City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: 08/03/2009 Item Number: JPH-1_
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD AGENDA ITEM:
PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED FROM JULY 20, 2009) – 1) City Council
Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of Site Plan
Review SPR P-2008047 to Allow the Construction of a 43 Foot High, Commercial
Building and Parking Structure with 775 Parking Spaces, 41,520 Square Feet of
Retail, and 10,000 Square Feet of Restaurant at 8511 Warner Drive in the Industrial
General (IG) Zone (the “Project”); and 2) Redevelopment Agency Board
Consideration of a Determination that the Project is Consistent with the
Redevelopment Plan.
Contact Person/Dept.: Jose Mendivil,
Associate Planner and Joe Susca,
Redevelopment Project Manager
Phone Number: (310) 253-5757 and (310)
253-5763
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [X] No []
Public Hearing: [X] Action Item: [] Attachments: [X]
Commission Action Required: Yes [X] No [] Date: Planning Commission on
05/13/09 and Cultural Affairs Commission (Date To Be Determined)
Public Notification: 06/29/09: sign posted on site; notices mailed to the Rancho Higuera
HOA and all the property owners and occupants in Hayden Tract and Schaefer Street
(beyond 500-foot radius); notice emailed to the Planning Commission Master Notification
List on 06/29/09; and on 7/15/09: (E-Mail) Meetings and Agendas – City Council
(07/29/09), (E-Mail) Meetings and Agendas – Redevelopment Agency (07/29/09)
Department Approval:
Sol Blumenfeld (07/27/09)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker (07/29/09)
Agency General Counsel Approval:
Murray Kane (07/24/09)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by M. Noller) (07/29/09)
City Manager/Executive Director Approval:
Mark Scott (07/29/09)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends:
1. The City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment No. 1) denying the appeal and
upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of Site Plan Review SPR P-2008047
to allow the construction of a 43 foot high commercial building and parking structure
with 775 parking spaces, 41,520 square feet of retail, and 10,000 square feet of
restaurant at 8511 Warner Drive in the Industrial General (IG) Zone.
AND
2. The Redevelopment Agency Board makes a determination that the proposed
development project for the 8511 Warner Drive property is consistent with the
Redevelopment Plan for this location. City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
PROCEDURE:
1. Mayor seeks a motion to open the public hearing to allow for public comment, if
any (the Public Hearing was opened on July 20, 2009 and immediately continued
to August 3, 2009 without receipt of public comment, and remains open).
2. Mayor calls on staff for a brief staff report.
3. Appellant given first opportunity to speak.
4. Applicant given second opportunity to speak.
5. Receive comments from the public.
6. Opportunity for rebuttal given to appellant and applicant.
7. Mayor seeks a motion to close the public hearing after all testimony has been
presented.
8. Council discusses the matter and arrives at its decision.
9. Agency discusses the matter and arrives at its decision (if necessary).
BACKGROUND ON CONTINUANCE:
On July 15, 2009, Michael Wellman, one of four Hayden Tract property owners, the
others being Aaron Kay, Greg Toomey Sr., and Scott Martin (the “Appellants”),
submitted a request to continue the agendized July 20, 2009 Public Hearing for the
project described in this Agenda Item Report. They requested the continuance
because Council Member Silbiger was not able to attend the July 20
th
Public
Hearing, and they wanted all five members of the Council present to vote on their
appeal. On July 16, 2009, Council Member Silbiger e-mailed staff asking the City
Council to continue the Public Hearing so he could participate. On July 20
th
prior to
the meeting, the Applicant informed staff through an e-mail that they would
reluctantly agree to a continuance of the Public Hearing to August 3, 2009.
At the July 20
th
Public Hearing, staff read into the record the Appellant’s request,
Council Member Silbiger’s request, and the Applicant’s response. Staff informed
Council that the Applicant would prefer the Public Hearing be continued to a date no
later than August 3, 2009. Staff further advised the Council that should they
continue the agenda item, it would be preferable to hold all public comment for the
continued hearing date so that the full Council would have the opportunity to hear all
testimony at the same time. All Council Members present voted to open the public
hearing and immediately continue the hearing to August 3, 2009. Other than the
items mentioned above, no public testimony was taken on July 20, 2009.
