1 THESE MINUTES ARE NOT OFFICIAL
UNTIL APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL,
CULVER CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD,
CULVER CITY PARKING AUTHORITY BOARD,
REDEVELOPMENT FINANCING AUTHORITY BOARD,
AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CULVER CITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THE February 9, 2026
CITY COUNCIL, CULVER CITY 7:00 p.m.
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD,
CULVER CITY PARKING AUTHORITY BOARD,
REDEVELOPMENT FINANCING AUTHORITY BOARD,
AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CULVER CITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD
CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA
Call to Order & Roll Call
The regular meeting of the City Council, Culver City Housing Authority Board, Culver City Parking Authority Board,
Redevelopment Financing Authority Board, and Successor Agency to the Culver City Redevelopment Agency Board was called to order at 6:07 p.m. in Mike Balkman Council Chambers at Culver City Hall.
Present: Freddy Puza, Mayor
Bubba Fish, Vice Mayor
Yasmine-Imani McMorrin, Council Member
Dan O’Brien, Council Member
Albert Vera, Council Member
o0o
Closed Session
Mayor Puza invited public comment.
Jeremy Bocchino, City Clerk, indicated that three requests to speak had been received.
February 9, 2026
2 Ethan Vonderhaar was called to speak but was not present in person or online.
Serena Klipfel was called to speak but was not present in person or online.
Katie Gibbs was called to speak but was not present in person or online.
MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERA, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER O’BRIEN
AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL, CULVER CITY
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD, CULVER CITY PARKING AUTHORITY BOARD,
REDEVELOPMENT FINANCING AUTHORITY BOARD, AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY
TO THE CULVER CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION.
At 6:09 p.m. the City Council, Culver City Housing Authority Board, Culver City Parking Authority Board, Redevelopment Financing Authority Board, and Successor Agency to the Culver City Redevelopment Agency Board adjourned to Closed Session to consider the following Closed Session Item:
CS-1 CC - Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation Re: Sara Beth Lane v. City of Culver City
Case No. 24SMCV01168
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
o0o
Recognition Presentations – 6:30 p.m.
Mayor Puza reconvened the meeting of the City Council for recognition presentations with all Council Members present at 6:39 p.m.
o0o
Recognition Presentations
Item R-1
CC – Presentation of a Commendation to Village Well on its 5 th
Anniversary in Business
Vice Mayor Fish presented a commendation to Village Well on its 5 th anniversary in business.
February 9, 2026
3 Jennifer Caspar expressed appreciation for the recognition and support.
o0o
Item R-2
CC – Proclamation in Honor of Black History Month 2026
Council Member McMorrin presented a proclamation in honor of Black History Month 2026.
Candance Simmons expressed appreciation for the recognition; discussed the importance of history; honoring hidden figures in the community; stories of individuals as a blueprint for history; and coming together as a community.
o0o
Recess
The meeting was recessed at 6:45 p.m. until regular session at 7:00 p.m.
o0o
Regular Session
Mayor Puza convened the regular meeting of the City Council, Successor Agency to the Culver City Redevelopment Agency Board, Redevelopment Financing Authority Board, Culver City Parking Authority Board, and Culver City Housing Authority Board at 7:00 p.m. with five Council Members present.
o0o
Pledge of Allegiance
Mayor Puza led the Pledge of Allegiance.
o0o
Land Acknowledgement
Mayor Puza read the oral statement of Land Acknowledgement.
o0o
February 9, 2026
4 Closed Session Report
Mayor Puza indicated nothing to report out of Closed Session.
o0o
Community Announcements by Members/Updates from Commissions, Boards and/or Committees/Information Items from Staff
Council Member O’Brien discussed the Pan African Film Festival and listening sessions led by City Manager Odis Jones.
Council Member Vera received unanimous City Council consensus that when the meeting is adjourned, that it be adjourned in memory of Dr. Jay Shery.
Council Member McMorrin discussed the Super Bowl performance by Bad Bunny noting that the only thing more powerful than hate is love; immense harm done by racist iconography used by the current President to portray a former President and First Lady, especially during Black History Month; lack of an apology; she quoted Toni Morrison regarding the function of racism; wished everyone a Happy Valentines Day and discussed the City Council retreat on February 14; and she announced numerous and varied upcoming events noting that information was available in the community calendar.
Vice Mayor Fish acknowledged the thousands of healthcare workers on strike across the state; discussed demands for safe staffing levels, fair wages, and protection against burnout; discussed joining striking workers at Kaiser West Los Angeles last week; upcoming Open Houses for the Sepulveda Connects Project; he invited everyone to the City Manager meetings and to address the Strategic Planning Retreat on February 14; and he reported attending the unveiling of Lori Escalera’s tile artwork for the Capo d’Orlando Room at Veterans Memorial Building.
Mayor Puza reported attending the U.S. Conference of Mayors; discussed the Mayors Innovation Conference; the importance of exchanging ideas with mayors from all over the country; open discussions about challenges; the need to increase housing; looking at meaningful ways of dealing with ICE; the Lunar New Year Celebration on February 22 at the Culver Steps; the new compost hub at Syd Kronenthal Park in partnership with L.A.
Compost; the compost drop off at the Culver City Farmers Market every Tuesday on Main Street; he wished everyone a Happy Black February 9, 2026
5 History Month; acknowledged much work to do noting that the history of the country could not be re-written; and he received unanimous City Council consensus that when the meeting is adjourned, that it be adjourned in memory of Deputy City Clerk, T’Ana Allen’s grandfather.
o0o
Presentations to City Council
Item P-1
CC – Presentation by Home Run Financing Regarding Property Assessed Clean Energy
Gabe Hulbert, Homerun Financing, provided a presentation regarding Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE); discussed the need for PACE, a state funding solution for local problems; benefits for homeowners; changes and improvements made to the program; AB 1284; creation of the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) to regulate the program; consumer protections; contractor management; compliance teams; monitoring; traditional financing vs. PACE; eligible
improvements available; metrics; usage by neighboring cities; and ability for Culver City to participate.
Responding to inquiry, Ryan Griffin with Homerun Financing discussed cost to participate; typical rates; relationship to the federal rate; and additional consumer protections for seniors.
Discussion ensued between Homerun Financing representatives, staff, and Council Members regarding soft story retrofit requirements; access to commercial providers; C-PACE financing; support for residential up to 4 units; concern that smaller C- PACE deals are underserved; different processes for C-PACE; meeting needs; the ability of the customer to choose an onboarded contractor or for the contractor to become onboarded; ensuring that program expectations are met; the rollback of participation by Los Angeles county; concerns with oversight and ensuring a positive experience; factors related to previous negative experiences; lessons learned; resources for in-house oversight by LA County; state-wide regulations to address earlier issues; compliance oversight; money saved on utility bills; recouping costs; methodologies; statistics based on other inputs; increased efficiencies; seismic retrofits; and
unanimous City Council support was expressed to bring back an February 9, 2026
6 agenda item to consider authorizing CSCDA’s Open PACE program.
Council Member McMorrin exited the dais.
o0o
Joint Public Comment – Items NOT on the Agenda
Mayor Puza invited public comment.
The following members of the public addressed the City Council:
Kimberly Thornton called to speak but was not present in person or online.
Luke Lucas, Windsor Hills Pizza, provided background on himself and his business; requested that the City Council agendize a discussion to look into changes to the Culver City Municipal Code as it pertains to vending near a park and limits on events per year; discussed running their business at Culver City parks; families getting outside; Code Enforcement; and he indicated that they wanted to continue fostering community by popping up at parks.
Jeremy Bocchino, City Clerk, read the City Council statement regarding hate speech, decorum, and procedures for providing public comment.
Whitney Osborne provided background on herself; expressed support for the request from Windsor Hills Pizza; discussed benefits of Pizza in the Park on Wednesdays; use of the park as a gathering place; building goodwill throughout the community; concern with the sudden change in enforcement of the codes after four years; the loss for residents and ripple effects throughout the community; the role of flexibility in good governance when a rule no longer serves the community; supporting local businesses and the economy; strengthening community ties; keeping public spaces vibrant and welcoming; and she asked that the City Council consider a path forward to keep the cherished park experience alive.
Council Member McMorrin returned to the dais.
Unanimous City Council consensus was achieved to agendize a discussion regarding street vending.
Jeremy Bocchino, City Clerk, noted that the item had been February 9, 2026
7 agendized for discussion at a future meeting so any other speakers who had signed up to speak in support had the
opportunity to indicate that they no longer needed their time to speak.
Phillip Forrester expressed support for Windsor Hills Pizza; was pleased that the item would be considered at a future meeting; recounted his experiences meeting neighbors week after week and seeing the community grow; and he noted the unique experience in Los Angeles.
Katie Gibbs expressed support for Windsor Hills Pizza; was pleased that the item would be considered at a future meeting; discussed magic brought to the park every Wednesday by Windsor Hills Pizza; getting people outside; core memories being formed for the kids; felt it would be sad not to have the weekly experience; and she hoped that a solution could be found.
Jeremy Bocchino, City Clerk, indicated excitement at the new people addressing the City Council and encouraged those interested to visit the Culver City website at culvercity.org to join the email list for the City Council meetings.
John Schneider was called to speak but was not present in person or online.
Vice Mayor Fish exited the dais.
Todd Terrazas, AI On the Lot, provided background on the company; discussed last year’s event; plans to expand this year; new AI studios in Culver City; realization of economic
development promise; building on momentum; creating additional pathways; he requested an agenda item to consider an off-cycle Culver City sponsorship for marketing and civic benefits that come with sponsorship; the long-term economic initiative to scale up the workforce; and the intent to grow the event year over year.
