THESE MINUTES ARE NOT OFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE January 6, 2022
CULVER CITY 6:00 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA
Call to Order & Roll Call
Chair Sayles called the special meeting of the Culver City Planning Commission to order at 6:14 p.m. via Webex.
Present: Dana Sayles, Chair
Nancy Barba, Vice Chair
Jennifer Carter, Commissioner
Ed Ogosta, Commissioner
Andrew Reilman, Commissioner
o0o
Pledge of Allegiance
Chair Sayles led the Pledge of Allegiance.
o0o
Public Comment - Items NOT on the Agenda
Chair Sayles invited public comment and discussed procedures for making public comment.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission:
Bryan Sanders discussed the environmental report; use of data from Urban Footprint rather than locally measured recently acquired data to determine the assumption that multi-family dwelling will create fewer greenhouse gas emissions; the assertion that single family houses are bad for the
environment; and concern with efforts to rush changes to the City using inadequate data.
Planning Commission
January 6, 2022
Robin Turner was called to speak but was not present on Webex.
Jeff Cooper was called to speak but was not present on Webex.
Suzanne DeBenedittis discussed repurposing buildings; the amount of carbon emissions from buildings; assertions that multi-family housing would have a net-zero affect; the
climate crisis; and she urged the Commission to direct studies to measure what is happening in the region instead of using outside algorithms.
Chair Sayles indicated an additional opportunity for public comment for Items Not on the Agenda at the end of the meeting. o0o
Consent Calendar
Item P-1
PC: Approval of Draft Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes of November 30, 2021
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER REILMAN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
CARTER AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES FOR
NOVEMBER 30, 2021
o0o
Order of the Agenda
No changes were made.
o0o
Action Items
Item A-1
PC - Review and Discussion of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions to Streamline the Residential Mixed Use Entitlement Process William Kavadas, Assistant Planner, provided a summary of the material of record; discussed proposed mixed-use residential entitlement streamlining; goals; streamlining options for affordable housing; related Senate Bills; and design
guidelines.
Planning Commission
January 6, 2022
Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director, discussed the Design Checklist and establishing objective standards.
Discussion ensued between staff and Commissioners regarding by-right development for projects that meet most of the items on the checklist ; ministerial review; providing confidence for developers that if they meet the checklist that they will be able to move forward; the need for more specific language; maximum number of units before the project is required to go through public review; level of affordability; project size; providing a list of projects in the pipeline to give the Commission an idea of which projects could be ministerial; state law; programs being considered to incr ease housing production in the City; the small number of projects that are over 250 units; concern with surrendering Planning Commission review for the majority of mixed -use projects in the City; the environmental review process; stimulating and
facilitating housing production by reducing the amount of time a project takes from concept to production; creation of Design Guidelines vs. a Design Checklist; concern with
subjective review; creating an objective process; comporting with state housing law; expediting review for certain kinds of projects; practicality; and Assembly Bill (AB) 1397.
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER OGOSTA, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR BARBA
AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED , THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OPEN THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION.
Chair Sayles invited public comment.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission:
Stephen Jones expressed support for streamlining the process to encourage housing production and lowering costs; he
pointed out that the current draft Housing Element extends ministerial review to any project with 22% affordable
housing; and he encouraged the removal o f all parking
minimums.
Bryan Sanders expressed opposition to by -right ministerial approvals; he did not see a need being met by speeding up the process; opposed eliminating parking minimums; discussed political speak with proposed changes to the City; co ncern with too much politics and not enough honest dialogue with residents and developers; the narrative that the larger buildings would reduce greenhouse gases; concern with
bringing in ideas and making decisions without examining Planning Commission
January 6, 2022
local data; speakers regurgitating political talking points from YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard) law organizations; and he pointed out the conflict of interest with Vice Chair Barba as a part of Culver City for More Homes, a political lobby group.
