Update: January, 2022
You still have a say in Culver City’s housing future. Send a letter to the State TODAY! IS YOUR HOME OR PROPERTY STILL ON THE LIST? CHECK AND SEE. IF IT IS, SEND A LETTER TO THE STATE NOW. Tell the State to take your home or property off the upzone list! CLICK HERE FOR DETAILS CULVER CITY!
The state of California's HCD sent back the city's Housing Element Draft. The City must provide the new draft to the public and consider comments before submitting a new draft to HCD. The deadline is approaching fast. Tell the city your thoughts before it's too late! Key takeaways & full analysis here |
Join a Statewide Movement! Our Neighborhood Voices is a coalition of thousands of California neighborhood leaders fighting to preserve our ability to speak out about what happens in our own neighborhoods. Click this link to learn more about the statewide initiatives to fight back |
Facts and Trust
December 14, the Culver City Democratic Club held a “State of the City” online event with outgoing Mayor Alex Fisch. During the Q&A section, Mr. Fisch called into question the city’s work on our state-mandated Housing Element, which is currently up for review by HDC.
When a constituent asked him why Christopher Elmendorf, a UC Davis law professor would write a November 2020 email that he was on calls with Culver City officials who “want guidance on how to write a prohousing housing element,” and that they are “trying to monitor and control their consultants,” Mr. Fisch made some misstatements about the hiring of Raimi + Associates. Raimi + Associates is the consultant team who was contracted by the City to work on the General Plan Update (GPU) and Housing Element.
Specifically, Mr. Fisch said, “… there were no competitive bids. We didn't get two responses to our RFPs. Not one.”
This is a factually inaccurate account. According to city records, Mr. Fisch himself participated in the selection process, notably on January 24, 2019, and again on January 28, 2019. Moreover, on January 28, after Councilmember Daniel Lee raised the motion to approve Raimi + Associates, Mr. Fisch seconded the motion. The council voted unanimously to select Raimi + Associates.
At that same meeting, Mr. Fisch said, “I’m inclined to vote for Raimi also,” and “My vote is for Raimi.”
We do not know why Mr. Fisch said that the City of Culver City did not receive competitive bids. The numbers are clear: the city received 9 proposals, the subcommittee (that included Vice Mayor Meghan Sahli-Wells and Mayor Thomas Small) narrowed the candidates down to four, and from those interviews recommended that the City Council interview the top two candidate teams. Raimi + Associates was subsequently awarded the contract after full-council interviews and deliberations. In addition to Sahli-Wells, Small, Fisch, and Lee, Goran Eriksson was also on the council.
Here is the timeline of events regarding the city’s RFP and RFQ process for hiring consultants:
December 14, the Culver City Democratic Club held a “State of the City” online event with outgoing Mayor Alex Fisch. During the Q&A section, Mr. Fisch called into question the city’s work on our state-mandated Housing Element, which is currently up for review by HDC.
When a constituent asked him why Christopher Elmendorf, a UC Davis law professor would write a November 2020 email that he was on calls with Culver City officials who “want guidance on how to write a prohousing housing element,” and that they are “trying to monitor and control their consultants,” Mr. Fisch made some misstatements about the hiring of Raimi + Associates. Raimi + Associates is the consultant team who was contracted by the City to work on the General Plan Update (GPU) and Housing Element.
Specifically, Mr. Fisch said, “… there were no competitive bids. We didn't get two responses to our RFPs. Not one.”
This is a factually inaccurate account. According to city records, Mr. Fisch himself participated in the selection process, notably on January 24, 2019, and again on January 28, 2019. Moreover, on January 28, after Councilmember Daniel Lee raised the motion to approve Raimi + Associates, Mr. Fisch seconded the motion. The council voted unanimously to select Raimi + Associates.
At that same meeting, Mr. Fisch said, “I’m inclined to vote for Raimi also,” and “My vote is for Raimi.”
We do not know why Mr. Fisch said that the City of Culver City did not receive competitive bids. The numbers are clear: the city received 9 proposals, the subcommittee (that included Vice Mayor Meghan Sahli-Wells and Mayor Thomas Small) narrowed the candidates down to four, and from those interviews recommended that the City Council interview the top two candidate teams. Raimi + Associates was subsequently awarded the contract after full-council interviews and deliberations. In addition to Sahli-Wells, Small, Fisch, and Lee, Goran Eriksson was also on the council.
