i
HOUSING ELEMENT
October 2021-2029
City of Culver City Housing Element
ii
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ ii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. v List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Purpose of the Housing Element ............................................................................................... 1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Public Participation .................................................................................................................... 2 Housing Element Requirements ................................................................................................ 3 Consistency with Other Elements of the General Plan .......................................................... 3 City Council Guiding Principles ................................................................................................. 5 Adoption Hearings...................................................................................................................... 5 Housing Needs Assessment ....................................................................................................... 6 Population Trends & Characteristics ......................................................................................... 6 Growth Trends ...................................................................................................................... 6 Age Composition ................................................................................................................ 7 Race and Ethnicity .............................................................................................................. 9 Employment .............................................................................................................................. 10 Current Employment ......................................................................................................... 10 Jobs-Housing Balance ...................................................................................................... 11 Household Characteristics ....................................................................................................... 12 Household Types ................................................................................................................ 12 Tenure ................................................................................................................................. 13 Household Income ............................................................................................................ 13 Housing Stock Characteristics ................................................................................................. 15 Housing Type and Growth Trends .................................................................................... 15 Housing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 17 Housing Costs & Affordability Gap Analysis ........................................................................... 20 Home Values ...................................................................................................................... 20 Rental Housing ................................................................................................................... 21 Housing Affordability Gap Analysis .................................................................................. 22 Housing Assistance Needs ....................................................................................................... 24 Housing Cost Burden ......................................................................................................... 24 Overcrowding .................................................................................................................... 26
City of Culver City Housing Element
iii
Special Needs .................................................................................................................... 27 Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion ................................................................................... 36 Overview of Assisted and At Risk Units ............................................................................ 36 At Risk Status ....................................................................................................................... 36 Cost Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 37 Resources and Opportunities .................................................................................................. 38 Overview of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment ........................................................ 38 2021-2029 RHNA for Culver City ....................................................................................... 38 Inventory of Sites for Housing Development................................................................... 39 Financial and Administrative Resources ................................................................................ 40 State and Federal Resources ........................................................................................... 40 Local Resources ................................................................................................................. 41 Public/Private Partnerships ............................................................................................... 42 Energy Conservation Opportunities ....................................................................................... 42 Constraints ................................................................................................................................. 44 Governmental Constraints ...................................................................................................... 44 Transparency in Development Regulations ................................................................... 44 Land Use Plans and Regulations ...................................................................................... 44 Development Processing Procedures ............................................................................. 64 Planning and Development Fees .................................................................................... 68 On- and Off-Site Improvements ....................................................................................... 73 Non-Governmental Constraints .............................................................................................. 74 Environmental Constraints ................................................................................................ 74 Infrastructure Constraints .................................................................................................. 74 Land Costs .......................................................................................................................... 76 Construction Costs ............................................................................................................ 76 Timing and Density ............................................................................................................ 76 Financing and Foreclosures ............................................................................................. 77 Housing Plan .............................................................................................................................. 79 Goals, Objectives and Policies................................................................................................ 79 Housing Programs ..................................................................................................................... 85 Measure 1. Programs to Enhance Housing Affordability............................................... 85 Measure 2. Programs to Address Special Housing Needs ............................................ 87 Measure 3. Programs to Improve Housing and Neighborhood Conditions ................ 88 Measure 4. Programs to Facilitate Additional Housing ................................................. 88
City of Culver City Housing Element
iv
Measure 5. Programs to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing ...................................... 91 Measure 6. Programs to be Initiated or Reinstated with Additional Funding ............. 94
