Culver City Council Rejects Lower Height Limit

The Culver City Council this week voted down a proposal that would have lowered the current height limit for new buildings from a 97 feet to 64 feet.

Councilman Steven Gourley, a slow-growth advocate, asked the council to consider the proposal as an alternative to a more loosely worded ballot initiative scheduled for the April, 1990, municipal election. Monday night’s 3-2 vote does not affect the ballot initiative.

Council members who opposed the ordinance did not mention the initiative during the meeting, but said they were concerned that the proposal would limit the council’s flexibility in negotiations with developers.

“Density is not clearly a function of height,” said Councilwoman Jozelle Smith. “I’m concerned that we’re going to cut off our options in the future.”

“I wish we would think about other issues, such as sight lines, density and traffic impact,” added Councilman Richard Alexander, “rather than putting into effect a height limit that pushes one dimension and encourages people to maximize the other dimensions. I think this is a one-dimensional approach to a multidimensional problem.”

Mayor Paul Jacobs also voted against the new height limit.

Councilman James Boulgarides joined Gourley in support of the proposal.

‘Clear Statement’

“I think we need a clear statement,” Boulgarides said. “There’s been a lot of double talk about one dimension, but this ordinance wouldn’t affect any of the other codes we have on the books. How would we lose flexibility by imposing this limit?”

Gourley said during the meeting that a height limit was an important first step in addressing the issues raised by Alexander. “If we can’t settle this,” he said, “how are we going to settle sight lines and all that other stuff?”

Gourley said he had put the height limit on the agenda in response to voter sentiment in last spring’s municipal election. “More than 3,000 voters signed the petition for the initiative, and Jim’s (Boulgarides) and my elections sent a message that people are concerned about growth,” he said.

Gourley said the initiative’s supporters asked for his help in drawing up an ordinance after realizing their own document contained flaws and loopholes, and then agreed to withdraw the initiative if the ordinance passed.

Robin Turner, who led the drive for the ballot initiative, spoke in favor of the proposal during the council meeting. “Whatever height you guys decide on, if it’s good for the city, is OK with us,” Turner said.

Turner said she did not consider the vote against the proposal a defeat since the height initiative will remain on the 1990 ballot. She added that the overwhelming majority of voters contacted during the petition drive had supported the initiative, including some members of the Culver City Chamber of Commerce.

Turner also said she is ready to meet with any of the council members to discuss her initiative.

Under the interim ordinance adopted last February, no buildings can be higher than 97 feet, and those higher than 43 feet must be approved by the City Council.

Gourley’s proposal would have permitted buildings to rise to a height of 64 feet of “usable, buildable space,” including mechanical features such as air-conditioning units and ventilators.

Major Flaw

It would also have allowed an additional 10 feet for decorative architectural features.

The ballot initiative permits buildings of up to 57 feet, not including mechanical features, and excludes buildings such as hospitals and schools. A major flaw of the initiative, all sides agree, is that it excludes buildings from redevelopment areas, which is where most of the new construction is occuring.

Smith said she is concerned that the ballot initiative could have the same limiting effect she and Alexander feared from the proposal discussed this week.

“That’s why we’re attempting to work with a number of citizens groups,” Smith said. “We hope through educational efforts that people will come to understand why the initiative wouldn’t allow the flexibility we need, and wouldn’t be in the best interest of responsible growth.”

Gourley echoed Smith’s call for “responsible growth,” saying he will turn his attention for now to a proposal being drawn up by city staff that would limit density in residential neighborhoods.