BACKGROUND:
On May 13, 2009, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding
Samitaur Constructs’ (the “Applicant”) request for a Site Plan Review approval to
allow the construction of a 43 foot high commercial building and parking structure City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
with 775 parking spaces, 41,520 square feet of retail space, and 10,000 square feet
of restaurant space in the Hayden Tract at 8511 Warner Drive in the Industrial
General (IG) Zone (the “Project”). The Project proposes to include:
• Three levels of subterranean parking with some retail;
• One at-grade level with parking and retail/restaurant;
• Second level above grade with parking and retail.
Originally the site was a City owned parking lot that was sold to the Applicant. The
Applicant originally planned to construct a much larger multi-story theatre complex
and parking structure on the site. That project request was discontinued in favor of
the proposed Project. As part of the sale of the lot, the City required that the current
242 parking spaces on the lot be covenanted to allow their continued availability to
surrounding businesses.
Subsequent to a public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
2009-P002 adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) finding that the Project, as mitigated, would not
have significant adverse impacts on the environment and approved the Site Plan
Review subject to the conditions of approval contained in said Resolution
(Attachment No. 2).
On May 27, 2009, Hayden Tract property owners Michael Wellman, Aaron Kay,
Greg Toomey Sr., and Scott Martin (the “Appellants”) filed a timely appeal of the
Planning Commission’s decision (Attachment No. 3).
Planning Commission Staff Report
Attachment No. 4 contains the May 13, 2009 Planning Commission staff report, with
all attachments including the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study as
revised by the Planning Commission at the Public Hearing. 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
At the May 13, 2009 public hearing, the Planning Commission (Commission)
received input from approximately 9 members of the public. The concerns noted
included: not enough time given for public review; the traffic study did not
adequately address potential impacts; impacts resulting from the loss of street
parking spaces; and overall potential impacts not addressed in the staff report and
attachments.
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
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, the conditions of approval with some additional conditions, and
the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) with some clarifying
language. The Commission made modifications to the MND (contained within
Attachment No. 4) in order to clarify certain descriptions of potential environmental
impacts and to strengthen one mitigation measure relating to paleontological and
archeological resources. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(c)(1) and
(4), such revisions did not require recirculation of the MND. Resolution No. 2009-
P002 was revised with added or amended conditions that address shoring during
construction (Condition No. 27), paleontological and archeological resources
(Condition No. 79), coordination with the Willows School during construction
(Condition No. 100), traffic (Condition No. 134), reservation of parking spaces for
short term hourly use (Condition No. 137), Transportation Demand and Trip
Reduction Measures (Condition No. 142), and a voluntary fee contribution for a
street segment study on Higuera Street between Lucerne Avenue and Hayden
Avenue (Condition No. 143). Attachment No. 5 contains the minutes of the meeting.
One Commissioner expressed a concern that the parking garage will generate trips
that are not addressed in the traffic study. The City’s Traffic Engineer addressed
this comment and stated that a parking garage without an associated land use is not
usually considered to be trip generator. Further explanation on this topic is given
below in the Appeal discussion.
Appeal
The concerns raised in the appeal documentation (Attachment No.3) state the
Planning Commission approval of the Site Plan Review should be overturned due to
a flawed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study and that an Environmental
Impact Report should be required for this project. Below is a summary of and
response to the appeal components.
1. The Traffic Study ignores the traffic generated by the parking garage component
of the project and does not analyze traffic generated by the new parking spaces.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual does not have a Parking
Structure land use category; consequently the traffic study should have surveyed
and preformed traffic counts at existing similar parking garages. The traffic study did
not take into account the possibility that the new parking structure will bring new
visitors and employees to the Hayden Tract impacting traffic circulation; the parking
structure has an indirect growth-inducing impact by providing additional parking
spaces (an ITE article analyzing traffic generated by parking structures was also
included with the appellant’s appeal).
