What's Happening
Urgent: R1 Zoning is coming to City Council soon. Possibly January 24.
Please write an email, or better yet, attend the online meeting and make public comments.
Background Talking Points Key Takeaways Summary of the State's Findings
Please write an email, or better yet, attend the online meeting and make public comments.
Background Talking Points Key Takeaways Summary of the State's Findings
|
WHAT: CULVER CITY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
|
Send an email to City Council |
Background
Culver City submitted the draft Housing Element 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:
The City must provide the new draft to the public and consider comments before submitting a new draft to HCD.
YOU CAN READ THE HCD FINDINGS HERE
Sign up to attend the meeting here
What Can You Do?
Come and speak at the meeting! If you can't speak, send an email to council ASAP (emails below)
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
The City must provide the new draft to the public and consider comments before submitting a new draft to HCD.
YOU CAN READ THE HCD FINDINGS HERE
Sign up to attend the meeting here
What Can You Do?
Come and speak at the meeting! If you can't speak, send an email to council ASAP (emails below)
Talking Points/What to say
- Demand that the new HE 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 actually listens and takes public comment into consideration.
- Demand that the city seriously commits to building housing and mixed-use along transportation corridors and to repurpose shopping centers or large parking lots.
Say it in an email:
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 HE 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.
Our Summary of HCD's Findings
Thank you to Culver City Neighbors United's Jamie Wallace for her hard work on this! HCD's Findings are here if you want to read along
All of these comments and conclusions are based on the HCD determination letter (“HCD Ltr”) saying that the Housing Element (“HE'') and Site Inventory submitted by the City was not in compliance with California state law. It is also based on staff reports prepared for both City Council and Planning Commission meetings, as well as during meeting comments made by City Council members and Planning Commission members.
In part Housing and Community Development (HCD) found the following problems with the draft Housing Element:
Key: blue text designates direct quotes
In part Housing and Community Development (HCD) found the following problems with the draft Housing Element:
Key: blue text designates direct quotes
Assumptions:
In the HE the city repeatedly fails to establish or support its assumptions about:
In the HE the city repeatedly fails to establish or support its assumptions about:
- Future development or redevelopment. The city made assumptions but never offered substantive proof of property owner interest in redeveloping their property. (HCD Ltr. p 2) This was further brought into question in the 200 plus requests to HCD to have property withdrawn from the Site Inventory.
- The number of likely ADU units to be built. Commissioner Sayles doubts the city projection of 400 ADU, saying that a more realistic projection is around 100 units. (Nov. 30, Plan. Commission, Mtg). *Note the HE double counts ADU and potential residential infill housing units, see below
- Realistic Capacity the HE “provided assumptions of buildout for sites included in the inventory, it must also provide support for these assumptions.” (HCD Ltr. p. 2)
- The HE must prove “suitability of non vacant sites'.' The HE must supply support “to demonstrate the potential for additional development.” In Section A3. the HCD says:
- “The analysis must also consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development and will likely discontinue in the planning period.” This means that the city must prove likelihood of property being recycled to residential or mixed-use.
- “The City’s past experience with converting existing use”
- “An analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent development of the site for additional residential development…”
The HE must ascertain the likelihood of continued and existing uses especially in commercial areas where there is no accounting for property improvements, long leases, environmental challenges (gas station) and in the residential area inappropriate site inclusion (Upper Crest and Blair HIlls) - “Development trends, market conditions, and regulatory or other incentives….to encourage additional residential development on these sites.” The city repeatedly made projections that did not coincide with previous construction or construct costs and market trends.
- The HE must consider “newly established leases, new commercial development and several environmental constraints.” (HCD Ltr. p 2-3)
- Relying on “non vacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower income households. For your information, the HE must demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development." (HCD.) Letter p. 3 This means that current property owner intent to keep or recycle their property is essential and the City did nothing to measure this.
- Ascertaining the likelihood of continued and existing uses especially in commercial areas where there is no accounting for property improvements, long leases, environmental challenges (gas station) and in the residential area inappropriate site inclusion (Upper Crest). This means that the site inventory failed to properly look at the properties it was declaring could be recycled. Those commercial properties included those with long term leases, recent and expensive renovation and improvement, and long-time city businesses like Johnnies or Tito’s.