Appendix B: Residential Sites Inventory ................................................................................. B-1 Overview ............................................................................................................................. B-1 Progress Toward RHNA ...................................................................................................... B-1 Opportunity Sites ................................................................................................................ B-2 Incremental Infill ................................................................................................................. B-4 Infilling Single-Family Neighborhoods .............................................................................. B-4 Estimating Capacity for RHNA ......................................................................................... B-6 Inventory of Sites ................................................................................................................ B-8 Conditions of Existing Nonresidential Uses ...................................................................... B-8 Average development density ...................................................................................... B-10 Intensifying Existing Multi-Family Neighborhoods ......................................................... B-11 Integrating Residential Uses in Commercial and Industrial Areas .............................. B-12 Summary ........................................................................................................................... B-15 Environmental Constraints .............................................................................................. B-18 Availability of Infrastructure and Water and Sewer Services ...................................... B-18 Review of 5th Cycle Sites Inventory ............................................................................... B-47 Outcome of the 5th Cycle Sites Inventory .................................................................... B-47 Benchmarking Against Outcome of the 5th Cycle Sites Inventory ............................ B-48
Appendix D: Public Participation ......................................................................................... D-1 Overview ............................................................................................................................ D-1 Engagement Summary .................................................................................................... D-2 Appendix E: Fair Housing Assessment .................................................................................... E-1 Overview of AB 686 ........................................................................................................... E-1 Assessment of Fair Housing Issues ..................................................................................... E-2 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach ....................................................................... E-2
City of Culver City Housing Element
v
Integration and Segregation ............................................................................................ E-5 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty ................................................ E-29 Access to Opportunities .................................................................................................. E-42 Disproportionate Housing Needs ................................................................................... E-64 Historical Trends and Other Relevant Factors ............................................................... E-90 Summary of Fair Housing Issues ...................................................................................... E-94 Identification and Prioritization of Contributing Factors .............................................. E-96 Lack of Housing Opportunities in High Resource Areas and Housing Mobility ......... E-96 Displacement Risk of Low Income Residents Due to Economic Pressures ................ E-97 Substandard housing Conditions ................................................................................... E-97
List of Tables
Table 1: Population Trends in Culver City, Westside Cities, and Los Angeles County ......... 7 Table 2: Culver City Projected Population, Household, and Employment Trends .............. 7 Table 3: Culver City Age Characteristics and Trends ............................................................. 8 Table 4: Culver City Demographic Breakdown and Trends by Race and Ethnicity ........... 9 Table 5: Employment by Sector in Culver City and LA County ........................................... 11 Table 6: Culver City Jobs to Housing Ratio ............................................................................ 12 Table 7: Number of Households by Type in Culver City ........................................................ 13 Table 8: Occupied Units by Tenure in Culver City and LA County ...................................... 13 Table 9: Median Household Income in Culver City and LA County ................................... 14 Table 10: HCD Income Categories ......................................................................................... 14 Table 11: Household Distribution by Income Category in Culver City and LA County..... 15 Table 12: Westside Cities Housing Growth ............................................................................. 15 Table 13: Number of Housing Units by Type in Culver City ................................................... 16 Table 14: Number of Housing Units by Size in Culver City ..................................................... 16 Table 15: Culver City Vacancy Statuses ................................................................................ 17 Table 16: Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities .. 19 Table 17: Change in Typical Home Values in Culver City .................................................... 21 Table 18: Median Rent by Unit Size in Culver City (June 2021) ............................................ 21 Table 19: Comparison of Median Rent by Unit Size for Westside Cities (2019) .................. 21 Table 20: Housing Affordability Matrix - LA County (2020) ................................................... 23 Table 21: Housing Problems and Cost Burden in Culver City by Income and Tenure ...... 25 Table 22: Housing Problems and Cost Burden in Los Angeles County by Income and Tenure ........................................................................................................................................ 26 Table 23: Overcrowding by Tenure in Culver City (2019) ..................................................... 27 Table 24: Culver City's Special Needs Populations/Households (2019) .............................. 28 Table 25: Population with Disabilities in Culver City (2019) ................................................... 28 Table 26: Disability Type by Age in Culver City (2019) .......................................................... 29 Table 27: Senior Population and Household Shares in Culver City ...................................... 30
City of Culver City Housing Element
vi
Table 28: Households with Children in Culver City ................................................................ 32 Table 29: Point-in-Time Homeless Population Counts in Culver City and LA County ........ 34 Table 30: ELI Households by Type and Tenure in Culver City (2017) ................................... 35 Table 31: 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Assessment for Culver City ......................... 38 Table 32: RHNA Capacity Under Current and General Plan Preferred Land Use Map .... 39 Table 33: Current Residential Land Use Categories - Culver City General Plan ................ 45 Table 34: Draft Preferred Land Use Map Designations - 2045 General Plan ...................... 45 Table 35: Permitted Residential Development by Zone ....................................................... 49 Table 36: Development Standards in Residential Zones ...................................................... 50 Table 37: Mixed-Use Development Standards ...................................................................... 52 Table 38: Residential Parking Requirements .......................................................................... 54 Table 39: Planning Permit Processing Times ........................................................................... 67 Table 40: Comparison of Planning Fees for Westside Cities ................................................. 69 Table 41: Summary of Fees for a Typical Mixed-Use Development at 11924 Washington Blvd ............................................................................................................................................. 70 Table 42: Road Improvement Standards ............................................................................... 74 Table 43: Home Purchase and Improvement Loan Applications in Culver City (2018) ... 78 Table 44: Quantified Objectives ............................................................................................. 85 Table 45: Program Implementation Summary - 2021-2029 .................................................. 95
City of Culver City Housing Element
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Culver City Population Share by Age ....................................................................... 8 Figure 2: Age Composition of Culver City's Housing Stock .................................................. 18 Figure 3: Westside Cities Median Home Values (2019) ......................................................... 20 Figure 4: Household Size in Culver City and LA County by Tenure...................................... 31 Figure 5: Preferred Land Use Map - 2045 General Plan ........................................................ 46