Council Member O’Brien received City Council consensus from Mayor Puza and Council Member McMorrin to agendize consideration of an off-cycle grant for AI on the Lot to be held May 27-28, 2026.
Mike Gioia, AI On the Lot, discussed events in previous years; their desire to hold an annual event in Culver City; number of out-of-town attendees last year; economic impact to Culver City; the intent to bring companies and tourism to Culver City; and February 9, 2026
8 he was looking forward to talking with Culver City more.
Leemon McHenry provided background on himself; expressed support for improvements made to Culver City; felt that the Better Overland Project was not a positive improvement; discussed his use of current bike lanes that he felt were safe; and he did not feel that taxpayer monies should be spent on something that was working well.
Vice Mayor Fish returned to the dais.
Dulce Arnold reported living at the same address for the past 44 years; indicated that she needed the curb and Overland Boulevard to stay exactly as it is; and she discussed declining health.
Rebecca Holliday acknowledged that the item had been agendized but wanted to add her support for Pizza in the Park noting that Wednesdays in Carlson Park were not like other days there due to Windsor Hills Pizza bringing the community together and creating one of the most magical parts of Culver City.
Bjorn Johnson echoed previous comments about Pizza in the Park and he thanked the City Council for agendizing the item and Windsor Hills for creating the community.
Frida Dilonell expressed serious legal, safety and accessibility concerns regarding the Better Overland Project; discussed opposition to the project by a large portion of the community in 2024; concerns with placement of crosswalk and pedestrian signals outside of residential bedroom windows at Windsor Fountains; affects to resident health due to sleep disruptions related to noise and light disturbance; ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) and California nuisance law; the need to identify mitigations for foreseeable impacts to sensitive receptors necessary under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); aggravation of documented medical conditions; serious accessibility and safety concerns with the removal of curb access along Windsor Fountains; lack of alley access; and she provided a written statement for City Council review.
Nicholas Cain was called to speak but was not present in person or online.
Tamar Fuhrer requested that the City Council direct staff to follow best practices around public participation even when outreach efforts are not governed by a regulated entity; February 9, 2026
9 discussed grant funding that can be used toward outreach for the Sepulveda Connects project; disappointment that upcoming workshops are all in person on weeknights from 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.; difficulty for those working or with young children to attend; lack of representation of a cross-section of the community; opposition received from staff to her request that a virtual workshop be offered; concern with the staff proposal for potential outreach during summer events when the project will already be in final design and pre-construction; she expressed support for increased engagement; and she asked that the City Council hold project teams accountable to setting up truly inclusive community engagement.
Council Member McMorrin received unanimous City Council consensus to agendize a conversation about offering childcare for community outreach events and she acknowledged the need for a signup process and coordination with parks.
William Johnston was called to speak but was not present in person or online.
Rosalind LaBriola discussed plans to reduce the flow of automobile traffic on Overland and Sepulveda by eliminating parking and creating designated bus/bike lanes; failure of similar changes on Washington Boulevard; concern with making congestion worse by reducing lanes; and she asked that traffic lanes and parking not be removed on the Overland and Sepulveda corridors.
Bob Mohme provide background on himself; indicated that most of his travel is by bicycle; discussed bike lanes throughout Culver City; he felt that the proposal was not going to be well implemented or make things safer; and he indicated that he would not ride in the new bike lane, but rather would ride out in traffic.
Melisssa Sanders asked that Culver City not try to create a fiscal fund to dig Culver City out of the emergency created by giving away over $20 million out of the General Fund; discussed making things more difficult for the good things in Culver City; Better Overland and Sepulveda; usage numbers revealed by the study of Overland; mistakes; fiscal irresponsibility; other ways to address climate change that would be useful for the entire community; concern with development that does not provide parking; pushing parking into residential areas where they want ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units); and concern that no one will be able to park at the park.
February 9, 2026
10 Marci Baun indicated being a Parks, Recreation and Community Services (PRCS) Commissioner speaking on her own behalf; discussed number of miles she rides on her bicycle; noted that most people are going to ride where they want to ride and it would not be in the proposed bike lanes; discussed scary protected bike lanes; other ways to get around Culver City; data on the number of cars vs. number of bicycles travelling down Overland every day; and she felt that the project was
unnecessary.
Catherine Sweetser was called to speak but was not present online or in person.
Michelle Perkins provided background on herself; discussed the senior population in the Windsor Fountains community with physical and mobility issues or who rely on curbside pickup and drop-off; concern with removal of all curbside access and people becoming shut-ins; the importance of socialization; senior independence; the need for direct communication with the Windsor Fountain community; and concern with disregarding taxpaying residents and businesses along the Overland corridor.
Tim Leong discussed the importance of community; the Windsor Hills Pizza truck; protecting public space; providing a space to meet other people; families coming together; people sharing fruit from their yard; the real- world impact of enforcement; letting a well-intentioned policy extinguish something
meaningful to the community; and he thanked the City Council for their service and for agendizing the issue.
David Hayen provided background on himself; indicated that he had not found a sound reason for the changes that will have a detrimental effect on residents of Windsor Fountains; expressed opposition to the waste of taxpayer monies; he asked that the portion of the project affecting Windsor Fountains be killed; and he expressed appreciation for City Council consideration.
Marta Valdez provided background on herself; expressed support for bike safety and safer streets; discussed the Better Overland Project; the current plan to permanently remove right turn lanes and curbside parking; the working corridor that people depend on every day; reliance on street parking; seniors, people with disabilities, and caregivers who depend on access; short-term parking for small businesses on Overland for customers and deliveries; parking pushed into side streets creating new safety and access issues; traffic and safety concerns with the proposed February 9, 2026
11 removal of turn lanes; and pollution from idling traffic.
Nesrien Haddad provided background on herself; indicated that residents wanted to be heard and taken seriously; discussed safety and accessibility concerns with narrowing the corridor and removing parking resulting in women having to walk
significant distances often at night; increased congestion; slowing emergency response; and she indicated that careful evaluation of roadway conditions under government codes was required.
Ed Conway expressed objections to proposed changes on Overland; requested information on the entity making the grant so that he could protest with a written letter noting that the information had not been made available to the public.
Mayor Puza requested that Mr. Conway provide his contact information to staff.
El Mendoza was called to speak but was not present in person or online.
Kazia Cumbler, The Support Place, provided background on her business; expressed support for Pizza at the Park noting that it was a special place in Culver City; and she thanked the City Council for agendizing the item.
Trevor Puetz was called to speak but was not present in person or online.
Mayor Puza exited the dais.
Scott Davis expressed support for Windsor Hills Pizza noting the benefits of meeting new people; discussed his daughter’s school mates who work for Windsor Pizza; and he indicated donating time from his creative content company to help the Windsor Hills Pizza website.
Sarah Wechsler indicated living adjacent to Carlson Park, discussed the benefits of Pizza in the Park; thanked the City Council for agendizing the item and for their work; and she was looking forward to working together to see how Culver City parks become the most safe, special, and energized places for her children to grow up in.
Sarah Hannallah provided background on herself; echoed previous comments about Windsor Hills Pizza; stated that Windsor Hills February 9, 2026
12 Pizza directly supports the mission of Culver City to engage residents, expand their horizons, and enhance quality of life; discussed weekly micro-opportunities to enjoy Culver City’s designated gathering spaces with no negative impact on traffic or congestion; she asserted that her children never want to miss a Wednesday in the park; noted that they had proven their reliable contributions to the community by coming to three different Culver City parks for four years every week; pointed out the opportunity to support a family-owned business; and she encouraged the City Council to visit Carlson Park on February 11 for Valentines Night.
Mayor Puza returned to the dais.
Chris Mejia thanked the City Council for agendizing
consideration of Windsor Hills Pizza; discussed the community created; quality of the pizza; and he felt that Pizza in the Park was one of the things that made Culver City special.
Monica Richardson provided background on herself; discussed her route from National to the pool each week; congestion; concern with taking away the right turn lane and removing parking; narrowing Overland after the work done to widen it; and calming traffic.
Donald Leonhardt, The Distinguished Gentleman’s Ride, provided background on the event; discussed their partnership with the Movember Foundation; money raised; he asked that the City Council agendize consideration of allowing use of public space for the start and end location on May 17; discussed highlighting Culver City; and participation by the Culver City Fire
Department (CCFD) and the Culver City Police Department (CCPD).
Council Member O’Brien received unanimous City Council consensus to agendize consideration of allowing use of the parking lot at Vets Park for the start and end location of the Distinguished Gentleman’s Ride on May 17 and clarified that no street closures were required.
Tanya Berenson provided background on herself noting that she was a three-time former Olympian; asked that the relationship between Culver City Council Members and Apple be agendized; discussed litigation over the past five years; private
collaboration between Culver City and Apple to expand their presence in Culver City by shutting down a USA Olympic training center and defeating her the right of first refusal to buy the building; noted that the gym was now an expansion of the Apple February 9, 2026
13 campus; she announced that she would be taking legal action against Culver City; discussed harm to herself and thousands of youth who had participated in the gymnastics center; and she referenced the previous court hearing.