Response:
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
The appeal received May 27, 2009 indicates that the parking garage is the primary
component of the Project, and since the traffic study does not analyze the traffic
generated by the new parking structure, the traffic study underestimated the trips
generated by the Project. The appeal referred to an April 1992 article in the ITE
Journal entitled, “An Innovative Technique for Estimating Trip Generation for Parking
Facilities”, which indicates how to calculate traffic generation from this type of facility.
The traffic study for 8511 Warner Drive was prepared in accordance with industry
standards from the ITE Manual, analyzing the traffic generated by the retail and
restaurant component and not adding any additional traffic for the parking structure
component of the project. The Project’s parking facility will contain 775 parking
spaces. There are 242 existing parking spaces in the surface parking lot which, per
conditions of the Purchase and Sale Agreement between the City and the Applicant,
will be replaced in the parking structure as covenanted parking spaces made
available to surrounding business. The retail and restaurant component of the
project requires 219 parking spaces. Therefore, there are 314 [775 – (242+219)]
parking spaces in excess of the requirements of the Culver City Municipal Code
(CCMC) (considering both the covenanted 242 spaces and 219 spaces together as
code required).
The excess spaces in the parking structure are intended to support the existing
parking demand in the Hayden Tract and will not generate trips. The proposed
parking structure will satisfy the current Warner lot parking demand (the 242
covenanted spaces noted above) plus the parking demand by the businesses
currently on the waiting list for the Warner lot. The applicant surveyed tenants of
properties in the project area to determine who might lease spaces in a new garage.
According to the applicant, the current waiting list for parking in the Warner Lot is
383 parking spaces.
The reuse of many of the Hayden Tract properties was carried out without a
corresponding increase in the supply of off-street parking but has resulted in a
positive economic revitalization of the area. The current demand for parking in the
Hayden Tract has resulted in spillover parking in the adjacent residential areas.
The City recently conducted parking surveys for two neighborhoods adjacent to the
Hayden Tract and adopted preferential parking areas for both (See Attachment No.
6 - Map of Preferential Parking District). The excess parking demand in the Hayden
Tract is generated by the insufficient supply of parking that is a result of the adaptive
reuse of industrial properties in the area to more intense office and studio-related
businesses that generate and attract higher volumes of employees and vehicles
than anticipated when the buildings were originally designed and permitted.
Currently, employees and visitors to the Hayden Tract must circulate through the
area to find an on-street parking space unless an off-street space is available for
their use. This results in excess traffic movements throughout the day. Further, as
a result of the preferential parking districts, available parking on residential streets City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
will become increasingly constrained. The proposed parking structure will help to
alleviate the excessive traffic movements and parking on residential streets by
providing additional parking for the employees and visitors to the Hayden Tract.
The development of the parking structure will reduce neighborhood intrusion,
improve traffic circulating and congestion impacts, lessen air pollution and noise.
The resulting change in localized travel patterns is expected to be generally
beneficial as a result of less circulating traffic searching for parking.
It is widely accepted in the traffic engineering profession that a parking facility by
itself, without an associated land use, does not generate any traffic. The ITE
publication Trip Generation does not have an entry for parking lots because of this
reason. In researching this matter, staff contacted traffic engineers Randy Mc Court
and Patrick Gibson who were involved with the trip generation studies conducted for
Trip Generation. Both traffic engineers confirmed that a parking facility without an
associated land use does not generate traffic. People will not drive to the project’s
parking facility without a reason to do so or an associated land use. The reason
motorists will park in the project’s parking facility is to get to their destination, which
is in the immediate area. As stated above, the Hayden Tract has a shortage of on-
street and off-street parking. Because of this shortage of parking, motorists who park
on the street near their destinations may find it more convenient to park in the
Project’s parking facility and walk to their destinations. This does not create
additional trips. Although more motorists will enter the project’s driveway, the short
change in driving patterns from a nearby parking space to the project’s driveway will
not create a significant change in traffic patterns nor would the change have an
impact at any intersections in the area.
