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
1. Letter from Appellants, November 22, 2008
1 - 2Affrieti MScriM2i
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
J7,2007.*
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 * 383-384sontra-mu onatiacrioraN
UNV SaMil 11VM I-111M
Nortiman)1-11/103
IRVIN' ' 111111:
mas,A
,0,311-)494::W.INOW NI MMUS aui KIM NO141/1013 NINON
11.2111.1
t!'IRVING PLACE EAST ELEVAIION
vvirut NEIGHBORNG INALMNGSiONILTflt1Q
ON121001-10UNI-Liutel HOUVA113
isavt lotrrd 11.13AVAV1
,P 1 .1 Alt4043 IRVING
Project Analysis
10.01.08
Original Project Revised Project
Building Height
Highest Peak
Typical Parapet
Roof Deck Parapet
Building Square Footage
Commercial Area
Residential Area
Residential Dwelling Units
Commercial Units
Parking
Residential Tandem
Residential Single
Guest
Office Tandem
Office Single
37' — 46' 37' - 44'
46' 44'
46' 41'
n/a 37'
43,756 sq. ft. 40,355 sq. ft.
3,370 sq. ft 1,900 sq. ft.
37,615 sq. ft. 34,856 sq. ft.
26 28|109| 2
(25) 54 (27)|10 1010| 8
4 (2)
II
6
In this proposed revision:
1. Amenity Room (642 s.f) is converted to a Residential Unit.
2. One Commercial Unit is converted to a Residential Unit.City of Culver City, California Attachment No. 3
Planning Commission Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: April 9, 2008 Item Number. PH-1
AGENDA ITEM: Site Plan Review, SPR P2007116, Tentative Tract Map, TTM
P2007117, Administrative Use Permit, AUP P2007115, 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.
Contact Person/Dept.: Thomas Gorham Phone Number: (310) 253-5710
Public Hearing: [X] Action Item: a Attachments: [X]
Public Notification: On February 19, 2008, two signs were posted on the site; on
February 20, 2008, notices were mailed to all the property owners and occupants within
a 300-foot radius of the site, extended to the end of City block and the notice was
emailed to the Master Notification List. Item continued from March 12, 2008
Planning Review:
Thomas Gorham, Planning Manager 04/03108
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission:
1. Adopt a Negative Declaration based on the initial Study finding that the
project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment
(Attachment No. 4);
2. Recommend Approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map Na 69709,
TIM P-2007117, subject to the Conditions of Approval as stated in Resolution
No. 2008-P005 (Attachment No. 8);
3. Approve Site Plan Review, SPR P-2007116 and Administrative Use Permit,
AUP P-2007115, subject to the Conditions of Approval as stated in Resolution
No008-P005-(Attachrrrent-N-o. 8),
PROCEDURES:
1. Chair calls on staff for a brief staff report and Commission poses questions to
staff as desired.
2. Chair opens the public hearing, providing the applicant the first opportunity to
speak, followed by the general public.
3. Chair seeks a motion to close the public hearing after all testimony has been
presented.
4_ Commission discusses the matter and arrives at its decision.
Pa se 1 of 9City of Culver City, California
Planning Commission Agenda item Report
BACKGROUND:
Request
The proposed request is a Site Plan Review, to allow the construction of a 3 and
4 story, mixed-use project ranging in height from 37 to 46 feet and with 26
residential condominium units, 3 7380 square feet of office space and
subterranean parking; 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.
The proposed project is a mixed use project subject to the Mixed Use
Development Standards contained in Zoning Code Section 17.400.065. As the
Commission is aware, the City Council recently adopted revisions to the mixed
use standards on March 17, 2008, which will become effective on April 17, 2008.
The proposed project is not subject to the revised mixed use standards in that it
was identified by the City Council as a "pipeline" project that had a complete
application and was in process at the time changes to the mixed use
development standards were being considered. Therefore, the project is being
reviewed against the mixed use standards that were in effect at the time the
project was deemed complete and are currently in effect until April 17 7 2008_
General Information
See Attachment No. 1, Project Summary
xrsting-Con-elitien-s
The project site consists of a P-shaped, 24,089-square foot property with access
on both Lafayette Place and Irving Place, mid-block between Culver Bouievard
and Braddock Drive. The property has a Downtown General Plan designation
and a Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning designation.
The project site is surrounded by a school use to the east, multiple family
residential uses to the south and west, and an office use and the City Fire
Department station to the north. The site is currently completely paved and has
served as a City parking lot owned by the Redevelopment Agency until it was
sold to the applicant recently. The subject site was previously occupied by a
building used by Coast Media, Inc., which was involved in pre-press and
advertising activities. The property was purchased by the City of Culver City
Redevelopment Agency in 1996, then the building was demolished and the site
was converted into a paved parking lot.
Pa se 2 of 9Project Data
The proposed project consist a 3 and 4 story, mixed-use project ranging in height
from 37 to 46 feet with 26 residential condominium units at a density of 47 units
per acre, 3,380 square feet of office space office space facing Irving Place and
subterranean parking. The gross building area is 67,836 square feet, including
the subterranean parking basement level (24,080 st). The subterranean parking
level contains 68 parking spaces, 54 of which are tandem parking spaces (50 for
residences and 4 for the offices). The subterranean parking consists of a single
level, the access to which is proposed on Irving Place. The proposed structure
meets all setback requirements of the CG zone. Landscaping will consist of
some on-site trees, shrubs, ground cover, hardscape, and street trees as
required by the City's Public Works Department.
ANALYSIS:
Land Use and Zoning
The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates this site as "Downtown."
This designation 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 Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning
district is the zoning designation which implements and is consistent with this
General Plan designation.
Architectural Design
The project is adjacent to 12 historical two-story residential bungalow buildings
with a "Landmark" designation in Culver City's local cultural resources register.
These buildings have a Spanish Colonial character and were built in 1925. The
design and massing of the proposed building will not overtake the historic
structures or obstruct their view from the street. The project has been designed
to conform to all applicable provisions of the CG Zone and all City development
standards including the height and special setback requirements between
commercial and residential districts_ The Zoning Code requires this 'stepping
back' of the building to reduce the impact of a mixed use building located
adjacent to residential zones. The building frontage along La Fayette and Irving
Place will be set back on the first floor, and on the upper floors architectural
projections will provide variety and interest to the building elevations_ The
building will be 46 feet high at the highest point, but portions of the building close
to the interior property lines next to the historic residential properties wilt be
shorter producing the effect of a gradual increase in height ranging from 11 feet
at the around floor with a 10 foot setback from the property line, 22 feet at the
City of Culver City, California
Planning Commission Agenda Item Reportsecond 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.
The proposed building has Spanish style architectural character including the use
of earth-tone color stucco siding, Spanish style roof tiles, black wrought iron
fencing and guard rails, wood frame windows, copper downspouts on the exterior
that will compliment the historic buildings as well as the adjacent Meralta Plaza
office building to the north.
Landscaping
The project includes approximately 2,128 square feet of landscaping at the
ground level, which is located along the building frontage on Lafayette and Irving
Place, along the south property line (next to the residential neighbors), and in a
courtyard between the project buildings. The landscaping along the south
property line includes 26 trees (Brisbane and Pine) intended to provide a buffer
and screen between the project and the adjacent residential buildings. The
project also includes new landscaping within the public right-of-way.
Two mature ficus trees located within the public right-of-way along Lafayette
Place will be removed as part of the development. They will be replaced by 5
new Deodar Cedar species of trees consistent with the City of Culver City's
Street Tree Master Plan_ Conditions of approval will require these trees to be
planted at a 48 inch box size.
A perimeter wall is proposed along the interior of the site. A condition of approval
requires these walls to be no more that six feet in height, the top two feet of
which shall be open iron work and that the walls be provided with smooth stucco
finish to match the building.
Parking
The project parking meets the parking requirements of the Zoning Code for
mixed use developments, including the total number of vehicle and bicycle
spaces, the dimensions of those spaces, and the drive aisle width. The project
includes 68 parking spaces, including one loading, three handicap accessible,
and 54 tandem spaces. The loading space is shared with one of the commercial
spaces which can accommodate small trucks; larger trucks are not anticipated to
be used for the project. All the parking spaces will be located in the subterranean •
parking garage, with residential parking spaces separated from the commercial
spaces by an overhead gate. In addition, eight bicycles spaces will be provided
below the office units next to the commercial elevator.
City of Culver City, California
Planning Commission Agenda item ReportCity of Culver City, California
Planning Commission Agenda Item Report
The applicant has requested an AUP to allow 54 tandem parking spaces (79% of
the total) in the subterranean garage. The Zoning Code allows for required
parking for commercial and residential uses to be configured in tandem pairs.
