: Comments for Parcel B Development in Culver City
Dear Mr. Susca,
My name is Erin Walker and I am a 4th year urban and regional planning student at Cal Poly
Pomona and have lived in Culver City for the past 18 years.
I am submitting my comments for the designs for Parcel B in hopes that the council and the
redevelopment agency thoughtfully consider them.
I did not attend the presentations so I did not get wowed by the developers themselves. I have
only looked through their power points and from those I have based my opinions on each
project. I am currently taking an urban development class and I thoroughly understand the need
to make a profit or a reasonable rate of return on this project.
I was having issues opening the power points on my mac computer so I will go from my
memory:
I support Cardiff Group's Parc +Main, not only for their environmental concern and attention
to need for more open space, but also because he is the only developer who has listed tenants
who are willing to go into his development in Culver City. Additionally, while the proformas were
redacted per their requests, keep in mind that having a "LEED" certified building is also at more
cost to the developer but they are willing to put the money into the project knowing they will get
a reasonable rate of return on top of their investment.
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 26A green roof will not only further Culver City's image of being a green friendly city, it will reduce
the heating and cooling costs of the buildings and reduce green house gas emissions.
Design wise it is very clean, very approachable from a pedestrian experience and creates
intrigue as one can wander throughout the project. The offices will enjoy being so close to the
activity and the project offers great outdoor dining options.
These are the reasons why the other developments will not suit the area nor the character of
down town Culver City.
While most of the developers listened to earlier comments from the city/ community about
accessibility, homage to Culver's history etc, they fall short in other regards.
1. The big stair case project looks daunting from a pedestrian experience. While I appreciate the
dual purpose of the amphitheater, I feel the large stair case will be out of proportion and deter
pedestrians from wanting to explore the development if approach is from the West side.
2. Palm trees should never be used as landscaping for the "plaza" they do not provide shade on
warm days nor are they aesthetically pleasing.
3. The Spanish style, jam packed design by Runyon group, is out of character for the
area. That is a project that belongs in Santa Barbara or Pasadena. It does not complement any
of the buildings that are Art Deco or modern in the downtown. Additionally, it looks cold from the
exterior and would not create a lively atmosphere within its plaza.
4. Lastly, the "X" developer, while I appreciate the details to the crossing of Washington and
Culver, the glass panes facing the street would not create a lively pedestrian atmosphere, it
looks very cold.
This project should be attractive enough to bring even more business to the downtown area,
complement surrounding structures in design and not block the Culver Studios. It should also
not deter pedestrians from wanting to explore either.
I apologize for my lengthy response, but I feel that approving any developer other than Cardiff
Group will be a huge disservice to Culver city and the hard work of the prior community
development for the downtown plan.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Erin Walker
President
American Planning Student Association
Cal Poly Pomona
Urban and Regional Planning
College of Environmental DesignCandidate for B.S. Degree 2012
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 27
From: Jack Stehlin
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 3:38 PM
To: Susca, Joe
Subject: PARCEL B
Importance: High
Hi Joe, I reviewed the PARCEL B proposals. I strongly think that Parc and Main is the right
choice, (The Cardiff proposal). It’s use of green and sustainable materials, combined with its
understanding of what Culver City looks like make it a clear choice. The other ideas are not in
line with who Culver City is.
I would like to address the lack of an amphitheatre / outdoor space / gathering space in all the
designs. I know that Parc and Main by Cardiff address some of this with the rooftop green, but
Culver City does not have an amphitheatre or anything like that and it is a missed opportunity to
not put it into the mix. There should be more offered than retail/office space. This should be a
town square as well.
To note:
• Tolkin is my second choice, although its bizarre use of glass makes me wonder about how dirty it
will look with all of our smog issues.
• Ruskin looks like it belongs elsewhere. Its mission-style is not in line with the arhictecture of
downtown Culver City. It reminds me of the ill-fated Paseo Colorado in Pasadena.
• Combined looks a giant box. Who wants a giant box plopped into the middle of our city? It’s
overbearing and takes away from its surroundings.