The Hayden Tract is not a downtown with retail, restaurant and entertainment uses
attracting numerous discretionary trips. Nearly all trips in the Hayden Tract are
work-related and are, therefore, not discretionary. There are few opportunities for
shopping, dining or entertainment; a limited number of restaurants are available –
most of which are frequented by employees in the Hayden Tract. Therefore nearly
all the trips in the Hayden Tract are non-discretionary (mostly people traveling to and
from work). While people could use transit to get to the area, it is unlikely that they
would forgo employment related trips. The Hayden Tract has limited bus service,
and it is not anticipated that a substantial number of people would switch from transit
to passenger vehicles with more parking available (because they are currently not
taking the bus and already driving into the Hayden Tract).
Parking supply in the immediate vicinity of the Project site, while limited, does not
constrain full use of the developed adjacent land uses. Presently, parking spills over
in to adjacent neighborhoods, and these neighborhoods have become impacted by
this parking (as documented in the City’s implementation of two preferential parking
districts on neighborhood streets in the project vicinity - see discussion below).
Additional development in the Project area is not anticipated as a result of the
Project, which is simply designed to meet the existing demand and relieve the
spillover problem on neighborhood streets. City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Further Discussion on Preferential Parking Districts in Neighborhoods Adjacent to
the Project Area Document Parking Deficit (Attachment No. 6)
In May 2009, the City Council approved a preferential parking district (District) along
the 9000 block of Lucerne Avenue (located adjacent to the Hayden Tract). Adjacent
streets were also included in the District in order to prevent displaced parking
demand being shifted onto those streets (including Ince Boulevard, Higuera Street
between Lucerne Avenue and Poinsettia Court, Carson Street and Hubbard Street).
As described in the January 27, 2009 Parking Study Report to the Culver City Traffic
Committee, the parking intrusion experienced by the 9000 block of Lucerne Avenue
resulted from the success of local businesses and an apparent shortage of parking
for those businesses.
Prior to adopting the District, the City conducted a parking occupancy and parking
intrusion survey of the 9000 block of Lucerne Avenue adjacent to the Hayden Tract.
The results of the survey indicate that the parking occupancy along Lucerne Avenue
ranged from 81% to 92% (based on six site visits). It was further determined that
intrusion parking ranged between 73% and 81%. Staff commented there appears to
be an unmet need in parking availability from the local business community in the
Hayden Tract. Staff also observed that the parking intrusion of business related
parking into the residential neighborhood may be caused by shortages in parking
supply at the business locales, growth beyond the existing parking availability by the
businesses, or operational deficiencies of the businesses’ parking lots.
In December 2008, a preferential parking district was approved for the residential
area immediately adjacent the Hayden Tract west of Ince Boulevard. Similar to the
9000 Lucerne District, this preferential parking district also is a result of spillover
parking from the Hayden Tract.
The preferential parking districts generally restrict non-permitted parking to 2 hours
Monday to Saturday, 8 AM to 6 PM (except Higuera which is restricted to 1 hour).
Nonetheless, many of the streets currently remain parked at capacity (in excess of
permitted time limits) as workers continue to park there.
As stated above, construction of the parking structure will alleviate parking, traffic,
and circulation impacts by providing 314 excess parking spaces not for new
developments but for existing businesses in the Hayden Tract which are already
contributing to the current traffic accounted for in the Traffic Study.
2. The MND does not mitigate for the loss of approximately 22 street parking
spaces due to restriping as required by the Traffic Study. Currently these 22 parking
spaces are available all day at no charge; in contrast the applicant will likely limit the
parking hours and will be free to charge whatever rate desired. A mitigation
requiring replacement of the 22 spaces free of charge should have been required to
offset the impact created by the loss of the 22 spaces. City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Response:
The Project is a parking structure that provides more than sufficient parking to offset
the loss of 22 on-street spaces. The removal of 22 on-street parking spaces will be
more than mitigated by the development of a parking structure with sufficient
capacity to accommodate both excess Hayden Tract parking demand as well as the
demand generated by the commercial elements of the Project. The Planning
Commission, at the May 13th public hearing, stipulated that at least 150 of the 219
spaces required by the CCMC for project uses be reserved for short-term users such
as those who might have used the 22 spaces. The net result will be a reduction in
the demand for area-wide on-street parking of substantially more than 22 spaces.