The proposed spaces meet the minimum dimensions of the Zoning Code and
they are arranged to be no more than two spaces in depth. The Zoning Code
requires that a valet or attendant be provided at all times that the tandem parking
is accessible to users
unless it is determined that the nature of the use and its
operation will not require attended parking. The applicant has indicated that they
would be assigning a tandem pair to each one of the 25 residential condominium
units (the last unit requires only one space) and one pair to each office space. As
such, staff has included a condition in the resolution of approval requiring each
pair of tandem spaces to be designated to a specific unit within the building.
Further, the condition reserves the right of the Planning Manager to require a
parking attendant if it is determined to be necessary.
Traffic and Circulation
A traffic analysis was conducted for the project which determined that the added
traffic volume generated by the project will not significantly impact any of the
nearby study intersections or street segments studied. The focus of the traffic
study was to evaluate the potential traffic impact created by the proposed
development of 26 residential units and approximately 3,370 square feet of office
space. The study concluded that the amount of trips generated as a result of the
proposed development does not exceed the threshold for significance for levels
of service (LOS) of the four street intersections studied. Therefore, no traffic
mitigation measures are required.
The traffic study estimated that the project would generate a total of 189 daily
vehicle trips. The study also estimated 16 morning and 19 afternoon peak hour
trips. The traffic study also projected the future traffic levels at the intersections
studied based on development projects in construction or anticipated to be
constructed.
On the basis of the projected future traffic levels in the area and the trips
generated by the project the traffic study concludes that the increase in traffic at
various street intersections as a result of the project will be below the City's
criteria for significant impacts_ Traffic impacts at intersections measured as
volume to capacity ratios (V/C or the number of actual cars to the amount of cars
the intersection can accommodate) must increase beyond a threshold given the
Level of Service measured for the intersections in order to be considered a
significant impact. At the study intersections noted above, the increase in the
V/C ratios resulting from the project given the Level of Service for those
Page 5 of 9City of Culver City, California
Planning Commission Agenda Item Report
intersections was below what the City established as a significant impact. In
other words, added traffic resulting from the project to the areas studied is
expected to be small enough so as to not create significant traffic problems.
Primary access to the site will be provided via a two-way driveway on Irving
Place that will allow only left turns in and out onto Irving Place. Irving Place is a
one-way street on the block between A Street (to the north) and Braddock Drive,
in order to prevent traffic from the nearby theaters and other traffic from the
downtown area to enter the residential neighborhood south of the site.
Circulation on the site will be provided via a 27-foot wide drive aisle, which will
allow vehicles to maneuver adequately in and out of parking spaces.
As a condition of approval, the applicant shall initiate an amendment to the
adopted Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) for the Lynwood
Howe Elementary neighborhood. The amendment shall request that Irving Place
be reconfigured for two-way traffic from Culver Boulevard to project's drive
approach or to Braddock Drive. If the required number of NTMP advisory survey
petitions are returned and identify a particular configuration of Irving Place, then
the applicant shall be responsible for all expenses to implement the traffic
operation changes along frying Place as approved by the City Council.
Noise
The proposed mixed-use building is expected to generate some noise, consistent
with residential areas. The ground floor limited office uses envisioned for this
development are not considered to be a significant noise generator.
During construction, the project will be subject to the hours of allowed
construction as established by the Building Official. The project will be
conditioned to require the use of construction equipment with state-of-the-art
noise shielding and muffling devices. Both the applicant and City contact
information will be posted on the project site to direct individuals wishing to report
noise and other construction activity complaints.
Construction
The proposed project includes the construction of a subterranean parking garage
with a finished grade of approximately 10 feet below the existing ground surface.
A cut on the order of 12 feet including footings will be required for constructing
the proposed subterranean garage. The proposed subterranean garage will be
located on the property lines in all directions and shoring and lagging will be
required for temporary excavation during construction. Due to the proximity of 3
Pa e 6 of 9City of Culver City, California
Planning Commission Agenda Item Report
historic residences on the property to the south, the design of the shoring must
specifically acknowledge and address the close proximity of these residences.
A Preliminary Soils Investigation prepared by Hu Associates, Inc dated April 17,
2007 was prepared for the proposed project and includes a number of
recommendations for excavation, shoring and construction of the proposed
subterranean garage. Project conditions of approval will require the shoring plans
for the project to include the recommendations made in said report and that
shoring, foundations, and structure of the proposed project be specifically
designed to preserve to the extent feasible the historic residences with no
damage during either the construction phase or after the project is completed.
Area Compatibility
The General Plan Designation for the subject property is Downtown, which is
intended for mixed use developments. The proposed building height at the
subject site is consistent with that permitted on those neighboring properties,
which are zoned Commercial Downtown (CD) and Residential Medium Density
Multiple Family (RMD). The building ranges in height from 11 feet adjacent to
the residential properties to the south, to 46 feet on the north side adjacent to the
office and Fire Station uses.
The uses to the south and west of the site are residential. The proposed building
will be set back from those adjacent residential uses to provide a better transition
from the residential to the commercial property. The project is consistent with the
Zoning Code setback requirements between commercial and residential zones,
which call for increased setbacks as the commercial building increases in height.
The project will provide adequate parking on the site, landscaping in excess of
the code requirements, and the traffic generated by the project is not anticipated
to cause a significant impact to the existing or projected traffic levels in the area.
In addition, the noise levels generated by the proposed uses will be relatively
low. Therefore, the proposed development will be compatible with the uses in
the vicinity.
Subdivision
Because the project is being developed for condominium purposes, a one lot
subdivision for condominium purposes is required. There will be 26 residential
and three commercial condominium units. The Public Works Department has
reviewed the proposed condominium subdivision and found it to be in compliance
with State and local regulations.City of Culver City, California
Planning Commission Agenda Item Report
The Planning Division requested the project applicant hold an informational
community meeting for the neighbors living near the project. The applicant held
a meeting on Sunday, February 17, 2008 attended by approximately 8-10
residents. City staff was unable to attend this meeting. A second community
meeting scheduled on Wednesday February 28, 2008, was not attended by any
residents.
CONCLUSION:
Staff has paid particular attention to the design of this project as it relates to the
neighborhood, in particular the historic residential structures to the south and has
worked closely with the applicant to guide the design of the project in order to
meet the Zoning Code requirements, address community concerns and develop
a project that follows good planning practice. Staff has visited the site numerous
times and met with the abutting neighbors to better understand and be able to
address their concerns and has proposed numerous conditions to address their
issues particularly related to construction impacts and preservation of the historic
structures. Based on the analysis contained herein staff believes the findings for
a Tentative Tract Map, Site Plan Review, Administrative Use Permit, and
Administrative Modification can be made as outlined in proposed Resolution No.
2008-P005 (Attachment No. 8).
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an Initial Study
(Attachment No. 5) was prepared for this project and it has been determined that
the project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative
Declaration has been prepared (Attachment No. 6).
Page 8 of 9City of Culver City, California
Planning Commission Agenda Item Report
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS:
The following alternative actions may be considered by the Planning
Commission:
1. Approve the application with the recommended conditions of approval if the
application is deemed to meet the required findings.
2. Approve the application with additional or different conditions of approval, if
deemed necessary to meet the required findings and mitigate any new project
impacts identified at the meeting.
3. Disapprove the application if it does not meet the required findings.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Area Map
2. Aerial Photo
3. Project Summary
4. Draft Negative Declaration
5. Initial Study
6. Traffic study for the 4043 Irving Place Mixed-Use Project prepared by Raju
Associates, Inc. received on December 31, 2007 (Commission Only)
7. Preliminary Soil Investigation prepared by Hu Associates, Inc. dated April 17,
2007. (Commission only)
8. Resolution No. 2008-P005 (1 IM P-2007117, SPR P-2007116, and AUP P-
2007115)
9. Development Plans Date Received March 19, 2008
10. Written Public Comments
Pa e 9 of 94043 Irving Place
Scale: 1;2,500
4043 Irving Place
Selected Properties
City of Culver City
f Fanning Divon
Map Created: Feb 11, 200B
Meeting Date; March 12, 2008AERIAL PHOTO
4043 IRVING
PLACE
TTM P2007117
SPR P2007116
AUP P2007115
CITY OF
C
ULVER CITY
Gls PROGRAM
APRIL 3, 20o8Li Administrative
• Planning Commission
O City Council
ri Categorical Exemption, Class
• Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration
• Environmental Impact Report, Type: CEQA
Determination
PROJECT SUMMARY
Wekl
Tentative Tract Map, TTM P-2007117, Site Plan Review, SPR P-2007116, and Administrative Us
Permit, AUP R2007115 to allow construction of a multi-story mixed-use project with 3,370 squar
feet of ground level office space, 26 residential condominium units and one level of subterraneal
parking, subdivision of the building into 29 condominium air space units, and provision of 54 tanden
parking spaces on property located at 4043 Irving Place in the Commercial Downtown (CD) Zone.