Sincerely,
Jack Stehln
Carlson Park Resident
Culver City
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 28ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 29ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 30ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 31From: Yvonne Golomb [mailto:yvonnegolomb@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 7:30 PM
To: Susca, Joe
Subject: Culver City
Dear Mr. Susca,
My name is Yvonne Golomb
4204 Duquesne Ave
Culver City Ca 90232
I am a resident of Culver City and live near the downtown area. I have been patiently waiting
to see Parcel B developed to help the downtown flourish. I look forward to the city picking a
developer quickly so that something can be built and I think the Combined Properties plan is just
wonderful! It is a one of a kind project that will bring a lot of focus and encourage unique retailer
to come to our City!
Thank you for your time,
Sincerely,
Yvonne Golomb
________________________________________________________________________
From: Terri Towery [mailto:tltowery@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 4:36 PM
To: Susca, Joe
Subject: Parcel B Development
Dear Mr. Susca,
I have lived in the neighborhood just south of downtown for the past 15 years, and in Culver City
for almost 22 years. I have watched our city grow from a sleepy ghost town to the thriving
destination that it is today. Our downtown is a marvelous place to visit for excellent food and
entertainment. But we are sorely missing a meaningful retail component, which I hope the
development of Parcel B will address. I have looked at the plans which have been submitted,
and I think that the Combined Properties plan is by far the best. Not only will it encourage
unique retailers to come to our city, but its open layout will seamlessly complement our existing
downtown and provide us with a "town square" gathering place that is currently missing. I hope
that this plan is the one chosen, and further hope that will happen quickly so that my neighbors
and I (along with the rest of the city and all of the new visitors we are likely to get when the
Expo Line opens) can enjoy it sooner rather than later.
Thank you for considering, and passing on to the Council/Redevelopment Agency, my views on
this important decision.
Sincerely,
Terri Towery
4090 Van Buren Place
Culver City, CA 90232
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 32-----Original Message-----
From: Wilhoit, Julie Ann [mailto:Julie.Wilhoit@lmu.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 9:34 PM
To: Susca, Joe
Cc: O'Leary, Micheál
Subject: Parcel B lot-downtown Culver City
Dear Mr. Susca,
Hello I am a resident of Culver City and live near the downtown area. I am very excited to
see the area called "Parcel B", located in the heart of downtown, begin to take shape and the
development of this property growing closer to being reality rather than just an idea. I am
equally excited to see the plans and ideas presented by the developers and especially excited
about the vision of Combined Proprieties. This company captures the heart and imagination
of the kind of community in which I want to live.
There is no doubt as a resident of Culver City I will take full advantage of all the shopping and
dinning this area will offer to our residents. I could easily see myself entertaining out of town
guests in this newly developed area. In addition to living in Culver City, I am an employee of
Loyola Marymount University as the head coach of the women's basketball program. This
past Friday evening I entertained my entire team, 4 recruits, their parents and my staff in my
home in Culver City, a total of 35 people enjoyed an evening in my home filled with good
food, music and evening of celebration. While the recruits spent the night on the LMU campus
with my team, I housed the parents of my recruits in a hotel located in Culver City. As a
resident of Culver City I not only shop and hire locally, I also try to use CC for business purposes
as well.
For entertainment of our team and recruits we often will drive to Santa Monica to see movies,
dine, entertain and shop. But since I live in Culver City and often times host dinner parties and
team events at my Culver City home, I often times wish we could hang out in Culver City
instead of driving to 3rd Street in Santa Monica.
After looking at the proposals of the developers I was very excited to see what Combined
Properties ideas are all about. I could fully envision taking my team, recruits, parents into an
area like they are proposing. There is no doubt this vision will help Culver City to flourish
beyond imagination. The look is contemporary, yet family orientated and there is a feeling of
community in a urban setting.
Thank you for receiving my letter and for working so hard in making Culver City such a
beautiful, contemporary and exciting City. I am so proud of my home town and look forward
to the end results. Best wishes for success on this project.