There is no provision in CEQA that requires these offset parking spaces to be
“public” or “free.”
Furthermore, the City is not obligated to provide free street parking on any City
street and the Public Works Department could, upon receipt of Council
authorization, install parking meters along Warner Drive. The Public Works
Department is currently conducting a City-wide parking meter assessment and one
potential outcome of that assessment may be recommended changes to the current
street parking situation (vis a vis parking meters). That change may include metered
street parking in the Hayden Tract, including Warner Drive.
3. A Noise Study was not conducted and the Initial Study does not include a
quantitative noise study analyzing the construction and operational noise impacts of
the project; the Initial Study did not quantify existing or projected noise levels.
Response:
The adopted MND concludes that with six mitigation measures the Project noise
impacts would be less than significant. These mitigations include: restrictions on
construction hours that is more stringent than the construction hours allowed in the
CCMC; location of construction and stationary equipment as far from nearby
sensitive receptors as possible; a requirement that all construction equipment be
equipped with mufflers and sound control devices no less effective than those
provided on the original equipment and that no equipment have unmuffled exhaust;
proper maintenance of all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions;
servicing of all equipment to be performed so as to maintain the greatest distance
from sensitive land uses; and a requirement that the name and telephone number of
a contact person be posted on-site and that the construction contractor coordinate
construction activities with the Willows Community school to minimize disturbance to
classes.
This appeal comment essentially asserts that all construction noise should be
considered significant. Culver City does not use construction noise levels alone as a
threshold of significance. Construction activity generally results in similar noise City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
levels for all construction projects with larger construction projects resulting in the
same levels as smaller construction projects, just over a more-extended period.
Given the temporary nature of construction activity associated with the Project, as
explained in the adopted MND (page 15), Culver City does not have a specific
limitation on temporary construction noise levels, rather it regulates noise levels by
limiting hours of construction activity and applying other requirements such as
equipment mufflers and sound control devices and the maintenance of construction
equipment. Compliance with the requirements of the CCMC and the mitigation
measures is considered to reduce construction noise to a level of insignificance.
While residual noise levels after all mitigation measures have been applied may be
temporarily disturbing to adjacent uses, it is not anticipated that such temporary
impacts would rise to the level of “significant impact.” Additionally, as stated above,
a mitigation was included that restricts hours of construction for the current Project
further than the CCMC general requirements. The CCMC generally allows
construction between 8 AM and 8 PM, Monday through Friday; 9 AM and 7 PM on
Saturday; and 10 AM and 7 PM on Sunday. Noise Mitigation No. 1 allows
construction between 8 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Friday; 9 AM to 6 PM on
Saturday; with no construction permitted on Sundays. In addition, there was
discussion by Commission and staff regarding short term construction noise
impacts. In response thereto, staff recommended and the Commission approved a
condition to drill rather than drive piles in order to reduce construction noise (see
Condition No. 27 of the Planning Commission resolution).
4. The Initial Study improperly defers analysis of geology and soils until the final
project design; a comprehensive geotechnical investigation should take place as
part of the environmental review to determine the feasibility of constructing a
subterranean parking structure considering the soil conditions in the area.
Response:
The environmental assessment contained in the MND indicates that based on
previous studies in the area, liquefaction potential at the site is considered low as a
result of underlying clayey soil conditions. Nonetheless, the MND requires a specific
mitigation measure: preparation of a geotechnical investigation to identify
construction methods and foundation designs applicable to the site conditions
“pursuant to the guidelines contained in the California Geological Survey, Special
Publication 117, and Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in
California, 1997.” The measure further indicates that recommendations of the study
“shall be included in the final project designs and prior to Building Permit issuance in
a manner meeting the approval of the Building Official.” The mitigation measure
does require further study and it also identifies a performance standard –
appropriate design, according to Special Publication 117 and subject to the approval
of the Building Official. This is a standard mitigation measure required of most
projects in California. Detailed technical understanding of soil conditions is not
needed at the concept level at which environmental review is undertaken; rather a
general understanding of conditions and potential hazards is sufficient if compliance City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
with a specific performance standard and review by appropriate agency staff would
mitigate any potential impact.