$V
4043 Irving Place
Culver City, CA 90232
LE Administrative Use Permit
Conditional Use Permit
ri Administrative Site Plan Review
g Site Plan Review
fl Administrative Variance
Ej Variance
ri Master Sign Program
El Certificate of Appropriateness
D Certificate of Exemption
O DOB!
;Aelm - ragti Sal Gonzales
10866 Washington Blvd. #512
Culver City, CA 90232
562 843-9283
Li
Tentative Parcel Map
El
Tentative Tract Map
0 Lot Line Adjustment
0 Zoning Code Amendment - Text
El Zoning Code Amendment - Map
0 General Plan Amendment - Text
0 General Plan Amendment Map
0 Planned Unit Development
0 Specific Plan •
Other:
CEQA Noticing 0 Notice of Exemption (w/in 5 days of decision)
El Notice of Intent to Adopt (21 days prior to decision)
El Notice of Determination (w/in 5 days of decision)
Fish & Game Certificate of Fee Exemption (w/in 5 days of decision)
El Notice of Preparation 0 Notice of Availability 0 Notice of Completeness
Updated 04/023200a
Page 1 of 3 Project Summary Attachment I A
1Proposed
24,089 sf.
14,707 sf.
2,128 sf.
840 sf. 1 bedroom studio
1,020 sf. 2 bedroom
1,203 sf. 3 bedroom
47 units per acre
Required/Allowed
NIA
N/A
Minimum 500 sf
Minimum 900 sf.
Minimum 1,100 sf.
65 units per acre allowed
Page 2 of 3 Updated 04/02/2008
Project Summary — Attachment I
PROJECT SUMMARY
-e
Mailing
Date: 2/20/08
Posting
Date: 2119/08
Publication
Date: N/A
1E/ Property Owners
Occupants
0 Adjacent Property Owners & Occupants
On site L Offsite
D Culver City News
vv/in 300' foot radius
w/in 300' foot radius / Extended
H Other:
0 Other:
El Other:
Courtesy
Date: 2/20/08
El City Council
El Commissions
E) Master Notification List
El Culver City Website
LII
Cable Crawler
D Press Release
HOA /Neighborhood Groups
EJ Culver City Organizations
El Other: Chamber of Commerce, Downtown
Business Association and interested parties.
I
Zoning
Commercial Downtown (CD)
Overlay Zone/District
NA
Existing Land Use
Vacant parking lot
-0V--- -, 080.:2100.011
WA,
General Plan
Downtown
Redevelopment Plan
Area #3
Legal Description
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES
Zoninq Land Use
CD Office Building and Fire Station
RMD Multiple family residences
CD
School District offices and school
RMD
Multiple family residence
Existing
24,089 sf.
0 sf.
0 st
N/A
N/A
Location
North:
South:
East:
West:
• Project Data
Lot Area
Building Coverage:
Landscaped Area:
Dwelling size:
Density:
Project Data
Parking:
Standard
Handicapped
Loading
Total:
Existing
64|10 10 10|64
Proposed
Required/Allowed
- Residential= 51
51
Guest= 6
6
Office = 11
11
3 (included in standard)
3
1 (included in standard)
1
68 68PROJECT SUMMARY
Building Height: 0 37-46 feet 56 feet
Building Setbacks:
Front N/A 5 5
Rear N/A 5 5
Side (North) N/A 6 feet 0 feet
Side (South) N/A 10 feet 10 feet
Plus 60 degree step back Plus 60 degree step
back
-&111111EXTP31
LI
New Development Impact:
El In Lieu Parkland: TBD
School District TBD
El Art TBD
Plan Check: TBD
El Sewer 1BD
Planning, Engineering, Building & Safety, Fire Prevention, Redevelopment Agency, and City Attorney
reviewed the project. Comments have been incorporated into the plans or where made part of the
recommended conditions of approval.
Updated 04102/2008 Page 3 of 3
Project Summary—Attachment 1
kAttachment No. 4
(310) 253-5710
FAX (310) 253-5721
PLANNING DIVISION
9770 CULVER BOULEVARD, CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA 90232-0507
DRAFT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title: Tentative Tract Map, um P-2007117, Site Plan Review, SPR P-2007116,
Administrative Use Permit, AUP P-2007115
Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Culver City, Planning Division
9770 Culver Blvd., Culver City, CA 90232
Contact Person & Phone No.: Thomas Gorham, Planning Manager
(310) 253-5710
IcmLii
Project Sponsor's Name &
Address:
General Plan Designation:
Redevelopment Project Area: Component Area No. 3
Overlay Zone/Special District: None
Project Description and Requested Action:
This project consists of the construction of a multi-story, 37 to 46 foot high building including 26
residential condominium units, 3 office condominium units, and a subterranean garage with 68
parking spaces.
The requested action is a Site Plan Review to construct a 43,756 square foot building and 24,080
square foot subterranean garage, a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the building into 26
residential and three office condominium air space units, and an Administrative Use Permit to
allow 54 tandem parking spaces.
Existing Conditions of the Project Site:
The project site is located between Culver Boulevard and Braddock Drive and it fronts on both
Irving Place and Lafayette. It is approximately 24,089 square feet in size and is currently a vacant
asphalt-paved parking 1st.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surrounding)
North: Office building and City Fire station
South: Multiple-family residences
West Multiple-family residences
East: Elementary school• Negative Declaratidn — -
Site Plan Review SPR P-2007116,
Tentative Tract Map TTM P-2007117
Administrative Use Permit AUP P-2007115
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
On the basis of the initial Study prepared for the proposed project, it has been determined that the proposed
project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment_
s5-e--cs 212.at 0
Thomas Gorham Date
Deputy Community Development Director/Planning Manager
City of Culver City(310) 253-5710
•
FAX (310) 253-5721
PLANNING DIVISION
9770 CULVER BOULEVARD, CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA 90232-0507
DRAFT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1 Project Title: Tentative Tract Map, TIM P-2007117, Site Plan Review, SPR P-2007116,
Administrative Use Permit, ALIP P-2007115
Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Culver City, Planning Division
9770 Culver Blvd., Culver City, CA 90232
Contact Person & Phone No.: Thomas Gorham, Planning Manager
(310) 253-5710
Project Location/Address:
4043 Irving Place, Culver City, CA 90232
Culver Boulevard/Braddock Ave APN: 1 4207-007-907
Sal Gonzales
10866 Washington Boulevard # 512
Culver City, CA 90232
(562) 843-9283
Nearest Cross Street:
Project Sponsor's Name &
Address:
General Plan Designation:
Downtown J
Zoning: Commercial Downtown
(CD)
Redevelopment Project Area: Component Area No. 3
Overlay Zone/Special District: None
Project Description and Requested Action:
This project consists of the construction of a multi-storv, 37 to 46 foot high building including 26
residential condominium units, 3 office condominium units, and a subterranean garage with 68
parking spaces.
The requested action is a Site Plan Review to construct a 43,756 square foot building and 24,080
square foot subterranean garage, a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the building into 26
residential and three office condominium air space units, and an Administrative Use Permit to
allow 54 tandem parking spaces.
Existing Conditions of the Project Site:
The project site is located between Culver Boulevard and Braddock Drive and it fronts on both
Irving Place and Lafayette. it is approximately 24,089 square feet in size and is currently a vacant
asphaft-paVed parking lot,
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surrounding)
North: Office building and City Fire station
South: Multiple-family residences
West: Multiple-family residences
East: Elementary schoolNegative Declaration
Site Plan Review SPR P-2007116,
Tentative Tract Map TTM P-2007117
Administrative Use Permit AUP P-2007115
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
On the basis of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project, it has been determined that the proposed
project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
Gsa7-4-, 212.csi OS,
Thomas Gorham Date
Deputy Community Development Director/Planning Manager
City of Culver CityPLANNING DIVISION
9770 CULVER BOULEVARD, CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA 90232-0507
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Project Title: Tentative Tract Map, TTM P-2007117, Site Plan Review, SPR P-2007116,
Administrative Use Permit, AUP P-2007115
Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Culver City, Planning Division
9770 Culver Blvd., Culver City, CA 90232
Contact Person & Phone No.:
Thomas Gorham, Planning Manager
(310) 253-5710
Project Location/Address:
4043 Irving Place, Culver City, CA 90232
Culver Boulevard/Braddock Ave APN: I 4207-007-907
Sal Gonzales
10866 Washington Boulevard # 512
Culver City, CA 90232
(562) 843-9283
Nearest Cross Street:
Project Sponsor's Name &
Address:
General Plan Designation:
Downtown Zoning: Commercial Downtown
(CD)
Redevelopment Project Area: Component Area No. 3
Overlay Zone/Special District: None
Project Description and Requested Action:
This project consists of the construction of a multi-story, 37 to 46 foot high building including 26
residential condominium units, 3 office condominium units, and a subterranean garage with 68
parking spaces.