Here is the timeline of events regarding the city’s RFP and RFQ process for hiring consultants:
|
We hope that Mr. Fisch retracts his comments. It is important that constituents trust that the statements council members make are supported by facts. Otherwise, why would we believe that the decisions they make are in the community’s best interest?
Culver City Neighbors United
Culver City Neighbors United
Background: Culver City submitted the draft Housing Element (HE) to California's Housing and Community Development (HCD). HCD sent a letter back to the city and told them to correct the many errors. Culver City has until February 11 to send it in. The City plans to send it in by January.
The timeline goes like this:
YOU CAN READ THE HCD FINDINGS HERE
What's Happening Friday at the City Council Meeting?
Here is the agenda this Item A2 for the meeting
Sign up to attend the meeting here
Meeting: Friday, December 10, 5 pm Via Webex
What Can You Do?
Come and speak at the meeting!
If you can't speak, send an email to council ASAP (emails below)
WHAT: CULVER CITY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WHEN: Friday, December 10
TIME: 5PM
HOW: Register here
Our Key Takeaways from the State's Findings:
READ ON FOR OUR FULL ANALYSIS...
The timeline goes like this:
- December 10, 2021: CC - Discuss updates on the Housing Element and related CEQA findings
- January 6, 2021: PC Adoption Hearing - Recommend the City Council adopt the 2021-2029 Housing Element and related CEQA findings
- January 24, 2022: CC Final Adoption Hearing - Adopt the 2021-2029 Housing Element and related CEQA findings
YOU CAN READ THE HCD FINDINGS HERE
What's Happening Friday at the City Council Meeting?
Here is the agenda this Item A2 for the meeting
Sign up to attend the meeting here
Meeting: Friday, December 10, 5 pm Via Webex
What Can You Do?
Come and speak at the meeting!
- Demand that the city seriously commit to building housing and mixed use along transportation corridors and to repurpose shopping centers or large parking lots.
- Demand that the city take seriously HCD's call for better public outreach and involvement.
- Demand that the new Housing Element draft be made publicly available with notice properly sent by mail with a 30 day review period prior to submission to HCD.
- Demand that the city seriously considers following Staff and Planning Commission suggestions to concentrate on the potential to build housing and mixed-use to repurpose shopping centers and large parking lot areas.
- Demand that the council slows down/gives up its rezoning focus on R1 since it will only result in 135 housing units over 8 years.
- Concentrate on larger parcels where affordable housing is more likely to be built. Let SB9 go into action or not, but CC does not have to go further than the state.
- Demand that City Council takes public comment into consideration, and documents it as HCD told them to.
- Demand that the city seriously commits to building housing and mixed-use along transportation corridors and to repurpose shopping centers or large parking lots.
If you can't speak, send an email to council ASAP (emails below)
WHAT: CULVER CITY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WHEN: Friday, December 10
TIME: 5PM
HOW: Register here
Our Key Takeaways from the State's Findings:
- The city has to correct its mistakes and send it back to the state.
- The state was very unhappy with the lack of community involvement and outreach by the city and council members. As you know, we have been begging the council to let residents know about their plans to upzone all of Culver City.
- The city MUST show the newest draft to the public and give us enough time to make comments. It must also take the comments seriously and incorporate them where appropriate.
- There were 29 stated errors.
- The State also directed the City to address the public comments it received in any future drafts.
- None of the low-income or moderate housing units will be built in residential areas under incremental infill. Since city staff calculates that only 135 housing units will result in 8 years, and Housing Element assumptions are not proven, there is no basis for changing R1 zoning to meet RHNA goals.
- HE fails to show there is sufficient water and sewer capacity to meet building goals.
- If the city cannot demonstrate that enough properties will be redeveloped, (incremental infill) then it has to look elsewhere at larger parcels or prove the likelihood of consolidating parcels.
- The City failed to respond to hundreds of public comments on both drafts of the HE.
- Site inventory errors fail to show the realistic potential for the development of multi-family units.
- Culver City's HE Included sites contrary to HCD guidelines.
- Culver City double-counted ADU and incremental infill sites (HCD said that they can't do that).
- Culver City Failed to promote an open public process and insufficient outreach.
- Culver City Failed to establish property owner interest or intent in redevelopment.
- The new Housing Element document must be given proper public review, at least 30 days for comments starting in January 2022.