El Mendoza discussed decisions that adversely affect small businesses in Culver City; rental property owners; continued mandates that are not consistent with federal and local standards; the standard definition for small residential; exempting tenants from cost-of-living expenses; increased insurance costs; the prohibition on charging fees toward rising insurance costs; and increased costs for labor and materials.
o0o
Receipt and Filing of Correspondence
MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERA, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
MCMORRIN AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL RECEIVE AND FILE CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY 3:00 P.M. ON FEBRUARY 9, 2026.
o0o
Order of the Agenda
Item A-1 was heard prior to Item PH-1.
o0o
Consent Calendar
Mayor Puza invited public comment.
Tanya Berenson was called to speak but indicated wanting to speak on a different item.
Item C-1
CC:HA:SA - Approval of Cash Disbursements for January 17, 2026 to January 30, 2026
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL, HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD, AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD: APPROVE CASH
DISBURSEMENTS FOR JANUARY 17, 2026 TO JANUARY 30, 2026.
o0o
February 9, 2026
14 Item C-2
CC:HA:SA:PA – Approval of Minutes for the Regular City Council Meeting Held on January 26, 2026
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL, HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD, PARKING
AUTHORITY BOARD, AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD: APPROVE MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 26, 2026.
o0o
Item C-3
CC - Approval of Specifications and Authorization to Publish a Notice Inviting Bids for the ADA Sidewalk Repair Project, PS- 011 (CDBG Project No. 602758-25)
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL:
1. APPROVE THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ADA SIDEWALK REPAIR PROJECT, PS-011 (CDBG PROJECT NO. 602758-25); AND,
2. AUTHORIZE THE PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE INVITING BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE ADA SIDEWALK REPAIR PROJECT, PS-011 (CDBG PROJECT NO. 602758-25).
o0o
Item C-4
CC – (1) Rejection of Bid Submitted by Discount Door and Window as Non-Responsive; (2) Award of Construction Contract to Newbuild Construction and Restoration, Inc., as the Lowest Responsive and Responsible Bidder in the Amount of $127,000 to Replace the Windows at the Fire Training Facility; and (3) Authorization to the Public Works Director/City Engineer to Approve Change Orders in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $30,000
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL:
1. REJECT DISCOUNT DOOR AND WINDOW’S BID AS NON-RESPONSIVE; AND,
2. AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO NEWBUILD CONSTRUCTION AND RESTORATION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $127,000 FOR THE FIRE February 9, 2026
15 TRAINING FACILITY WINDOW REPLACEMENT PROJECT AS THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER; AND,
3. AUTHORIZE THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDERS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $30,000; AND,
4. AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO REVIEW/PREPARE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS; AND,
5. AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUCH DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.
o0o
Item C-5
CC – Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Culver City Municipal Code Sections 15.06.300-330 and 15.10.750-790 Adopting New Park Land In-Lieu and Park Land Impact Fees
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL: ADOPT THE ORDINANCE APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 15.06.300-330 AND
15.10.750-790, THEREBY ADOPTING NEW PARK LAND IN-LIEU AND PARK LAND IMPACT FEES.
MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCMORRIN, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERA AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL: APPROVE ITEMS C-1 THROUGH C-5.
o0o
The following item was considered out of order.
Action Items
Item A-1
(1) Discussion of a Third Request from “Vote 16 Culver City” to Lower the Voting Age to 16 for Culver City Municipal Elections; and (2) Direction to the Culver City’s Elections Official/City Clerk as Deemed Appropriate
Jeremy Bocchino, City Clerk, provided a summary of the material of record.
Discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding costs to place the measure on the ballot; unanswered questions; February 9, 2026
16 identification of underage participants to validate their voting; the process; and a suggestion to create a subcommittee to answer questions to make an educated decision.
Mayor Puza invited public comment.
The following members of the public addressed the City Council:
Ruby Brandenburg, Culver City High School (CCHS) Vote 16, provided background on the Vote 16 initiative; requested support for placing the Vote 16 measure on the ballot for the November 2026 election; discussed the loss by 16 votes out of 16,000 in 2022 earning more votes than any City Council candidate that year; providing a clear voice from the actual group being affected; School District elections; gun control and global warming; and she asked that an accurate reflection of the Culver City community be allowed.
Alice Blakely, CCHS, discussed historical efforts to increase voting accessibility; the change to the national voting age to vote in 1971; making a city-wide rather than national change; the importance of voting and voting rights; and readiness to take on the historic civic duty.
Emerson Jurentkuff thanked the City Council for taking the time to listen; noted that the voices of young people are often ignored; discussed the bi-partisan effort of Vote 16 to amplify the voices of all young people no matter their political affiliation; the fact that political affiliation should not be a factor in whether people are deserving of suffrage; issue- driven voting rather than party-line voting; the goal to increase civic engagement for all young people in the community; and he asserted that they were old enough to be impacted by local legislation and decisions the government makes and deserved a voice in the process.
Ceclia Loo-Miller, CCHS, discussed the importance of allowing more people to have a voice and to be represented; teens who would be able to vote for the benefit of their non-citizen families; dedication of immigrants toward improving the community and the country; proving to those who gave up so much to move to this country that their decision was not in vain; taking immigrants into account who are valuable members of the community and affected by laws passed; and she expressed appreciation for their consideration of giving more people a voice.
February 9, 2026
17 Adina Austin discussed concerns that teenagers do not know enough about politics to make informed decisions; agreement that sufficient civic education is imperative to make the democratic system run smoothly; lack of education requirements for citizens 18 and older to vote; the California requirement to take a US government class in order to graduate vs. other states without such a requirement; adults voting in elections who have never taken a US government or civics class; and she felt that 16 and 17 year olds should be allowed to participate in local
elections.
Ethan Vonderhaar, CCHS, discussed requirements for California students to take a US government course in order to graduate high school; factors that increase political efficacy; creating a new generation of informed voters; the long-term goal of increasing political participation; developing voting as a habit; transparent and responsible representation; and allowing high school students to have representation on policy that includes them.
Charlotte Sasson, CCHS, noted that the voice of their generation mattered and deserved to be heard; discussed studies indicating that 16 and 17 year olds score equal to or above 18-23 year olds in civic knowledge; foundations of engagement provided at school; tools that provide a desire to stay engaged in politics; inspiration to explore interests further; and readiness to take on the future.
Serena Klipfel, CCHS, discussed reasons to lower the voting age in Culver City; misconceptions that 16 and 17 year olds would vote the same as their parents; the fact that those who will vote are more politically motivated and will have done their research; and she cited a study from the 2014 Scottish
Independence referendum indicating that over 40% of young people had different voting intentions than their parents.
Cordelia Mullin, CCHS, reported that on October 30, 2013, a 16 year old became the first person under 18 years old to cast a vote in a United States election for a local election in Maryland; discussed increasing low voter turnout in the 18-24 voter group; more concern about politics in the current unstable and scary political climate; engagement in local decisions that directly affect teens; and allowing teens to grow into involved members of society by sharing their voices in municipal and school board elections.
February 9, 2026
18 Mia Moroz, Vote 16 CCHS, discussed persistent belief that teens deserve to engage in political systems through suffrage; teens who possess the attributes of mindful and informed voters; allowing teen voices at the forefront of discussions that directly affect them; dissatisfaction with the state of public school systems and municipal government due to lack of
representation; and she asked for representation to make systems work for those living under them.
Eric Rudin discussed a group of adults taking advantage of engaged children who want their voices to be heard and to make a difference; concern that politicians and their allies would prey on 16 and 17 year olds; physical and emotional affects to 16 and 17 year olds; the social media trial going on in downtown Los Angeles; victims of Epstein; providing the cloak of legitimacy to politicians and their allies; and he asserted that making the change was a slippery slope.
Melissa Sanders asked the City Council to stop the fiscal irresponsibility; discussed costs; money that could be used for other things; she asserted that the Mayor and Vice Mayor needed to recuse themselves if a vote is taken due to their illegal campaigning on the CCHS campus; adults that have illegally supported the children through the process; lack of a sufficient number of signatures; the need to follow the correct political process; and she noted that when the county makes the decision to lower the age to vote, she would support it.
Marci Baun stated that the original reason for lowering the voting age to 18 was to allow the vote to those being drafted to go to war; she questioned whether they wanted that for 16-17 year olds; discussed women getting the right to vote; the importance of understanding history; the YMCA Youth in
Government vote against Vote 16; she asserted that they should be allowed to be kids and not be taken advantage of by adults; discussed going away to college; and increased maturity with having to take care of yourself.
Michelle Weiner discussed being part of groups who received impressive presentations from young people; pride in the way the young people present themselves and communicate; her support for placing the ballot measure on the November ballot; the current assault on the elections process; she noted that 16 and 17 year olds have jobs and pay taxes and should be allowed representation; and she expressed support for allowing people who want to engage in the process to participate.
February 9, 2026
19 Discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding the initiative passed down through the school district; the challenge of going through the petition process; clarification that the students speaking in support of the initiative would not be the beneficiaries; support for concerns expressed regarding adults campaigning and lobbying children; the focus on spending the public’s money; the upcoming parcel tax to benefit CCUSD; the Youth in Government debate and vote on the topic; communication with student leaders; the feeling that the issue is not cut and dried; the noble cause; the feeling that some youth can judge issues better than some adults; and concern with ballots being sent to homes where parents would just take them.
Council Member O’Brien exited the dais.
Additional discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding appreciation to the speakers for their passion and motivation; concern with the many unknowns in the process; determining the inner workings of what the process would cost; a suggestion to have CCUSD foot the bill; and financial stability.