Con Howe, CityView, provided background on himself; discussed the recent completion of the Haven project in Culver City; setting policy and standards; clarifying the process;
increasing certainty; timing; providing a clear understanding of what can and cannot be built; areas that deserve mor e consideration; income levels; encouraging workforce housing; and Area Median Income (AMI).
Cindy Bailey expressed appreciation for the hard work done on the process; discussed differences of opinion; court
challenges to SB 10; R1 zoning; meeting the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) through SB 9 and SB 10; by -right building; she felt that the process should not be rushed; expressed concern with a potential lack of oversight; concern with deregulating parking; meeting residential parking needs; increased greenhouse gases; and support for streamlining processes.
Kevin Read, Bastion Development, provided background on the organization; expressed support for codifying the proposed design guidelines for the Mixed -Use Ordinance; wanted to ensure that a one-size-fits-all approach would not be taken; discussed alternative approaches; the popularity of workforce housing; the burdensome 20% requirement; and finding
solutions to enable a builder to make a project economically feasible while providing more affordable housing.
Erik Paesel expressed support for the elimination of parking minimums; urged the Commission to move forward quickly; asserted that affordable housing was needed; discussed compliance with SB 9 and SB 10; and he wanted to see the City be at the forefront of making changes.
Suzanne De Benedittis expressed support for building
additional affordable housing; questioned which levels of affordability would be addressed; discussed the
marginalization of people who then fall into homelessne ss with the building of housing for above moderate income; getting people off the streets into transitional housing; next steps; creating mixed -use with mixed income levels; assuring that teachers get housing; addressing the real needs of real people in the City; carbon lost into the environment Planning Commission
January 6, 2022
with tearing down buildings; refurbishing buildings as a way to reduce carbon emissions by 60% ; documentation; and
consideration of proven data.
Tara Barauskas, Community Corp of Santa Monica, discussed a planned affordable housing project in Culver City; planning and incentivizing affordable housing; land costs; costs of building high quality sustainable housing; support for 100% affordable housing approved by -right ministerial; the 250 unit threshold; including any 100% affordable housing project under 120% AMI in by -right approvals; ensuring that
affordable housing is distributed throughout the City;
inclusionary zoning; support for a 20% minimum; permitting and design restrictions; prioritizing affordable projects as highly regulated by the funding sources; allowing developers to right -size the parking; she proposed ensuring timely response by adding another Planning position; she opposed the design checklist; expressed concern with added costs; and she felt that affordable design developers should be allowed to choose the best designs to operate their projects.
Khin Khin Gyi provided background on herself; discussed SB 8; Culver Crest as a high fire hazard zone; the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); exemptions for community land trusts and qualified non -profit corporations;
reimbursement for local agencies and costs mandated by the state; and she did not believe that SB 10 applied to the Crest.
Carolyn Libuser felt that the 20% afford ability requirement should be increased to 30%; discussed the focus on increasing affordability; concern with taking projects away from the authorization of the Planning Commission; subverting the general public from weighing in; ministerial review of 200 unit projects; and the importance of further discussion of the differences between guidelines and a check list.
Melissa Sanders discussed existing density in the City; workforce housing; focusing on housing for those who serve the City rather than those wh o work at large corporations; the fluid nature of the City; the importance of streamlining based on small areas; differences between various areas of the City; parking; she noted that there were many things to consider in the process; felt that 250 units w as much too large to be built by -right; stated that Vice Chair Barba should not be serving on the Commission as it is a disservice to the City and a violation on many levels; and she felt staff Planning Commission
January 6, 2022
should be getting funding from the state for affordable housing.
Daniel Young expressed appreciation for Vice Chair Barba; provided background on himself; felt the City should do whatever necessary to ease permitting and design
restrictions; discussed lots that have been sitting empty for years; and he encouraged the City not to put all the high density units into all the lower income neighborhoods.