The requested action is a Site Plan Review to construct a 43,756 square foot building and 24,080
square foot subterranean garage, a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the building into 26
residential and three office condominium air space units, and an Administrative Use Permit to
allow 54 tandem parking spaces.
Existing Conditions of the Project Site:
The project site is located between Culver Boulevard and Braddock Drive and it fronts on both
Irving Place and Lafayette. it is approximately 24,089 square feet in size and is currently a vacant
asphalt-paved parking lot.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surrounding)
North: Office building and City Fire station
South: Multiple-family residences
West: Multiple-family residences
East: Elementary school
(310) 253-5710
FAX (310) 253-5721Page 2 of 21
Site Ofah Review SPR P-2007115,
Tentative Tract Map TTM P-2007117
Administrative Use Permit AUP P-2007115
February 19, 2008
Revised March 27, 2008
Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement)
Culver City Redevelopment Agency will review for consistena with the Redevelopment Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages:
El Aesthetics E Mineral Resources
Agriculture Resources D Noise
I Air Quality 0 Population / Housing
n Biological Resources 0 Public Services
n Cultural Resources 0 Recreation
n Geology /Soils Transportationfrraffic
El Hazards & Hazardous Materials 0 Utilities / Service Systems
ri Hydrology / Water Quality 0 Mandatary Findings of Significance
0 Land Use! Planning
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
El I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
n I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed
to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Li
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
n I find that the proposed project MAY have a 'potentially significant impact' or 'potentially significant
unless mitigated' impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed
by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain
to be addressed.
11 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ER or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant
to that earlier ER or NEGATIVE DECLARAT/ON, including revisions or mitigation measures that
are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.Site Plan Review SPR P-2007116,
Tentative Tract Map TTIV1 P-2007117
Administrative Use Permit AUP P-2007115
February 19, 2008
Revised March 27, 2008
FISH AND GAJVIE FEE (AB 3158)
Fl I find that the proposed project WILL NOT have an impact on fish or wildlife resources or habitat
upon which fish and wildlife depend. I find that the proposed project IS EXEMPT from the Fish and
Game fee_ A 'Certificate of Fee Exemption' will be prepared for this project.
I
I find that the proposed project IS NOT EXEMPT from the Fish and Game fee.
--(Pe,„„a 69a.c„ 34110X
Signature Date
Thomas Gorham - Planning Manager
Case Manager Title
Page 3 of 21Pofentally
Significant Less Than
Impact Unless Significant
Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
AIR otiALITy Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality me,n9 . ernent .triair
,
pollution control district may be 'relied upon
to make the
following dete
rminations
- w°1-1141
the
RrPiect:
• Site Plan Review SPR P-2007116,
Tentative Tract Map TIM P-2007117
Administrative Use Permit AUP P-2007115
February 19, 2008
Revised March 27, 2008
Have a substantial adverse effect on a Scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
0
quality of the site and its surroundings?
Create a new source of substantial fight or glare which
0
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Site Assessme
nt • lture and
„
are
1907)
• ltural
resources,
impacts
to , and
t Model t
' 'f'
nt flVirqnenenta h' her w e. ation a
agriculture
datermlnin9
Land
Evalu -
impacts on
AGRICULTURE
California Agricultural
, in assessing
RESOURCES: in
- ' refer to the ,
-
model to
d' agencies 471q-
ervation as an
' effects ' s? rfornia Dept. of
c°ns
prepared by the Ca
r
the profect
land -Would 'farm .
El
Li
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable fl 0
air quality plan?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially NJ
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any Eli U
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Page 4 of 21oLopicAL RESOURCES-IPWould the project
Conffict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan : Natural Community Conservation Plan:
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
ULTURAVRESOUR OUV.thept10) c
,
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in 15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Page 5 of 21
Site Plan Review SPR. P-2007116,
Tentative Tract Map TTM P-2007117
Administrative Use Permit AUP P-2007115
February 19, 2008
Revised March 27, 2008
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Impact Unless Significant
impact Mitigation Impact
incorporated
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
No
Impact
) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?|10 9| 0 D fzi|10 9| 0|10 9| 0 0 z
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in focal or
regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?OLOGY:AND SOILS Would the projec
Site Plan Review SPR P-2007116,
Tentative Tract Map TIM P-2007117
Administrative Use Permit AUP P-2007115
February 19, 2008
Revised March 27, 2008
El
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Incorporated
Potentially
Significant Less Than
Impact Unless Significant
Mitigation Impact
El El
Potentially
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
I) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
LI
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 El El 0
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 0 1:g 0
v) Landslides? 0 0 El 0
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the foss of topsoil? 0 0 El n
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
0 0 IS1 El
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
, • - . • , 4
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS —Would the projec
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
Page 6 of 21Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
1.1 0
g)
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
0 0
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
C 0
Page 7 of 21
-
Site Plan Review SPR P-2007118,
Tentative Tract Map TIM P-2007117
Administrative Use Permit ALP P-2007115
February 19, 2008
Revised March 27, 2008
1
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in The project area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildfand fires, including where
wildiands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wilcflands?
No
impact
(21
V111. 1-1YDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1-wouid the project
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
focal groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
LI
U
Li
LIPotentially
Potentially 1 Significant
Significant Impact Unless
impact Mitigation
Incorporated
ri
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Impact |10 10 10|IX. LAND USE PLANNING : B. project
LI 0
LI
-
Site Plan Review SPR P-2007116,
Tentative Tract Map TIM P-2007117
Administrative Use Permit AUP P-2007115
February 19, 2008
Revised March 27, 2008
I
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
0 Expose people or structures to a significant risk of foss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
.1)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
a) Physically divide an established community?
LI
LI
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
. MINERAL RESOURCES —Mc id the project.
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the foss of availability of a focally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
genera/ plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
NOISE Would the 'project result in
%-
/AT
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground 0
borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
rgi 0
fsi
LI
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?Li a
U
--eguatu, -
El
Site Plan Review SPR P-2007116,
Tentative Tract Map TT/VI P-20071/7
Administrative Use Permit AUP P-2007115
February 19, 2008
Revised March 27, 2008
IEVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially
Significant
ii-npact
Potentially
Significant Less Than
Impact Unless
I
Significant
No
Impact
Mitigation Impact
Incorporated|10 9| 0 111
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
-XIV. RECREATION -
-
jit
Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
U a
X16.,T$ANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would thA.Project
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
(Le., result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
• c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
Page 9 of 21
El
El0|10 10|Li
_
Site Plan Review SPR P-2007118,
Tentative Tract Map TIM P-2007117
Administrative Use Permit AUP P-2007115
February 19, 2008
Revised March 27, 2008
Potentially
Potentially Significant L'
Significant Impact Unless Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
No
impact
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI lin UTASAND
SERvicE
SYSTEMS-7714buld-theproJe
Azn
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
e) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies avaable to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand
in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
11. MANDATORY FINDINGS F SIGNIFICANC
Potentialty
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Impact Unless Significant
impact Mitigation impact
Incorporated
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
Li
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Page 10 of 21
401)Site Plan Review SPR P-2007116,
Tentative Tract Map TTM P-2007117
Mministrative Use Permit AUP P-2007115
February 19, 2006
Revised March 27, 2008
1
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Impact Unless Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
z
b Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? (turn ulative/y
considerable' means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES:
Not applicable.
Page 11 of 21Page 12 of 21
Site Plan Review SPR P-2007116,
Tentative Tract Map TIM P-2007117
Administrative Use Permit AUP P-2007115
February 19, 2008
Revised March 27, 2008
XIX. DISCUSSION:
Discussion of Initial Study Checklist responses:
a) through d) a) The project is located in an urbanized area, with commercial and residential buildings in the immediate
Less Than vicinity. The topography surrounding the site is relatively flat with no substantial ocean or mountain views
Significant that can be considered scenic that will be significantly affected by the project The location of the
Impact proposed building may partially affect the view of Culver City Park from the adjacent office and fire station
buildings; however the number of properties affected will be limited.
b) The project is not located along a state scenic highway; no impacts relative to scenic resources along
state scenic highways are expected of this project.
c) The project is adjacent to 12 historical two-story residential bungalow buildings with a "Landmark"
designation in Culver City's focal cultural resources register. These buildings have a Spanish Colonial
character and were built in 1925. The design and massing of the proposed building will not overtake the
historic structures or obstruct their view from the street. The proposed building has a similar Spanish style
architectural character including the use of earth-tone color stucco siding, Spanish style roof tiles, black
wrought iron fencing and guard rails, wood frame windows, as well as generous landscaping along the
perimeter of the site that are intended to compliment the historic buildings. The portion of the proposed
building adjacent to the approximately 21 foot high historic structures includes step backs 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 3T feet at the pitched roof peak setback 38 feet from
the property line. These height setbacks help to ensure that the proposed buildings mass and scale do not
overwhelm the historic structures. The project will result in an improvement to the visual character of the
site and will complement the architectural visual character of the area.
d)
There will be an increase in the amount of internal lighting emanating from the project. The
discretionary approval for the project will require implementation of all applicable City zoning standards
and design guidelines including a requirement that all lighting not project onto, or create a nuisance for,
adjacent public rights-of—way and private properties. Through these code and design requirements, there
will be no significant impacts adversely affecting the adjacent historic building or views in the area.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S): None required.
