It is clearly not in the best interest of the city and the community to have this project approved “as planned.”

The Environmental Impact Report is misleading as well as inaccurate in several areas. The Carlyle Group Developers, whom I believe to be representing primarily foreign investors, attempt to dismiss anything and everything potentially negative brought to the public’s attention.

Points and questions brought to the developers’ attention by the concerned public are answered with watered-down, shaded-in half-truth responses to anyone who comments on the authenticity and righteousness of their proposal.

The developers admittedly are unable to mitigate some very important factors. At the Centinela Avenue and La Cienega Boulevard intersection, and the Howard Hughes Parkway and Sepulveda Boulevard intersection, future traffic and intersection conditions are considered significant and unavoidable.

I say again for those hard of hearing:

“Future traffic and intersection conditions are considered significant and unavoidable. If the planned project is built as they desire, feasible mitigation cannot be identified.”

That alone should give one reason to pause. Other areas which do not represent the truth accurately:

DEVELOPERS: The developers identify the 220-foot Entrada Tower project as having 13 floors, which misleads one to believe it is almost comparable to the current hotel 12 stories at 164.5 feet.

TRUTH: As you know the proposed project will be at its highest point almost 60 feet higher than the hotel. I guess the developers are confused where ground zero starts and where the 56-foot height restriction should apply.

Oddly enough, you could build a 56-foot height restricted building on top of the Radisson and still be smaller than the proposed 220-foot Entrada Tower.

­
DEVELOPERS: The developers use false Playa Vista proposed height limitations along with other misstatements.

TRUTH: Playa Vista currently restricts buildings to 112 feet.

In addition, from my understanding, as per the Environmental Impact Report, they are only replacing 51 of the 69 removed trees.

It shows me that they are not really environmentally concerned. Don't you try to go the extra mile and do more than required when you want to show the community you really care about their concerns?

DEVELOPERS: Due to reduced building height, any Low Rise Alternative would not meet the project’s design objective to create an architecturally distinctive, landmark building that would complement the aesthetic character of new and existing development within the area, or fully utilize its location at the intersection of the 405 Freeway and major thoroughfares to create a distinctive gateway development at the City's edge.

TRUTH: I think we could find an overwhelming amount of first- and second-year architect students that could come up with a more architecturally distinctive design than the current proposed project. In fact, that might be a better idea.

We can do better.

The developer is attempting to push this project down the throats of Culver City residents so they can maximize their investment.

Tonight, the Council members need to remind themselves who they are representing and who elected them to serve.

DEVELOPERS: The developers’ brazen statement in their proposal that since, by right,they could have built up to 167 feet prior to 1990 when no height limitation on buildings in Redevelopment Areas. The potential has existed since 1981 that the project site could be developed with a high rise building, such as the proposed project, or with a building up to 167 feet by right prior to 1990. They imply they have the right to build what they want.

TRUTH: If the City Council approves the proposal tonight, we should expect to see many more “by right” statements from developers in the near future. Heck, using their “by right” logic, in theory I should be able to buy gas for a $1.09 a gallon since that is what I would have paid in 1990.

In fact, they attempt to use outdated favorable information to attempt to legitimize their proposed project. Using some data and research that is over six years old is like a high school senior using his sixth grade school report card to get into college.

We must have current information and regulations to make important decisions.

DEVELOPERS: The design objectives are to create a pedestrian scale environment and linkage between the office tower and hotel complex through the use of landscaping, art and walkways in a garden-like setting to encourage and increase pedestrian activity.

TRUTH: I think the city should require them to produce a bicycle and pedestrian plan.

DEVELOPERS: The design objective to incorporate green building or environmentally sustainable design practices where “feasible” (e.g., solar energy, water efficient landscaping, alternative transportation), and consider qualification for a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification.

TRUTH: Who determines what is feasible? Council should make the developers drop the word “feasible” and make it mandatory.

DEVELOPERS: The project seems to promote the use of alternative transportation, such as mass-transit, ride-sharing, bicycling, and walking to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled by employees for trips originating within the immediate district of Culver City and its surrounding neighborhoods.

TRUTH: If anything, the immense size of the building and the massive quantity of parking promotes vehicle use. Make the developers promise to build the walking and biking infrastructure needed to back-up this statement.

In addition, although an appreciated attempt by the Planning Commission to negotiate with the developers, a motorcycle and a paramedic unit request was hardly a reasonable fair trade-off.

There would have to be considerably more chips thrown on the table to entertain the Entrada project. If a police motorcycle is the best we can do, I think an appropriate nickname for the Entrada Tower would be the Erik Estrada Project.

If this project is approved, we might all have to ride motorcycles to go to work and to get home in the Entrada Tower traffic jam.

Hopefully, a bike and an ambulance plus several Council members’ votes aren’t all it takes for a developer to buy the Entrada vote.

An incredible amount of time has been directed toward the current Entrada Project and hopefully the alternate outcome will be environmentally sound and meet the desires of the community.

But, unfortunately, I believe the Planning Commission failed the public recently by voting to move the proposed Entrada Tower forward and preliminarily approving the current EIR without sending the developers back to regroup and reshape their proposal.

I think that both low-rise alternatives are worthy of consideration. I feel that the designers intentionally missed the mark when they came up with other alternatives so as to not out-shine the Towering Entrada option environmentally. I honestly think they should go back to the drafting table. .

Maybe Mayor Alan Corlin fast forwarded the Entrada Tower project for tonight so the current sitting Council can display the leadership and good judgment they have in the past to vote against this ill-conceived project to demonstrate that they are working for the people they serve.

The bottom-line: I don’t agree with moving forward on a project when concerned public comments have been so distinctly against the planned project as well as the far reaching outcry from public and private entities.