City of Culver City, California
City Council and Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council consider the appeal of the Planning
Commission’s approval of the Negative Declaration and Site Plan Review, and
either:
A. Based upon a report from the City Manager indicating a negotiated settlement
was not reached, remand this item to the Planning Commission for
reconsideration; or
B. Deny the Appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval.
If the City Council upholds the Planning Commission’s approval, staff will return
with the appropriate resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
outlining the findings for denial of the appeal.
C. Grant the appeal in part, but modify the Planning Commission’s approval of
the Project and direct staff to return to the Council with the appropriate
resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and outlining the
findings for modifying the project; or
Meeting Date: 12/08/2008 Item Number: PH-1
AGENDA ITEM: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM THE 11/17/08
COUNCIL MEETING: 1) City Council Consideration of the Appeal of the Planning
Commission’s Approval of Site Plan Review, SPR P2007116, and Negative
Declaration for the Construction of a Mixed-use Building with 26 Residential
Condominium Units and 3,370 Square Feet of Office Space Located at 4043 Irving
Place; and 2) Redevelopment Agency Consideration of the Project as it Relates to
the Redevelopment Plan. (Public Hearing Continued from August 18, September
15, October 20, and November 17, 2008).
Contact Person/Dept.: Thomas Gorham,
Planning Manager,
Sol Blumenfeld, Director
Phone Number: (310) 253-5727
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [X] Action Item: [] Attachments: [X]
Public Notification: Notices were mailed regarding the Public Hearing to all of the
property owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius of the site extended to the end
of each block; speakers from the April 9, 2008 Planning Commission meeting; and
persons who submitted written comments (07/28/08 and 08/18/08); Master E-Mail
Notification List (07/28/08 and 08/18/08, 09/10/08, 10/16/08, 11/13/08, and 12/03/08).
Department Approval:
Sol Blumenfeld, Director (12/02/08)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker (12/02/08)
Fiscal Impact Review:
Jeff Muir (12/02/08)
City Manager Approval:
Jerry B. Fulwood (12/02/08) City of Culver City, California
City Council and Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report
D. Grant the Appeal and overturn the Planning Commission’s approval.
If the City Council overturns the Planning Commission’s approval, staff will
return with the appropriate resolution outlining the findings for denial of the Site
Plan Review.
Redevelopment Agency (if necessary)
If the City Council denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission’s
approval of the project (or takes action to approve a modified project), then Staff
recommends the Redevelopment Agency determine that the proposed project (as
presented or modified by the City Council) is consistent with the Redevelopment
Plan for Component Area No.3, the Downtown Culver City Design for Development
(“DFD”) and applicable Agency documents. Should the City Council grant the
appeal, then staff recommends the Agency take no action on this item.
PROCEDURE:
1. Mayor calls on staff for a brief staff report.
2. Mayor seeks a motion to open the public hearing to allow for public comment, if
any (completed on 11/17/08).
3. Receive comment from the applicant and public (begun on 11/17/08).
4. Mayor seeks a motion to close the public hearing after all testimony has been
presented.
5. Council discusses the matter and arrives at its decision.
6. Agency discusses the matter and arrives at its decision (if necessary).
BACKGROUND:
On November 17, 2008 the City Council considered the subject project and after
receiving lengthy public testimony, continued the hearing to December 8, 2008 in
order to provide time for the City Manager to meet with the appellants and
applicants to determine if there was a compromise solution that could be
developed which could inform the decision making of the City Council.
On November 20, 2008 staff met with the applicant, Metro Real Estate, and
discussed potential measures to make the project more acceptable to the
appellants. In response to the appellants letter of July 30, 2008, the applicant
indicates that the number of residential units may be reduced to 24, though they
indicated Agency participation would be required, and offered to reduce the
building height by depressing the floor level of the building one foot below the City of Culver City, California
City Council and Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report
finished building grade elevation and reconfiguring the building framing to reduce
the building height to 37’ to the building parapet. The original plans are attached.
(Attachment No. 1)
On November 24, 2008 staff met with the appellants and discussed their most
recent letter (dated November 22, 2008) in which they indicated their position on
the design for the project. The requirements include:
1. Reduce the number of dwelling units to 19 from 24 units (indicated in DNA
letter of July 30, 2008).
