[Editor’s Note: In rejecting an opportunity to cast the third and deciding vote last night to revive the proposed Entrada Office Tower, new City Councilman Andy Weissman gave a particularly eloquent presentation, having prepared his remarks in advance. Here is his 900-word commentart.]
Let me be clear: I don’t like this project: I've already voted against it once.
I have encouraged the developer to opt for a mid-rise alternative that would be 115 feet tall instead of the approved height of 180 feet. I think the project is too tall and too wide. That’s my opinion. The Planning Commission, by a 4 to1 vote, and the City Council, by a 3 to 2 vote, had different opinions.
I understand the positions expressed by those in opposition to the project, and have expressed many of the same sentiments myself. I’ve listened to all that has been said this evening, and regrettably much of it had to be discussed in closed session because of the nature of the information.
We have been advised by the City Attorney of the nature and scope of the potential legal actions that are being contemplated in connection with the approved project and those additional actions that will almost certainly come as a result of any action this Council may take to undo the action of the previous Council.
If there is a legal challenge to the action of the previous Council, the developer is required to defend the city. If a court rules the decision was wrong, we start all over again and the city isn’t out of pocket anything. If this Council reverses the decision, the developer is off the hook on its indemnification obligation. The City then has to pay to not only defend against the action of the developer and is liable for any monetary damages that may flow from an adverse decision in court, but there may still be an action challenging the EIR, for which the developer is no longer obligated to defend and the city would have to pay to defend that as well.
The Day We Lost
Some of you may recall, as I do, a suit brought by a developer, Robert Ehrlich, against Culver City for an action taken by a City Council that went to trial, then to the California Court of Appeals and finally all the way to the California Supreme Court and was sent back again to the trial court for retrial on the issue of money. That lawsuit resulted in years of expensive litigation. In that case, the city paid $200,000 in attorneys’ fees to defend that action, on top of which it also paid in excess of $200,000 to reimburse Ehrlich for his attorney’s fees. I would not want to see our city’s General Fund take that kind of a hit.
Given the information we’ve been provided in closed session, I am concerned about the city’s exposure to substantial liability from any revisiting of the previous Council’s action, potentially incur substantial costs and attorneys’ fees and be liable for monetary damages as well.
I just finished nearly 4 months of walking throughout the city, talking to residents about their concerns and desires for the city. They want things like streets without ruts and potholes, clean and well-maintained parks, summer concerts at City Hall, local animal control, street lights on streets where there aren’t any. All of this takes money. We cannot maintain our current levels of service; much less expand them, much less take on new ones without it.
It Was Done
By virtue of the action of the previous Council, the fact is that the city approved the Entrada project. And for me, much as I am opposed to this project, that changes how I must deal with the project. With the Council’s approval come rights, burdens and responsibilities. Rights conferred upon the developer, burdens upon the community that come from a development of this magnitude and responsibilities to ensure that the project is built in accordance with the conditions of approval and the required mitigations.
Given all of the economic challenges facing Culver City, given that this Council has just embarked on our first budget review, given our desire to maintain our high levels of service, combined with the hope of some that new services will be added, I cannot in good conscience vote to commit the city down a path that in the short run is almost certain to take dollars that we need for programs and services and spend them instead on attorneys’ fees and a path, should we be unsuccessful in defending our actions, that would be financially devastating in the long run.
A Matter of Judgment
I said repeatedly during the campaign that the people could trust that as a Council member, I will use my best judgment to make decisions that are in the best interests of all of Culver City.
I didn’t expect that a decision of this significance would come up two weeks after I was sworn in. But it has, and we have been elected to exercise our best judgment. Sometimes that judgment involves holding your nose and making a decision you might personally prefer not to have to make, but that is in the best interests of the city.
The previous council placed this Council in an awkward position, to say the least. Wanting to be right and needing to do right are sometimes irreconcilable. For me, this is one of those instances.
Based on all of the information that has been presented to us, it is my judgment that the best interests of Culver City would be served by letting the previous Council’s action stand.