- Culver City Failed to show that incremental infill will achieve what the city claims especially when it involves low to moderately priced housing.
- Housing Element has too many factual errors and unsupported assumptions.
- It would be negligent and irresponsible for the City Council to approve a housing element unless it is substantially changed and modified.
- priced housing.
- Housing Element has too many factual errors and unsupported assumptions.
- It would be negligent and irresponsible for the City Council to approve a housing element unless it is substantially changed and modified.
READ ON FOR OUR FULL ANALYSIS...
Save R1/Single-Family Zoning
Solving our affordable housing crisis requires thoughtful, effective, and community-building solutions.
We can preserve single-family homes and support paths to affordable and equitable housing for all.
We can preserve single-family homes and support paths to affordable and equitable housing for all.
We did the math. Tearing down homes in R1 zoning and building fourplexes doesn't pencil out. This will not be affordable housing.
Watch our video to see why.
Watch our video to see why.
You still have a choice in Culver City’s housing future.Send a letter to the State TODAY! HERE'S HOW!
What's happening: While Senate Bill 9 (SB9) and Senate Bill 10 (SB 10) have been passed by the State, our City Council majority wants to go even further by adding more and more housing units throughout Culver City. SB 9 allows a duplex to be built on every single-family lot, and even allows a landowner to split the lots and build two sets of duplexes. (The law is already being challenged. You can read more about the initiative to stop SB9 on the Californians for Community Choice website). The Culver City Housing Element allows up to 4 units to be built on every single lot. There are no protections or restrictions so combined with the state bill this could lead to a split lot and 8 units on a former single-family lot. What is The Housing Element? The Housing Element (“HE”) controls how properties can be used and creates zoning authority for the city. On September 10, 2021, they submitted the HE to the State Department of Housing & Community Development (“HCD”). The state has until November 10th to certify or approve the Housing Element. There is still something you can do: Let the state know that you don’t want them to certify the housing element as submitted! The HE has a site inventory that lists all residential and commercial properties it thinks can and well be redeveloped into multi-family housing. There are major flaws with this list. Importantly, the city never bothered to find out if property owners wanted to tear down and redevelop their properties into multi-family units. Is your home on this list? 
Send a letter to the state and tell them to remove your home from the list. Letter samples here: |
State Senate Bill 9 (SB9) allows a duplex to be built on every single-family lot, and even allows a landowner to split the lots and build two sets of duplexes.
The law is already being challenged. You can read more about the initiative to stop SB9 on the Californians for Community Choice website. 
|
Culver City Council:
Do not eliminate R1/single-family zoning in Culver City.
REALITY CHECK:
Eliminating Single-Family Home Zoning WILL NOT LEAD TO Affordable New Housing.
Land prices are too high. Lots are too small. No builder wants to lose money!
Land prices are too high. Lots are too small. No builder wants to lose money!
The End of Single-Family Neighborhoods in Culver City?
What's happening:
On Monday, June 28 at the specially-noticed joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting, Mayor Alex Fisch, Vice-Mayor Daniel Lee, and Councilmember Yasmine-Imani McMorrin made it clear that they wanted to allow up to 4 units (duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes) to be built on single-family lots throughout Culver City. Councilmembers Göran Eriksson and Albert Vera disagreed.
What does this mean? It means that despite public opposition, the Council majority pushed ahead with their desire to upzone or allow up to 4 units to be built on every lot over 4,950 square feet. They told the General Plan Update team to dive into a month’s long study with the stated desire to ultimately result in the abolishment of single-family home zoning. If you're following along in detail, they chose "Option #3."
The intent of the study is to deliver a certain result. They are calling this a "study," but it's a study to figure out HOW to upzone. It is NOT a study to figure out IF the city should upzone.
Our neighbors in current R2 neighborhoods are not exempt. They too will be upzoned. At the moment, R2 lots can have a duplex, an ADU, and a Jr. ADU. If Culver City is upzoned according to the words spoken by three council members, R2 can also change forever. Cute older R2 duplexes can be torn down to make way for large quadplexes.
The council majority claims that the only way to create a “fair and equitable” city is to upzone. They purport that this will solve the lack of housing and affordable housing issues. They claim that the mere existence of single-family homes unfairly “segregates” these neighborhoods from the necessity of taking on the shared burden of creating additional housing. They stated that Culver City should provide housing for anyone who wants to live here.