2. Reduced maximum building height to 32 feet.
3. Project driveway entrances on Lafayette Place and Irving Place.
4. 20’ building setback on Lafayette Place and Irving Place.
5. 20’ building setback from southerly property line of the project
6. 3’ subterranean parking garage setback from the southerly property line.
7. 6’ maximum height property line wall measured from the current building
grade at the southerly property line.
8. Limitation of the number of parking spaces to the requirement for the
project (no extra parking).
The appellant’s reasons for these new requirements are detailed on New
Attachment No. 1.
During staff’s meetings with the appellants they indicated all of the above
requirements must be included in the project design with the exception of item
No. 6, which could be reduced to a 0’ subterranean setback if the developer can
demonstrate to the appellant’s satisfaction that the shoring design will not result in
displacement of the grade of their property and damage to their property.
On December 2, 2008, the City Manager met with the appellants and applicants to
discuss the issues related to the project appeal. Based upon these discussions it
was concluded that the gap between the parties was still too large to resolve and
though the parties were sincere, agreement on a mutually acceptable development
program could not be reached.
At the meeting of November 17, 2008, the majority of the City Council expressed
its desire to negotiate agreement on the development or if no agreement could be
reached, to consider remanding the matter back to the Planning Commission for
consideration. It is important to note that should the matter be remanded to the
Planning Commission, the decision of the Commission can and may likely be
appealed to the City Council by either the appellant or the applicant depending
upon the Commission’s decision.
City of Culver City, California
City Council and Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report
Project History:
On April 9, 2008, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding Sal
Gonzales’ (the “Applicant”) request for Site Plan Review approval to allow the
construction of a mixed-use project varying from 3 and 4 stories and ranging in
height from 37 to 46 feet with 26 residential condominium units, 3,380 square feet
of office space and subterranean parking (the “Project”); a Tentative Tract Map to
subdivide the property into 26 residential and three commercial condominium
airspace units; and an Administrative Use Permit to allow tandem parking spaces.
At the public hearing the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2008-P005
adopting a Negative Declaration finding pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and approving the Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map and
Administrative Use Permit for the Project subject to the conditions of approval
contained therein (Attachment No. 4).
On April 24, 2008, Culver City residents Michael and Judith Miller and Jim and
Michelle Benke (the “Appellants”), filed a timely appeal of the Planning
Commission’s decision with subsequent revisions received on April 28 and May
20, 2008 (Attachment No. 5).
Project Modifications
The project was continued from August 18
th
, September 15
th
October 20
th
and
November 17
th
in order to provide an opportunity for the developer to address
neighborhood concerns. Staff and the applicant have had on-going meetings with
the appellants and neighbors in the project area and the revised plans reflect the
developer’s efforts to address their concerns. The project has been revised to
eliminate the 4
th
floor, changing the roofline of the northerly building so that the
maximum building height is 41 feet.
The revisions are proposed by the developer with the understanding that a portion
of the project commercial space will be reduced and converted to two residential
units. These plan revisions are only proposed if the conversion of space is
favorably considered by City Council. The revised project plans are shown as
Attachment No. 1.
Because there have been changes to the project from initial project submittal to the
present, staff has summarized the changes to the development program in the
table on Attachment No. 2.
Planning Commission Staff Report
City of Culver City, California
City Council and Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report
Attachment No. 3 contains the April 9, 2008 Planning Commission staff report, with
all attachments including the Negative Declaration and Initial Study. The report
describes the Project in detail, including analysis on architectural design, parking,
traffic and circulation, landscaping, noise, construction and area compatibility.
DISCUSSION:
Planning Commission
The Commission received input from approximately 40 members of the public at
the April 9, 2008 hearing. The majority were opposed to the Project. Primary
concerns were related to compatibility of the Project to the surrounding
neighborhood, parking and traffic. In addition there was a concern raised over
construction impacts to the adjoining historical residential structures.
Following thorough discussion of the matter, the Commission recognized the
concerns raised by the public, but felt that they were sufficiently addressed in the
Applicant’s proposal and the conditions of approval. The Commission on a 3 to 1
vote adopted the Negative Declaration finding that the Project would not have an
adverse effect on the environment and approved the Project determining that the
required findings could be made. The dissenting Commissioner expressed
concerns over the Project’s size and its compatibility with the surrounding
neighborhood.
Attachment No. 6 contains the minutes of the meeting.
