Culver City Council: Do not eliminate R1/single-family zoning in Culver City.
733 Comments
A
Audrey
5 years ago
I am very opposed to getting rid of single family homes in Culver City. More traffic, more people and more crime will be the end result. Don’t destroy our city, backyards, and great city!!
A
Anonymous
5 years ago
Getting rid of R1/single family zoning is crazy
D
Dan Richardson
5 years ago
Don't eliminate R!
B
Barbara Kramsky
5 years ago
Do Not eliminate R1 / single-family zoning in Culver City.
T
TERRY K NUNN
5 years ago
Keep R1!! I've lived here since 1963 and I don't want to see Culver City lose it's single family feel and beauty.
A
Anonymous
5 years ago
Please DO NOT ELIMINATE R1-ZONING!!
A
Anonymous
5 years ago
Please DO NOT ELIMINATE R1-ZONING!!
M
M Hope Aguilar
5 years ago
THE PEOPLE OF CULVER CITY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON THIS.
K
Kerri Sordal
5 years ago
I was in Culver City High School 10th grade when Prop 13 was passed. I see this taking that away from the people who voting it. Im for any recall of a politician who does not listen to people. Starting with voting out any incumbents.
M
Michael Halmy
5 years ago
No giant buildings of ANY kind in the residential areas of Culver City!!
J
Jerry Green
5 years ago
This comment is a supplement to my earlier comment in light of last week’s first public session on the issue of changing zoning.
The proposed zoning changes violate state law in many respects.
The proposal will create density without affordability. It will negatively affect the environment, it will not create “affordable” housing, and it will destroy the character of residential neighborhoods, all in violation of state law.
The very recent case of ISSAKHANI v. SHADOW GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., in a published ruling by the Court on April 30, 2021, states that “the chief purposes of zoning laws is to "maint[ain] . . . the character of residential neighborhoods".
Clearly the city’s proposed zoning change would do the opposite, viz. it would completely change the character of residential neighborhoods. Thus, the city’s proposed change is in violation of state law.
What is the meaning of “affordable” and can that be accomplished in R1 areas of Culver City? The clear answer is “no”. The zoning proposal is based upon the false premise that affordable housing can be developed in existing R1 neighborhoods. It can’t because the economies of scale don’t work to significantly reduce the price of a multi-unit condo development on 1/3 of an acre, the typical size of an R1 lot.
“Affordable Housing” begs the question, what does “affordable” mean?
Here is the law:
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65589.5. - (h) The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section:
(3) “Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” means that either (A) at least 20 percent of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or (B) 100 percent of the units shall be sold or rented to persons and families of moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or persons and families of middle income, as defined in Section 65008 of this
L
Linda Ahles
5 years ago
Please DO NOT up-zone our Vets Park neighborhood! Please keep it R-1
M
Melissa Alt
5 years ago
I am a real estate agent. Changing the zoning will increase density and traffic. We already have traffic problems . nI am against this proposal
A
Anonymous
5 years ago
Absolutely not. We are overpopulated enough and sorry, but not everything is equitable in life. And just because our City Council paints this as “affordable”, we all know it’s not. It’s a joke that is not funny at all.
S
Sara Kocher
5 years ago
I'm deeply disappointed in the elected city officials who are trying to push this through without community notification and input, and even more disappointed in those who are avoiding their constituents attempts to discuss this. We definitely need a housing plan to make Culver City far more livable for lower and middle income people, and to repair the economic disenfranchisement of people of color, and this plan must engage and evolve the whole city. We should move on this promptly and together, not hastily and in semi-secret.
I am very opposed to getting rid of single family homes in Culver City. More traffic, more people and more crime will be the end result. Don’t destroy our city, backyards, and great city!!
Getting rid of R1/single family zoning is crazy
Don't eliminate R!
Do Not eliminate R1 / single-family zoning in Culver City.
Keep R1!! I've lived here since 1963 and I don't want to see Culver City lose it's single family feel and beauty.
Please DO NOT ELIMINATE R1-ZONING!!
Please DO NOT ELIMINATE R1-ZONING!!
THE PEOPLE OF CULVER CITY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON THIS.
I was in Culver City High School 10th grade when Prop 13 was passed. I see this taking that away from the people who voting it. Im for any recall of a politician who does not listen to people. Starting with voting out any incumbents.
No giant buildings of ANY kind in the residential areas of Culver City!!
This comment is a supplement to my earlier comment in light of last week’s first public session on the issue of changing zoning. The proposed zoning changes violate state law in many respects. The proposal will create density without affordability. It will negatively affect the environment, it will not create “affordable” housing, and it will destroy the character of residential neighborhoods, all in violation of state law. The very recent case of ISSAKHANI v. SHADOW GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., in a published ruling by the Court on April 30, 2021, states that “the chief purposes of zoning laws is to "maint[ain] . . . the character of residential neighborhoods". Clearly the city’s proposed zoning change would do the opposite, viz. it would completely change the character of residential neighborhoods. Thus, the city’s proposed change is in violation of state law. What is the meaning of “affordable” and can that be accomplished in R1 areas of Culver City? The clear answer is “no”. The zoning proposal is based upon the false premise that affordable housing can be developed in existing R1 neighborhoods. It can’t because the economies of scale don’t work to significantly reduce the price of a multi-unit condo development on 1/3 of an acre, the typical size of an R1 lot. “Affordable Housing” begs the question, what does “affordable” mean? Here is the law: GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65589.5. - (h) The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section: (3) “Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” means that either (A) at least 20 percent of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or (B) 100 percent of the units shall be sold or rented to persons and families of moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or persons and families of middle income, as defined in Section 65008 of this
Please DO NOT up-zone our Vets Park neighborhood! Please keep it R-1
I am a real estate agent. Changing the zoning will increase density and traffic. We already have traffic problems . nI am against this proposal
Absolutely not. We are overpopulated enough and sorry, but not everything is equitable in life. And just because our City Council paints this as “affordable”, we all know it’s not. It’s a joke that is not funny at all.
I'm deeply disappointed in the elected city officials who are trying to push this through without community notification and input, and even more disappointed in those who are avoiding their constituents attempts to discuss this. We definitely need a housing plan to make Culver City far more livable for lower and middle income people, and to repair the economic disenfranchisement of people of color, and this plan must engage and evolve the whole city. We should move on this promptly and together, not hastily and in semi-secret.
Do not eliminste R1
Do not eliminste R1
Do not eliminate R1
Do not eliminate R1 single-family zoning.
No to upzoning