I
a) through c) The project site is not located on land identified, utilized, or zoned for agricultural purposes, and there is
No Impact no known Williamson Act contract in effect on the project site.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S): None required.IV BIOLOGICAL
RES0t*O. E.
The project site is located in an urbanized area surrounded by existing disturbed land and development
Infomiation on existing conditions of the project site, submitted by the applicant with the project
application materials indicates no biological resources, as identified by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service, or federally protected wetlands, as defined by the Clean Water
Act, exist on site_ There are no identifiable, migratory wildlife corridors on the project site and the project
site is
not subject to a City policy/ordinance protecting biological resources and is not subject to a habitat
conservation plan.
Two mature ficus trees located within the public right-of-way will be removed as part of the development
They will be replaced by another species of trees consistent with the City of Culver City's Street Tree
Master Plan.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S): None required.
Site Plan Review SPR P-2007116,
Tentative Tract Map TIM P-2007117
Administrative Use Permit AUP P-2007115
February 19, 2008
Revised March 27, 2008
a) through e)
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Future new development in any portion of Culver City will contribute both at the project level an
cumulatively, to pollutant emissions over existing non-attainment conditions due to both construction anc
operation of individual projects. Still, this project, as proposed, is consistent with Culver City's Genera
Plan and Zoning Code and therefore,
the project's operational impacts are considered to be factored intc
SCAQMD's regional air quality models.
• The subject project is consists of 26 residential condominium units and three office condominium units
that measure approximately 3,350 square feet, both of which are smaller in scale than the thresholds of
Potential Significance in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook prepared by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAOMD).
No objectionable odors are expected from the proposed office and residential uses. And, the project
applicant will be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which provides specific control actions to be
implemented during any construction activities to control fugitive dust.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S): None required.
Page 13 of 21
`60Page 14 of 21
Site Plan Review SPR P-2007116,
Tentative Tract Map TIM P-2007117
Administrative Use Permit AUP P-2007115
February 19, 2008
Revised March 27, 2008
The project is adjacent to 12 historical two-story residential bungalow buildings with a "Landmark'
designation in Culver City's local cultural resources register. These buildings have a Spanish Colonial
character and were built in 1925. The design and massing of the proposed building will not overtake the
historic structures or obstruct their view from the street. The proposed building has a similar Spanish style
architectural character including the use of earth-tone color stucco siding, Spanish style roof tiles, black
wrought iron fencing and guard rails, wood frame windows, as well as generous landscaping along the
perimeter of the site that are intended to compliment the historic buildings. The portion of the proposed
building adjacent to the approximately 21 foot high historic structures includes step backs 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 fine increasing to a maximum of 37 feet at the pitched roof peak setback 38 feet from
the property fine. These height setbacks help to ensure that the proposed buildings mass and scale do not
overwhelm the historic structures. The project will result in an improvement to the visual character of the
site and will complement the architectural visual character of the area.
b) through d)
No Impact
The project site is located in an urbanized area surrounded by existing disturbed land and development.
There are no known archaeological, paleontological, or human remain resources on the site and no
significant impacts relative to these specific cultural resources are expected to occur. Should such
resources surface during construction of the project the applicant will be subject to the appropriate State
and/or Federal laws that regulate the proper handling of these types of artifacts.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S): None required.Site Plan Review SPR P-2007116,
Tentative Tract Map TIM P-2007117
Administrative Use Permit AUP P-2007115
February 19, 2008
Revised March 27, 2008
1.GEOLOGYAND:$OILSf
a), b) and d)
Less Than
Sign ificant
Impact
c) Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Information on existing conditions indicates the site is not located near land subject to landslides, it is no
located on expansive soil, and will be adequately served by the City's existing sewer system. The projec
will be constructed to meet all Uniform Building Code requirements and will comply with City and State
seismic standards. The project site is not located within earthquake faults, nor is it within art area subject
to liquefaction.
The proposed project includes the construction of a subterranean parking garage with a finished grade of
approximately 10 feet below the existing ground surface. A cut on the order of 12 feet including footings
will be required for constructing the proposed subterranean garage. The proposed subterranean garage
will be located on the property lines in all directions and shoring and lagging will be required for temporary
excavation during construction. Due to the proximity of 3 historic residences on the property to the south,
the design
of the shoring must specifically acknowledge and address the close proximity of these
residences. A Preliminary Soils Investigation prepared by Hu Associates, Inc dated April 17, 2007 was
prepared for the proposed project and includes a number of recommendations for excavation, shoring and
construction of the proposed subterranean garage. Project conditions of approval will require the shoring
plans for the project to include the recommendations made in said report and that shoring, foundations,
and structure of the proposed project be specifically designed to preserve to the extent feasible the
historic residences with no damage during either the construction phase or after the project is completed.
e) No Impact
The project does not Propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. It is an
existing building and facility located in a fully urbanized area sewed by existing wastewater infrastructure.
The project's wastewater demand would be accommodated via connections to the existing wastewater
infrastructure. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts related to the ability of soils to support
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S): None required
Page 15 of 21 • • •• - - - _
Site Plan Review SPR P-200 - 721-:1-5,
Tentative Tract Map TTM P-2007117
Administrative Use Permit AUP P-2007115
February 19, 2008
Revised March 27, 2008
a), b), c) and
d) Less Than
Significant
Impact
The project is a mixed-use development with office uses on the first floor and residential units above
which do not include use of and disposai of significant hazardous materials other than volumes normall]
found in residential and commercial areas. in addition, the applicant will be required to obtain thE
necessary approvals from the Culver City Fire Department, in compliance with applicable Fire CodE
regulations and will also be required to participate in the Culver City Hazardous Materials Program.
Environmental information submitted by the applicant with the project plans and application materials
indicates that the site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled per Government Code Section
65962.5.
The subject site was previously occupied by a budding used by Coast Media, Inc., which was involved in
pre-press and advertising activities. The property was purchased by the City of Culver City
Redevelopment Agency in 1996, then building was demolished and the site was converted into a paved
parking lot. Prior to the demolition, a Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment report was
completed indicating that asbestos, lead, and other chemicals were found an the building and the soil
under the building. The report concluded that these hazardous materials would have to be removed from
the building and the soil would have to be remediated properly. A Remediatbn Action Plan (RAP) was
prepared, and the asbestos, lead and other hazardous substances were removed from the building and
the soil pursuant to the RAP in 1997.
The project site is located within one-quarter mile of an existing school. However, limited quantities of
potentially hazardous materials lobe used during construction and operation of the project would not pose
a hazard to the public or environment. Furthermore, previously present hazardous materials were
removed prior to the site conversion into a parking lot Because the proposed project would not emit
hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials no significant impact in
expected.
e) and f) No
Impact
g) Less Than
Significant
Impact
h) No Impact
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area, nor is the site located within 2 miles of
an airport The closest airport is Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) located more than 2.5 miles
south from the site. There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the site, and therefore no potential
hazard to the safety of people residing or working in the area.
The proposed project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan. Access to all local roads would be maintained during construction and project operation.
The project site is located in an urbanized area of Culver City. In addition, the Culver City Natural
Hazards Map identifies the project site as outside of the fire hazard zone. Therefore, the project would
not expose people or structures to a significant risk of foss, injury, or death involving wild fires.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S): None required.
Page 16 of 21Site Plan Review SPR P-2007116,
Tentative Tract Map TIM P-2007117
Administrative Use Permit AUP P-2007115
February 19, 2008
Revised March 27, 2008
.':.',VIIL-41YDROLOGYANDWATER 1/UAL
a), c), f), h) Grading and building plans will be reviewed and approved by the City's Building Safety and Engineerire
and j) Divisions to assure that on and off-site drainage will not create significant impacts to drainage facilities
No Impact groundwater quality and quantity. The project will require the preparation of a Standard Urbar
Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). The SUSMP plan must be prepared by a registered civil engineer
and be reviewed by the Engineering Division for approval prior to the issuance of any permits. The City
wilt require the project to be designed to effectively prohibit the entry of pollutants from the construction
site into the public street and storm drain system. The construction contractor will be required to comply
with the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook.
b), d) and e)
Less Than
Significant
Impact.
g) and i)
Less Than
Significant
Impact
The project will use more water than the current parking lot use at the site. However, the number of
residential and office units, 26 and 3 respectively will not have a substantial impact on water supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.