Residents’ Appeal
The concerns raised in the appeal documentation (Attachment No. 5) can be
placed in three categories and are discussed below (paraphrased from the
Appellant’s letter):
1. The Planning Commission failed to exercise its legal, discretionary authority.
The Appellants contend the Commission made statements “….indicating their
belief that they had no authority to make any decisions counter to what had been
outlined for the parcel by the Redevelopment Agency…” and that the outcome was
“pre-determined.”
Response:
The Commission reviews Project applications and renders decisions pursuant to the
Zoning Code, General Plan and the California Government Code. The
Redevelopment Agency implements the City’s Redevelopment Plans pursuant to
California Redevelopment Law. Though there is coordination between these City of Culver City, California
City Council and Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report
decision making bodies, their responsibilities are unique and their decisions
independent. The Agency sold the property at 4043 Irving Place to a developer to
ensure that it was developed with a building that is consistent with the property
zoning and the General Plan and included deed restrictions reiterating the maximum
development standards allowed under the City’s land use laws. The Agency was
engaged in a real estate transaction that has no bearing on the entitlements for the
property. The authority to approve or deny the Project, resides exclusively with the
Planning Commission and City Council, if appealed. The Commission lawfully
considered the Project by conducting a public hearing at which public testimony was
received and based upon its deliberations approved the Project consistent with its
discretionary authority.
2. The Project is not consistent with the City’s General Plan.
The Appellants contend the project is not consistent with the existing neighborhood
located on Irving Place and Lafayette Place in that the neighborhood is made up of
one and two story single family homes and apartment structures that are “much
smaller in scale than the proposed project,” and the Project is “in direct
contradiction to the goals and objectives of Culver City’s General Plan.”
Response:
The Project was designed pursuant to the requirements of the General Plan and
the Zoning Code. The property is zoned CD -Commercial Downtown and
designated “Downtown” under the General Plan which allows mixed use
development. The Mixed Use Ordinance in effect when the Project application
was filed permits development at 65 units per acre with a maximum building height
of 56 feet providing the Project conforms to all setback and step-back
requirements. The Project is designed to meet these requirements since it varies
from 3 to 4 stories and ranges in height from 37 feet to 46 feet. Further it is to be
developed at 47 units per acre with 26 residential units and three commercial
condominium units. The Project application includes a request for an
Administrative Use Permit (AUP) to allow 54 tandem parking spaces which may
also be approved under the requirements of the Zoning Code. The “Downtown”
designation of the property “is intended to support desirable existing and future
commercial uses and mixed use housing within the Downtown areas and to
encourage a pedestrian friendly environment.” The proposed development is
consistent with this goal. Therefore the project is consistent with the General Plan.
The area is comprised of projects that are smaller in scale, though not necessarily
less dense than the proposed Project. Further the Project height is proposed to be
46 feet which is 10 feet less than the maximum height limit and in many instances
is consistent with building heights in the area since the commercial property to the City of Culver City, California
City Council and Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report
north of the project is constructed to a height of 46 feet. The historic designation for
property to the south of the Project was considered in Project design with portions
of the building close to the interior property lines next to the historic residential
properties being shorter producing the effect of a gradual increase in height
ranging from 11 feet at the ground floor with a 10 foot setback from the property
line, 22 feet at the second floor with a 16 foot setback from the property line, and
33 feet at the third floor with a setback of 22 feet from the property line increasing
to a maximum of 37 feet at the pitched roof peak setback 38 feet from the property
line. Staff surveyed the surrounding properties to ascertain prevailing setbacks on
Lafayette Place and Irving Place south to Braddock Drive and found that the
average setback for the residential properties on Lafayette Place is 18 feet and on
Irving Place is 16 feet. The Meralta Plaza building has a 10 foot setback along
Lafayette Place and the City Fire Station has a 5 foot setback along Irving Place.
The proposed project has a 5 foot setback along both the Lafayette Place and
Irving Place frontages. The fact that the project is dissimilar to other surrounding
properties is not necessarily grounds for denying the project since the minimum
standard for review of the application is consistency with the General Plan and
Zoning Code. As outlined above, the Project as proposed is consistent with the
“Downtown” designation of both the General Plan and the Zoning Code and meets
all of the applicable development standards of said designations.