Public Participation and Notice:
Government Code states: “Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community. “
In response to the city’s limited outreach efforts the city “must describe what comments were received and how they were incorporated. Particularly, HCD received many valuable comments related to the HE reviews and encourages the City to re-evaluate these comments and incorporate revisions where appropriate.” (HCD p 8)
The City must increase outreach to lower income and special needs households.
In other words, the City should not just ignore comments, and needs to properly respond to them. There is no indication that the overwhelming public comment against upzoning and demanding an environmental impact review has been incorporated into any draft of the HE or site inventory.
According to Staff, 342 comments and letters were sent to HCD, many describing a lack of transparency in making the draft element available for public comment. (HE p. 8)
Government Code states: “Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community. “
In response to the city’s limited outreach efforts the city “must describe what comments were received and how they were incorporated. Particularly, HCD received many valuable comments related to the HE reviews and encourages the City to re-evaluate these comments and incorporate revisions where appropriate.” (HCD p 8)
The City must increase outreach to lower income and special needs households.
In other words, the City should not just ignore comments, and needs to properly respond to them. There is no indication that the overwhelming public comment against upzoning and demanding an environmental impact review has been incorporated into any draft of the HE or site inventory.
According to Staff, 342 comments and letters were sent to HCD, many describing a lack of transparency in making the draft element available for public comment. (HE p. 8)
- “If the city did not provide an opportunity for the public to review and comment on the draft submitted to HCD in advance of submission, the City has not yet complied with statutory mandates to make a diligent effort to encourage public participation in the development of the element,”
- “The availability of the document to the public and opportunity for public comment prior to submitting any revisions to HCD is essential to the public process and HCD review.”
- The city MUST "proactively" make “future revisions available to the public, including any commenters, prior to submitting any revision to HCD and diligently consider and address comments, including revising the document where appropriate.”
- HCD’s future review will consider the extent to which the City actually documents how the City solicited, considered, and addressed public comments in the element.
Site Inventory errors:
(Site inventory is used to "prove" that the appropriate number of housing units could realistically and feasibly be built to meet the RHNA income requirements in the next 8 years)
(Site inventory is used to "prove" that the appropriate number of housing units could realistically and feasibly be built to meet the RHNA income requirements in the next 8 years)
- The Housing Element (HE) and site inventory involves incomplete and unsupported analysis which leads to the HE being out of compliance with state law.
- Lower income units for RHNA: HE relies on "non-vacant" or already occupied sites for over 50% of these lower income units:
"For your information, the HE must demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development." (HE Det. Letter p. 3)
HCD PRESUMES that unless the GPU (General Plan Update) planners make a finding "based on substantial evidence" that the current usage (homes, businesses, gas stations, long term leased properties) WILL be turned into additional residential development; that redevelopment is unlikely to happen. (HE Det. Ltr. p 3)
In other words, they have to show proof that most properties are likely to be torn down and replaced with multi-family.
To figure out if properties are likely to be developed, the city should use reliable methods like a survey of a random sample of owners to determine if they are likely to be redeveloped. - HE double counts properties identified for incremental infill AND ADUs. HCD says that the city must adjust its projections of how many properties will be recycled (turned into multi-family) for either the number of expected ADU (City claims 400, Pl. Commissioner Dana Sayles doubts that's a realistic projection, thinks around 100) or units from incremental infill/recycling.
According to the Planning Commission staff report: based on the market (cost of construction, cost of land, desire of property owners) ONLY 135 additional housing units will be built by "incremental infill." (Staff Report to Pl. Commis. 1/24/21 p. 8).
It is clear from statements by Mayor Fisch and Planning Commissioner Sayles that none of these incremental infill housing units will be or are expected to be affordable.
There are approximately 5,200 single family, R1 zoned properties in the city. Does it really make sense to change the property rights of all of these people to create a “chance” to build 100-135 units? When nothing that will be built will be affordable, and where there is plenty of market rate housing available, this makes no sense.