Darcy Leslie Parson s provided background on herself; urged the Planning Commission and City Council to retain single family neighborhoods; did not want to see a tremendous amount of density in the City; embraced the idea of creating more low income housing; discussed condos a nd apartments;
retaining the small town feel of the City; climate change; people who grow fruit s and vegetables and greens that take carbon out of the atmosphere; and encouraging greenspace rather than building an urban monolith of big buildings.
MOVED BY VICE CHAIR BARBA, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER REILMAN
AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CLOSE THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION.
Discussion ensued between staff and Commissioners regarding application of the mixed-use ordinance to all housing;
concern with having too narrow a focus; time and expense to review a 20 unit residential project; the mandatory retail component put on projects; development that does not take place on commercial corridors; the need for quantitative standards to provide dependability; creation of a timeline for staff response to a ministerial checklist; scaling; the 20% requirement for small projects; mobility measures; the infeasibility of applying mobility measures to small
projects; evolution of the streamlining ordinance; and a suggestion that the title be changed to the Residential Streamlining Ordinance.
Additional discussion ensued between staff and Commissioners regarding larger projects on the corridors; concern with larger projects without a commercial aspect; opportunity sites that are not on corridors; facilitating the production of housing; concern with creating disincentives for non- corridor locations; challenges to senate bills; removal of parking requirements; MOVE Culver City; support for
ministerial review for up to 30-40 units; concern that setting a 250 threshold would eliminate all Commission review;
Planning Commission
January 6, 2022
appreciation to staff for their work; the Design Checklist; concern with the inclusion of step backs, roof planes and variation of materials on the checklist; concern with
mandating items integral to the design; the need for
thoughtful deployment; concern with arbitrary application; incentivizing gestures of articulation; concern with
designing a building like an income tax worksheet; the
importance of public and Commission involvement in larger projects; the need for meaningful, beneficial and
fundamentally integral design requirements; adding
specificity to the requirements; the importance of rigor in the application of articulation; the need for additional effort to implement a robust set of guidelines that will not impede streamlining or create a hardship; the Gateway
Guidelines document; providing examples, diagrams and an explanation of the principles of quality that need to be encouraged; the insufficiency of a check list that will be halfheartedly applied; and a suggestion to engage with the architectural and development community in the process.
Further discussion ensued between staff and Commissioners regarding support for a document to streamline residential and mixed-use developments; concern with disadvantaging smaller developments; smaller infill opportunity; the need to streamline smaller developments; equitably creating housing opportunities; creating livable neighborhoods and
communities; sustainability; SB 10; addressing community concerns; creating small and medium sized buildings; being welcoming neighbors; support for the 250 unit cap; moving housing projects along expeditiously; creating effective standards; finding the right incentive mix; the need to attract developers; the importance of committing to a review timeline; application of objective standards; anti-
mansionization standards; community input; the lowered Floor Area Ratio (FAR); concern with losing objectivity when
focusing on standards; learning from other cities; mobility requirements for larger projects; incentivizing sustainable development; concern with placing undue burden on smaller development; support for instituting parking maximums;
incentivizing alternative modes of transportation in the City; and addressing climate change.
Discussion ensued between staff and Commissioners regarding raising the Site Plan Review (SPR) threshold; the 250 unit threshold; scaling; additional review of design guidelines; the comprehensive parking amendment coming forward; reducing the burden for small projects by raising the limit from 3 to Planning Commission
January 6, 2022
10; staff evaluation of the threshold for larger projects; scaling related to affordability; defining affordability; timelines; SPR thresholds and number of units; guidelines vs. a checklist; scaling the amount of affordable relative to the amount of review; providing reliable guidelines; consultation with the design community; stringent guidelines related to affordable housing funding sources that could be hindered by standards; elimination of parking minimums; consultation with affordable housing developers; process streamlining vs. code standards; addressing the burdens of parking to help
facilitate housing; and implementing general guidelines.