In this case, a high groundwater table and low potential for liquefaction are common
geotechnical conditions encountered in California; detailed technical engineering
investigation and solutions are used to address such conditions. The details of any
technical engineering solutions would not be appropriate for a CEQA document that
addresses concept level design and is aimed at a non-technical audience. Rather
the MND serves to ensure according to specific performance standards, appropriate
technical design to address site soil and groundwater conditions. With
implementation of the mitigation measure identified in the MND, pursuant to the
details of the technical studies, any potential impact would be reduced to a less than
significant level. Further, the Building Official would require a geotechnical study as
part of any building permit application if it is determined to be warranted.
5. The Initial Study improperly defers analysis of contaminated soils until excavation
of the site; the project site is an industrial area and many properties in the vicinity of
the project site suffer from soil contamination. Analysis of impacts from
contaminated soils must take place prior to project approval.
Response:
Contrary to assertions in the appeal, the MND (page 10) indicates that a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment Report (Phase I Report) was prepared for the
Project site, and this report concluded that the site is not on any list or database that
identifies potential contamination of the site. A Phase I Report is the first step taken
to assess potential contamination issues. Only if a Phase I Report identifies the
potential for contamination is a Phase II (sampling) Program initiated. In the case of
the 8511 Warner Drive site, the Phase I Report did not indicate areas for potential
sampling. Random sampling of sites (even in industrial areas) is not routinely
undertaken without reasonable cause as provided in the Phase I Report. However,
the MND requires work stoppage and testing at the first sign of any (unanticipated)
contamination, and compliance with specified performance standards of the Culver
City Fire Department, State Department of Toxic Substances Control and Regional
Water Quality Control Board.
6. The Initial Study does not analyze Global Warming and per AB32 this analysis is
now required of all CEQA documents; it was not preformed for this Initial Study.
Response:
Local regional single purpose governments (SCAQMD and SCAG) are still
formulating Climate Change CEQA thresholds and strategies on how to mitigate
Climate Change impacts. Therefore no specific language on this topic was included
in the Initial Study. Further, it is currently not mandated that this analysis be done. City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Nevertheless, aspects of this Project result in reducing impacts related to Climate
Change.
Despite the lack of a mandate to analyze climate change as part of the
environmental review, there are a number of Project factors which are related to
climate change that are worth mentioning:
a. The Project is intended to provide services (retail and restaurant) to support
existing commercial office and light industrial uses in the Hayden Tract, thus
generally reducing trips and air emissions in the Project area (Hayden Tract
employees will not have to drive out and back during lunch time and may find
retail options at the project site suitable instead of making extra trips to stores
after work). The parking structure would provide parking for: a) on-site uses, b)
existing uses in the area that currently have a deficit, and c) replacement of
existing spaces lost on-site, in the Project area as a result of construction of the
Exposition Light Rail Project (the former parking area along the National
Boulevard median), and from the implementation of residential preferred parking
districts. The overall centralization of parking for these various needs along with
the retail/restaurant use will limit overall vehicle engine start-ups and concentrate
traffic circulation towards the Project site thereby relieving extra distances
travelled for individuals looking for parking.
b. The Project would be required to meet the requirements of the Culver City Green
Building Ordinance.
c. The SCAQMD has not adopted a threshold for commercial or residential green
house gas emissions. A threshold of 10,000 Metric Tons (MT) per year has been
adopted for industrial projects. Based on Urbemis modeling (see below),
preliminary discussions regarding a potential threshold for commercial projects
have suggested a screening threshold between 3,000 MT and 6,000 MT per year
may be an appropriate project-specific criterion.