Table E- 1: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends - Urban County and Los Angeles County .. E-8 Table E- 2: Racial/Ethnic Composition of LA County, Culver City and Neighboring Cities ................................................................................................................................................... E-9 Table E- 3: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends - Culver City ................................................. E-10 Table E- 4: Change in Racial/Ethnic Composition (2010-2019) ........................................ E-10 Table E- 5: Distribution of RHNA Units by Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentration ............ E-11 Table E- 6: Distribution of RHNA Units by Population of Persons with Disabilities ............. E-16 Table E- 7: Change in Household Type Composition (2010-2019) ................................... E-21 Table E- 8: Distribution of RHNA Units by Children in Married Couple Households ......... E-22 Table E- 9: Distribution of RHNA Units by Children in Female-Headed Households ....... E-23 Table E- 10: Income Distribution in Culver City and Los Angeles County ....................... E-28 Table E- 11: Breakdown of RHNA Units by LMI Population ................................................ E-29 Table E- 12: Poverty Status by Race/Ethnicity and Disability Status ................................. E-32 Table E- 13: Distribution of RHNA Units by Median Income .............................................. E-35 Table E- 14: Domains and Indicators for Opportunity Maps ............................................. E-40 Table E- 15: HUD Opportunity Indicators ............................................................................ E-41 Table E- 16: TCAC Opportunity Map Scores by Census Tract .......................................... E-42 Table E- 17: Distribution of RHNA Units by TCAC Opportunity Score ............................... E-43 Table E- 18: Distribution of RHNA Units by CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score ............................. E-52 Table E- 19: Housing Problems by Race/Ethnicity .............................................................. E-59 Table E- 20: Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity - Los Angeles County .................................. E-60 Table E- 21: Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity - Culver City ................................................. E-61 Table E- 22: Distribution of RHNA Units by Percent of Cost Burdened Owners ............... E-61 Table E- 23: Distribution of RHNA Units by Percent of Cost Burdened Renters ............... E-62 Table E- 24: Overcrowding by Tenure ................................................................................. E-67 Table E- 25: Incomplete Plumbing or Kitchen Facilities ..................................................... E-71 Table E- 26: Housing Stock Age ........................................................................................... E-72 Table E- 27: Homeless Population Demographics (2019-2020) ........................................ E-78 Table E- 28: Homeless Populations and Special Needs Groups ....................................... E-79 Table E- 29: Homeless Count Data by Census Tract ......................................................... E-83 Table E- 30: CES Assessments by Type and Services.......................................................... E-83 Table E- 31: Summary of Fair Housing Issues ....................................................................... E-88
City of Culver City Housing Element
viii
Figure E- 1: Public Housing Building, FHEO Inquiries, and HCVS ......................................................... E-7 Figure E- 2: Regional Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentrations ........................................................... E-12 Figure E- 3: Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentrations (2010) ................................................................ E-13 Figure E- 4: Minority Concentrations and RHNA Sites (2018) ............................................................. E-14 Figure E- 5: Regional Concentration of Persons with Disabilities ...................................................... E-17 Figure E- 6: Concentration of Persons with Disabilities (2014) ........................................................... E-18 Figure E- 7: Persons with Disabilities and RHNA Sites (2019) .............................................................. E-19 Figure E- 8: Households with Children - LA County, Culver City, and Neighboring Cities ............. E-21 Figure E- 9: Regional Concentration of Children in Married Couple Households .......................... E-24 Figure E- 10: Regional Concentration of Children in Female-Headed Households ...................... E-25 Figure E- 11: Concentration of Children in Married Couple Households and RHNA Sites ............ E-26 Figure E- 12: Concentration of Children in Female-Headed Households and RHNA Sites ........... E-27 Figure E- 13: Regional Concentration of LMI Households ................................................................. E-30 Figure E- 14: Concentration of LMI Households .................................................................................. E-31 Figure E- 15: R/ECAPS, TCAC Areas of High Segregation and Poverty, and Poverty Status ......... E-33 Figure E- 17: Predominant Racial/Ethnic Populations ........................................................................ E-36 Figure E- 18: Regional Median Income by Block Group ................................................................... E-37 Figure E- 19: Racial/Ethnic Minority Populations and Median Income by Block Group ............... E-38 Figure E- 20: Regional TCAC Opportunity Areas (Final Category) ................................................... E-44 Figure E- 21: TCAC Opportunity Areas (Final Category) and Sites Inventory ................................. E-45 Figure E- 22: Regional TCAC Economic Scores .................................................................................. E-47 Figure E- 23: TCAC Economic Scores ................................................................................................... E-48 Figure E- 24: Regional TCAC Education Scores .................................................................................. E-49 Figure E- 25: TCAC Education Scores .................................................................................................. E-50 Figure E- 26: Regional TCAC Environmental Scores ........................................................................... E-53 Figure E- 27: TCAC Environmental Scores ........................................................................................... E-54 Figure E- 28: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores and RHNA Sites ................................................................. E-55 Figure E- 29: Regional Jobs Proximity Indices and HQTAS ................................................................. E-57 Figure E- 30: Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group ............................................................................. E-58 Figure E- 31: (A) Overpayment by Homeowners (2010-2014) .......................................................... E-63 Figure E- 32: (A) Overpayment by Renters (2010-2014)..................................................................... E-65 Figure E- 33: Regional Concentration of Overcrowded Households .............................................. E-68 Figure E- 34: (A) Overcrowded Households by Census Tract ........................................................... E-69 Figure E- 35: Median Year Structure Built by Census Tract ................................................................ E-72 Figure E- 36: Regional Communities at Risk of Displacement ........................................................... E-74 Figure E- 37: Sensitive Communities at Risk of Displacement ........................................................... E-75 Figure E- 38: Los Angeles County Homeless Population PIT Count Trend (2015-2020) ................... E-76 Figure E- 39: Los Angeles County Homeless Count Density (2020) .................................................. E-77 Figure E- 40: Los Angeles CoC Homeless Population by Race/Ethnicity ......................................... E-79 Figure E- 41: Los Angeles CoC Homeless Population by Age ........................................................... E-80 Figure E- 42: Culver City Homeless Population PIT Count Trend (2016-2020) .................................. E-81 Figure E- 43: Culver City Homeless Population Summary .................................................................. E-82 Figure E- 44: Regional Redlining Map – Los Angeles County and Vicinity (1939) .......................... E-86 Figure E- 45: Redlining Map – Culver City and Vicinity (1939) .......................................................... E-87
1 Introduction
Incorporated in 1917, Culver City is centrally located between Venice Beach and Marina Del Rey to the west and downtown Los Angeles. Culver City is a community of just under 40,000 residents and measures approximately five square miles in area.