Further discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding appreciation for the well-prepared and poised student speakers; acknowledgement of what it feels like to have people make assumptions about what one might know or be ready for; the quote by Shirley Chisolm: “If they don’t give you a seat at the table, bring a folding chair.”; the original effort toward Vote 16; discussions with young people about current issues that impact future choices; support for putting the issue on the ballot; the loss by 16 votes; the fact that more people voted on the Vote 16 issue than voted for any one candidate for City Council; support for the idea; encouragement to keep working hard as issues affect the young people more than any other group and they deserve a say; and appreciation for the work done.
Discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding appreciation for the students who spoke and took part in the process; acknowledgement of those leaders who came before; appreciation for the tenacity through several generations of students; inspiring student leaders; current decisions being made that impact youth; housing costs; climate change; allowing a seat at the table for the decision-making process; clear research indicating that 16 and 17 year olds are just as capable of cold cognition and decision-making required for voting as adults are; other cities and countries that allow the youth February 9, 2026
20 vote; potential inclusion in Los Angeles City Charter reform; direct threats to democracy; 33% of Americans who do not vote at all; appreciation to staff and all involved for their efforts in the process; the decline in democratic participation and increased voter suppression; data indicating that policies like Vote 16 increase lifelong participation and strengthen
democratic institutions; and the importance of continued engagement and investment in young leadership.
Council Member O’Brien returned to the dais.
Discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding communication with CCHS regarding willingness to cover costs; conversations with the school board in 2022; clarification that Culver City pays for the election; benefits to the school board; the ability of the school board or Culver City to indicate they are ready; clarification that, if the item passes, each agency is responsible for the allowance of it based on conditions met; and the action to indicate that 16 and 17 year olds may vote but the condition for each agency must be met.
Jeremy Bocchino, City Clerk, indicated that forty-one 16- and 17-year-olds had preregistered to vote when they turn 18; she encouraged sharing information with any interested 16- and 17- year-olds; and, responding to inquiry, she noted that those wanting to register had to go through the county or the state whether registering or pre-registering.
MOVED BY MAYOR PUZA AND SECONDED BY VICE MAYOR FISH THAT THE CITY COUNCIL: APPROVE THE REQUEST TO PLACE A MEASURE ON THE BALLOT FOR THE NOVEMBER 3, 2026 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: FISH, MCMORRIN, PUZA
NOES: O’BRIEN, VERA
Jeremy Bocchino, City Clerk, indicated that staff would return to finalize information closer to election season.
o0o
Public Hearing Items
Item PH-1
Introduction of an Ordinance Approving City-Initiated Zoning February 9, 2026
21 Code Amendment (P2025-0229-ZCA) Amending Title 17: Zoning Code of the Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC) to Implement Programs of the 2021-2029 Housing Element and Exemption from CEQA
MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERA, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
MCMORRIN AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL RECEIVE
AND FILE THE AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION AND POSTING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES.
Lauren Wrenn, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the material of record.
MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER O’BRIEN, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERA
AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Mayor Puza invited public comment.
Tanya Berenson was called to speak but was not present in person or online.
MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERA, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER O’BRIEN
AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERA, SECONDED BY VICE MAYOR FISH AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL: INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE APPROVING CITY-INITIATED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT P2025- 0229-ZCA AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 17: ZONING CODE OF THE CCMC TO IMPLEMENT PROGRAMS OF THE 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
AND CONFORM TO STATE LAW, AND ADOPTING AN EXEMPTION UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15061(B)(3).
o0o
Item PH-2
Consideration of a City-Initiated Zoning Code Amendment (P2025- 0240-ZCA) to: Adopt an exemption pursuant to CEQA Section 15183 and Public Resources Code Section 21080.17; Amend the Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC) Chapter 15.10, Subdivisions to Permit the Addition of Accessory Dwelling Units in Qualified Lot Subdivisions; Amend CCMC Section 17.400.095, Residential Uses - Accessory Dwelling Units to Remove Owner-Occupancy Requirements for Junior Accessory Dwelling Units; and Adopt CCMC Section February 9, 2026
22 17.400.096 to Permit the Separate Sale and Conveyance of Accessory Dwelling Units as Condominium
MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERA, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER O’BRIEN
AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL RECEIVE AND FILE
THE AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION AND POSTING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES.
Gabriel Barreras, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the material of record.
Discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding appreciation to staff for their work; AB (Assembly Bill) 1033; the work of the Homelessness Subcommittee; unlocking
homeownership for first-time buyers; outreach and education to let the community know about the ability to lot split with SB (Senate Bill) 1123; and appreciation that Culver City may be the fifth city in the state that allows the buying and selling of ADUs.
MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER O’BRIEN, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
MCMORRIN AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Mayor Puza invited public comment.
The following members of the public addressed the City Council:
Celeste Goyer, Casita Coalition, provided background on the organization; encouraged the City Council to adopt the
ordinance; discussed the cost of starter homes; the critical situation; creating a pipeline of attainable starter homes; providing options for older homeowners to age in place and downsize; making neighborhoods more inclusive; clarification that no changes are being made to what can be built, only how it can be owned; the actions of other cities in the country; allowing opportunities for Californians; economic vitality; ADU condos as a beginning; adding to the property tax base; and adding variety of homes to meet resident needs.
Shane Henson, Advisory Committee on Housing and Homelessness (ACOHH) Member, indicated speaking in his personal capacity; expressed support for the proposed amendments; discussed the affordability crisis; advancing affordability in Culver City; allowing the condo-ization and separate sale of ADUs; and he asked the City Council to explore the additional reforms February 9, 2026
23 proposed by Abundant Housing by allowing up to 4 detached ADUs per parcel and reducing ADU permit fees.
Jacob Pierce, Abundant Housing LA, thanked Culver City for their leadership; discussed positive outcomes for the Culver City economy; affordability; allowing people to stay in the
community; he expressed support for allowing JADUs to be not owner-occupied, for AB 1033 homeownership, and for SB 1123; and he echoed comments made by Shane Henson regarding consideration of increasing ADUs to 4 detached, allowing three story ADUs, and exploring ways to expand the feasibility of ADUs and SB 1123 projects in Culver City.
Marci Baun discussed incursion into single family home zoning; questioned whether the family that sells the ADU as a condo could be sued if there are any defects in the ADU; she stated that developers were not building condos due to insurance costs; expressed concern with creating a problem for small single- family homeowners who sell the condo; discussed parking concerns; the need to fix the laws that make it hard for developers to build large condo developments; and she hoped the City Council would vote against the item.
MOVED BY VICE MAYOR FISH, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCMORRIN
AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding the ten-year look-back on condo construction; condo maps; the Davis-Sterling Act; establishing HOA (Homeowner Association) rules that apply to the property; responsibility for maintenance issues and open space; creation of a new industry for lawyers to work on small-level HOAs; creation of rules and regulations; defining maintenance and responsibilities; warranties;
excitement to provide additional housing options; the Los Angeles Times ranking of Culver City as the 6
th most prolific
ADU producing city in California in 2024; gratitude to the Planning Department; consideration of ways to accelerate the progress made; providing gentle density; enhanced property values; and having the subcommittee revisit suggestions presented including the ability to make four detached ADUs, the three story height increase to incentivize housing production, and examination of reducing permit fees.
MOVED BY VICE MAYOR FISH, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER O’BRIEN AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL: INTRODUCE AN
ORDINANCE TO ADOPT EXEMPTIONS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA February 9, 2026
24 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) SECTION 15183 AND PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21080.17; AND, ADOPT A CITY-INITIATED
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO THE CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE (CCMC) SECTIONS: 15.10 - SUBDIVISIONS, 17.400.095, RESIDENTIAL USES -
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS TO REMOVE OWNER-OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS FOR JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, AND ADOPT 17.400.096 TO
PERMIT THE SEPARATE SALE AND CONVEYANCE OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AS CONDOMINIUMS (CASE NO. P2025-0240-ZCA).
Vice Mayor Fish corrected an earlier statistic noting that Culver City was sixth in the county for ADU building rather than sixth in the state.
o0o
Item PH-3
Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to Adopt Resolution No. 2025-P013, Approving Site Plan Review, Tentative Parcel Map and Extended Construction Hours, P2024-0190-SPR/TPM and a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Checklist pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15168, for a Mixed-Use Project with 1,077 Residential Units and 5,772 Square Feet of Commercial Space at 5757 Uplander Way in the Mixed-Use High (MU-MD) Zone
MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERA, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER O’BRIEN
AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL RECEIVE AND FILE
THE AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING, POSTING, AND PUBLICATION OF PUBLIC NOTICE.
Peer Chacko, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the material of record.
Council Member McMorrin recused herself and exited the dais expressing concern with her proximity to the project.
Discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding impact fees from the project; CEQA; requirements for a project- level EIR (Environmental Impact Report) despite consistency with the General Plan; ways to get to appropriate levels of CEQA review; the nature of the application, the project, and other context documents; the particular process that was followed that did not require a separate EIR; items that do not fall within the Programmatic EIR; and consistency with the scope of the PEIR.
February 9, 2026
25 Mike Hardin, ESA, consultant, discussed instances when an EIR is required; consistency of the project with the General Plan zoning designation looking at whether impacts of the project are within the scope of the PEIR; looking at whether there are any new or increased impacts compared to what were previously analyzed; the project-level analysis; and failure to find an increase to the severity of the impact so the environmental check list moved forward.
MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER O’BRIEN AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERA THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: FISH, O’BRIEN, PUZA, VERA
NOES: NONE
RECUSED: MCMORRIN
Mayor Puza invited public comment.