Urbemis is an air quality model (recommended by the California Air Resources
Board and SCAQMD) used to estimate criteria pollutants (SOx, NOx, CO, ROG,
PM10 and PM2.5) and CO2 (the primary greenhouse gas) from construction and
operation of a wide variety of land uses. It includes emissions from project traffic
and electrical and natural gas consumption. Although it does not include a
threshold, SCAQMD is working on a threshold (they have thresholds in their
CEQA Guide for criteria pollutants). Regulatory discussions by SCAQMD and
the Southern California Association of Governments continues as to the
appropriate level of review (and appropriate CEQA thresholds) – whether it
should be 1) project specific or 2) a community level or regional level of review
with requirements imposed on the project level.
Using Urbemis (which assumes 7 days per week full project operation, which is
unlikely for the Project given its business focus) unmitigated Project emissions City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
are anticipated to be about 2,996 MT/year (See Attachment No. 7), which is less
than the lowest threshold suggested in preliminary documentation by SCAQMD
(no quantification of project mitigation is available; LEED certification could
reduce green house gas emissions by 10% or more).
7. CEQA requires that the City prepare and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
because there is substantial evidence in the record that supports a “fair argument”
that significant impacts may occur.
Response:
The standard for requiring preparation of an EIR is that there is substantial
evidence to support a fair argument that an impact could be significant (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064). An argument, even when lengthy and supported by
substantial but irrelevant studies, is not sufficient. As documented above, the
appellant does not present substantial evidence to support a fair argument that
the Project, as mitigated in the MND, could have a significant impact on the
environment.
Redevelopment Agency
Pursuant to Agency policy, items requiring review by the Culver City Planning
Commission that are within the Culver City Redevelopment Project Area must also
be approved by the Agency.
This matter is before the Agency to determine if the proposed Project is consistent
with the Redevelopment Plan for this location. The Agency’s evaluation of a
project involves evaluating the project’s conformance with the Redevelopment
Plan’s goals and objectives and consistency with the General Plan. At this
location, the General Plan designation is Industrial General (IG); and the
Applicant’s project is consistent with this designation without exception or variance.
There is no applicable Agency Design for Developments, Owner Participation
Agreements or Disposition and Development Agreements applicable to the Project.
Therefore, staff recommends the Agency determine the Project, as approved by
the Planning Commission, is consistent with the Redevelopment Plan.
Council Review Procedure:
Pursuant to CCMC Section 17.640.030.C.2, appeals shall be based upon an error in
fact, dispute of the findings made in the approval of the Site Plan Review or
inadequacy of the conditions imposed on the project to mitigate potential impacts.
Pursuant to CCMC Section 17.640.030.D, during the hearing, Council may “consider
any issue involving the matter that is the subject of the appeal, in addition to the
specific grounds for the appeal.” After considering the administrative record, City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
including, but not limited to, the project application, plans, staff report, environmental
information and all testimony presented, and in accordance with the procedures set
forth in Section 17.640.030.D, the Council may:
• Affirm, affirm in part or reverse the actions of the Planning Commission that
are the subject of the appeal.
• Amend or adopt additional conditions of approval that may address other
issues or concerns than those raised in the appeal.
• If new or different evidence is presented on appeal, the Council may, but shall
not be required to, refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for
further consideration.
Conclusion:
The Project that was presented to and approved by the Planning Commission has
been designed to address issues of neighborhood compatibility and to conform with
all applicable provisions of the IG Zone and all City development standards. The
Project is scaled and massed to fit within the zone. The Project meets all setback
requirements, exceeds parking requirements (more than making up for the loss of
street parking due to the required street re-striping), and does not exceed the zone’s
maximum allowable height. The Project will assist in providing for the current
parking needs of the Hayden Tract thereby reducing spill-over parking into
residential neighborhoods. The Project will provide local Hayden Tract employees
with retail and restaurant options diminishing the need for extra vehicle trips by those
same employees.