According to the City’s 2019-2020 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Culver City’s top employers include Sony Pictures Entertainment, the Westfield Shopping Mall, Southern California Hospital at Culver City, Culver City Unified School District, City of Culver City, Target, and West Los Angeles College. Once their development projects are complete, Apple, Amazon Studios, and HBO will likely join that list.
Today, Culver City is a destination filled with outdoor cafes, unique shops and galleries opening onto pedestrian- friendly boulevards, nationally recognized historic buildings, media facilities, creative offices, transit-oriented development, and the Hayden Tract, which serves as a creative industries hub. Throughout its history, Culver City has maintained a small-town atmosphere for its community members, preserved single- and two-family neighborhoods, and nurtured medium-density multiple-family apartments and condominiums.
Purpose of the Housing Element
The Housing Element’s purpose is to identify the City’s housing needs and outline goals, policies, and programs to address them. The Housing Element is an eight-year plan, extending from October 15, 2021, through October 15, 2029. The Housing Element will primarily address these issues: 1) preserving and improving the existing housing stock, 2) providing housing for special needs populations, 3) supplying enough new housing to meet the City’s fair share of the region’s need, and 4) affirmatively furthering fair housing.
Overview
State law requires that jurisdictions prepare a Housing Element as part of its General Plan, which the State also requires (Government Code §65302(c)). Since a General Plan serves as a jurisdiction’s blueprint for future development and growth, the Housing Element plays a critical role in the overall Plan. A Housing Element is the primary planning guide for local jurisdictions to identify and prioritize the housing needs of the City and determine ways to best meet these needs while balancing community objectives and resources.
The 2021-2029 Housing Element has five chapters: 1) Introduction, 2) Housing Needs Assessment, 3) Resources and Opportunities, 4) Constraints, 5) Housing Plan, and Appendices. Appendix A evaluates the 2013-2021 Housing Element and Appendix B contains background information on the City’s inventory of sites for housing development. Appendix C identifies affordable housing units that are at risk of converting to market rate during the next ten years and outlines potential resources and methods that could be used to preserve their affordability. Appendix D summarizes
City of Culver City Housing Element
2 the public participation program and Appendix E lists the Acronyms used throughout the Housing Element.
Importantly, the Housing Element quantifies how many new housing units the city needs to accommodate growth in the region as part of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The State and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) (our metropolitan planning organization) carry out this process and allocates to each jurisdiction a share of California’s new housing need based on the community’s demographic trends, proximity to transit and employment, and other characteristics. As part of the Housing Element, the City must identify adequate land with appropriate zoning and development standards to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation.
When preparing the Housing Element, jurisdictions must consider California Department of Housing and Community Development’s Guidelines (Government Code §65585).
Jurisdictions must periodically review the Housing Element to evaluate (1) the appropriateness of its goals, objectives and policies in meeting the state’s housing goals, (2) its effectiveness in attaining the City's housing goals and objectives and (3) the progress of its implementation (Government Code §65588).