The following members of the public addressed the City Council:
Gloria Smith, SAFER, the appellant, discussed project history; the initial CEQA study calling for a full EIR for the Uplander project; resubmission of the application after four months in response to the newly approved General Plan to increase the height rather than to address any of the numerous environmental impacts; lack of evidence to support the staff reversal to avoid an EIR; recent Court of Appeals decisions indicating that projects exceeding height limits are outside the scope of a prior EIR and a subsequent CEQA document must be prepared; the circular process where the PEIR made clear it was not intended to be used for specific development projects; clearance documents; height, size, and intensity of the project;
potentially significant impacts on air quality, human health, and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG); evaluation by two separate experts who determined the clearance document fudged
construction dates and acreage calculations to avoid mitigating construction related impacts on human health; exposure to diesel particulate matter during the f our year construction phases; GHG emissions that will exceed annual thresholds; she noted that Culver City had not engaged in a CEQA process for the project, the clearance document was not provided for public comment, and all documentation was prepared to avoid public engagement; she questioned the confidence of staff in their analysis if they were hiding behind the CEQA clearance document; and she proposed February 9, 2026
26 incorporating the information in the EIR and making it available to the public in a normal CEQA process.
Spencer Kallick, Allen Matkins, spoke on behalf of the
applicant; thanked Planning staff; discussed the mixed-use project; Planning Commission approval; the labor unit appeal of the project; project location and design; state density bonus law; he indicated that no variances were being sought;
summarized project highlights; discussed engagement with the community; project objectives; changes to state law to ensure that housing is approved; the Housing Accountability Act; protection from frivolous appeals; compliance with objective development standards; parameters for disapproving a housing development project; the focus of the appeal on CEQA;
misunderstanding of the project entitlement history; CEQA guidelines; certification of General Plan 2045 and zoning code update PEIR; examination of environmental impacts in the context of the PEIR; the role of the City Council; the comprehensive CEQA analysis in keeping with state law; last minute
supplemental materials provided by the appellant; and community benefits of the proposed project.
Judi Sherman, Fox Hills Neighborhood Association, thanked SAFER for bringing the warranted appeal forward; discussed the importance of holding Culver City accountable for their behavior demonstrated with the continued assault on Fox Hills with plans for overdevelopment; pontification on environmental justice; the threshold priority neighborhood; skirting the impact of overdevelopment; the Fox Hills Specific Plan; targeted meetings for the Sepulveda project, but none for Fox Hills; consistent support from the Chamber of Commerce; the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) position held by Council Member O’Brien; concerns raised by the Planning Commission about increased car trips with changes at Costco, but no mention of such concerns related to Fox Hills; Planning Commission appointments that raise concerns they are a proxy for the City Council along with the developer and the Culver City Planning Department; and she asserted that the process was a mockery.
Allen Lulu discussed failure to meet the number of units required for Culver City; his support for development; people who raise concerns about homelessness, pollution, and traffic but do not support the solution of development; affordable housing; he asserted that more housing was needed for all of Culver City to create opportunity for business, walkability, and community; discussed recognition of the Village Well February 9, 2026
27 Bookstore; support for outlying neighborhoods; and he asked the City Council to reject the appeal and approve the project.
Tom O’Neill discussed the out-migration from California; state governance controlled by one party; the mandate to build high rise no-owner developments as another scam; development pushed to places that were already well-developed; the green planners on the ideological side; those set to benefit from the plan to replace communities of single family homes; long-established quiet communities like Fox Hills; density; people who used to come to California with the dream of owning their own home; and he questioned what Culver City was going to do to save the dream.
Eric Shabsis spoke on behalf of the applicant; reported early unanimous support of the project by the Chamber of Commerce; unanimous Planning Commission support; and fees paid to Culver City by the project.
Jacob Pierce, Abundant Housing Los Angeles, indicated that his sister and husband had lived in Fox Hills but were priced-out and moved out of state; proposed that his sister could have benefitted from improvements brought by the project; discussed rent-burdened individuals; opening up Culver City to legal liability with a violation of the Housing Accountability Act by denying the project; and he urged the City Council to deny the appeal.
Gloria Smith, SAFER, asserted that they were not seeking to deny the project, rather they were seeking to ensure that Culver City required a full process and that all environmental impacts have been fully investigated, disclosed, and mitigated; she discussed the need to protect people during the years-long construction process in an already urbanized environment; disbelief that the high-level policy aspirations found in the PEIR could fully and adequately addressed; the project-specific impacts for Uplander Avenue; process contortions in an attempt to show that the PEIR fully analyzed the project; and she stated that the City Council should ensure that the project complies with CEQA before issuing project entitlements.
Spencer Mallick, Allen Matkins, discussed the appeal from a labor union; the importance of understanding the CEQA process for the project; compliance with state law and CEQA guidelines; the work of staff to analyze the development part of the General Plan and zoning code update; community meetings; the project- specific CEQA checklist done; lack of a requirement for a PEIR; February 9, 2026
28 the work of Culver City to do what the state has asked; and he asserted that the CEQA analysis done for the project is complete and thorough and the City Council had the findings necessary to deny the appeal and approve the project.
MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER O’BRIEN AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERA THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: FISH, O’BRIEN, PUZA, VERA
NOES: NONE
RECUSED: MCMORRIN
Discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding appreciation to staff, the applicant, the appellant, and the community; trust in the staff analysis; the assertion of the applicant that they have followed CEQA requirements and processes; the checklist in the packet that includes technical studies conducted as part of the process; granting the appeal as violating the Housing Accountability Act; the state mandate on many levels to build more housing; the need to meet RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Assessment) goals; the dense area; the Apple campus; vibrant community in Culver City; the current single story business park at the location; open space available to the public; open space available to the residents;
replacement of blacktop with greenspace; pedestrian safety; activation with potential restaurant and retail; very low-income housing units provided; money for infrastructure; mobility projects; reinvigorating the area; the buffer zone to the neighboring residential areas; making a connection to Fox Hills Park between the industrial buildings; building a community center in the area for the parks; lack of a case by the appellant; and support for the project.
Additional discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding clarification that Parkland and Mobility fees are not area-specific and a suggestion that money be committed to the Fox Hills community.
Council Member Vera acknowledged the presence of Allen Lulu in the meeting.
Further discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding bringing in much needed housing; support for the staff recommendation to deny the appeal; appreciation for the process; responsiveness of the developer and information presented; lack February 9, 2026
29 of sufficient evidence to support the appeal; real concerns about the intense amount of density placed in Fox Hills; continued commitment to bringing housing to all neighborhoods of Culver City; City Council support for SB 79; sharing burdens with other neighborhoods; enhanced quality of life; length of the process; increased costs and time related to discretionary processes; thresholds for ministerial approval in other cities; acknowledgement of concerns raised by the appellant; project compliance with CEQA and adopted policies; Transit Oriented Development (TOD); climate action and sustainability; ensuring against undermining the purpose of the General Plan by creating uncertainty for projects that comply; and support for earmarking fees for Fox Hills.
MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER O’BRIEN AND SECONDED BY VICE MAYOR FISH THAT THE CITY COUNCIL: ADOPT A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2025-P013 APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND EXTENDED CONSTRUCTION HOURS, P2024-0190-SPR/TMP AND CLEARANCE PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15168 FOR A MIXED- USE PROJECT WITH 1,077 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 5,772 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USE AT 5757 UPLANDER WAY (STAFF RECOMMENDATION).
THE MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: FISH, O’BRIEN, PUZA, VERA
NOES: NONE
RECUSED: MCMORRIN
Council Member McMorrin returned to the dais.
o0o
Item PH-4
Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to Adopt Resolution No. 2025-P015, Approving Site Plan Review and Administrative Use Permit, P2024-0246-SPR/AUP and an Addendum to a Mitigated Negative Declaration to Allow a New 147-room Hotel with Ground Floor Coffee Shop and Restaurant Spaces at 11469 Jefferson Boulevard
Council Member Vera disclosed that he owns property just under 1,000 feet from the project; reported consultation with the City Attorney’s Office; and indicated that after evaluation of potential conflict of interest, he did not feel he had a conflict that would preclude him from participating in the appeal.
February 9, 2026
30 MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERA, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER O’BRIEN
AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL RECEIVE AND FILE
THE AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING, PUBLISHING, AND POSTING OF PUBLIC NOTICE.
William Kavadas, Assistant Planner, provided a summary of the material of record.
Discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding City approval of a new Site Plan Review (SPR) and Administrative Use Permit (AUP); the new project number issued to the new project; the most recent extension for the old project; approval of the new project; and clarification that the new property owner obtained the land in December 2025.
MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER O’BRIEN, SECONDED BY VICE MAYOR FISH
AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
William Kavadas, Assistant Planner, provided a correction noting that the actual date for ownership of the land was January 2026.