3. The Negative Declaration is in error.
The Appellants contend the Project would have a significant negative
environmental impact on the community and that the negative declaration did not
adequately address impacts in the following areas: traffic; parking; air quality; area
compatibility; historic resources; biological resources; and cumulative impacts and
an EIR should be required.
Response:
The California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA is California’s environmental
assessment law. The Act applies to all state and local agencies in California.
Under CEQA, an “Initial Study” (preliminary analysis) is used to determine if a
project will have a “significant” effect on the environment. The Initial Study is
comprised of a list of objective criteria that the City must use in evaluating the
potential environmental effects of a project. The Initial Study provides detailed
information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or Negative
Declaration or Mitigated Declaration for the project. The project was evaluated
pursuant to CEQA and it was determined that the project would not have a
significant impact upon the environment since it is consistent with the General
Plan, the proposed development primarily consists of residential uses which are
low traffic generators, the project is fully parked, the project does not eliminate or City of Culver City, California
City Council and Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report
disturb historic resources and it does not create impacts upon biological resources
and cumulative impacts and therefore the Planning Commission adopted a
Negative Declaration.
Subsequent to the adoption of the Negative Declaration by the Planning
Commission, additional information was discovered pertaining to potential
hazardous materials on the subject site. Phase I and Phase II studies prepared as
part of the original initial study, identified hazardous material (including asbestos,
lead, and other chemicals) at the site and a Remediation Action Plan (RAP) was
prepared. When the Agency purchased the property in 1996 and demolished the
old Coast Media building, all hazardous substances were removed from the
building and the surface of the site pursuant to the RAP prior to the site being
paved for use as a parking lot. Lead that had leached into the soil was not
removed.
Subsequently, in January 2007 the applicant/developer conducted a “Further Site
Characterization” study to address the release of lead into the soil (Please see
Attachment No. 13). A total of 16 soil samples were analyzed and traces of lead
were found to exist that were below the threshold to pose a threat to human health
if left undisturbed. The study determined that the excavation of the site should be
sufficient to remediate that portion of the site soil which still contains lead with the
provision that the soils must be properly disposed of. Based on the findings of the
Site Characterization Study staff has revised the initial study and prepared a
Mitigated Negative Declaration with two mitigations added requiring that the
impacted soil be separated from the excavated clean soil; that it be transported to
an appropriate disposal facility; and that further confirmation testing be completed
during excavation to confirm the removal and disposal of all lead impacted soil.
On that basis a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended and all
development impacts will have been fully addressed. This analysis is summarized
in Attachment No. 14.
Review of Neighborhood Concerns
Staff has met numerous times with both Appellants and the Applicant. The
Appellants have expressed their primary concern is related to the size and density
of the proposed Project and its alleged incompatibility with the residential
neighborhood. They have asked that the height of the project be lowered and that
the building be setback further to comport to the existing setbacks in the
neighborhood. In addition they have asked that vehicular access be provided from
both Lafayette Place and Irving Place to help address their traffic concerns.
City of Culver City, California
City Council and Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report
Staff has relayed the Appellants’ concerns to the Applicant and has asked the
Applicant to study other design options that would reduce the Project’s scale and
mass. Staff suggested that lowering the building height by removing the upper
level loft component may address the concerns related to the mass of the building.
Further, staff suggested an increased setback along Lafayette Place in order to be
more compatible with the prevailing setbacks in the neighborhood. In response the
applicant provided revised drawings which showed a reduced building height for
the northern most building along the Lafayette frontage from 46 feet to 34 feet for a
distance of 42 feet where the building would then step back to 46 feet in height. No
increased setback at the ground level was proposed. This modification resulted in
the loss of two residential units on the top floor. The Applicant proposed to replace
these lost units by changing two of the three ground floor commercial tenant
spaces into residential units. Staff presented this plan was presented to the
neighbors who felt it did not go far enough to address their concerns. This
proposed revision was rejected by the neighbors.
Staff also drafted a modified project plan that provided a greater building setback
on the Lafayette Avenue side providing an approximately 20 foot setback area
consistent with the prevailing neighborhood setbacks. This setback area would
provide landscaping and an open courtyard leading up to the building entrance.
The applicant was not receptive to this plan as the increased setback would result
in reduction in the residential unit sizes and potentially a reduction in the number of
units.