Julie Wilhoit
Head Coach LMU WBB
310-338-7699 office
310-261-9438 cell
www.lmulions.com
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 33
From: Sandra Lozano [mailto:sanjlozano@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 10:58 PM
To: O'Leary, Micheál
Cc: Susca, Joe
Subject: Parcel "B" proposal
October 31 2001
Culver City Council Members
Culver City Redevelopment Agency
Re: Parcel B Proposals
Dear City Council Members,
I see Culver City as an example of a good city in Los Angeles Area. I have shared my thoughts
while advocating for a New Community garden in the city and I would like to share my opinion
about Parcel B site. As an architectural designer, I believe that buildings and spaces are
primordial in the creation of a good city. Culver City‘s successful downtown owes a big part of
its charm to the historical buildings that create the image of Culver City. The proposed
development at Parcel B will have the responsibility of carrying or debilitating that image and
thus the overall success of downtown Culver City.
The new development should have the right relation to its immediate surroundings, since it will
be the next door neighbor to the Culver City Hotel and the Culver City Studios. It must
recognize the importance of the historical component in the area. In order to enhance the space
and the activities that are already in the vicinity of Parcel B, the development must continue to
bring activity to the public space by interacting to the existing buildings. It should act as another
piece in the chain of events and buildings that have developed through time.
A couple of proposals have a courtyard scheme. Architecturally, a courtyard founds beauty and
life in the inner space. Therefore it is introverted by nature. In this case a courtyard scheme will
fail historically to its surroundings. It will negate the importance of the mentioned historical
buildings. By contrast, it will convey the message that the surroundings were not successful,
beautiful or important enough to relate to them.
I think the only proposal that recognizes the unique qualities of the area and shows right relations
with the surroundings is the proposal by Combined Partners. Inc. and Ehrlich Architects. I think
it could be softened a little bit since the cosmopolitan look of it glass façade doesn’t convey the
spirit of the city and I know the community will love if this project had a roof garden.
I can definitely imagine the grand staircase as a venue for all: people working-out, people
socializing, people eating out, both residents and non-residents. The outside amphitheater will
compliment the current space and create another node of activity in the area. It will enlarge the
live and vivacity that is already there.
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 34Why plan a courtyard inside the new development? This seems totally counterbalanced. If one
visits this place, there is a realization that the space formed in between the Culver Hotel, the
movie theater and the Lion Fountain is established and successful and that Parcel B is the
continuation of the chain of events in this “urban” courtyard. The new building should
strengthen that experience. It should not compete but collaborate with its surroundings!!
The most successful spaces in cities are those that relate different buildings through a public
space as a labor of time. Cities that are not historical will re-create this idea by planning a
courtyard in the middle of a new development. This notion called “New urbanism” wants to
create all at once the experience of place regardless of the history of that particular space. We do
not need this kind of urbanism in this very historical place. It will be a great loss to have the
wrong introverted scheme instead of an enriched urban experience.
The proposal presented by Combined Partners. Inc. and Ehrlich Architects is the only one that
will strengthen the image and experience of the current Downtown. It is very respectful and
conscious of the historical conditions around it.
Best regards,
Sandra Lozano
Community member
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 35
8675 Washington Boulevard, Suite 201 Culver City, California 90232 Ph. (310) 815-8611 Fax (310) 815-8612
October 31, 2011
Scott A. Ginsburg
Vice President, Development & Acquisitions
Combined Properties, Inc.
9320 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 310
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
RE: Combined Properties
9300 Culver Blvd (Parcel B)
Culver City, CA
Dear Scott,
It was a pleasure speaking with you last week about the above referenced property and thanks for
sending over some proposed renderings.
As we discussed, Culver City is special place and personally I think Combined Properties would
make a great fit to develop the above referenced site.
In all of our past dealings, both you and your company have always taken the high road in our
negotiations and the deals were always handled in a very professional manner. There was never a
doubt about your financial ability to perform and you have always delivered on your promises. I
have the utmost respect for both you and your company and feel extremely comfortable about your
ability to perform.
The renderings you are proposing for the project are very exciting and I wish you the best of luck in
being selected to develop this project.
Should you have any questions, please let me know.
Respectfully,
Patrick Gilhooly
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Page 36