I oppose the elimination of R1/single-family zoning for reasons stated in the Petition which i have previously signed.
I oppose the elimination of R1/single-family zoning for reasons stated in the Petition.
I oppose eliminating "exclusionary zoning", in Culver City , in other words zoning for single-family homes.
I also find it surprising and disapointing that the Culver City, City Council chose not to notify every resident of the City, much earlier about this very important contemplated change.I found out about it from opposing groups.
I would like the City Council during the meeting of Wednesday 6/23/2021, to postpone finalizing this proposal until all residents are adequetly notified about the change.
I am a homeowner in Culver City. I oppose the current re-zoning plan in Culver City. I have observed the exorbitant prices of adjacent small lot developments and higher density condiminiums in our surrounding area. Rental costs are on par with many mortgages and prohibitive for most. Won't the new homes in Culver City cost just as much as condos in Playa Vista? Won't they cost just as much as small lot developments designed by architectural firms such as Modative in nearby Los Angeles? These types of homes are not affordable for most.
What is truly being done here to address the exclusionary practices at play?
This hasty plan provides no guarantee that affordable housing will be provided for anyone. For example, will the teachers at Culver City High School be able to afford to live in these new homes being created? Further, I am disturbed by the conflation of eradicating exclusionary housing practices with what I suspect is an attempt to force through a plan which is really just a boon for greedy developers and realtors.
i oppose the elimination of R1 single family zoning for Culver City. This is such an important issue and every homeowner should be aware of it...it should not be passed by a City Council that does not even bother to ask it's residents how they feel. It's a travesty!!! Judy Levitow, 20 year resident.
I strongly oppose Options 2 and 3 (infill & hybrid) plans for zoning. These plans would destroy the cherished smaller scale of Culver’s neighborhoods for minor gains in inclusion/diversity. Culver is currently one of the most diverse cities in the nation (as is evident in our enrollment at schools) and re-zoning would do little to make strides in this area. Culver City is relatively small in its footprint (geographically) and the re-zoning of these low density residential areas would do little to address the gargantuan housing crisis, but at existing residents’ great expense. Upzoning favors developers, contrary to the aim of these plans. They would be incentivized to max out the FAR, develop very costly units to sell at a high $ per SF thereby inflating real estate and compete with earnest home owners for purchase of properties. This already happens in R2 zones. Our neighboring cities all have preserved some single family zoning even while densifying other areas. It would be a travesty to be the only city in our metropolitan area to eradicate this, especially since generations of families still live in many of these properties.
The housing conversation should not be addressed with re-zoning. We must find a more effective way to tackle this critical issue. Let us keep Culver City’s R1 which attracts families with children and long term home owners who enrich our schools and plant roots in our community
I oppose eliminating R1 zoning. Doing so won’t create affordable housing, it will invite in unscrupulous speculators who will seek maximum profit by building dense high-end housing at the expense of neighborhoods and residents. It will also degrade the environment by eliminating open and green spaces necessary to fight climate change and pollution.
I strongly oppose the elimination of R1 housing. We moved to Culver City in 2015, drawn by the beautiful residential neighborhoods of Carlson Park. I think upzoning R1 areas is a mistake and will destroy much of the character and charm of Culver City. It will also lead to overcrowding, more cars going through residential streets where our kids play, lack of street parking, and less open spaces. I understand the need for more housing but eliminating R1 housing is not the way to go.
I am sure that I am not alone in being late to this news about the General Plan Update. While the city did email out information, many of us have been overwhelmed during the pandemic. At the least, the council should give the residents more time to process this information and provide feedback.
My name is Jennifer Alkire, and I'm an 8-year Culver City resident and single-family homeowner in the Lindberg Park neighborhood. I love my neighborhood, and I don't want to see it change. Like many others, I am emotionally attached to this paradigm. But I must also admit that this idealism comes at the expense of diversity. One year ago, we were all clamoring for equity. We waved banners at family friendly marches in Vets park. We put up "hate has no home here" Culver City signs in our yards. We proclaimed that Black lives matter on our social media and texted each other with resources to learn about anti-racism. We challenged ourselves and others around us to “do the work” of dismantling white supremacy. THIS is the work. If we can’t get uncomfortable, and if we can’t let go of some of the ideas we have become emotionally attached to in order to allow others entry into our exclusive community, then we were merely performing at anti-racism. Land use policy is all about striking a nearly impossible balance between many very important and often conflicting needs among the community. As a member of a privileged class, I am standing up to urge our elected decisionmakers to prioritize inclusion, equity, and the ideals that we claim to hold. Allow more homes, and more affordable homes, to be available in our community. Lastly, as we contemplate upzoning, please also direct City staff to put serious thought into objective design standards and development restrictions to ensure that our neighborhoods stay beautiful and friendly. Much of the fear I’ve heard among my friends and neighbors stems from the thought that developers will construct cheaply-built monstrosities that span to the lot lines, and this is a valid concern. We have the opportunity now to lock in a zoning framework that will prevent this from being the reality. We can do the right thing and do so thoughtfully. Thank you.