Upzoning has consistently led to increased land values, and where the property is expensive no affordable housing, only market rate housing which there is plenty of already in Culver City and surrounding area. Look at Vancouver where most people are priced out of owning homes or condos. - HCD, GPU, and Planning Commission think between 100 to 135 total housing units might be built with the elimination of R1 out of the 1250 properties they use to prove that incremental infill makes sense. Even the staff report notes that average single family home value of over $1.46 million is an "impediment" to recycling single family zoned properties because it's more profitable to build a larger single family home on both R1 and R2 lots.
- The properties of all people who asked for their property to be removed from the site inventory, must be removed.
- For commercial properties, the new draft analysis must consider existing leases and contracts or improvements that make these properties unlikely to be torn down and recycled into multi-family housing.( HCD p 3)
- Larger single homes are already replacing units on R2 lots.
Staff also notes that the trend in R2 is not to build multi-family but for them to be replaced by large single family homes. Same is true in R1, more likely to have a large home replace a current home than an owner to build an ADU. - The site inventory must include a list of land “suitable and available for residential development.” (including vacant sites of which there are few) that have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment to meet the RHNA requirements.” (HCD p 2)
The HE fails to show a feasible and realistic potential for redevelopment. - The HE when identifying sites likely for redevelopment must “also provide support for those assumptions.”
- The HE includes many “small sites” under .5 acre. These sites are not eligible to be counted toward lower income units unless the planners can prove that other small sites were successfully developed in the last 8 years. Or that consolidation of sites is likely to occur. If not proven, cannot be used to meet below market rate units for RHNA. This applies especially to currently single family home zoned sites which are unlikely to be consolidated
- Failure to prove that there are enough large sites (over .5 acre) to accommodate lower income units.
Infrastructure:
The HE “must also demonstrate sufficient total water and sewer capacity (existing and planned) to accommodate the regional housing needed” by the community” (HCD p. 4)
The HE “must also demonstrate sufficient total water and sewer capacity (existing and planned) to accommodate the regional housing needed” by the community” (HCD p. 4)
Design guidelines:
According to HCD, the HE should include some analysis of how to create “compatibility with the character of surrounding development, including a discussion of design guidelines.” (HCD p 5)
The city needs to set up some design guidelines and standards, which the planning commission keeps saying are needed so we don’t end up with large ugly boxes.
Staff Suggestions:
In the Staff reports for both the City Council and Planning Commission, the staff recommends that the city look at the following options: (Planning Commission suggests more options)
According to HCD, the HE should include some analysis of how to create “compatibility with the character of surrounding development, including a discussion of design guidelines.” (HCD p 5)
The city needs to set up some design guidelines and standards, which the planning commission keeps saying are needed so we don’t end up with large ugly boxes.
Staff Suggestions:
In the Staff reports for both the City Council and Planning Commission, the staff recommends that the city look at the following options: (Planning Commission suggests more options)
- “HCD requested that the City consider additional solutions to encourage housing production to meet RHNA if the market demand for converting R1 property to multi-family development through incremental infill is overstated in the HE or if the ADU construction rate does not meet expectations.”
The Staff notes that the median sales price is now $1,460,000 and that this high price makes it unlikely that the property will be recycled to multifamily “‘since it may be more profitable to redevelop the site as a single-family home.”
The Staff notes that in R2 more large single family homes are being built instead of multi-family - “Recalculate the number of properties expected to be recycled in R1 based on market considerations …and adjust the number of potential redevelopment sites…to 135 additional units as a result of infill development.” Based on 1,246 cites, a rate of 109 market feasible units per 1,000 properties.
- That the city should “Examine additional housing sites that could be expected to be developed at existing underperforming shopping centers…” (Staff report 12/7/20) This is based on current financial trends and decline of brick and mortar shopping. Three Planning commissioners supported this, and two others asked for more information on design standards to maximize shopping center development
- Streamline permitting in mixed-use development and submit affordable mixed-use housing developments to ministerial review. (more streamlined and simple)
- “Consider methods to promote the recycling of shopping centers for new mixed-use development through adaptive reuse, outreach programs to shopping center owners to encourage redevelopment and adding zoning incentives through density.” Option 5 was supported by all Planning Commissioners.