I attended the Jan. 9 Culver City Planning Commission meeting.
The meeting dealt with the draft Environmental Impact Report for the Entrada Office Tower development, which is being proposed in an area adjacent to the Radisson Hotel.
Two things struck me as funny about the meeting.
First, the proposal is for a 220-foot high office building in a city with a 56-foot height limit.
They call it a “design development with a height exception.”
When I hear about a height exception I expect to see something like an additional 10 feet of height, which adds something exceptional to the project.
But this is an exception that would allow a building four times the existing limit.
And what does it add? Additional revenue to the developer and the city.
And what will the addition of these 342,000 square feet of office space contribute to the already crowded streets adjacent to the proposed project. The best indication of the negative impact it will have is the fact that it will contain 1,240 new parking spaces.
If these offices are the type where people come and work, this would cause at least an additional 2,480 vehicle trips every day. But if these offices will be used by businesses, like doctors’ offices, where clients visit during the day, this could result in 10,000 or more additional vehicle trips per day.
The city needs to take a good look at the possible negative ramification to this development.
The second thing that struck me as funny about to meeting was the make-up of the speakers that night. About 20 people spoke.
Two were from Culver City, one from Ladera. The remaining speakers were from Westchester, specifically from the bluff above the proposed site.
There was also a spokesperson for the Los Angeles City Councilman who represents the Westchester area. They were complaining because the height of the proposed building would block their view. They also complained about the addition to the traffic.
One speaker said that with the traffic from Playa Vista (Los Angeles), the Hughes Center (Los Angeles), and the 500-unit apartment complex up Centinela (Los Angeles), the traffic from this project would be too much.
They were upset that Culver City would do something like that to them and called on us to be good neighbors.
I moved into my Culver City home about 40 years ago. I have been tracking developments (like Corporate Point, the Hunt Building, the Champion Development) and reading environmental impact reports for about 30 years.
I also followed developments (like Playa Vista) that occurred in Los Angeles. What sticks in my mind about when we complained to Los Angeles about the negative impacts of these developments, is that we were brushed aside like some annoying gnat.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, we are called upon to be good neighbors. I am a big fan of the 56-foot limit. I am afraid when we grant one exception (especially of four times the limit), it will be difficult to deny other exceptions.
I am very concerned about the impact the project will have on horrible traffic.
I will be looking for a greatly reduced project.
I am willing to give the people from Westchester the respect of being a good neighbor. In return, when there is a Los Angeles project that will have a negative impact on Culver City, I will expect them to give me the same respect and not the finger.
The city is accepting comments on the draft EIR (not the project itself) until Feb. 4.
The Commission asked the City Council for an extension. But there has been no response to the request thus far.
The draft EIR is available for inspection in a number of places. Check with City Hall for the one most convenient to you. Pay attention to this proposed development. It could have a large impact on you.
Mr. Supple can be contacted at
tomjsup@ca.rr.com
[Editor’s Note: As of this morning, the extension request had not been added to tonight’s City Council agenda.]
