At the June 8, 2015 City of Culver City City Council Meeting, there was public discussion about changing the zoning code regarding upper limits of size for single family dwellings. The City Council has charged the Planning Commission with studying the issue and making proposals for change to the zoning code. 

What is proposed:

• New limitations on maximum areas using a metric called the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Floor area ratio is the ratio of the floor area of a building to the area of the lot on which the building is located. Culver City currently does not use FAR calculations for zoning, but instead a maximum area of 1500 sf + 40% of net lot area (for parcels less than 8000 sq ft)
• Proposed FAR for R1 units is 0.60. Neighboring cities have a wide range of practices, from no FAR in Santa Monica, to 0.50 FAR in West Hollywood and parts of Los Angeles, to 0.75 FAR in Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach.
• Proposed FAR for R2 and R3 units is 0.70.
• Initial proposal from city Planning staff was for FAR of 0.50
• Garages attached the primary structure, but not basements, would now be included in the FAR. 
• Increased side lot setbacks from 4 to 5 feet
• Increased rear lot set backs from 10 to 15 feet
• Decreased height limits depending on flat vs sloped roofs

Why R2 and R3 lots should be excluded:

• We did not get due process. R1 homeowners received mailings notifying them of this public discussion and their right to comment, but not R2 and R3 homeowners, because of an oversight where this proposal was conceived of as being for “single family dwellings.”
• This process is being driven primarily by residents in the Carlson Park neighborhood, which isn’t even zoned for R2 and R3 lots in the General Plan. R1 owners in an single neighborhood are trying to speak for R2 and R3 homeowners in other neighborhoods.
• Some neighborhoods were designated for R2 and R3 lots in the Culver City General Plan to offer maximum flexibility and variety of residential options. (https://www.culvercity.org/~/media/Maps/Map15_Zoning%20pdf.ashx)
• These low-density multi-family residential lots can accommodate multigenerational family living, owner/renter pairs, and other scenarios.
• Multigenerational family living is on the rise, with now 20% of the country living in multigenerational family settings (Pew trends). Multigenerational living allows economic flexibility for young adults, promotes safe environments for seniors and persons with disabilities, and is often preferred by some ethnic groups.
• R2 and R3 lots represent only 12% of the city’s residential stock (2014 Culver City Housing Needs Assessment). Most of these lots are near the downtown area or near light-rail, where there is already increased density from other developments. Excluding them from the proposed changes to single family homes will still allow the city to preserve the visual character and community feel of Culver City.
• The majority of R2 and R3 homeowners live on their property, and are Culver City community members, NOT developers. They want maximum flexibility within their own property rights. They want to avoid limits that may force a second unit to be too small to be practical.

For example, given a 5000 sq ft lot:

• Current code: could build 3500 sq ft living space, excluding garage
• FAR of 0.5: could build 2500 sq ft living space, including garage
• FAR of 0.6: could build 3000 sq ft living space, including garage
• FAR of 0.7: could build 3500 sq ft living space, including garage

 

• The 2014 Culver City Housing Needs Assessment found that 92% of housing stock in Culver City was built before 1980. Homeowners need flexibility to update and maintain the quality and safety of their housing stock.
• This proposal is nothing less than “downzoning”, which may significantly limit growth in property values, and growth in tax revenue for Culver City.
• The City Council/Planning Commission originally stated they desired to study the problem, hold public discussion, and draft new zoning language within a 4 month period, ending November 2015. A rushed City Council/Planning Commission process will not lead to the desired outcome of preserving the community feel of Culver City, but rather lead to a rush to get permits pulled before the zoning changes take effect, and will push people to build quickly without giving them the time to do it right.

 

-----------------------------

Dear Members of the Culver City City Council and Planning Commission,

I support:

·      Exclusion of R2 and R3 lots in Culver City from “downzoning”

·      NO moratorium on renovations/constructions during discussion of city planning

·      Exploration of other ways to preserve the visual character and community feel of Culver City without downzoning, such as stepback facades