Public Participation
The 2021-2029 Housing Element update (6th cycle) is being prepared as part of the comprehensive update to the Culver City 2045 General Plan. Outreach and public participation materials are available on the dedicated website:
www.pictureculvercity.com, which will be summarized in Appendix D. Throughout the General Plan update process, numerous opportunities were afforded the public to discuss housing-related issues. These included:
• Interactive Project Website
• Educational Forum Video Series that includes a video on existing housing conditions and a related microsurvey (https://www.pictureculvercity.com/latest- news/ecr-housing)
• Online public input for the draft Housing Element
(https://www.pictureculvercity.com/housing-element)
• Stakeholder and Community Leader Meetings
• General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) Meetings
• Housing Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meetings
• Advisory Committee on Housing and Homelessness Meeting • Community Workshops + Festivals
• Pop-Up Workshops + Community Events
• Online Engagement + Surveys
Key public participation events and comments received related to the Housing Element are summarized in Appendix D. The Draft Housing Element was made available for public review between July 19 and October 1, 2021. In response to public comments, changes made to the Draft Housing Element included:
• Expanded the needs assessment with additional technical information, including providing a regional comparison
City of Culver City Housing Element
3 • Expanded the sites inventory to include additional opportunities in mixed use areas and multi-family areas
• Refined the estimated potential in the Incremental Infill areas based on a study of the recycling trend in single-family neighborhoods
• Removed neighborhoods that currently prohibit accessory dwelling units due to high fire hazards and topological constraints from the Incremental Infill designation
• Increased commitments to quantified objectives for constructing new housing • Expanded City efforts to explore affordable housing tools and best practices, including:
o ADU pre-approved standard plans
o Right to Return program
• Included the Permit Streamlining and Monitoring program that will increase the unit threshold that triggers discretionary site plan review • Expanded the Property Acquisition and Rehabilitation Program • Included a program to explore the feasibility of establishing a Community Land Trust
Housing Element Requirements
All Housing Elements must comply with several State laws. The preparation of the Housing Element is guided by California Government Code, Article 10.6. The law governing the contents of Housing Elements is among the most detailed of all elements of the General Plan. According to Section 65583 of the Government Code:
The Housing Element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The Housing Element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, and emergency shelters, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community.
Consistency with Other Elements of the General Plan
Housing is considered in other General Plan elements, such as land use, mobility, and environmental justice. For example, this Housing Element relies on the Preferred Land Use Map of the General Plan update to provide adequate sites for RHNA. As portions of the General Plan are amended in the future, the General Plan (including the Housing Element) will be reviewed to ensure internal consistency is maintained. The objectives and measures of the 2021–2029 Housing Element will not conflict with any of the objectives found in other elements of the City’s General Plan. Some examples of how the Housing Element is consistent with other Elements of the General Plan are discussed below.
A new requirement enacted since the fifth Housing Element cycle is Senate Bill 1000 (SB 1000). SB 1000 requires policies to ensure healthy and safe housing, such as addressing
City of Culver City Housing Element
4 the presence of lead-based building materials, which has shown to be a factor in Culver City's SB 1000 priority neighborhoods (portions of Clarkdale and Culver/West).
This will be addressed in the General Plan's Equity, Community Health, and Environmental Justice Element and be consistent with Objective 1 in the Housing Element. Similarly, ensuring low-income and senior housing are sufficiently upgraded to protect those residents from climate and hazard impacts is considered in the Safety Element. This helps advance Objective 1 in the Housing Element.
Other sections in the General Plan include goals and actions related to Objectives 1 and 5 in the Housing Element. For example, the Safety Element discusses how housing units damaged during natural disasters will be repaired or replaced during rebuilding and recovery efforts such that they advance the General Plan’s policies, objectives. It also states that the City will prioritize retrofitting more vulnerable structures to seismic activity, including lower-income housing. These goals in the Safety Element align with Objective 1 in the Housing Element. The Equity, Community Health, and Environmental Justice Element also discusses the need to reduce economic uncertainty by protecting vulnerable households from economic and housing displacement. This aligns with Objective 5 in the Housing Element.
The Arts and Culture and the Economic Development Elements in the General Plan include goals, policies, and actions related to Objectives 3, 4, and 6 in the Housing Element. The Arts and Culture Element considers the high and rising costs of space and housing for the creative sector and how to ensure that Culver City offers affordable live/work spaces for artists and creatives. This aligns with Objective 4 in the Housing Element. The Economic Development Element discusses the community’s job and housing imbalance, consistent with Objective 6 in the Housing Element, and considers how community benefit agreements can support the City’s housing planning and development strategies. It also includes a goal to streamline the development process to increase the potential for housing and mixed-uses. Part of that strategy includes adaptive re-use development, which is aligned with Objective 3 in the Housing Element. These considerations related to development in the Economic Development Element align with Objective 4 in the Housing Element.
Objective 2 in the Housing Element is considered in other sections in the General Plan.
The Mobility Element includes a goal around creating transit-oriented communities in which residents and workers have equitable and affordable access to transit and other mobility services through mobility planning in travel demand management and transit- oriented districts, and transit-oriented development. Additionally, the Infrastructure Element discusses maintaining, upgrading, and expanding the community’s utility and infrastructure networks to support new development and growth. The Noise Element considers how to protect existing and future residents from noise impacts from development. These considerations relate to Objective 2 in the Housing Element.
Senate Bill (SB) 1087 of 2005 (Government Code §65589.7) requires Cities to provide a copy of the adopted Housing Element to local water and sewer providers, and also requires that these agencies provide priority hookups for developments with lower- income housing. The Housing Element will be provided to these agencies immediately upon adoption.
City of Culver City Housing Element
5 City Council Guiding Principles
On April 12, 2021, the City of Culver City City Council adopted a set of Housing Element Guiding Principles, with the intention to aim higher than the State requirements and guidelines, to inform the adoption and implementation of this Housing Element.