Additional discussion ensued between staff and Commissioners regarding streamlining the process for developments that are 10 units or fewer for SPR thresholds; condominiums vs. for lease units; parcel maps vs. tentative tract maps; examples in nearby cities; discretion for subdivisions but not for the project; elimination of SPR discretion not the subdivision map act items which are less flexible; the goal to expedite residential development; text amendments; the goal to
eliminate the burden of Planning Commission consideration for small projects; inflammatory comments in the chat; meeting procedures and protocol; off topic comments; differences between live public meetings and virtual meetings; and the Chair’s prerogative.
o0o
Public Hearing Item
Item PH-1
PC - PUBLIC HEARING - General Plan Element Amendment, P2021- 0241-GPE, and Negative Declaration Regarding the 2021 -2029 Housing Element
Lauren Marsiglia, Interim Advance Planning Manager, provided a summary of the material of record; discussed consultant involvement; submission of questions for the consultants; previous Planning Commission and City Council comments; opportunity site outreach; the changes to the Housing
Element; the environmental analysis; initial study; the negative declaration; comments from HCD; and next steps.
Discussion ensued between staff and Commissioners regarding addressing development standards as part of the Housing Element; requiring that two units are built on an R2 lot; Planning Commission
January 6, 2022
implementation after certification of the Housing Element; underlying principals; new development standards and new zoning requirements; approval of the concept with additional details coming forward at future meetings; the requirement to build to the minimum of the underlying zoning; clarification that requests for removal of potential sites by the members of the public who own those sites and indicated no intention of developing the sites were honored; opti ons for the
Commission; the ability of the Commission to recommend
elements; clarification on the 30-day requirement for review of the Housing Element; AB 215; clarification on the CEQA process; the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND); the
timeline for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR); expected adoption of the General Plan Update in Fall 2022 ;
implementation over the three years after adoption; putting existing zones into new land use categories; and Residential Load Density (RLD).
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER REILMAN, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR BARBA
AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Chair Sayles invited public comment.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission:
Stephen Jones noted that the state had asked the City to go further with more density and a commitment to achieving affordable housing programs and outcomes; he asserted that the City’s draft did not go far enough; discussed Culver Center; the inability to count projects unless they are 100% certain; the site inventory; he expressed concern that the Commission had not addressed the state’s critique; concern with overestimating in commercial areas; and concern with not meeting the amount of housing required by the state.
Jamie Wallace acknowledged the hard work of staff; noted misstatements that required correction; discussed
requirements under AB 215; allowing for public input; she noted that the Housing Element rules zoning and that a non - compliant Housing Element could not be adopted; she stated that HCD had indicated that the draft is not compliant with state law; she discussed the certification process; the small amount of housing units generated with the proposed changes to R1; the large amount of speculation in the process; and owner intent.
Planning Commission
January 6, 2022
Carolyn Libuser discussed updates to the Housing Element that have not been clearly presented to the community; the need for more transparency; and she indicated that residents just wanted the ability to participate in the process.
Ruth Martin del Campo, Administrative Clerk, called Sarah Hartley to speak but she was not present in Webex.
Elias Platte-Bermeo expressed concern that more was not done to address the requirements and critique from HCD; he wanted to see the Housing Element do more to aff irmatively further fair housing and more realistically enable housing in e very neighborhood; he wanted to see by-right fourplexes and 100% affordable sixplexes; a commitment to mid-cycle rezoning and density adjustments of estimates that are off -target;
elimination of parking restrictions that prevent affordable housing; ensuring that the Housing Element is a reflection of the values of the City; previous efforts to keep people out of communities; using the Housing Element to right past injustices; and the importance of meeting state requirements.
Ruth Martin del Campo, Administrative Clerk, called Bikram Shakur and Darcy Leslie Parsons to speak but they were not present on Webex.
Jeannine Wisnosky Stehlin discussed reasons to not adopt the resolution; non-compliance with the task from HCD; lack of citizen involvement in the process; inadequate notification; allowing time for residents to review the Element; and she felt that the Housing Element was filled with too many
assumptions.
