[Editor’s Note: Just before the City Council informally approved
modified numbers and concepts for Culver City’s new mixed-use ordinance
on Monday night, community activist Tom Camarella made the following
statement to Council members.]
I am here tonight on behalf of the Gateway Neighborhood Assn., and various other Culver City residents.
We are very aware that Culver City is the focus of developers rebuilding specific commercial and residential housing stock.
We are aware that over 900 pieces of property are non-conforming, and have been so for over 30 years.
We are aware that this City Council will be receiving many requests
in the coming weeks and months asking for building permits wherein the
developers will attempt to build as close to the zoning envelope as
possible or ask for variances.
We are aware that the General Plan is supposed to be pre-emptory to
zoning codes and should be updated every 10 years. The last one was
finished in 1996.
We would like to give you our impressions on several of these issues, and we also have numerous questions.
Since Council meetings preclude a dialogue, we’d like to formally
request a roundtable meeting or workshops with the City Council, the
Planning Commission and the Redevelopment staff wherein we can discuss
many issues and implications involved with this building boom.
An example of the types of things we’d like to discuss could be, but should not be limited to:
1. Exploring what does “Community
Benefits” mean in the context of mixed-use zoning and building codes?
What do other cities list as “Community Benefits” in this context? How
would they work or modify projects? How would decisions re “community
benefits” be made?
2. When and how far should notice be given
to neighboring properties?
Should a small two-family and/or two-story residential redo have to
notify those within a 500-foot radius? What if it is a 13-story hotel?
Maybe notice should be 2,500 or 5000 feet?
3. How long should a project take? Should
there be a reasonable completion time placed on the project? Can a
deterrent be placed, that if they pass the deadline, they have to
compensate the community or the neighborhood association for the added
inconvenience and disruption?
4. When the old General Plan & Zoning
was last done in 1996, global warming and green building codes were not
even thought about. The new revision should be consistent with the new
world-wide awareness and the Councils expressed endorsement of the U.S.
Conference of Mayors “Climate Protection Agreement" and give us Green
Building Design Laws.
5. Lastly, the most important questions re
traffic. How will the city deal with the increased traffic that will be
on our already gridlocked streets? Each small development adds a
negligible burden. But when looking at the whole picture, we end up
with the gridlock of Santa Monica and many of our own Culver City main
arteries.
Remember the frog in the water who is comfortable as you gradually
raise the heat in the pot. By the time he realizes he’s cooking, it’s
too late. We simply don’t want to be cooked! There should have to be
more traffic mitigation, and any added development should bear a higher
burden.
If it is the last straw that necessitates rebuilding a major thoroughfare, should they pay more?
If you have any questions or comments, I am available at 310.836.7557 or
Tom4CulverCity@aol.com. Thank you for your attention to these important issues.