The project will change the drainage pattern of the site due to the construction of a four-story building and
a subterranean parking structure. However, it will not affect the course of a stream or river, because the
subject site is not near enough a stream or river to have such an impact.
The site will not create substantially more runoff water to exceed the capacity of existing drainage
systems. The site is located in an urbanized area, surrounded by commercial, governmental and
residential uses where the existing drainage systems can adequately address any additional runoff water
from the project
The project is not located within a dam inundation zone. It will not place housing or structures within a
100-year flood hazard area. It is not within seiches, tsunamis, or mudfiow inundation zone. The project
site is lot located within The vicinity of any large surface bodies of water and is located more than 2.5 miles
from the Pacific ocean. As such, the project site would not be prone to inundation by a seiche or tsunami.
It is also not located downslope from an area of mudslide potential, and thus there is no risk of mudfiows.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S): None required.
No Impact The project will not physically divide an established community. It is located within an urbanized area,
consisting of a mix of uses including commercial, governmental and residential. Currently the site is a
vacant parking lot. The uses immediately around the site consist of multiple family residential uses to the
south and west, and commercial and government uses to the north, and a school to the east.
b) Less Than The proposed use is consistent with the 'Downtown' General Plan Land Use designation, its policies and
Significant objectives. The CD zone permits the proposed mixed use development with the approval of a site plan
Impact review. Furthermore, upon the City's review and approval of the application, the project will be consistent
with the City's Zoning Code, including the development standards of the CD zone. Therefore, the
proposed project will be consistent with the local land use plan and the zoning ordinance currently in
effect.
c) No Impact The project site is not subject to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. It is
developed as a parking lot and does not provide habitat for any biological species, nor does it support any
natural communities.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S): None required.
Page 17 of 21Site Plan Review SPR P-2007116,
Tentative Tract Map TIM P-2007117
Administrative Use Permit AUP P-2007115
February 19, 2008
Revised March 27, 2008
11111NERALRESDURC
Page 18 of 21
a) and b)
No Impact
Government Code Section 65302(d) states that a conservation element of the general plan shall includi
minerals and other natural resources." The City of Culver City's Conservation Element of the GenerE
Plan states that the City does not have features included in Government Code Section 65302(d) listing o
items for conservation, other than a natural wilderness area. Therefore, the project area is not designatec
mineral extraction site or a regionally or focally-important significant mineral resource area.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S): None required.
a) through d)
Less than
Significant
Impact
The proposed project is not expected to generate significant noise levels during operations. Noise caused
by the project will be consistent with that of surrounding urban uses. Ambient noise potentially affecting
users of the project will be dampened by Building Code requirements for construction of commercial and
residential mixed-use buildings. During grading, construction or remodeling, the project will be subject to
both the noise element and to restricted hours of construction as noted in the Culver City Municipal Code.
The project will be conditioned to require the applicant's contractor to use construction equipment with
state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devices to alleviate potential noise impacts. Both applicant
and City contact information will be posted on the project site to direct individuals wishing to report noise
and other construction activity complaints.
e) and f) No
The project site is not within an airport land use plan and is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Impact
MIT/GATI01 ._:9MEALI SU S RE : None required.
.PULATIONANDBOUSIN
a) Less than The project consists of 26 residential condominium units, and three office condominium units
Significant approximately 3,350 square feet. Thus, the project will result in an increase of population. However, the
Impact project is designed to be compatible with the scale and character of the adjacent neighborhood, which is
consistent with Objective 2 of the General Plan Housing Element to maintain opportunities for all types of
housing while protecting the character of existing neighborhoods. Furthermore, the project will provide 26
new residential units to the City's housing stock furthering the intent of the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment as prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the State of
California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), which call for an addition 504
housing units in Culver City in the planning period ending in 2014. The project will not significantly
increase employment, in that few new workers will occupy the office units. To the extent that some
employees relocate to five closer to their place of employment, this demand is not expected to be
substantial and could be served by existing available housing and rental opportunities as well as other
housing that is planned or under construction in the area.
b) and c) No The site is currently a vacant parking lot and no existing housing will be removed as a result of
Impact
construction. No significant reduction or displacement of population or housing is associated with the
project.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S): None required.CREATIO
Page 19 of 21
Site Plan Review SPR P-2007116,
Tentative Tract Map TTM P-2007117
Administrative Use Permit AUP P-2007115
February 19, 2008
Revised March 27, 2008
a) Less than
Significant
Impact
The project will comply with all applicable California Building and Fire Codes. There are existing public
service facilities necessary to accommodate the project such as traffic control devices, sewers, storm
drains, parkways, sidewalks, street lights, fire protection devices, and public utilities are provided for
adequately as confirmed by the City agencies that reviewed the project during the interdepartmental
review process. No extension of roads or infrastructure other than the necessary laterals to connect to
City mains will be required of this project. Both Fire and Police protection can adequately service the
project as proposed. The impact on schools will be less than significant, because no significant
population increase will result from this project.
MITIGATION MEASURUSI: None required.
a) and b)
Less Than
Significant
Impact
The proposed mixed use project will not result in significant adverse impacts relative to recreation,
because it is not expected to generate a substantial population increase. The use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks is not expected to substantially increase. The project would not require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. In addition, the applicant will be required to
contribute to the City's park/and fund during the plan check process, which is intended for improvements
to City parks.
MITIGATION MEASURE(a None required.:...7TRAliJSPOR1ATION/TRAFFJCt'T.
Site Plan Review SPR P-2007116,
Tentative Tract Map TIM P-2007117
Administrative Use Permit AUP P-2007115
February 19, 2008
Revised March 27, 2008
a) Less Than A traffic analysis was conducted for the project and the study determined that the added traffic volurni
Significant generated by the proposed mixed-use project will not significantly impact any of the study intersections o
Impact street segments studied. The focus of the traffic study was to evaluate the potential traffic impact create(
by the proposed development on four intersections. These include, 1) Lafayette Place / Culver Boulevard,
2) Lafayette Place / Braddock Drive, 3) Irving Place I Culver Boulevard, 4) Irving Place / Braddock Drive.
The study concluded that the amount of trips generated as a result of the proposed development does not
exceed the threshold for significance for levels of service (LOS). Therefore, no traffic mitigation measures
are required.
The traffic study estimated that the project would generate 189 daily vehicle trips taking into account both
the residential and office components. The study also estimated 16 morning and 19 afternoon peak hour
trips. The traffic study also projected the future traffic levels at the intersections studied based on
development projects in construction or anticipated to be constructed.
b) through
d), and g)
No Impact|1010| e) and f)
Less than
significant
impact
i
On the basis of the projected future traffic levels in the area and the trips generated by the project the
traffic study concludes that the increase in traffic at various street intersections as a result of the project-
will be below the City's criteria for significant impacts. Traffic impacts at intersections measured as
volume to capacity ratios (WC or the number of actual cars to the amount of cars the intersection can
accommodate) must increase beyond a threshold given the Level of Service measured for the
intersections in order to be considered a significant impact. Al the study intersections noted above the
increase in the V/C ratios resulting from the project given the Level of Service for those intersections was
below what the City establishes as a significant impact. In other words, added traffic resulting from the
project:to the areas studied is expected to be small enough so as to not create significant traffic problems.
Current roadway design features in the project site area are compatible with this project and surrounding
uses. The project does not conflict with alternative transportation policies and does not require elimination
of bus stops/turnouts.
The project will be located wholly within private property along a developed area with no requirements for
significant roadway changes or elimination of current emergency access routes. As a result of the project,
Lafayette Place will be widened in front of the subject site consistently with the City of Culver City's Public
Works Department requirements.
Parking for the project will be provided in a subterranean parking garage which will include 68 parking
spaces for residential and office uses, including handicapped parking and a loading space.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S): None required.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
a) through g)
Less Than
Significant
The proposed project will connect to existing utilities available to adequately serve the project site No
significant adverse impacts to utilities are expected from project implementation.
Since the project site is completely paved, development of the proposed project would not increase the
amount of impervious surface area or surface water runoff quantities. Since the project would not result n
an increase in runoff, the project would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S): None required.
Page 20 of 21:2XVILMANDATORYTINDINGSZPSIG4IFICANC
Site Plan Review SPR P-2007116,
Tentative Tract Map TTM P-2007117
Administrative Use Permit AUP P-2007115
February 19, 2008
Revised March 27, 2008
a) Less Than With regards to historic environmental resources, potential impacts to the adjacent historic structures w
Significant be less than significant with implementation of project conditions Otherwise, the project, which is located
Impact a developed, urbanized area, will not have significant impacts to any plant or animal wildlife resource.