Jamie Hall, Channel Law Group, spoke representing the appellant, Unite Here! Local 11, with regard to the appeal of the project; clarified that the request was not for a denial, but for acknowledgement that five years of delay is enough; noted that the request was to impose a reasonable deadline for the developer to stop planning and start obtaining building permits, or let the property move on to a use that actually serves Culver City; discussed stale entitlements that lock up land that could be used for other important needs; he provided background on Local 11; presented a summary of the project; discussed previous approval for a hotel in July 2021; four extensions granted; treating the project as a brand new start; he noted that under the condition approved by the Planning Commission, the project could drag on for another 4-5 years before ground is broken; discussed indefinite permits that encourage land speculation rather than development; the area intended for mixed-use projects; grandfathering under old commercial standards; opportunity cost to Culver City; the belief that the developer should have one additional year to receive their building permits; concern with aiding in land value speculation; tying the expiration to an automatic two year extension upon request with discretionary extensions after that as providing a blank check for delay; the fact that land use entitlements run with the land, not the person; the applicant standing in the shoes February 9, 2026
31 of the previous owner and acquiring the history of the site with five years of inaction; the compromise proposed to modify one condition to allow an extension only if they have applied for and issued construction permits within 12 months of approval; statements by the applicants about the timeframe for feasibility of being permit ready; holding them to their word; expired entitlements for failure to be permit ready that would allow Culver City to look at new proposals for the site; City Council authority to impose conditions; the timeline so far;
clarification that Verdant Culver City LLC has been involved since 2024; the filing by Verdant for the current approvals one day before the new zoning update went into effect; he asserted that every transfer of ownership cannot be considered as a re- set; discussed environmental documents that indicate
construction could commence as early as spring 2026 and contradict the need for a long delay; similarity of the current project to the 2021 project which does not require starting the entitlement clock at zero; the reduction in square footage; precedent and authority of the City Council to impose reasonable conditions; the extension granted in July 2025 with Condition 1 written by Culver City staff indicating that the approval remained in effect unless and until a new entitlement is approved; the project-specific condition tailored to the history of the site; ensuring the project actually moves forward; authority of the City Council to amend or adopt additional Conditions of Approval; length of the process; the feasible deadline; precedent in the Points Warner case; and he requested that the City Council grant the appeal and modify Condition 2 to require construction permits to be issued within 12 months to ensure the project moves forward.
Atman Kadakia, Greens Development LLC, applicant, provided background on the organization; thanked the City Council for hearing comments on the item; echoed previous comments noting that the hotel had been unanimously approved; asserted that if the appeal were approved it would effectively kill the project; discussed the proposed hotel; money expected to be generated to the Culver City General Fund; the amount of initial one-time fees paid; lack of a relationship to the previous applicant; acquisition of the property from the bank; the previously approved plan; the current project proposed; the addendum prepared for the certified MND (Mitigated Negative Declaration); the proposal for a longer-term stay hotel that Culver City does not currently have; the fact that no variances and concessions are requested; subsidies and incentives to encourage hotel development in other cities; existing conditions; reduced impacts to CEQA; acceptance of every mitigation from the prior February 9, 2026
32 project; community meetings held; design changes in response to community feedback; proposed room usage; the 28 day stay limit; trip generation; renderings; protection of surrounding
neighborhoods; typical room type; unanimous Planning Commission approval; the timeline for the project; total duration; infeasibility of 12 months; the brand new applicant with a brand new application; setting a dangerous precedent by treating new applicants as one continuous entity; unrelated applicants; and the assertion that there is a material benefit if the project is delayed.
Mayor Puza invited public comment.
The following members of the public addressed the City Council:
Eliana Murdiyanto provided background on herself; indicated living on the street behind the project; noted financial benefits to Culver City, but lack of benefit to the Sunkist Park neighborhood; three major hotels within less than one mile of the proposed site not operating at full capacity; concern with lack of a buffer to the residential area; the amount of signatures collected in opposition to the hotel; she urged the City Council to reconsider and look at a more community-friendly alternative; discussed respecting the character and scale of the neighborhood; thoughtful development with the Mayumi Hotel in the Blanco Park neighborhood; and she requested
prioritization of development that benefits the community.
Vinay Cheekala indicated that he was speaking on behalf of Sunkist Park residents living within 30 feet of the proposed hotel; demanded that Culver City honor the good faith agreement that was the sole reason residents did not oppose earlier phases of the project; discussed commitment of the previous developer to funding pre- and post-construction damage inspections and remediation for homes directly behind the site; lack of protest contingent on the guarantee; changing ownership that does not erase moral and legal obligations to protect residents; concern with setting a dangerous precedent that developers can strip residents of their rights; he noted non-negotiable demands including independent structural surveys of all homes within 100 feet before any dirt is moved; recorded liability agreement against the property; responsibility to repair foundations that runs with the land; real-time vibration and health mitigation; and developer funding of weekly cleaning to mitigate the mass influx of construction dust particulates.
February 9, 2026
33 Juan Muñoz, Unite Here! Local 11, urged support of the appeal with imposition of a reasonable one year deadline for the project to obtain building permits; discussed the request for accountability; four entitlement extensions already received; permits that generally run with the land; the MND addendum; the hotel of similar massing and scale that was approved in 2021 that does not warrant resetting the timeline; applicant acknowledgement that a one year timeline to obtain permits is feasible; lack of justification for granting a two year extension followed by potentially unlimited one year extensions; the power of the City Council to condition the project; tying the site to an outdated commercial general zone; the opportunity to advance housing goals near transit; upholding the appeal and setting a one year deadline; land use policy decisions that reflect current priorities; and he asked that the appeal be upheld.
Brittany Williams, Unite Here! Local 11, provided background on herself; noted that her wages were not enough to sustain affordable living; discussed her commute; noted that the site represented potential housing for herself and her co-workers; discussed updates to zoning to allow for more onsite housing; recognizing that people deserve the right to live closer to where they work; extensions granted to the site; keeping workers priced-out and in limbo; the appropriate and achievable deadline to obtain building permits; the work of staff and the decision that requires leadership by elected officials; weighing policy goals and opportunity costs; impacts to people’s lives; and she asked that the City Council uphold the appeal.
Miguel Corona, Unite Here! Local 11, provided comments that were translated from Spanish; indicated being one of many workers in Culver City that cannot live near their work; discussed the importance of planning decisions; the site near public
transportation that is zoned for mixed-use development including housing; concern with opportunity costs with granting extensions year after year; housing that doesn’t get built for workers with families; the importance of establishing a clear deadline; and the need for elected representatives to uphold the appeal and require a one year deadline to obtain the permit.
Allen Lulu indicated being the Sunkist Park Neighborhood Association president in the early days of the project; discussed protecting directly affected neighbors from damage and sound; appreciation that sound buffers will be installed; hope that they will continue the process referred to by Mr.
Cheekala; references to the potential for building housing; February 9, 2026
34 residents who spoke at the previous meetings indicating that they did not want anything built on the site; the amenity effect; he felt that a boutique hotel would create a walkable area; discussed changes beginning in Culver City; encouraging businesses to come in and build more; and he implored the City Council to approve the project.
Jamie Hall, Channel Law Group, discussed the unsubstantiated statement that the condition would kill the project; previous testimony at the Planning Commission meeting indicating that the building permits could be obtained within 12 months; self- serving testimony; lack of credibility that the applicant is new to the process; involvement in the process since 2024; paperwork filed in July 2025 seeking an extension; continued requests for extensions; the community meeting conducted in 2024; the reduced scope project with only one level of
subterranean parking; lack of a reason why the applicant would have to start from scratch; reasons for having rules; not wanting stale projects to linger; code changes resulting in uses that were permitted that become impermissible; the project that is lingering; the need for the applicant to build the project or for the City to determine the highest and best use of the property; the ability of Culver City to impose reasonable and necessary specific design, locational and operational
conditions; finding a reasonable nexus; the ability of the developer to string out the project to 2030; and he asked that the City Council impose the reasonable Condition of Approval in alignment with what the applicant stated they can achieve.
Amanda Daams, Best, Best, and Krieger (BB&K) Law, spoke on behalf of the applicant; discussed the site of the previously approved Jeff Hotel; lack of a relationship between the original applicant and the current applicant; concern with penalizing the current applicant for delays by the prior owner; efforts to diligently pursue the project and address concerns by staff, the Planning Commission and neighbors; the appeal solely based on allowable permit extensions; the appellant request to deviate from standard conditions and mandate that building permits be pulled for the project within one year; discretion; she asserted that nothing the applicant had done required a deviation; discussed significant expenditure of resources; commitment to developing the project as expeditiously as possible;
unpredictable third party approvals outside of applicant control that cannot be expedited by the applicant or staff; penalizing the applicant with the imposition of a 12 month cut off; the new project being proposed; the new entitlement process; Condition of Approval for the permit extension until July 2026 February 9, 2026
35 unless and until a new entitlement for the property is approved by the Commission and/or City Council; the new SPR and AUP being sought; the separate and distinct timeline being required; the need for consistency with the municipal code that applies to all applicants in Culver City; the two-year default time limit; good faith efforts to establish a permit and provide substantial evidence as to why that should be extended; reasonable
conditions; burden of proof; the reasonable extension;
application of the well-vetted policy; speculation; expeditious processing of the project; commitment; and she requested that the appeal be denied and Standard Conditions of Approval be imposed on the project.
MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERA, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER O’BRIEN
AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Mayor Puza exited the dais.
Discussion ensued between Mr. Kadakia, staff and Council Members regarding lack of awareness of an agreement between the original owner and the neighbors; adoption of the required mitigation measures; process concerns addressed by the building code; vibration studies conducted; compliance; monitoring of
foundations of abutting residences; and weekly cleaning of exterior windows.
Mayor Puza returned to the dais.
Responding to inquiry, Mr. Kadakia indicated being unprepared to agree to new items without analysis.
Additional discussion ensued between Mr. Kadakia, staff and Council Members regarding the intent to follow everything included in mitigation measures; fines from governing agencies for non-compliance; ensuring a number is provided for people to call for any issues during construction; 24 hour security; willingness of the developer to provide contact information; lack of a benefit for the developer to delay the project; and efforts of the developer to improve the current site and increase occupancy.
Discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding the basis for the appeal; reasonable timeline estimates; entitlements that run with the land; the need for a new SPR due to the fundamentally different project being proposed than the original project; proximity of the site to the 405 freeway; the February 9, 2026
36 functioning retail site until building begins; staff support for applicant responses to appellant concerns; and the case made to deny the appeal.
Additional discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding appreciation for the advocacy of the appellant; the perception of the new iteration of the site being related to the prior iteration; the original vote on the Jeff project back in 2021; ensuring that the project moves forward; efforts to address mitigations and meet neighbor needs; and finding a middle ground to ensure some accountability metrics.
Responding to inquiry, Mr. Kadakia indicated that they had mapped out a schedule and needed the time as outlined; he noted that they were not requesting an abnormal amount of time or special treatment; discussed previous approval of the city standard with extensions granted by the code; improvements made to the current site condition; and money they have spent on the project to date.
Council Member O’Brien exited the dais.
Further discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding support for seeing the project get built; building housing where possible while acknowledging concerns about building housing by the freeway; length of time that the parcel has been in development; impacts on the neighborhood; the feeling that a five year maximum timeline feels excessive; support for granting the appeal; understanding what is legal; the ability to deny the extension; deadlines and extensions under the code; Planning Commission support for the default of two years; clarification regarding discretion for the initial deadline to exercise the entitlement, the subsequent two year by-right extension, and unlimited Planning Director
discretionary one year extensions thereafter; the ability to appeal Planning Director decisions; and finding a way to reduce the maximum timeline.
Discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding the last extension received with an end date of July 2026; the process if a new entitlement were to be approved; length of time for a new developer to build a different project there; support for those who spoke and for the essential role played by Unite Here!; the question before the City Council; the increase to the length of time to find a new owner and new design; the new development with a new proposal, new ownership, and a new clock; concern with precedent and potentially undermining codes and February 9, 2026
37 plans in place to guide development in Culver City; support for policy debates about zoning and land use priority; advocacy for affordable housing and hotels; affordable units coming forward in the pipeline; the ability of the City Council to issue direction to the executive management of Culver City that further extensions must come before the City Council; allowing flexibility for unforeseen factors; and necessary approvals from state agencies.
Additional discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding by right extensions; the initial deadline of two years with an automatic extension of two years and one year
discretionary extensions after that; the proposal to deny the appeal with direction to staff to not issue further extensions at a discretionary level; a suggestion to grant them one year with a by right one year extension and City Council approval of discretionary approvals after that; changing conditions of approval that would require a different resolution with the Council making findings that the deviation of the initial deadline are justified by site specific factors; getting to the same timeframe with added complexity; the usual process for discretionary extensions involving staff review of requests for approval by the Planning Director; the proposal that further extensions bypass the Planning Director for City Council consideration; understanding the complexities of construction; acknowledgement of concerns about getting the project built; readiness of the Building and Safety Division to prioritize plan review and expedite the process; and items that are not within Culver City’s purview.
Further discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding the proposed motion to approve the initial two years with the automatic two year extension and one year discretionary extensions requested after that to come before the City Council for consideration; concern with impacts of uncertainty on residents; clarification that granting the appeal would not help compress the timeline for the project; the inability of the project to move forward until the issue is resolved; and length of time for changes to be made.
MOVED BY MAYOR PUZA, SECONDED BY VICE MAYOR FISH AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL: ADOPT A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2025-P015 APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW AND ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT, P2024-0246-SPR/AUP, AND AN ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A NEW 147- ROOM HOTEL AT 11469 JEFFERSON BOULEVARD (STAFF RECOMMENDATION) February 9, 2026
38 WITH DIRECTION THAT ANY REQUESTED DISCRETIONARY ONE YEAR
EXTENSION COME BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION FOR REASONS OF ACCOUNTABILITY.
o0o
Item A-2
CC - (1) Presentation on the Fiscal Year 2025- 2026 Mid-Year Budget Monitoring Report; (2) Receipt and Filing of the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Mid-Year Budget Monitoring Report; (3)
Notification to Public Inviting Comment and Input for the Upcoming Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2026-2027; (4) Approval of Proposed Blanket Purchase Order Amendments; (5) Approval of Personnel Position Allocation Amendments; (6) Adoption of a Resolution Adopting the Updated Classification and Salary Plan for City Employees, Effective February 9, 2026; (7) Adoption of a Resolution Adopting the Updated Executive Compensation Plan Effective February 9, 2026; and (8) FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE
REQUIREMENT: Approval of Proposed Budget Amendments
Lisa Soghor, Chief Financial Officer, thanked staff for their efforts; provided a presentation on the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Mid-Year Budget Monitoring Report; and she noted that due to the efforts of Elizabeth Shavelson, paperwork was filed in time for Measure CL to take effect on January 1, 2026 rather than in April, resulting in additional revenue for Culver City.
Mayor Puza invited public comment.
The following member of the public addressed the City Council:
Melissa Sanders was called to speak but was not present in person or online.
Denise Neal received clarification that the public was welcome to attend the City Council Retreat on February 14; discussed potential problems with TOT (Transient Occupancy Tax) with a strike during the Olympics; the need to unionize the hotel; discussion at the upcoming the Westside Council of Governments (WESTCOG) meeting; and further discussion of issues on Saturday at the City Council Retreat.
Discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding appreciation to all staff for their efforts; the expected deficit; the different budget coming forward in June; community feedback that block parties should not cost anything; City February 9, 2026
39 Council agreement to consider block party fees during annual fee adjustments in April; looking at the policies of other cities in order to help the City Council make an informed decision; costs for Jubilo Village; Measure RE; business licenses; efficiency as the impetus for moving the Mobile Crisis person over to the CCFD; quality improvement and quality assurance programs; medical oversight and supervision; dispatch questions that arise; inclusion of a dedicated firefighter paramedic on the unit; communication with the dispatch center; liability; existing medical oversight and supervision; working under existing county EMS agency medical protocols;
clarification that the person would be wearing the CCFD uniform; concern that some people when in crisis can be triggered by uniforms; a suggestion for a different kind of uniform for the person deployed with the team; the intent to expand the Mobile Crisis Team (MCT); two positions being recruited for the MCT; the nurse practitioner to be used to replace the contract with the outside agency to bring the position in-house; the medical piece that was going out on the streets; the intent to have more control by bringing the position in-house; the proposal in last year’s budget for an added service in Housing and Human Services; building a more robust team with new hires; ensuring liability coverage and medical oversight; clarification that the same medical services will be offered using CCFD rather than an outside provider; availability of transport services; and clarification that there will not be an EMT at every MCT stop or service.
Additional discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding costs to bring the position in-house vs. using Healthcare In Action; Medi-Cal reimbursements that could offset certain costs; costs for an additional unit; increased control; use of the position for other things; 64 instances in 2024 where other transport units had to transport patients; ways to increase revenue with the additional unit; ensuring the change is sustainable over time; a suggestion to have a pilot program; and increases in units in Area A cities due to the value brought to the agency and to the city.
MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER O’BRIEN, SECONDED BY VICE MAYOR FISH
AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
1. APPROVE THE PROPOSED BLANKET PURCHASE ORDER AMENDMENTS AS PROVIDED IN ATTACHMENT 2; AND,
2. APPROVE THE PROPOSED PERSONNEL POSITION ALLOCATION AMENDMENTS AS PROVIDED IN ATTACHMENT 3; AND,
February 9, 2026
40 3. ADOPT RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CLASSIFICATION AND SALARY PLAN FOR CITY EMPLOYEES, EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 9, 2026 IN ATTACHMENT 5; AND,
4. ADOPT RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN, EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 6, 2026 IN ATTACHMENT 6; AND,
5. APPROVE THE BUDGET AMENDMENTS AS PROPOSED IN ATTACHMENT 4.
o0o
Item A-3
CC - (1) Consideration of Appointments to the Ad Hoc 2025 and 2026 FIFA World Cup and 2028 Summer Olympics Preparation Subcommittee (2) Creation of a City Council Ad Hoc Women and Girls Subcommittee; and (3) Direction to the City Clerk as Deemed Appropriate
Jermey Bocchino, City Clerk, provided a summary of the material of record.
Discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding appreciation for the work of staff; the new role of Council Member O’Brien as CEO of the Chamber of Commerce and his involvement in conversations pertaining to world games coming to the region representing community businesses; allowing for different representation; additional information forthcoming; and an active complaint with the FPPC (Fair Political Practices Commission).
Mayor Puza invited public comment.
The following members of the public addressed the City Council:
Edward Wolkowitz was called to speak but was not present online or in person.
Denise Neal discussed the FIFA to Olympics situation; the hedge fund looking to invest in Los Angeles; handling New Zealand if the hotels go on strike; and she asked for detailed project reports with estimated budgets to be provided to the venture capitalists.
Jeannine Wisnosky noted that she had waited until 1:40 a.m. to February 9, 2026
41 get 90 seconds to speak; she spoke in support of Dan O’Brien continuing to serve on the Ad Hoc 2025 and 2026 FIFA World Cup and 2028 Summer Olympics Preparation Subcommittee; indicated that he had done the work and built relationships and contacts; discussed availability and follow-through; the importance of accessibility; his organization of Consul Generals to come to Culver City; serious international engagement; the central role of Council Member O’Brien in bringing New Zealand House to Culver City; subcommittee assignments made on January 12, 2026; the need for continuity and credibility; weakening the position of Culver City; concern that the action looks political rather than practical; and she asserted that there was no conflict of interest.