Resolution No. 2021-R034 established these Guiding Principles and is included in Appendix D. This draft Housing Element is informed by the Guiding Principles and has been revised based on public comment received as of this drafting related to the Principles.
Adoption Hearings
The City of Culver City conducted four public meetings to consider adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element, which was revised to address HCD and public comments.
The City conducted two study sessions on the Revised Draft Housing Element before the Planning Commission (November 30, 2021) and the City Council (December 10, 2021).
The Revised Draft Housing Element was available for public review on November 24, 2021 prior to the Planning Commission meeting and on December 7, prior to the December 10, 2021 City Council meeting.
On January 6, 2022, the City conducted a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider recommending the Housing Element for City Council adoption.
On January 24, 2022, the City Council conducted a public hearing and adopted the 2021-2029 Housing Element. The Final Draft Housing Element was available for public review on December 29, 2021 prior to the Planning Commission hearing and on January 20, 2022 prior to the City Council hearing. Emails notifying all commenters were sent pursuant to AB 215.
City of Culver City Housing Element
6 Housing Needs Assessment
This chapter examines the City’s general population and household characteristics and trends, such as age, employment, household composition and size, household income, and special needs. Characteristics of the existing housing stock (e.g., number of units and type, tenure, age and condition, and costs) are also addressed. Finally, the City’s projected housing growth needs based on the 2021 RHNA are examined. The Housing Needs Assessment uses the most recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS), data compiled by SCAG, Department of Finance (DOF) Housing and Population data, and other sources such as the Westside Regional Center (WRC) which serves persons with developmental disabilities.
Many of the data sets in this chapter rely on ACS rather than Decennial Census data.
Most data produced from the Decennial Census result from a “short form” questionnaire mailed to all known residential addresses. The short form asks for limited information. Most of the data needed to provide a profile of the City’s characteristics are found in the ACS which is released annually. The data are extrapolated from a “long form” questionnaire which is mailed out to a random cross-section of the population. It provides a more detailed picture of the City’s population, housing, income, economic, and employment characteristics. This detailed information cannot always be found in the Decennial Census data sets.
Population Trends & Characteristics
Growth Trends
Following its incorporation in 1917, Culver City’s population grew rapidly. Culver City had its most dramatic population increase in the decade after it incorporated when the City’s population grew from 503 to 5,669 (1,027% increase). The following decades saw continued rapid population growth and the City’s population was about 32,000 in 1960.
However, the population growth rate began declining after 1960. Between 1970 and 1980, the population growth rate decreased to 7.1% and has remained below 2% since the 1990s. The DOF estimates that as of April 2020, Culver City’s population was 39,075, representing a 0.7% growth since 2000 (see Table 1). This trend contrasts with other Westside cities and Los Angeles County, which grew by 5.0% and 6.9% between 2000 and 2020, respectively. As an essentially built-out community, there have been few opportunities for growth during the last 30 years, except through redevelopment and urban infill.
City of Culver City Housing Element
7 Table 1: Population Trends in Culver City, Westside Cities, and Los Angeles County Population by Year % Change
Jurisdiction 2000 2010 2020 2000-2010 2010-2020 2000-2020 Culver City 38,816 38,883 39,075 0.2 0.5 0.7
Westside Cities* 192,400 197,127 202,040 2.5 2.5 5.0 Los Angeles County 9,519,338 9,818,605 10,172,951 3.1 3.6 6.9 Sources: BOC, 2000 & 2010 Census; DOF, Table E-1, 2020
*Note: Westside Cities includes Culver City, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and West Hollywood.
Table 2 shows population, household, and employment projections for Culver City for the years 2020, 2035, and 2045 based on data compiled and analyzed by SCAG using 2016 as the base year for the projections. According to SCAG, the City’s estimated population in 2020 would be 40,257, which is slightly higher than HCD’s certified 2020 estimates shown in Table 2. The population’s growth rate is expected to increase over the next 25 years to 3.3%. With a low expected population growth rate, the number of households is also not expected to increase by a significant amount (868 households, or
5.1%). However, the projected increase in new jobs over the same period is 3,759 jobs or
6.2%.
Table 2: Culver City Projected Population, Household, and Employment Trends Jurisdiction 2020 2035 2045 Growth (%)
2020-2045
Population 40,257 41,011 41,573 3.3
Households 17,146 17,675 18,014 5.1
Employment 60,312 62,303 64,071 6.2
Source: SCAG, 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Data/Map Book, 2017.
However, 2045 General Plan reexamines the City’s land use distribution and intensity of uses. The Preferred Land Use Map provides increased opportunities for residential growth – estimated 11,500 net new units (about 67% increase) between 2019 baseline and planning horizon of the General Plan by 2045.
Age Composition
The age characteristics of residents partially influence Culver City’s housing needs.
