Dear Editor:
On August 27, 2025 the Planning Commission held their meeting to discuss 2 development proposals as follows: 1) A 508 unit Mixed Use one at 10950 Washington Blvd and 2) A 351 unit Mixed Use one at 100 Corporate Pointe in Fox Hills. Both projects got the green light from the Planning Commission.
Mr. Spencer B. Kallick, the applicant representative, when speaking about the 100 Corporate Pointe project, was quite eager to say that all density was not going into Fox Hills, claiming that the idea circulating that it was, was wrong. As he explained, other areas in Culver City were being utilized for housing development. While that is true, I felt that it was best to set the record straight as to what is concerning to the Fox Hills community.
First, a brief background: The city needs to build 3341 units by 2029 and they proceeded to designate approximately 80% of the high density ( 100 units/acre) area on the south side of Slauson in Fox Hills, which presently is the densest residential area in Culver City, with 26 multi-unit complexes containing 2600 units. Because of this density designation, developers flocked to this area as expected and resulted in thus far 5 projects totaling almost 3000 units. This designation has resulted in a plan that obviously does not equitably distribute what is required for the city to build by 2029.
Can housing be built in Fox Hills? Sure, but not at the volume that is being planned. Indeed, there are other projects throughout the city, so no, not all the density is going into Fox Hills, but the inequity is clear. This inequity is the community concern.
To imply that the density in other areas of the city makes what is being planned for Fox Hills fair is just completely inaccurate. The location of the 10950 Washington Blvd in no way resembles the present density in Fox Hills. To imply otherwise is simply developer propaganda. It may be his way of minimizing and normalizing the overdevelopment in Fox Hills. In other words, Mr. Kallick was comparing apples (Fox Hills) to oranges (the Washington Blvd area) in an attempt to reassure equity is being done with the housing distribution in Culver City.
Promoting this narrative is covering up the outrageous amount of housing being planned for Fox Hills. To reiterate: these 2 respective areas are hardly similar. We know that these developers are pros at marketing, but to propagate such a misconception is the height of arrogance.
I wish that this misleading information, probably meant to reassure us in Fox Hills, was the only problem with the city when it comes to the treatment of Fox Hills, but sadly it is not. To elaborate: #1 The city is not following one of the basic tenants contained in its own zoning code where it is stated “zoning districts are meant to protect and promote the public health, safety and general welfare of its residents. Specifically, the #2 criteria in the zoning code is to “Preserve and protect the integrity and character of the city’s residential neighborhood” #2 The Planning Commission is hell bent on pushing as much housing in Fox Hills as possible, ignoring the negative impact it will have in Fox Hills for decades to come, but they are fine with their reckless decisions. Thus far the City Council goes along and approves whatever the Planning Commission recommends in Fox Hills despite the increased pollution/traffic, etc that overdevelopment in Fox Hills will be experiencing.
The assault on Fox Hills continues ….. and now we are also subjected to misleading statements by developers in their effort to give the impression that there is equitable distribution of the housing the city must build.
When is this city going to treat Fox Hills fairly? If this kind of inappropriate decision making that clearly lacks common sense and basic decency continues, Fox Hills is doomed to be overburdened and suffer all the consequences associated with overdevelopment.
To receive updates please visit the Fox Hills Neighborhood Association’s FB page and sign up for our emails at yourfoxhills@fhnacc.org
Thank you.
Judi Sherman
Fox Hills resident and on the FHNA board