Alicia Ide spoke on behalf of the Culver Arts Foundation indicating that they felt it would be an advantage to have someone representing the business community as part of the subcommittee, and she thanked Council Member O’Brien for his hard work to bring in New Zealand and other activities being planned.
Discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding the opinion requested from the City Attorney’s Office; lack of response from the FPPC; past Council Members who have also served as CEO for the Chamber of Commerce while serving on the City Council; the fact that there is nothing to preclude a Council Member from holding both positions; evaluation of conflicts on a case-by-case basis; items that come up for a City Council decision; perceived conflict; an official complaint filed; the feeling that the action is political; the potential for future conflicts but lack of a conflict with the
Subcommittee; time and effort put into the Subcommittee for Culver City by Council Member O’Brien; loss of his career due to time spent working for Culver City; diplomacy; protocol; conflict of interest for other Council Members; putting Culver City first; and concern with the practicality of making a change.
Additional discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding the late hour the item is being considered; concern that the item is even being considered; relationships and contacts made by Council Member O'Brien; sales tax and business tax revenue; the importance of bringing businesses to Culver City; lack of a conflict; support for keeping the current dynamics; appreciation for agendizing the item; the difficult topic; appreciation for and acknowledgement of the work of February 9, 2026
42 Council Member O’Brien to bring opportunity to Culver City; uplifting businesses during the sporting events; bringing joy to Culver City; the unique set of potential conflicts with the new role for Council Member O’Brien; regular City Council meetings where interests in the business community have a say in issues at City Council meetings; examples of conflicts; money being put up by Culver City to support the small business community during the Olympics; the large role of the CEO of the Chamber of Commerce in upcoming games; political advocacy and endorsements by the Chamber of Commerce; decisions impacted; the need to stay disciplined in separating roles that could influence the role of Council Members; the big opportunity for Culver City; benefits of fresh perspectives; centering the needs of residents and the business community; constantly changing and evolving committees; and continued work together to make the games as good as they can be.
Further discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding the pending FPPC decision; learning to adjust and adapt; the original focus on the arts and an artist village and accusations of pushing a personal agenda; putting aside concerns to work for the benefit of Culver City; the collaborative event; the once in a lifetime opportunity for Culver City; few communities that get to experience meaningful participation; appreciation for foundations laid and relationships built; the upcoming election; lack of a guarantee of reelection; being intentional about sharing institutional knowledge, documenting relationships, and building systems bigger than any individual; ensuring work continues seamlessly regardless of who is serving; a suggestion to segment Olympics work into different categories of focus areas and assign specific roles to different Council Members; five individuals acting together as a single body representing Culver City with regular report-backs to stay informed; and allowing those who want to be a part of planning the huge event.
Discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding the need to evaluate the concept of segmenting the work to ensure there would not be Brown Act conflicts with overlap; potential for serial meetings; concern with having more than a quorum of Council Members involved; relationship building; trust; nations coming to Los Angeles in the next 3-4 months once the winter games are over; a suggestion to wait until the next round of appointments are made to make a change; tabling the decision until the FPPC comes back with their opinion; average response time from the FPPC; allowing time to get through FIFA; February 9, 2026
43 skill sets; confidence in Council Members to push in and see the events through; community feedback regarding concerns with a clear conflict of interest; multiple other committees that Council Member O’Brien serves on that intersect with potential business interests; and perception of impropriety.
Council Member McMorrin moved to appoint Mayor Puza and Vice Mayor Fish to serve on the Ad Hoc 2025 and 2026 FIFA World Cup and 2028 Summer Olympics Preparation Subcommittee.
Additional discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding interest in serving Culver City; efforts to serve and support stakeholders; other examples of conflicts lifted up that are much less specific to the community than the current issue under consideration; different feelings and perspectives; calling out other conflicts; sacrifices made for the effort; and the feeling that endorsements do not equate to having another job.
Mayor Puza proposed a substitute motion to direct staff to explore ways to segment out the distribution of work for the Olympics. Vice Mayor Fish seconded the motion.
Further discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding keeping current appointments; length of time to bring the item back for City Council consideration; informal vs. formal requests to the FPPC; and required timeframe for response.
Vice Mayor Fish moved to leave the Ad Hoc 2025 and 2026 FIFA World Cup and 2028 Summer Olympics Preparation Subcommittee as it is and direct staff to explore ways to segment out the distribution of work for the Olympics with a report back to the City Council at the February 23, 2026 City Council meeting.
Council Member McMorrin proposed an amendment to the motion to put a pause on ad hoc subcommittee meetings until after the February 23, 2026 City Council meeting due to concerns expressed by the community including people in the business community.
Vice Mayor Fish accepted the amendment.
Additional discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding the meeting scheduled for February 10, 2026; good work being done for Culver City and the community; direct fundraising from businesses by Council Member O’Brien for his role; concern about legality; unsubstantiated rumors; appointment to the February 9, 2026
44 Chamber of Commerce; duty to serve the many stakeholders in the community; lack of judgement about capabilities and levels of service; and perception about who is being served in the meetings.
Mayor Puza proposed an amendment to allow the FIFA meeting scheduled for February 11, 2006 to move forward and Vice Mayor Fish accepted the amendment.
MOVED BY VICE MAYOR FISH AND SECONDED BY MAYOR PUZA THAT THE CITY COUNCIL: LEAVE THE AD HOC 2025 AND 2026 FIFA WORLD CUP AND 2028 SUMMER OLYMPICS PREPARATION SUBCOMMITTEE AS CURRENTLY
CONSTITUTED WITH A PAUSE ON ANY FUTURE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS AFTER THE FEBRUARY 11, 2026 FIFA MEETING AND DIRECT STAFF TO
EXPLORE WAYS TO SEGMENT OUT THE DISTRIBUTION OF WORK FOR THE
OLYMPICS WITH A REPORT BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE FEBRUARY 23, 2026 CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: FISH, MCMORRIN, O’BRIEN, PUZA
NOES: VERA
Jeremy Bocchino, City Clerk, provided a summary of the material of record on the creation of a City Council Ad Hoc Women and Girls Subcommittee.
Discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding appreciation for moving forward with the Subcommittee and willingness to serve.
MOVED BY VICE MAYOR FISH, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCMORRIN
AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE CREATION
OF A CITY COUNCIL AD HOC WOMEN AND GIRLS SUBCOMMITTEE AND APPOINT
MAYOR PUZA AND COUNCIL MEMBER MCMORRIN THERETO TO DEVELOP THE GOALS AND STRUCTURE AND TERM FOR THE NEW SUBCOMMITTEE.
o0o
Public Comment – Items Not on the Agenda (Continued)
Mayor Puza invited public comment.
The following member of the public addressed the City Council:
February 9, 2026
45 Denise Neal discussed the symposium; meeting with Council Members regarding detailed project reports and work to be done.
o0o
Items from Council Members (Continued)
None.
o0o
Council Member Requests to Agendize Future Items
Mayor Puza received consensus from Vice Mayor Fish and Council Member McMorrin to agendize consideration of establishing an hoc committee to look at affordability initiatives in Culver City including but not limited to wage theft, supporting families, child care, and guaranteed basic income, particularly in immigrants.
Discussion ensued between staff and Council Members regarding the temporary nature of ad hoc subcommittees.
The following items were agreed upon for consideration on a future agenda:
• consideration of a resolution authorizing CSCDA’s Open PACE program (Puza)
• discussion of street vending and Windsor Hills Pizza in the park (O’Brien)
• consideration of an off-cycle grant for AI on the Lot to be held May 27-28, 2026 (O’Brien)
• consideration of offering childcare at community events (McMorrin)
• consideration of the use of the Vets parking lot as a staging area for the Distinguished Gentlemen’s Ride on May 17 (O’Brien)
• consideration of establishing an ad hoc committee to look at affordability initiatives in Culver City including but not limited to wage theft, supporting families, child care, and guaranteed basic income, particularly in immigrants (Puza)
o0o
February 9, 2026
46 Council Member Vera discussed the life and legacy of Dr. Jay Shery and asked that the meeting be adjourned in his memory.
Mayor Puza discussed the life and legacy of James Ray Allen, Sr. asked that the meeting be adjourned in his memory.
MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERA, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
MCMORRIN AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURN IN MEMORY OF DR. JAY SHERY AND JAMES RAY ALLEN, SR.
February 9, 2026
47 Adjournment
There being no further business, at 2:33 a.m. February 10, 2026, the City Council, Housing Authority Board, Parking Authority Board, Redevelopment Financing Authority Board, and Successor Agency to the Culver City Redevelopment Agency Board adjourned in memory of James Ray Allen, Sr. and Dr. Jay Shery to a meeting to be held on February 23, 2026.
o0o
Jeremy Bocchino
CITY CLERK of Culver City, California
EX-OFFICIO CLERK of the City Council and SECRETARY of the Successor Agency to the Culver City Redevelopment Agency Board, Redevelopment Financing Authority, Culver City Parking Authority and Culver City Housing Authority Board
Culver City, California
FREDDY PUZA
MAYOR of Culver City, California and CHAIR of the Successor Agency to the Culver City Redevelopment Agency Board,
Redevelopment Financing Authority, Culver City Housing
Authority Board, and Culver City Parking Authority
Date: _________________________