Persons of different ages often have different lifestyles, family structures, and income levels that affect their housing preferences and ability to afford housing. Typically, young adult households may occupy apartments, condominiums, and smaller single- family homes because of size and affordability. Middle-aged adults, those between the ages of 45 and 64, may prefer larger homes as they begin to raise their families. In contrast, seniors (aged 65 and older) may prefer apartments, condominiums, mobile homes, or smaller single-family homes that have lower costs and less extensive maintenance needs. Moreover, housing needs also change over time as people age.
As a result, evaluating changes in the age groups in a community can provide insight into changing housing needs in Culver City.
Table 3 shows that the median age of residents in Culver City increased notably from
40.5 to 42.3 from 2010 to 2019. While the median age of Los Angeles County residents is
City of Culver City Housing Element
8 significantly lower than Culver City, it has also increased over the same period. The City’s population between the ages of 25 and 44 is the fastest-growing age group, having increased by 28% from 2010 to 2019. In contrast, the population of middle-aged adults decreased significantly by 18% while the senior population (age 65 and older) increased by 12%. Table 3 shows the changes in the population shares by age and that the share of adults increased most notably, and the share of middle-aged adults decreased. These changes reflect a community that is attracting young adults but not families as the share of children aged 18 and under decreased. In contrast, seniors were the fastest growing population group in the County and there was a very slight decrease in the young adult population County-wide.
Table 3: Culver City Age Characteristics and Trends
Age
2010 Estimates 2019 Estimates 2010-2019
% Change
# %
LA
County
%
# %
LA
County
%
Culver
City
LA
County
0-19 (children) 8,023 21 28 7,745 20 25 -3.5 -13.1
20-24 (college) 2,000 5 8 1,936 5 7 -3.2 -5.3
25-44 (adults) 9,056 23 30 11,586 30 30 27.9 -1.3
45-64 (middle age) 13,998 36 24 11,426 29 25 -18.4 6.8
65+ (seniors) 5,806 15 11 6,476 17 13 11.5 26.7
Total 38,883 100 100 39,169 100 100 0.7 3.3
Median Age 40.5 - 34.3 42.3 - 36.5 - -
Sources: BOC, Census, 2010; 2015-2019 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Table S0101 Figure 1. Culver City Population Share by Age
Sources: BOC, Census, 2010; 2015-2019 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Table S0101
City of Culver City Housing Element
9 Race and Ethnicity
Cultural practices sometimes influence housing needs and preferences and the nation’s demographics are becoming increasingly diverse by race and ethnicity. Culver City also reflected these trends, with 39% of the population identifying as non-White (Table 4). However, Culver City is somewhat less diverse than Los Angeles County as a whole, where 49% of the population is non-White. Further, 24% of Culver City residents identified as Hispanic or Latino, compared with 49% of Los Angeles County residents.
As shown in Table 4, White residents made up the largest racial group in Culver City at 61% in 2019. Asians made up 16% of the population and Black residents comprised 9% of the population. The population of Black residents and residents categorized as “All Others” declined by 18% and 28%, respectively. Similarly, the population of Black residents and residents categorized as “All Others” declined in the County as a whole (by 4% and 3%, respectively). Meanwhile, the population of Asian residents and residents indicating two or more races increased by 12% and 24%, respectively.
Countywide, the population of Asian residents and residents indicated two or more races also increased (by 10% and 30.1%, respectively). The population of Hispanic or Latino origin increased by 2% between 2010 and 2019. Countywide, the population of Hispanic or Latino origin residents increased by 6%.
Table 4: Culver City Demographic Breakdown and Trends by Race and Ethnicity Racial and Ethnic
Category
2010 2019 2010-2019
% Change
# % LA
County
%
# % LA
County
%
Culver
City
LA
Count
y
Race
White 23,033 59 51 23,981 61 51 4.1 4.2
Asian 5,736 15 14 6,396 16 15 11.5 9.9
Black or African
American 4,173 11 9 3,429 9 8 -17.8 -3.8
Two or more races 2,185 6 3 2,707 7 4 23.9 30.1
All Others1 3,700 10 24 2,656 7 22 -28.2 -3.4
Total 38,827 100 100 39,169 100 100 0.9 3.3
Ethnic Identity
Hispanic or Latino
(of any race) 9,118 23 47 9,291 24 49 1.9 6.3
Not Hispanic or
Latino 29,709 77 53 29,878 76 52 0.6 0.7
White 18,314 47 28 17,937 46 26 -2.1 -4.7
Asian 5,680 15 14 6,329 16 14 11.4 9.9
Black or African
American 4,043 10 9 3,403 9 8 -15.8 -4.4
All Others1 288 1 1 312 1 1 8.3 9.5
Two or more races 1,384 4 2 1,897 5 2 37.1 38.9
Sources: BOC,2006-2010 & 2015-2019 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05 Note: 1. All Others includes residents that identified as American Indian and Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and “Some other race.”
City of Culver City Housing Element
10 Employment
Employment is an important factor affecting housing needs within a community. The jobs available in each employment sector and the wages for these jobs affect the type and size of housing residents can afford.