Therefore, staff believes the Mitigated Negative Declaration finding adopted by the
Planning Commission adequately addresses all environmental issues related to the
Project including potential impacts related to traffic, parking, noise, geology, soil
contamination, global warming, and EIR threshold requirements and recommends
the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Project.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
This is a private venture project with no financial participation by the City or
Redevelopment Agency. If the Project is approved, then the City and Agency,
where applicable, would gain commercial taxes (i.e. business tax, sales tax, utility
users tax) and additional tax increment once construction is complete and all
commercial space is leased. It is estimated that once built and fully occupied, the
project will generate approximately $184,000 annually in various City taxes and
$305,000 annually in net new tax increments for the Redevelopment Agency.
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Additionally, there is staff time associated with the initial processing of the Site Plan
Review entitlement, the appeal of that entitlement, and the processing of Building
Permits (should the project be approved by the City Council. A portion of the cost of
staff’s time is recovered through user fees and charges as approved annually by City
Council. Planning Division Site Plan Review entitlement fees for this project were
$26,335; the Appeal fee was $1,500. Building Safety building permit fees for this
project are estimated to be $1,202,676 and will be recorded in the General Fund
when received; New Development Impact Fees are estimated to be $46,520 and will
be recorded in Fund 417 – Community Development Fund.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 2009-R___
2. Planning Commission Adopted Resolution No. 2009-P002
3. Appeal filed on May 27, 2009
4. May 13, 2009, Planning Commission Staff Report Including all Attachments as
Listed Below:
• Project Summary
• Public Notice Area Map
• Aerial Photo
• Revised Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration dated May 13, 2009
• Traffic Study prepared by KOA, dated February 23, 2009
• Summary of Community Outreach by the Applicant
5. Minutes of the May 13, 2009, Planning Commission Public Hearing
6. Map of Preferential Parking District
7. Urbemis Modeling Tables
8. Planning Commission Approved Development Plans
MOTION(S):
That the City Council:
1.A. (Staff Recommendation) Adopt the Resolution (i) denying the appeal of the
Planning Commission’s adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Site Plan
Review, SPR P-2008047; (ii) adopting said Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), finding
that no new information has been provided regarding the Project and no new
potentially significant environmental impacts have been identified since the Planning
Commission’s adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration that would require
changes to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration or preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report, and the project, as mitigated, will not result in
significant adverse environmental impacts; (iii) denying the appeal of the Planning
Commission’s conditional approval of Site Plan Review, SPR P-2008047; and (iv) City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
conditionally approving Site Plan Review, SPR P-2008047, as set forth in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2009-P002.
OR
1.B. Grant the appeal in its entirety 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;
OR
1.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.
(If the City Council should adopt either motion 1A or 1C) That the Redevelopment
Agency Board:
1.A. (Staff Recommendation) Make a determination that the proposed Project is
consistent with the Redevelopment Plan for this location.
MEETING DATE: 08.03.09
AGENDA ITEM: JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
BOARD AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED
FROM JULY 20, 2009) – 1) City Council Consideration of
an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of
Site Plan Review SPR P-2008047 to Allow the
Construction of a 43 Foot High, Commercial Building
and Parking Structure with 775 Parking Spaces, 41,520
Square Feet of Retail, and 10,000 Square Feet of
Restaurant at 8511 Warner Drive in the Industrial
General (IG) Zone (the “Project”); and 2) Redevelopment
Agency Board Consideration of a Determination that the
Project is Consistent with the Redevelopment Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
Pages
1. City Council Resolution No. 2009-R____ 1-7
2. Planning Commission Adopted Resolution No. 2009-P002 8-33
3. Appeal Filed on May 27, 2009 34-55
4. May 13, 2009, Planning Commission Staff Report Including 56-66
all Attachments as Listed Below:
• Project Summary 67-68
• Public Notice Area Map 69
• Aerial Photo 70
• Revised Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dated May 13, 2009 71-104
• Traffic Study prepared by KOA, dated February 23,
2009 105-349
• Summary of Community Outreach by the Applicant 350-351
5. Minutes of the May 13, 2009, Planning Commission
Public Hearing 352-359
6. Map of Preferential Parking District 360
7. Urbemis Modeling Tables 361-363
8. Planning Commission Approved Development Plans 364-381