From July through October, the applicant met with the appellants and other
neighbors, now part of the Culver City Downtown Neighborhood Association (DNA)
to discuss their concerns. The DNA expressed continued concern over the scale
of the building and outlined its request for modifications in a letter dated July 30,
2008 (Attachment No. 8). The request includes the following:
• The building should be no higher than 32 feet in height with not more that 24
total residential and/or commercial units.
• Excavation adjacent to the Spanish Colonial houses should be limited to 3
feet from the property line.
• Setbacks on Lafayette Place and Irving Place should match the prevailing
neighborhood setbacks.
• Vehicle access should be provided from both Lafayette Place and Irving
Place.
The attached correspondence lists the areas of agreement and disagreement
between the applicant and the appellant. (Attachment No. 9)
City of Culver City, California
City Council and Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report
Redevelopment Agency
The proposed development is consistent with the land use designation for this site
and other applicable provisions of the Redevelopment Plan for the Culver City
Redevelopment Project Component Area No. 3.
The property is within the Downtown Culver City Design for Development (DFD).
The DFD has provisions relating to height, setbacks, parking, landscaping,
architectural design, building exteriors (Downtown storefront guidelines) signs,
refuse areas, security fencing and uses. The proposed development is in
conformance with all applicable provisions of the DFD as it complies with each of
these development provisions.
On January 31, 2007, the Agency closed escrow on the sale of 4043 Irving to
Metro Real Estate and Development. At the time of sale a restriction was placed
on the grant deed that limited the use of the Site to a mixed use project consisting
of 28 residential units and 3,500 sq.ft of office. The deed restriction ensured that
the developer would not increase the number of residential units or commercial
square footage beyond what Metro Real Estate and Development had proposed at
the close of escrow.
The project approved by the Planning Commission on April 9, 2008 consists of 26
residential units and 3,370 square feet of office, which is consistent with the deed
restrictions.
Discussion of Project Traffic Impacts
On August 12, 2008 the Applicant submitted a Supplemental Traffic Analysis
(Attachment No. 10) which updated the existing morning (AM) peak traffic counts
contained in the original traffic study presented to the Planning Commission. The
counts in the previous analysis were conducted in June of 2007 during the last
week of school and there was some discussion regarding these traffic volumes
during the Planning Commission hearing. In order to address these concerns, new
weekday AM peak hour counts were taken on May 21, 2008 during a typical school
week. Using these new counts the AM peak hour traffic analysis was updated.
The analysis concludes that the resulting conditions are similar to the previous
analysis based on the 2007 counts and that none of the analyzed intersections or
residential street segments would be significantly impacted by the Project. The
City’s Consulting Traffic Engineer has reviewed the supplemental analysis and
concurs with its conclusions.
City of Culver City, California
City Council and Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report
Additionally, the City’ Consulting Traffic Engineer has prepared a memo (Please
See Attachment No. 15) further discussing the methodology used in the traffic
analysis done for the project.
CONCLUSION:
The Project that was approved by the Planning Commission has been redesigned
to attempt to address issues of neighborhood compatibility and conforms with all
applicable provisions of the CG Zone and all City development standards including
the height and special setback requirements between commercial and residential
districts. Although the site allows for a 56 foot high building, the building has been
redesigned to be 37 feet high at the highest point in the latest design iteration. The
Zoning Code requires the ‘stepping back’ of the building to reduce the impact of a
mixed use building located adjacent to residential zones. The Project complies with
this requirement by reducing the height of portions of the building close to the
interior property lines next to the historic residential properties where they
gradually increase in height ranging from 11 feet at the ground floor with a 10 foot
setback from the property line, 22 feet at the second floor with a 16 foot setback
from the property line, and 33 feet at the third floor with a setback of 22 feet from
the property line increasing to a maximum of 37 feet at the pitched roof peak
setback 38 feet from the property line. In addition, the Project is proposed at a
residential density of 47 units per acre, less than the 65 dwelling units per acre
permitted in the zone.
CEQA FINDING:
The initial study conducted for the project dated March 27, 2008 determined there
were no potential significant environmental impacts associated with the project that
could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The initial study utilized four
technical studies: (1) Traffic Study dated December 31, 2007 to assess the
projects potential traffic impacts; (2) Preliminary Soil Investigation dated April 17,
2007 to access potential impacts related to excavation and shoring; (3) & (4)
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment from 1993 and a Phase II Environmental
Site Assessment from 1995 that analyzed potential hazardous material that may
have previously existed on the site.