The project involves construction of a mixed use building which will result in an intensification of the projec
b)and c) site, and there may be some project level and cumulative impacts where none existed before. However
Less Than the project meets all requirements of the zoning code and adequate parking is provided according to th
Significant parking requirements and it will not result in significant impacts. Furthermore, a traffic analysis vra:
Impact conducted for the project and the study determined that the added traffic volume generated by thE
proposed project will not significantly impact any of the study intersections. The amount of traffic generatec
as a result of the proposed development does not meet the level of significance. Therefore, no traffic
mitigation measures are required.
The project, which is located in a developed, urbanized area, is a mixed use development with office and
residential uses that meets Genera/ Plan Land Use policies and guidelines and is consistent with the
Zoning Code. It will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. No mitigation measures with
regard to impacts on human beings are required.
References Utilized:
1) Traffic study for the 4043 Irving Place Mixed-Use Project prepared by Raju Associates, inc.
received on December 31, 2007
2) Phase! Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Gale/Jordan Associates, Inc. (1993)
3) Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Gale/Jordan Associates, Inc. (1995)
4) Preliminary Soil investigation prepared by Hu Associates, Inc. dated April 17, 2007
Page 21 of 21
44RECEIVED
DEC 31 2007
Culver City
Elonnin
g Division,
FINAL
TRAFFIC STUDY
FOR THE
4043 IRVING PLACE MIXED-USE PROJECT
Prepared for:
THE CITY OF CULVER CITY
DECEMBER 2007
Submitted by:
•
RAILJ Associates/ Inc, -FINAL
TRAFFIC STUDY
FOR THE
4043 -IRVING PLACE MIXED-USE PROJECT
December 2007
'Prepared for
THE CITY OF CULVER CITY
Prepared by:
RAJU ASSOCIATES, INC.
524 S. Rosemead Boulevard
Pasadena, California 91107
(626) 792-2700
Ref: RA 246EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A detailed traffic study was performed by Raju Associates, inc. to assess the traffic impacts of the
proposed mixed-use project within the City of Culver City, California The Project is located at
4043 Irving Place.
The Proposed Project would be located on the-west side of living_ Place south of 'A' Street in the
City of Culver City. As proposed, the Project Consists of 26 multi-family (condominium) dwelling
units and 3,350 square feet of office .use. The Project would provide a subterranean parking
garage with- 68 parking spaces. The existing site contains a parking lot
One driveway located on Irving Place would provide access to the Project's subterranean parking
area This driveway would allow left-turns in and left-turns out only since Irving Place is a one-way
northbound roadway south of W Street.
Current and future traffic analyses at four intersections within the City of Culver City were
conducted in this study,. At these locations, traffic operations were studied prior to and after
implementation of the Proposed Project, deficiencies and impacts, if any, identified, improvements
and mitigation measures, if required, developed, their effectiveness determined and residual traffic
impacts, if any, ascertained as part of this study. Access and circulation at the proposed driveway
to the parking area for the Project were also evaluated. The following executive . summary
highlighting the key findings of this study is presented below.
• Four intersections were analyzed within the study area for this project These locations are
within the study area bounded by Culver Boulevard on the north, Braddock Drive on the
south, Lafayette Place on the west and living Place on the east within the City of Culver
City.|1010|• Currently, all four of the analyzed intersection locations are operating at excellent to very
good level ofservice (LOS B or better) during both the morning and evening peak hours.
• In the Cumulative (Year 2008) Base conditions, i.e., future conditions without the
implementation of the proposed project, all four of the analyzed intersection locations areprojected to continue to operate at excellent to very good level of service (LOS B or better)
during both the morning and evening peak hours.
• The Proposed Project consisting of 26 multi-family (condominium) dwelling units and
3,350 square feet of office use will generate a total of 189 daily trips of which 16 trips
would occur during the morning peak hour and 19 trips during the evening peak hour.
Typically, the City of Culver City does not require a traffic study for projects that generate
less than 50 peak hour trips. However, based on the City's request, this study has been
performed.
• In the Cumulative (Year 2008) Pius Project conditions, both the AM and PM peak hour
operating conditions would be similar to those projected for the Future Base conditions.
• The Cumulative (Year 2008) Plus Project conditions show that the proposed project would
not cause significant traffic impacts at any of the analysis locations, based on significance
criteria established by the City of Culver City.
• Residential street segment analysis performed at three roadway segments indicates that
the addition of the Proposed Project would increase the peak hour traffic from 1.3% to
7.4%. This is less than the City's street segment impact threshold of 8%. The project
would not have a significant impact on any of the street segments within the study area.
• Parking, access and circulation systems were assessed and a review of the proposed site
plan indicates that they would all function adequately and that there would be no adverse
impact from the Proposed Project.
Summarizing, the Proposed Project would not cause any significant impacts (as described on
page 32 of Chapter IV) at any of the analyzed locations. Parking, access and circulation systems
would function adequately.
2TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3
STUDY SCOPE 3
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT IL EXISTING CONDITIONS 7
STUDY AREA 7
EXISTING STREET SYSTEM 7
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES & LEVELS OF SERVICE 9
EXISTING TRANSIT LINES 15
W. FUTURE YEAR 2008 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS 16
CUMULATIVE (2008) BASE TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS 16
PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES 26
CUMULATIVE (2008) PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
30
/V. FUTURE YEAR 2008 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS & IMPACTANALYSIS 32
SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC IMPACT CRITERIA 32
CUMULATIVE (2008) BASE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 33
CUMULATIVE (2008) PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 33
PROJECT IMPACTS.
35
V. REGIONAL / CIVIP ANALYSIS
37
CIV/P TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 37
VI. PARKING AND ACCESS/CIRCULATION 38
PARKING, ACCESS & CIRCULATION ISSUES 38
VII_ SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 42
APPENDICESLIST OF FIGURES
NO.
I LOCATION OF PROJECT & ANALYZED INTERSECTIONS 4|109| EXISTING (2007) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 10|109| LOCATION OF RELATED PROJECTS 21|109| RELATED PROJECTS ONLY PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 24|109| CUMULATIVE (2008) BASE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 25
6 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION 28
7 PROJECT ONLY PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 29
8 CUMULATIVE (2008) PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 31
9 PROJECT SITE PLAN 39
10 PROJECT SITE PLAN - SUBTERRANEAN PARKING LEVEL 40
VST OF TABLES
NO.
1 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS FOR SIGNALVFD INTERSECTIONS 11
2 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS FOR UNSIGNALEED INTERSECTIONS 12
3 EXISTING (2007) CONDITIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY 14
4 LIST OF RELATED PROJECTS 19
5 ESTIMATED RELATED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION 22
6 ESTIMATED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION 27
7 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS - FUTURE CONDMONS 34
8 RESIDENTIAL STREET TRAFFIC ANALYSIS • 36
APPENDICES
A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
B INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATIONS
C TRAFFIC COUNTS
D CAPACITY CALCULATION WORKSHEETS - EXISTING (2007) CONDITIONS
E CAPACITY CALCULATION WORKSHEETS - CUMULATIVE (2008) BASE
CONDITIONS
F CAPACITY CALCULATION WORKSHEETS - CUMULATIVE (2008) PLUS PROJECT
CONDITIONSI. INTRODUCTION
This report documents the assumptions, methodologies and findings of a study conducted by Raju
Associates, Inc to evaluate the potential traffic impacts of the proposed mixed-use project located
at 4043 Irving Place within the City of Culver City, California. Figure 1 illustrates the location of
the Proposed Project in relation to the surrounding street system.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Proposed Project would be located on the west side of Irving Place south of 'A' Street in the
City of Culver City As proposed, the Project consists of 26 multi-family (condominium) dwelling
units and 3,350 square feet of office use. The Project would provide a subterranean parking
garage with 68 parking spaces. The existing site contains a parking lot
One driveway located on living Place would provide access to the Project's subterranean parking
area. This driveway would .allow left-tums in and left-turns out only since living Place is a one-way
northbound roadway south of 'A' Street
STUDY SCOPE
The scope of work for this study was developed in conjunction with the City of Culver City staff.
The base assumptions, technical methodologies and geographic coverage of the study were all
identified as part of the study approach. The study is directed at the analysis of potential traffic
impacts on the street system produced by the Proposed Project per the City of Culver City traffic
impact significance criteria. The following scenarios have been evaluated in this study:|1010|60
JLEGEND:|10 9| - Malyzed interseclions
Proleci Imation'
fr(
FIGURE I
, LOCATION OF PROJECT AND ANALYZED INTERSECTIONS RAKJASSOCACI Plg• Existing (2007) Baseline Conditions - The analysis of existing traffic conditions is intended
to provide a basis for the remainder of the study. The existing conditions analysis includes
an assessment of streets, traffic volumes, and operating conditions.