Their theory amounts to none other than “trickle-down” housing, which guesses that increased numbers of units will magically decrease overall rent and home prices. This is “build it and they can afford it” magical thinking. Their arguments are unproven and filled with holes. Not a single council member is a professional housing expert or city planner. They did not campaign on eliminating R1 zoning. They refused to allow an alternate study based on current (post-pandemic) conditions in addition to the study they did approve. They pressed on with their untested and experimental political and philosophical positions.
We firmly believe that affordable housing, attention to the actual interests of the community, along with complete and adequate notice of major decisions should be what a city government focuses on. There are many creative solutions to providing more affordable housing in Culver City that do not involve eliminating R1 zoning.
If this moves forward:
This rushed council-mandated push to eliminate R-1/Single-family zoning will be incorporated into the General Plan housing element and submitted to the state this autumn. The dominos will start to fall. It will set up a self-inflicted requirement that the city follows the path to abolish single-family home zoning. This will lead to the permitting of untold numbers of million-dollar-plus townhomes in the formerly single-family home neighborhoods. The three-plexes and four-plexes that will be built throughout Culver City will only benefit the developers and speculators and will do nothing to help solve the affordability crisis. It will do nothing to help the unhoused or help current income-burdened families in need. It will do nothing to uplift our BIPOC community and support the antiracist policies that our community has pledged to vigorously pursue.
Our community loses and only the developers and speculators win.
On Monday, June 28 at the specially-noticed joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting, Mayor Alex Fisch, Vice-Mayor Daniel Lee, and Councilmember Yasmine-Imani McMorrin made it clear that they wanted to allow up to 4 units (duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes) to be built on single-family lots throughout Culver City. Councilmembers Göran Eriksson and Albert Vera disagreed.
What does this mean? It means that despite public opposition, the Council majority pushed ahead with their desire to upzone or allow up to 4 units to be built on every lot over 4,950 square feet. They told the General Plan Update team to dive into a month’s long study with the stated desire to ultimately result in the abolishment of single-family home zoning. If you're following along in detail, they chose "Option #3."
The intent of the study is to deliver a certain result. They are calling this a "study," but it's a study to figure out HOW to upzone. It is NOT a study to figure out IF the city should upzone.
Our neighbors in current R2 neighborhoods are not exempt. They too will be upzoned. At the moment, R2 lots can have a duplex, an ADU, and a Jr. ADU. If Culver City is upzoned according to the words spoken by three council members, R2 can also change forever. Cute older R2 duplexes can be torn down to make way for large quadplexes.
The council majority claims that the only way to create a “fair and equitable” city is to upzone. They purport that this will solve the lack of housing and affordable housing issues. They claim that the mere existence of single-family homes unfairly “segregates” these neighborhoods from the necessity of taking on the shared burden of creating additional housing. They stated that Culver City should provide housing for anyone who wants to live here.
Their theory amounts to none other than “trickle-down” housing, which guesses that increased numbers of units will magically decrease overall rent and home prices. This is “build it and they can afford it” magical thinking. Their arguments are unproven and filled with holes. Not a single council member is a professional housing expert or city planner. They did not campaign on eliminating R1 zoning. They refused to allow an alternate study based on current (post-pandemic) conditions in addition to the study they did approve. They pressed on with their untested and experimental political and philosophical positions.
We firmly believe that affordable housing, attention to the actual interests of the community, along with complete and adequate notice of major decisions should be what a city government focuses on. There are many creative solutions to providing more affordable housing in Culver City that do not involve eliminating R1 zoning.
If this moves forward:
This rushed council-mandated push to eliminate R-1/Single-family zoning will be incorporated into the General Plan housing element and submitted to the state this autumn. The dominos will start to fall. It will set up a self-inflicted requirement that the city follows the path to abolish single-family home zoning. This will lead to the permitting of untold numbers of million-dollar-plus townhomes in the formerly single-family home neighborhoods. The three-plexes and four-plexes that will be built throughout Culver City will only benefit the developers and speculators and will do nothing to help solve the affordability crisis. It will do nothing to help the unhoused or help current income-burdened families in need. It will do nothing to uplift our BIPOC community and support the antiracist policies that our community has pledged to vigorously pursue.
Our community loses and only the developers and speculators win.