Michael Ainslie felt that the H ousing Element did not do enough to meet the housing crisis; discussed
misrepresentation of comments from HCD by the public; lack of outreach to low income renters and parts of the community historically left out of the Housing Element process; the importance of comments from HCD about affirmatively
furthering fair housing; providing housing opportunities for low income families throughout the City; easing permitting and design restrictions that prevent housing from being built; the need to end parking mini mums and commit to by - right approval of residential construction; he urged the City to adjust mid -cycle if production is not on track; and he thanked the City for their efforts.
Planning Commission
January 6, 2022
Ruth Martin del Campo, Administrative Clerk, called Gary Guthman to speak but he could not be heard.
Nick Guthman discussed the need to comply with the law to affirmatively further fair housing; easing permitting and design restrictions to allow for the construction of housing; continued opportunity for public input; a nd important
sacrifices that need to be made.
Ruth Martin del Campo, Administrative Clerk, called Bubba Fish, Disa Lindgren and Michael College to speak but they did not respond.
Zachary Brown discussed setting appropriate height limits to accommodate the proposed density to meet Culver City
standards.
Scott Kelly was called to speak but was not present on Webex Ron Harari, Culver Capital, expressed support for the work put into the Housing Element; discussed the importance of new housing at all income levels to keep up with the growth of the City; concern with the length of the timeline to get housing developed in the City; meeting RHNA mandates for 2029; he suggested that the City look for ways to speed up the process; and he expressed concern with no t meeting housing goals for the RHNA cycle.
Ruth Martin del Campo, Administrative Clerk, called Karim Shahabi, Ruth Ann Arbuckle, Tara Barauskas, and John Buck to speak, but they were not present on Webex.
Cindy Bailey provided background on herself; expressed concern with Commissioners who have a conflict of interest; discussed difficulty parking in nearby cities and her
advocacy for Metro in the City; tearing down homeowners who want to welcome people into the City; the importance of working together; and concern with a lack of transparency.
Marta Valdez was called to speak but could not be heard.
Marcus Baisley, Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, asserted that he would be affected by the environmental impacts of the project; discussed the importance of utilizing a local, skilled and trained workforce to reduce impacts and benefit the local economy; he ref erenced Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Action Plan for 2030; successful Planning Commission
January 6, 2022
outcomes in other cities that have adopted policies to use a local skilled and trained workforce; and minimizing Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT).
Melissa Sanders reminded everyone that Culver City is twice as dense per square mile as Denver; discussed a misstatement regarding the significance of the potential for 135 units to be generated by changes to R1 zoning; the ability to meet required numbers without making changes to R1 zoning;
compliance with HCD; inventory being added; clarification on what a neighborhood is; multiplexes going in between single family homes; the City within the City; and inventory on the list that is not going to be redeveloped.
Bryan Sanders discussed the determination that the number of units that could be added in R1 neighborhoods was
insubstantial and not needed to meet RHNA; the inability to adopt a Housing Element that is not in compliance; the need for a letter of substantial compliance from HCD; concern that the public is being misled; legal consequences; people on different sides of the political spectrum in agreement that the Housing Element is not in compliance; and he urged the Planning Commission not to move forward with adoption
Ruth Martin del Campo, Administrative Clerk, called Robin Turner and Daniel Young to speak but they did not respond.
Suzanne DeBenedittis expressed support for hiring locally ; discussed social environmental justice; the theoretical notion of reducing VMTs; the immense carbon load that will go into the environment with the tearing down of existing
housing; preservation; building u p rather than out;
pretending to save carbon; the importance of greenery;
housing in the Target parking lot; focusing housing on Transit Oriented Corridors; and she indicated that she was
considering building microunits on the top of her house to accommodate youth who cannot afford to live in Culver City.
Ronald Boykin commended the Commission and staff for their efforts; provided background on himself; echoed comments made in support of more affordable housing in every neighborhood; discussed accommodating the middle class; confusion as to whether the document is in compliance; and he felt that the Planning Commission was working in good faith.