• Cumulative Base (2008) Conditions - Future traffic conditions without the proposed project
has been developed for the year 2008. The objective of this analysis is to project future
traffic growth and operating conditions, which could be expected to result from regional
growth and related projects in the vicinity of the study area by the year 2008.
Cumulative Plus Project (2008) Conditions — The traffic expected to be generated by the
proposed project is estimated and added to the Cumulative Base (2008) traffic forecasts.
The impacts of the proposed project on future traffic operating conditions are then
identified.
For this traffic study, four locations were defined as study intersections. Two of the four study
intersections are 'controlled by traffic signals. The following intersections (see Figure 1) were
analyzed for the scenarios described above:
1. Lafayette PlacelCulver Boulevard
2. Lafayette Place /Braddock Drive (unsignaimed)
3. Irving Place Culver Boulevard
4. Irving Place I Braddock Drive (unsignalized)
A detailed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was prepared in coordination with the City of
Culver City staff. The MOU includes among other details, a description of the Proposed Project
and its trip generation characteristics. A copy of the MOU is attached in Appendix A of this report.
In addition, as part of the MOU process, the City of Los Angeles was contacted for their input on
study intersections and related projects.
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
An executive summary presenting key details of the traffic study is provided at the beginning of
this report. The rest of the report is divided into seven chapters. Chapter 1 presents an
introduction and provides details of the various elements of the study. Chapter If describes the
5existing circulation system, traffic volumes, and traffic conditions within the study area. The
methodology to obtain Future Year 2008 traffic volumes without and with the Proposed Project are
described and applied in Chapter IlL Chapter IV presents assessment of traffic conditions with
and without the project and the potential traffic impacts due to the proposed project. The results of
the analysis of the proposed project's impacts on the CMP regional transportation system are
provided in Chapter V. Parking, access and circulation evaluations are presented in Chapter VI_
A summary of the analysis and study conclusions is included in Chapter VII. Appendices to this
report include details of the technical analysis.|1010|661U. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A comprehensive data collection effort was undertaken in June 2007 to develop a detailed
description of existing conditions within the study area The assessment of conditions relevant to
this study includes an inventory of the street system, traffic volumes on these facilities, and
operating conditions at key intersections. A detailed description of these elements is presented in
this chapter.
STUDY AREA
The Proposed Project is located at 4043 Irving Place on the west side of Irving Place south of 'A'
Street within the City of Culver City, California. The Santa Monica (I-10) Freeway is located
approximately half a mile north of the project site and the San Diego (I-405) Freeway is located
one and a half miles west of the project site. The study area is bounded by Culver Boulevard on
the north, Braddock Drive on the south, Lafayette Place on the west and Irving Place on the east
EXISTING STREET SYSTEM
The existing street system within the study area consists of a regional highway system including
major arterials east and south of the Santa Monica (1-10) Freeway, and sub-regional street system
including secondary arterials, collectors and local streets. A description of the regional and local
access and circulation offered by the various roadways follows.
The Santa Monica (I-10) and San Diego (1-405) Freeways provide the primary regional access to
the study area. The key arterials serving the site are Culver Boulevard and Washington
Boulevard. The other streets offering local circulation possibilities include Lafayette Place, Irving
Place, and Braddock Drive. Brief descriptions of these facilities serving the study area are
included in the following section.|1010|56 Culver Boulevard — Culver Boulevard is a major arterial roadway and traverses diagonally
in an east-west direction between Playa del Rey and Venice Boulevard. Within the study
area, this roadway offers four travel lanes, two lanes per direction, with a raised median
and turn lanes at major or key intersections. Parking is allowed along this roadway in the
vicinity of the study area, except at major intersections where turn lanes are provided.
Culver Boulevard currently provides partial access to the 1-405 Freeway to and from the
north. As part of the regional improvements that Caltrans is currently implementing along
the 1-405 Freeway, direct and fu il access to and from Culver Boulevard and the 1-405
Freeway will be provided in the future. That is, a full interchange at Culver Boulevard and
the 1-405 Freeway will be built in the near future. Associated with this interchange, the
northbound 1-405 on-ramp from Sawtelle Boulevard immediately north of Braddock Dive
will be removed and Braddock Drive roadway will be de-emphasized. Freeway-bound
tiaffic would be encouraged to remain on Culver Boulevard and away from the de-
emphasized_Braddock_Drive.
• Washircton Boulevard — Washington Boulevard is a major arterial roadway that traverses
in an east-west direction. This roadway offers four travel lanes, two lanes per direction,
with a central left-turn median. Parking is allowed along this roadway in the vicinity of the
study area, except at major intersections where turn lanes are provided_
• Lafayette Place — Lafayette Place is a local roadway that traverses in a north-south
direction. Within the study area, this roadway offers two travel lanes, one lane per
direction. Parking is allowed on both sides of the street
• irvino Place — living Place is a local roadway that traverses in a north-south direction and
defines the eastern frontage of the project site. North of 'A Street, the roadway provides
one travel lane per direction with metered parking on both sides of the street South of 'A'
Street to its terminus at Lucerne Avenue, the roadway provides one-way northbound
circulation. Parking is generally allowed on both sides of the street along this segment
• Braddock Drive — Braddock Avenue is a local roadway that runs in an east—west direction.
It provides two travel lanes, one lane per direction. Parking is generally allowed on the
south side of the street within the study area. Currently, Braddock Drive provides access
to the 1-405 Freeway. However, in the future, Caltrans is implementing regional .
improvements along the 1-405 Freeway including a full interchange at Culver Boulevard.
As part of the access/circulation improvements in the vicinity of this area, Braddock Drive,
a local roadway will be de-emphasized and Culver Boulevard, a major arterial roadway will
be improved. These improvements would encourage the freeway-bound traffic to utilize
Culver Boulevard and stay away from the de-emphas ized Braddock Drive.
The existing lane configurations of the analyzed intersections are included in Appendix B.
8EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE
The following sections present the existing intersection peak hour traffic volumes, a description of
the methodology utilized to analyze the intersection operating conditions, and the resulting level of
service conditions at each of the study intersections.
Existina Traffic Volumes
Weekday morning and evening peak hour traffic counts were compiled from data collected at the
four analyzed intersections during June 2007. These traffic volumes reflect typical weekday
operations during current year conditions. However, this was the last week of school for the
Culver City School District, which typically has shorter days and less attendance than a typical
school week. Therefore, in addition to the existing counts, traffic volumes generated by the public
elementary school located at 4100 Irving Place, which is located southeast of the project site, were
added to the existing street system. The traffic volumes in Figure 2 represent for the purposes of
this analysis the Existing (2007) Baseline AM and PM peak hour conditions.
The raw data showing the counts and the elemBribry school baffle volumes are attached in
Appendix C.
Level of Service Methodoloqv
Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used to describe the condition of traffic flow,
ranging from excellent conditions at LOS A to overloaded conditions at LOS F. LOS p is typically
recognized as the minimum acceptable level of service in urban areas. The Level of Service
definitions for signalized and unsignalized intersections is provided in Table 1 and Table 2,
respectively.
Two of the four analyzed intersections are controlled by traffic signals. The others (Lafayette
Place/Braddock Drive and Irving Place/Braddock Drive intersections) are unsignalizeci and
controlled by stop signs.
9Q0691°.>)
LEGEND:
XPXXX) • AM(PM)
PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOL1JM5S
.• PROJECT LOCATION
)6 n 9 (floi
.5):P•41
f 1,5)
'7
ccT
rle
ES
x,
FIGURE 2
EXISTING
,
(2007) BASELINE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUM
RNUAssociates, inc.
(4/TABLE I
LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service
Volume/Capacity 1
Ratio Definition
A I 0.000 - 0.600 EXCELLENT_ Na Vehicle wails longer than one red
light and no approach phase is fully used.
›0,6130 _ lag VERY GOOD_ An occasional approach phase is
fully utilized; many drivers begin to feet somewhat
restricted within groups of vehicles.
4.760 - agog GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to wait
through more than one red right backups may
develop behind turning vehicles.
*800 _ 0.900 FAIR. Delays maybe substantial during portions
ofthe-rush hours,-butenough lower volume periods
occur to perm/ clearing of developing lines.
preventing excessive backups.
>0.900 - imp • POOR. Represents the most vehicles intersection
approaches can accommodate; may be long lines
of vehicles through several signal cycles.
> 1.000
I FAILURE. Backups born nearby locations or on
crow streets may restrict orpreient movement of
vehicles out vine intersection approaches_
Tremendous delays with confinuousty measing
queue lengths
Source: Transportation Research Board, Transporfaffon Research Circiffar No_ 212. Interim
Materials on Highway Capacffy,