As noted above, additional information pertaining to potential hazardous materials
on the site was discovered after adoption of the Negative Declaration by the
Planning Commission. Therefore, staff has revised the initial study (Attachment
No. 11) and prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment No. 12) with
mitigations requiring that the impacted soil be separated from the excavated clean City of Culver City, California
City Council and Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report
soil; that it be transported to an appropriate disposal facility; and that further
confirmation testing be completed during excavation to confirm the removal and
disposal of all lead impacted soil. Should the project be approved, staff
recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. These
requirements will also be part of the project resolution.
SUMMARY OF MEETING OF NOVEMBER 17, 2008
As mentioned earlier in this report, the City Council considered this item and heard
significant public testimony on November 17, 2008. After over six hours of
testimony, the City Council adopted a motion that (1) continued this public hearing
to December 8, 2008 and (2) directed the City Manager to meet with the applicant
and the appellants to provide an additional opportunity for a negotiated settlement
between the applicant and appellants and for the City Manager to present the
results of those meetings to the City Council on December 8, 2008.
The City Manager met with both the applicant and appellants and reports there are
a significant number of major points which could not be resolved between the
applicant and the appellants.
At the meeting of the City Council on November 17, 2008, it was expressed the
City Council may determine to remand this item to the Planning Commission in the
event the City Manager reported that a negotiated resolution could not be reached.
Therefore, staff has included a motion for the City Council’s consideration that
would remand this item to the Planning Commission.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
The Redevelopment Agency sold the subject property to the developer in FY 2006-
07 for approximately $3.1 million. This is a private venture project with no financial
participation by the City or Agency. If the Project is approved, then the City would
gain both commercial and residential taxes (i.e. business tax, sales tax, utility
users tax, and additional tax increment) once construction is completed, all the
units are sold, and all commercial/office space is leased.
Additionally, there is staff time associated with the initial processing the Site Plan
Review (and related entitlement applications) and the appeal of that review. A
portion of the cost of staff’s time is recovered through user fees and charges, as
those fees and charges are approved by City Council.
City of Culver City, California
City Council and Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report
With the currently proposed project design, the city will derive somewhat less
commercial revenue which will be offset by the added property tax revenues from
the two additional dwelling units.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Letter from Appellants, November 22, 2008 (noted as New Attachment No. 1).
To conserve resources, the following attachments shown with an asterisk, are not
reproduced since they have been previously distributed with the November 17 staff
report:
1. Revised Project Plans*
2. Development Comparison Table*
3. April 9, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report Including all Attachments as
Listed Below:
• Area Map*
• Aerial Photo*
• Project Summary*
• Negative Declaration*
• Initial Study (Attached in the November 10, 2008 staff report)*
• Traffic study for the 4043 Irving Place Mixed-Use Project prepared by Raju
Associates, Inc. received on December 31, 2007 (Attached In November 10,
2008 staff report*
• Preliminary Soil Investigation prepared by Hu Associates, Inc. dated April
17, 2007. (Attached In November 10, 2008 staff report*
• Written Public Comments (Attached in the November 10, 2008 staff report)*
4. Planning Commission Adopted Resolution No. 2008-P005*
5. Appeal filed on April 24, 2008*
6. Minutes of the April 9, 2008 Planning Commission Public Hearing *
7. Planning Commission Approved Plans*
8. July 30, 2008 Culver City Downtown Neighborhood Association Letter*
9. Correspondence between applicant and appellant*
10. Supplemental Traffic Analysis*
11. Revised Initial Study*
12. Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration*
13. Further Site Characterization Summary Letter- January 30, 2007*
14. Correspondence to Meghan Sahli Wells - October 27, 2008*
15. City Consulting Traffic Engineer Memo - October 14, 2008*
City of Culver City, California
City Council and Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report
MOTION(S):
That the City Council:
A. Remand this item to the Planning Commission for reconsideration; or
B. Deny the Appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the
project; and direct staff to return to the Council with the appropriate resolution
adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and outlining the findings for denial
of the appeal and approval of the Project; or
C. Grant the appeal in part but modify the Planning Commission’s
approval of the Project and direct staff to return to the Council with the
appropriate resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
outlining the findings for modifying the project; or
D: Grant the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission’s approval of
the Project and direct staff to return to the Council with the appropriate
resolution outlining the findings for denial of the Project.
