NOTE: This is the second in a series of Culver City Progress election articles detailing the role of former Councilmembers and the views of the challengers on the important issues in Culver City. View the previous article here.
Would you support a maximum height limit for buildings in Redevelopment Agency areas? How tall should that height limit be? If you do not believe in a height limit in Redevelopment areas, what criteria would you use for determining the height maximum?
Jim Clarke:Since redevelopment agencies are going away, I assume this is one of those decisions which will have to be revisited. I don't support a one size fits all maximum height limit. I believe there could be a maximum height limit but feel the height limit for a specific project should be based on what is suitable for the area surrounding the project. I do believe, however, that a height limit should be set early on in the process using an open public process and then allow a developer to work within that limitation. I oppose trying to scale back a project once it has been designed. Establishing the height limit early on would be most beneficial to all parties.
Stephen Murray: Building height and area limits, as well as setback requirements, are zoning heuristics used so that all parties have an idea about the expectations of how a property can be used. Ultimately they are arbitrary restrictions- a guideline of 56 ft or "no taller than the tallest tree" still wouldn't guarantee that the wrong building isn't built. Adequate resolution of EIR, traffic, viability/occlusion issues and how the look and size fits into the neighborhoods are the real criteria that communities should care about.
Meghan Sahli-Wells: Culver City voters passed a 56 feet height limit ballot initiative. That limit should clearly be our guideline. Even though the initiative made an exemption for redevelopment areas, those exemptions should be slight and few. I would certainly consider differences of a few feet under certain circumstances, however an extreme height increase is unacceptable. A building like Entrada is a clear departure from the will of the people of Culver City, who know that a key to our success as a community is our comfortably modest size. Culver City has character; Entrada goes against it.
Should Council members vote on controversial items shortly after a City Council election has been held, but the members have not been installed?
Jim Clarke:Council members are elected to demonstrated leadership and make tough decisions whether it is their first vote or their last vote.� As an incoming Council member I would appreciate it if a Council made a decision after it has extensive subject rather than kicking the can down the street for a new member to decide. I would appreciate having the decks cleared but I know that is not realistic and there will be issues carried over. Let us assume that a majority of the Council were up for reelection and were not reelected. Then I would think it would not be appropriate for them to make decisions on important issues right before going out of office. But in many instances the new Council could overturn the decision.
Stephen Murray: The council should be allowed to exercise its office without restriction throughout its entire term, but during the lame duck session some modicum of courtesy should be expected. The council's decision to vote as it did was a particularly egregious break of faith with the cities residents.
Meghan Sahli-Wells: This type of last-minute decision for a project so big, controversial and unpopular creates a distinct feeling of distrust among residents. For every project, but especially those which benefit from public (redevelopment) dollars, there needs to be a thorough public vetting process, not a hasty decision between councils. The entire city suffers from a poor process: case in point, Entrada was subject to a costly lawsuit. This is not good governance.
If you were a newly elected Council member and asked to agendize the Entrada Project in order to reconsider the decision, what would you have done?
Jim Clarke:I would first have to do more research on the subject so I know more than I know now so I can't tell you what I would do.
Stephen Murray: I would have supported agendizing this project.
Meghan Sahli-Wells: I would have welcomed the chance to vote against Entrada.
No comments:
Post a Comment