Gary Guthman provided background on himself; expressed
support for Vice Chair Barba, RHNA goals, and the state-wide Planning Commission
January 6, 2022
initiative; discussed SB 9 and SB 10; affirmatively
furthering fair housing; Housing Element compliance; easing permitting and design restrictions as well as parking
minimums; and he expressed support for by-right fourplexes.
Ruth Martin del Campo, Administrative Clerk, called Disa Lindgren, Marta Valdez, and Daniel Young to speak, but they did not respond.
Sara Hartley expressed concern with a sloppy and non - transparent process; provided background on herself; felt more than data and numbers were involved in the planning process; discussed neighborhood character; the need for specific guidelines; and she wanted to see the correct
information used and evaluated by knowledgeable people.
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER CARTER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OGOSTA
AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Discussion ensued between staff and Commissioners regarding concern with mandating people to build more than their
anticipated scope of work on their own property; the need for more information for certain items; requirements in the code that appear to b e onerous; turning regular people into landlords; by -right, not mandated fourplexes; opening up income streams; concern with putting new housing on busy boulevards; concerns with equity; restrictions with SB 9; addressing concerns with flipping houses and changing the neighborhood; the Neighborhood Multi-Family category; concern with imposing a floor; owners who do not know what they were getting themselves into; long -term grandfathering;
opportunity vs. obligation; support for the mid -cycle
evaluation to allow for course correction if ne cessary; serious concern with falling short of the goal; the letter from HCD; the failed budget amendment; the original scope of work; the need for more analysis of the site data; likelihood of development; concern with how realistic the calculations are; the need to identify more sites; not zoning for the right amount of sites; streamlining; exploration of setting a floor; the already changing nature of neighborhoods in the City; determining what type of community the City wants to be; comments from previous meetings; consistency of themes and concepts; working out the details; achieving goals; the elimination of Culver Crest and the hillside areas; housing opportunities and live/work in the industrial areas; the creative culture in the City; fee waivers for affordable Planning Commission
January 6, 2022
housing projects ; fee concessions to offset the cost of projects; elimination of minimum unit sizes; height limits; accommodating density and intensity; personal choice and property rights; special cir cumstances; concern that one - size-fits-all does not work; the difficulty of getting
housing approved, built and ready for occupancy; concern with the timeline; length of the processes; facilitating housing; prioritizing the zoning ordinance; length of cycles for the General Plan vs. the Housing Element; creation of land use categories without zoning; staffing resources; moving
projects forward; concern with imposing a mandate; the
feeling that fourplexes can be smaller than McMansions; providing opportunities for ownership with condos; the need to commit to a timeline to achieve RHNA goals; the incremental infill option in the plan; feasibility of the fourth unit if it is required to be affordable; the right to personal choice; elegant duplexes in single fam ily neighborhoods; allowing owner discretion; single family residential standards; the proposal for four-units with no lot split; consistency with state law requirements; by-right construction of three units; whether to say that the fourth unit does not have to be affordable; allowing but not mandating people to build four units without requiring affordability; creating equity; not furthering affordable housing; tripling the density on a single family lot; the proposed development at Culver Center; transferring density through the implementation ordina nce; promotion of a robust implementation of SB 9; affirmatively furthering fair housing; clarifying that there is flexibility if one product underperforms; the buffer built into the Housing Element; realistic outcomes; reducing the potential outcome by not requiring affordability of the fourth unit; the breakdown of very very-low, very-low, low, or moderate; the ability to meet the RHNA without the fourth unit in incremental infill; the state directive for equity; equitable distribution of housing througho ut the City; and hardships imposed by the permitting process.
Additional discussion ensued between staff and Commissioners regarding minimum units in residential zones; the Land Use Element; the timeline for the Zoning Code Amendment Review; habitability; the proposed resolution; providing the
recommendation to the City Council in the staff report; modification of the resolution to reflect desired changes; adding a portion of the resolution including the recommended changes of the Commission; providing additional specificity; adding a floor for multi -family housing; eliminating or establishing a different minimum unit size; City Council Planning Commission
January 6, 2022
recommendations; the ability of the Commission to come to consensus; Commission action as a reflection of community approval; and the record of input from the community and the Commission.