AND (only if necessary)
That the Redevelopment Agency (only in the case of Motion A or B):
Determine that the proposed project at 4043 Irving is consistent with the
Redevelopment Plan for Component Area No. 3 of the Culver City
Redevelopment Project and the Project is consistent with the Downtown Culver
City Design for Development.
MEETING DATE: '12.08.08
AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING -
4043 IRVING
ATTACHMENTS
Pages
I. Letter from Appellants, November 22, 2008
1 - 2/Jai) Afillei4146 7 7U,0,,1
November 22, 2008
RE: 4043 Irving Place Project
As you know, the DNA's efforts to reach a compromise solution with the developer, prior
to the hearing of our appeal, did not succeed. Since our previous offer of compromise
has lapsed, and the objections we raised to the scale of the development were endorsed by
the City Council on November 17, 2008, we wish to outline our current position. It is
one which we believe the Planning Commission would approve upon reconsideration of
the project, and the Council would ratify.
Our position is:
• That the project be scaled back to no more than 3 stories with a 32 foot
maximum height and 19 units, in keeping with the current standards for
mixed use building as outlined in the city Municipal Code 17.400.065.
• That the entrances and exits for the project be located on both Lafayette
and Irving, in order to balance the traffic burden.
• That the setbacks for this project be 20 feet on Lafayette and Irving, as
suggested by city planners, bringing them into line with the average
setbacks on those two streets.
• That there be a set-back away from the historic homes of 20 feet and that
any excavation for the subterranean parking lot starts at least three feet
from the property line to protect the structural integrity of those homes.
• That any wall set between the development and the historic homes be no
more than six feet above the grade of the land on which the homes stand
and not six feet above the grade of the proposed development, which is
currently designed to be raised by four feet, in effect making it a ten foot
wall facing the historic homes only three feet away.
• That any parking facility, such as a subterranean garage, be limited to the
number of spaces decreed by law for the residences and offices in the
building without providing for additional parking for sale or rent to
outside entities.• That a plan be developed to detail the excavation and handling of toxic
substances left by Coast Media, and that the strictest standards be applied,
bearing in mind that more than 600 children under the age of 12 attend
schools only yards from this project.
Michael and Judith Miller Michelle and Jim Behnke
Appellants
Downtown Neighborhood Association
MEETING DATE: 12/08/2008
The following attachments are continued from the previous meeting on November
17, 2008. To conserve resources, the following attachments shown with an
asterisk, are not reproduced since they have been previously distributed with the
November 17 staff report:
AGENDA ITEM: 1) Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of Site Plan Review,
SPR P2007116, and Negative Declaration for the Construction of a Mixed-
use Building with 26 Residential Condominium Units and 3,370 Square Feet
of Office Space Located at 4043 Irving Place; and 2) Redevelopment
Agency Consideration of the Project as it Relates to the Redevelopment
Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
Pages
1. Revised Project Plans* 1-4
2. Development Comparison Table* 5
3. April 9, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report* 6-14
Including all Attachments as Listed Below:*
• Area Map* 15
• Aerial Photo* 16
• Project Summary* 17-21
• Negative Declaration* 22-23
• Initial Study* 24-44
• Traffic study for the 4043 Irving Place Mixed-Use Project
prepared by Raju Associates, Inc. received on
December 31, 2007* 45-132
• Preliminary Soil Investigation prepared by Hu Associates, Inc.
dated April 17, 2007.* 133-191
• Written Public Comments* 192-221
4. Planning Commission Adopted Resolution No. 2008-P005* 222-251
5. Appeal filed on April 24, 2008* 252-293
6. Minutes of the April 9, 2008 Planning Commission Public Hearing* 294-299
7. Planning Commission Approved Plans* 300-322
8. July 30, 2008 Culver City Downtown Neighborhood Association Letter* 323
9. Correspondence between applicant and appellant* 324-326
10. Supplemental Traffic Analysis* 327-358
11. Revised Initial Study* 359-377
12. Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration* 378-379
13. Further Site Characterization Summary Letter – January 30, 2007* 380
14. Correspondence to Meghan Sahli Wells - October 27, 2008* 381-382
15. City Consulting Traffic Engineer Memo - October 14, 2008 * 383-384