The most significant news to emerge from last night’s City Council meeting was not even on the agenda — the brewing promise of a peaceful rather than grudging settlement of a prickly dispute between organized residents near a proposed condo project at 4043 Irving Pl., and the developer team.
Clinton Goldsmith, a mediator selected by the residents, reported encouraging progress following a series of recent meetings, and he indicated that if one tall barrier can be surmounted, the erstwhile protestors will recede into the background.
The designated hurdle: Developer Sal Gonzales, owner of Culver City Volvo, seeks financial compensation from City Hall for agreeing to certain downsizing of his onetime four-story, 29-unit project.
An appeal of the Planning Commission’s formal approval, filed by two couples, is scheduled to come before the City Council in a fortnight, on Monday, Nov. 17. It figured to be a stormy, highly emotional, and lengthy session. But that script may become outdated.
“The ball is in the city’s court as far as what is going to happen next,” said Cary Anderspn of the DNA.
After Mr. Goldsmith’s presentation, Mr. Gonzales, the builder stepped to the podium. “’Most everything Mr. Goldsmith said is accurate,” he said.
Mr. Goldsmith:
Good evening Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmen.
My name is Clinton Goldsmith, I am the appointed mediator for the Downtown Neighborhood Assn. and the 4043 Irving project.
I respectfully request four minutes , as I am speaking on behalf of several members .
I am here to update the Council of the continued good faith negotiations between the developers and the DNA. The developers support our presence here this evening . Sal Gonzales on behalf of the developer is also present.
We have had several very positive meetings over the last week. The DNA and the developers have come to a mutual agreement that will gain the complete support of the DNA for the 4043 Irving project.
We have been requested by the developers that in order for this mutual agreement to proceed, the DNA write a letter outlining the details of the compromise. Provided this compromise is met, DNA will show full support of the development.
This letter has been unanimously approved by the developers and by the entire DNA committee, including the appellants , Mike and Judy Miller, Jim and Michelle Benke.
I would like to now read the letter so that it can be recorded into the minutes of the meeting .
The Letter
Nov. 3, 2008
Mr. Sal Gonzales
Mr. George Mitsanas
6060 Center Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Dear Sal & George,
I am writing on behalf of the Culver City Downtown Neighborhood Assn. (DNA) as well as the appellants, Michael and Judith Miller, Jim and Michelle Benke. We support a proposal to reduce the number of total units projected for your development at 4043 Irving Pl., from 29 to 24 and to incorporate other changes. The Association appreciates your willingness to compromise in the same spirit that DNA has made compromises in its demands over the project.
The Association understands that in addition to the reduction to 24 units, you would be willing to incorporate additional changes including removal of the fourth floor.
In good faith and in return for this complete compromise, DNA agree to cede the following demands
1) Parking structure setback near the historic homes is accepted.
2) Irving and Lafayette building setbacks, as outlined in your approved project, are fine.
3) Ingress and egress from Irving Place, while not ideal, is acceptable. However, we request that the city move the existing Irving barrier just south of your project so the street access would be from the Culver side of Irving, not the school side of Irving. Although we are not linking this to your project approval, this is what we require the city or the developer to do to mitigate traffic away from the neighborhood onto Culver Boulevard. This protects the neighborhood and its many schools from unnecessary safety issues. We understand that you, too, fully support moving the barrier so long as it is not linked to your approval of the project or ability to break ground.
4) The building heights outlined in the renderings you provided, where the fourth floor has been removed are acceptable. The maximum building height will not exceed 41 feet.
5) We prefer less, or no, commercial space, and therefore fully support conversion of some or your entire commercial into residential, so long as the total unit count does not exceed 24.
6) We accept the traffic study findings submitted to the city so long as you agree to reduce the number of units as this will, in itself, also reduce the impact in regard to traffic.
7) You have stated your willingness to discuss the landscape design with the DNA at the appropriate time in order to obtain our preferences and input.
Our talks over the last few days have been open and productive. The Association understands that there will have to be considerable additional monetary compensation from the city if our joint goal of 24 units is to be reached. You have made it very clear to our group that without the appropriate compensation from the city, you would be unable to afford building this project and therefore are only open to accepting the above with the proper refund from the city. We understand your point.
Other issues may arise over this project before the appeal date, but the Association is confident that, in the spirit of cooperation shown by both sides, these issues can be resolved. If we are able to reach an agreement on the above, we the DNA and the named appellants are prepared to provide our full support for your project. Respectfully, we ask that you meet with the city officials as soon as possible to discuss this letter in hopes of agreeing on a compromise with the DNA and then providing us with feedback.
(Mediator) Clinton Goldsmith(ON BEHALF OF THE MAJORITY OF DNA)
Appellants: Michael and Judith Miller
Jim and Michelle Benke