Dear City Council,
I am concerned about the single-family zoning issue. I feel as if I am possibly misconstrued as a discriminatory individual due to past statements. I would like to correct that: I rely on the help of many Black individuals and Brown individuals who aid my life in ways I am eternally grateful. I do like to add, though, that I am tired of the one-sided demonizing of White people, especially since the vast majority of White people in this city are tolerant enough to permit Black city residents to gain influential seats in City government.
As a resident in a single family house, I feel as if I am being made out to be a villain. I have many relatives, mostly liberal and Democrat and Asian, who either have big suburban homes or, like me, live in a single family house. I thought we were supposed to be anti-Asian hate. So, when Asians refuse apartment or condominium dwellings, they are the oppressors and allies of the White supremacists?
Why is it assumed that minority Americans want to live in crammed apartments and multiplexes? The cities of Compton, Inglewood, Montebello and El Monte have many Black and Brown Americans (Source: California Political Review). Those cities are comprised mostly of single-family zoning, yet those cities are not declared racist.
There is nothing racist about wanting to live in a spacious home. People of many walks of life enjoy having a spacious home. There are many Hispanic and Black and Asian celebrities who live in huge homes in gated communities, yet I’m the racist if I want to live in a neighborhood with single-family zoning?
In addition, the proposed solution will lead to the opposite- gentrification, which is why there was opposition among left-leaning minorities to state Senator Wiener’s recent attempt to eliminate single-family zoning in California (Source: California Political Review). Big Development is not on the side of minorities; it is on the side that wants to crush mom-and-pop and make people pay more for less land.
I have also learned about the supposed anti-environmentalism of single-family zoning. As a former college student who took two “sustainability” courses, I remember the notions of “overpopulation” and “suburban sprawl.” These notions, I later learned, are based on the mindset of a man, Paul Erlich, who wanted to poison the water supply of third- worlders, oil tycoons who believe in eugenics, climate change activists-mainly oil tycoons-, and an oil tycoon/technocrat-King Hubbert- whose friend admitted the data used for peak oil theory was inaccurate (Source: The Corbett Report). Destroying single-family zoning is not about the environment but control of others. I just want to express my own opinions.
Joshua Michael Edra
As a long-time (25+ years) resident of Culver City, I oppose the elimination of R-1 Zoning. There are so many things wrong with the way this plan has been put forward but the biggest one is short-sightedness. The petition has outlined many of the concerns that those of us opposing the elimination of R-1 Zoning have. I will only add that on my block, a large single family home was sold several years ago and the new owners leased it to 4 or 5 young men. They were fine as neighbors, but each of them had their own vehicles, which made an immediate impact on our street parking, particularly on street cleaning and garbage pick-up days. That was just one house, and one issue--parking. I can't imagine what would happen if more than one lot on our street suddenly had 3 or 4 families needing parking. This is such a small part of the impact this change in zoning would have. How will those issues be addressed? What cities have successfully used this plan to increase affordable housing and how did it impact their infrastructure? Has an Environmental Impact Assessment been done that is available to the public about how this major change will affect our single-family residential neighborhoods, not to mention our schools, public transportation, city services and overall quality of life? We need to get more creative about using the empty spaces/buildings that already exist in our city.
EXTREMELY OPPOSED TO UPZONING R1 SINGLE FAMILY ZONING
I am writing as a 16-year homeowner/ resident/ parent/ and architect practicing in Culver City. What I love most about Culver City is our cultural, racial and social diversity. It is seen in our businesses, our school system, and our community. I understand that we need to think about and solve for population growth. I also understand that affordable housing needs to be addressed, as Culver City has become a city that has priced many out of the market. However, I believe there are alternative and creative ways to resolve these issues without eliminating R1 zoning.
As an architect, as far as city planning, cities benefit from mixed use zoning (retail below/ residential above) along corridor streets with easy access to public transit, such as the underdeveloped properties on Washington Blvd, Sepulveda, Overland and Culver, which are zoned “Commercial General”. Per the zoning map published on the culvercity.org website, I noticed that many lots are denoted as R1 and have more than one residential unit, which allows me to question whether there are lots that are noted inaccurately and should be designated as R2 and R3. What is the number of housing units that are currently unoccupied? What is the current number of affordable housing units? How is the city planning on mandating affordable housing? By eliminating R1 zoning, the only people who will benefit from upzoning will be developers who can afford to purchase the lots and will sell the units at above market value.
As a parent with children who have gone through CCUSD elementary and middle schools, and are now at CCHS, Culver City’s diversity is evident! My kids' classmates are from all cultural, religious, and socio- economic backgrounds. CCUSD provides breakfast and lunches. CCMS volunteers provide backpacks full of food for its community members in need. How about we start by directing our taxpayer money toward an increase in our CCUSD teachers’ salaries so they can own housing in Culver City? With greater density, how is Culver City going to handle the additional Students? Parking? Traffic? Electricity? Plumbing? Seems to me we should be questioning the state mandate!
Please stop your insanity! Just look at the tower near Jefferson and la Cienega. Is that your idea of Culver City? Are families and single homes not worth your caring any more? Have developers bought your soul and your vote? Shame!