Further discussion ensued between staff and Commissioners regarding 4-1 opposition to establishing a 3-4 unit floor for multi-family development in multifamily zones due to
practical difficulties and hardships on individual owners; 4- 1 support for fourplexes by-right through incremental infill with one affordable unit with the one opposing vote indicating that the affordable requirement made the project infeasible; unanimous support for redeveloping shopping centers in
commercial and industrial districts as opportunity sites and offering special development incentives; the mandate to implement SB 9 by state law ; concern with working out the details on how to streamline projects to reduce the timeline for development; revisiting actual processes during the zoning code update; lack of closure on Item A-1; consideration of project streamlining measures before the zoning update; and unanimous support for bringing the streamlining text amendment to the Commission in advance of the City’s
Comprehensive Zoning Update.
o0o
Recess/Reconvene
The Planning Commission called a brief recess from 11:43 p.m. to 11:47 p.m. to allow staff to formulate wording for the motion.
o0o
Item PH-1
(Continued)
PC - PUBLIC HEARING - General Plan Element Amendment, P2021- 0241-GPE, and Negative Declaration Regarding the 2021 -2029 Housing Element
Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director, discussed revised wording in the draft resolution agreed upon by the Commission: oppose support for infill by-right, support fourplexes by-right for incremental infill, support for redeveloping shopping centers in commercial and industrial districts as opportunity sites offering special development incentives, and support for streamlining projects relative to Planning Commission
January 6, 2022
timelines and have staff return with a text amendment prior to the Comprehensive Zoning Amendment.
Discussion ensued between staff and Commissioners regarding clarification that Commission support is for infill fourplex options is as currently drafted in the plan, not as proposed by the City Council; the majority recommendation to maintain the draft as it currently stands in the incremental infill strategy with the fourth unit being affordable; the omission of SB 9 implementation because it is mandated by the state; and staff agreement to make the correction regarding
incremental infill for the General Plan Update (GPU).
MOVED BY CHAIR SAYLES AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER REILMAN THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
1. ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION BASED ON THE INITIAL STUDY
FINDING THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT (ATTACHMENT NO. 2); AND,
2. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2022-P001 (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN ELEMENT AMENDMENT, P2021-0241-GPE REGARDING THE 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT (ATTACHMENT NO. 5); AND,
3. RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE HOUSING ELEMENT
WITH THE CLARIFICATIONS AS SPECIFIED IN THE COMMISSION
DISCUSSION TO MAINTAIN THE FOURTH UNIT STRATEGY AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: CARTER, OGOSTA, REILMAN, SAYLES
NOES: BARBA
o0o
Public Comment - Items NOT on the Agenda (Continued)
Ruth Martin del Campo, Administrative Clerk, reported that no requests to speak had been received.
o0o
Planning Commission
January 6, 2022
Receipt of Correspondence
Ruth Martin del Campo, Administrative Clerk, reported that correspondence received had been distributed to
Commissioners.
o0o
Items from Planning Commissioners/Staff
Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director, indicated that he would email Commissioners regarding items for consideration at upcoming meetings
Discussion ensued between staff and Commissioners regarding the schedule of upcoming meetings.
o0o
Planning Commission
January 6, 2022
Adjournment
There being no further business, at 11:57 p.m., the Culver City Planning Commission adjourned.
o0o
_____________________________________________________________
RUTH MARTIN DEL CAMPO
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK of the CULVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED ____________________
_____________________________________________________________
DANA SAYLES
CHAIR of the CULVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Culver City, California
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that, on the date below written, these minutes were filed in the Office of the City Clerk, Culver City, California and constitute the Official Minutes of said meeting.
________________________ _________________________
Jeremy Green Date
CITY CLERK