What council directed staff to do:
Majority Council (Fisch, Lee, McMorrin) directed staff to study "Option #3." This means that they directed staff to study how they could get rid of R1/single-family zoning in this fashion:
Option 3: Hybrid Approach to Low-Density Single-Family Areas: "This hybrid option uses parcel size and geometry to ensure the lots are better suited to accommodate additional infill development. • Lots in low-density single-family areas less than 4,9501 square feet would remain the same. Detached single unit residential, ADUs, and JADUs would continue to be allowed. • Lots in low-density single-family areas equal to and greater than 4,950 would be allowed to evolve with Incremental Infill 1. Detached or attached single unit residential, ADUs, JADUs, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes would be allowed. This would allow up to 4 units on a lot, requiring the 4th unit to be affordable. Link to full document is here:
Majority Council (Fisch, Lee, McMorrin) directed staff to study "Option #3." This means that they directed staff to study how they could get rid of R1/single-family zoning in this fashion:
Option 3: Hybrid Approach to Low-Density Single-Family Areas: "This hybrid option uses parcel size and geometry to ensure the lots are better suited to accommodate additional infill development. • Lots in low-density single-family areas less than 4,9501 square feet would remain the same. Detached single unit residential, ADUs, and JADUs would continue to be allowed. • Lots in low-density single-family areas equal to and greater than 4,950 would be allowed to evolve with Incremental Infill 1. Detached or attached single unit residential, ADUs, JADUs, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes would be allowed. This would allow up to 4 units on a lot, requiring the 4th unit to be affordable. Link to full document is here:
This map shows that Culver City would be upzoned everywhere, including R-2 neighborhoods.
|
This map shows the R-1 neighborhoods slated for upzoning.
|
Articles
Over Two Thirds of All Los Angeles Rentals Are Now Owned by Speculative Investment Vehicles
A new study by Strategic Actions for a Just Economy links corporate ownership to faster neighborhood rent increases.
A new study by Strategic Actions for a Just Economy links corporate ownership to faster neighborhood rent increases.
What's in My Backyard?
Karen Narevsky, Jacobin Magazine
Karen Narevsky, Jacobin Magazine
Dropping the Hammer on YIMBYISM
LA Tenants Union
“Yes In My BackYard” advocates a deregulatory, trickle-down framework for housing policy that does more harm than good. The thread uniting YIMBYs is that we should just “build baby build” to solve our housing crisis, despite abundant evidence — including studies by MIT academics and the Federal reserve, in addition to historical evidence from cities that have pursued this approach — showing that merely adding market-rate supply does not lead to lower housing prices, but rather spurs gentrification and displacement. By empowering the real estate industry, which has long served as a vanguard of structural racism and segregation, YIMBY policies hasten the construction of cities only accessible to the rich.
LA Tenants Union
“Yes In My BackYard” advocates a deregulatory, trickle-down framework for housing policy that does more harm than good. The thread uniting YIMBYs is that we should just “build baby build” to solve our housing crisis, despite abundant evidence — including studies by MIT academics and the Federal reserve, in addition to historical evidence from cities that have pursued this approach — showing that merely adding market-rate supply does not lead to lower housing prices, but rather spurs gentrification and displacement. By empowering the real estate industry, which has long served as a vanguard of structural racism and segregation, YIMBY policies hasten the construction of cities only accessible to the rich.
Zoning changes could put a hurt on Black homeownership
Madalyn Barber, Special to CalMatters
Madalyn Barber, Special to CalMatters
Trickle-Down Housing is a Failure. Here’s What You Need to Know.
Patrick Range McDonald, Housing is a Human Right
Patrick Range McDonald, Housing is a Human Right
Why Do Politicians Want to Take Away Homeownership from Communities of Color?
Cynthia Davis and Susie Shannon, LA Progressive
Cynthia Davis and Susie Shannon, LA Progressive
Who We Are
|
We're a brand new coalition of neighbors. We are a group of Culver City neighbors from all areas of the city. We are concerned about the affordable housing crisis. We believe that our city can meet the challenges of providing affordable and equitable housing for all who need it. We know that eliminating R1/single-family zoning will not solve the problem. In fact, it could make it worse.
|
Videos
|
|
|
|
The False Promise of Residential Infill
Re-zoning and Re-development (story of a Seattle suburb) |
United Neighbors: The Fight Against Gentrification
(explaining how SB9 and SB10 will hurt communities of color) |
