The meeting began with one City Council person informing the public that we had just elected three morons to replace them.

While she didn’t actually use the “M” word, she informed the citizens that she needed to get this issue completed before the new Council is seated because they don’t know anything about CEQA, despite the fact that one of the new Councilmen has been serving on the Planning Commission for a number of years (and probably with her vote to seat him).

No Problem for Me

It must be terrible going through life surrounded by people much less intelligent than you. Thankfully it isn’t a burden with which I am saddled.

Most of the meeting consisted of a Silibuster (the latest political term, meaning a Silbiger filibuster).

I am not exactly sure what he hoped to accomplish. I know he couldn’t speak until April 28. If his goal was to irritate the other four Councilmen, he succeeded. The biggest excitement during the Silibuster was Councilmen yelling at each other and at people in the audience.

And I thought things were usually more sedate at a funeral.

Ah, so much for civil discourse. It was good that students weren’t there on a high school civics class assignment.

So Much for Will of the People

The discussion ended when other Councilmen invoked a Robert’s Rules procedural move that forced a vote. The result was that a vote was taken without Mayor Corlin being able to ask his questions. There is something wrong when a vote on an issue that is as important as this one is without all Councilmen having a chance to speak and have their questions answered.

And why do I believe the decisions were contrary to the will of the people?

First, there were about a hundred people there who filled out speaker cards on the issue.

While the Council will try to tell you that most of the cards were from Los Angeles residents, I think you will find that it was actually about half Los Angeles residents and half Culver City residents.

Getting 50 Culver City residents to come to City Hall to speak or provide written comments on an issue, in a city where a little more than 2,000 votes will get you elected to the Council, is a significant statement.

Second, in 1990 the voters passed a 56-foot height limit.

Yes, the provision to allow the City Council to grant height exceptions is still on the books but the message from the people was clear. They do not want tall building in the city. The code allowing an exception is probably still on the books because when it has been used in the past, it has been used judiciously.

But allowing an exception that is three and a half times the city’s height limit is not judicious.

Take the Initiative and Create a Petition

I heard from someone who was told by a city staff member that if we didn’t like it, we should collect 3,500 signatures and change it. After the Entrada decision, this may happen and future Councils will not have the discretion to use a height exception.

I believe, if the Council had compromised on a 110-foot mid-rise proposal, we would have had a win/win/win/win/win situation.

The developer would have won because he would have had a project that gives a 5.5% return. Not as much as they wanted, but still a positive return. The citizens of Culver City would have won because they could still believe that they are protected by the city’s 56-foot height limit. The Council should have been able explain that this granting of an exception to 110 feet was a judicious use of the allowed exception.

That it was granted in a very unique area, which is unlike any other area in the city. And the building was compatible with other buildings in the area.

Profitable, Only Slightly Less So

They could have reaffirmed their commitment to the 56-foot limit. The citizens of Westchester would have won because they would have had their view protected.

The city of Culver City would have won because the project would have provided significant tax revenue. Not as much as the 220-foot building, but it would have contained fewer risks.

The city is familiar in dealing with 100-foot buildings. It has never dealt with a 200-foot building.

So I don’t believe it could be sure what problems it might encounter.

Sins of Whose Fathers?

The region would have won because by Culver City being good neighbor, I believe that the Westchester/Ladera/Del Rey residents would be more willing to work with us on development in the area. I have found them to be an energetic, organized and committed group. We would have made a formidable team in working on improving conditions in the area.

But the City Council chose to give the developer what he wanted.

The result is we have a WIN/lose/lose/lose/lose situation. And this project is not like a bad haircut. A bad haircut will grow out in a couple of months. This situation is more like a drunken sailor who wakes up, hung over, with a tattoo on his face.

He is stuck looking at it every morning.

You can remove a tattoo, but it requires significant effort. Once built, this building will be even harder, if even possible, to remove than a tattoo. We will be stuck looking at it every day.

When I first talked to the residents of Westchester, they said they hoped that the sins of their fathers wouldn’t be held against them by the residents of Culver City.

They told me about their battles with the Los Angeles City Council over development in the area. I don’t hold the sins of their fathers against them. And I hope they will give us the same consideration and not hold the sins of our fathers and mother against the residents of Culver City.

This group of Westchester residents is working to improve conditions on the Westside. I look forward to working with them in the future on areas of mutual concern.

Mr. Supple may be contacted at
tomjsup@ca.rr.com
­