[Editor’s Note: This presentation by a retired Culver City academic is typical of the more than 100 spoken and written comments — overwhelmingly opposed — entered into the record last night when the City Council was charged with approving or rejecting the 12-story Entrada Office Tower proposal. The meeting was adjourned until 6 this evening in Council Chambers.]
Mayor Corlin and members of the City Council:
I have been a resident of Culver City since 1969 and, now that I have retired, I am pleased to be able to serve the city on the Landlord-Tenant Mediation Board.
Through the years, I have watched the city change and become an even more wonderful place to live with new theaters, restaurants, art galleries, public concerts and development projects such as the Town Plaza and our beautiful City Hall. In the past, City Councils and the Redevelopment Agency took care to ensure that the development fit the character of our city.
The Entrada Tower, as currently planned, does not.
Others are speaking to the problems – the height, the traffic – that such a large building would bring. I wish to focus on you – our elected officials – especially those whose terms in office are coming to an end.
I have expressed my thanks to you in the past, and I would like to again for the service you have performed as Council members. It is not easy to hold such a position. But, as you know, with it comes the responsibility to serve those who have elected you – your constituents – the residents of Culver City.
We would like you to listen to us this evening.
First, don’t vote on this project tonight. Allow more time for discussion and review so that a plan can be agreed upon that will satisfy both the community and the developer. You have demonstrated good sense in the past by allowing discussion on redevelopment issues to continue.
You have not voted on them the first time they are presented.
If you do take a vote, abide by the ordinances that have been established over the years for the good of the city. Indeed, each time you allow a variance in height above the agreed upon 56 feet, you are inviting a developer to say “You changed it for him. Why not me, too?”
Do you want to establish precedents that could turn Sepulveda Boulevard into another Wilshire Corridor?
What is the real Culver City ordinance? Is it 56 feet, or can it be changed on an ad hoc basis whenever the Council or Redevelopment Agency wants to do so? When rules have been established by the city, are not we citizens expected to live according to them? Or can we also decide to ignore them and operate in any way we please?
Second, Culver City exists within the larger environs of Los Angeles. It shares boundaries with communities such as Westchester and Ladera Heights. Sepulveda Boulevard, a main artery, runs through Culver City as well as Los Angeles, and it is becoming more clogged every day.
Another large building can only place additional burdens on the already overloaded infrastructure. The focus of Culver City’s elected officials and administrators should be on opening up Sepulveda, not on increasing the possibility of complete breakdown.
A Westchester neighbor said “No community is an island.” We who reside in Culver City need to look at how we can work with our neighboring communities to solve problems and not create more.
Finally, remember our city’s history, our sense of pride and the legacy you leave as Council members.
You are not tinmen, scarecrows or lions. But you can act like they did when the wizard gave them a heart, a brain and courage.
So, Culver City City Council members, I ask you to look into your hearts for the good of Culver City. Think about what is best for your community and its neighbors. Have the courage to do what is right.
Dr. Janet Hoult may be reached at
HOULTight@aol.com