Current Employment
Current employment has a significant influence on the housing needs of the City’s residents. Factors which may influence housing needs include the income earned for various jobs, where jobs are located, and whether employees are able to afford to live within a reasonable distance of their workplace. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, the City had an employed population (or workforce) of 22,132 persons. Four of the top five industries in Culver City match those in the County, except that for the City, information is the top sector, with 19% of the job share. Four of the top five industries in Culver City match those in the County, except that for the City, Information is the top sector, with 19% of the job share.
Table 5 shows that the two industries with the largest number of employed Culver City residents were educational services and health care and social assistance (23% of total) and professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services (21% of total).
While the majority of Culver City’s employed residents (54%) are employed in the top three industries, the jobs available within Culver City are more evenly spread out among industries (Table 5). Educational services, healthcare, and social service jobs constitute only 15% of the jobs in Culver City (compared to 23% of the workforce). Most notably, the largest job sector in Culver City is information (19% of total jobs), but only 9% of the City’s population work in this industry. The top city employers are also generally consistent with the most prevalent industries within Culver City: Sony (Arts and Entertainment), Culver City Unified School District and West LA College (Education), Southern California Hospital at Culver City (Healthcare services), and Westfield Shopping Mall (Retail).
Culver City’s employment industry patterns are similar to those in Los Angeles County.
Four of the top five industries in Culver City match those in the County, except that for the City, Information is the top sector, with 19% of the job share.
City of Culver City Housing Element
11 Table 5: Employment by Sector in Culver City and LA County Sector Culver City (%) LA County
(%)
Workforce1 Jobs2 Jobs3
Educational services, and health care and social
assistance 23 15 18
Professional, scientific, and management, and
administrative and waste management services 21 18 16
Information 9 19 7
Service-related
Arts, entertainment, recreation, and
accommodation/food services 10 11 14
Retail trade 7 12 11
Other services, except public administration 4 5 4
Technical skilled and unskilled
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and
leasing 9 4 6
Manufacturing 6 6 9
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 3 2 5
Construction 2 4 3
Public administration 3 2 N/A
Wholesale trade 2 2 7
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 0.2 0.3 0.12 Total 22,132 49,935 3,871,716
Sources: 1. BOC, 2015-2019 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Table S2405; 2. Census Transportation Planning Products 2012-2016; 3. Los Angeles County Business Patterns, 2016 Jobs-Housing Balance
A regional balance of jobs-to-housing helps to ensure that the demand for housing is reasonably related to supply. When the number of jobs significantly exceeds the housing supply, the rental and for-sale housing markets may become overheated, requiring households to pay a larger share of their income on housing and resulting in overcrowding and longer commutes as workers seek more affordable housing in outlying areas.
Jobs to housing ratios related the spatial match between jobs and housing and are often used as indicators of economic vitality and quality of life. High ratios of more jobs than housing may lead to issues of housing unaffordability and traffic congestion from commutes, as there is not enough housing to accommodate all the workers in the area.
However, there is no standard jobs-housing ratio that would be considered optimum. It is often used as a point of reference compared to regional averages. Table 6 shows that the jobs-to-housing ratio in Culver City was 2.8 in 2016. This is much higher than the balance of the County as a whole, which was about 1.3.1 Based on the SCAG housing and employment growth estimates, the jobs to housing ratio is also predicted to increase over the next 25 years. However, these statistics do not reflect the fact that
1 SCAG, Profile of Los Angeles County, Local Profiles Report 2019, May 2019. http://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/LosAngelesCountyLP.pdf
City of Culver City Housing Element
12 many people who work in Culver City live in nearby Westside locations and commute relatively short distances to Culver City jobs. This could mean the workforce living nearby could offset the imbalanced jobs-to-housing ratio. However, various studies have found that over 65% of the Westside’s workforce commutes from outside the Westside.2,3 These reports indicate a need for more housing in Culver City and the Westside region. To address the impact of employment-generating development on housing demand, the City has adopted a linkage fee on nonresidential development.
This fee will take effect in January 2022.
Table 6: Culver City Jobs to Housing Ratio
2016 2020 2035 2045
Total Jobs 49,935 60,312 62,303 64,071
Housing Units 17,528 17,146 17,675 18,014
Jobs to Housing Ratio 2.8 3.5 3.5 3.6
Sources: American Community Survey 2012-2016; Census Transportation Planning Products 2012-2016; 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Data/Map Book, SCAG 2017.
The General Plan Preferred Land Use Map projects a total of 29,300 (11,500 net new) housing units and 83,000 (23,000 net new) jobs by 2045 – a jobs-to-housing ratio of 2.83.
The goal of 2045 General Plan is to facilitate the increase in housing production to reverse the trend of jobs-to-housing imbalance as projected by SCAG.
Household Characteristics
Household characteristics indicate the type and size of housing needed in a city. The Census defines a “household” as all persons occupying a housing unit, which may include single persons living alone, families related through marriage or blood, or unrelated persons that share a single unit. Persons in group quarters such as dormitories, retirement or convalescent homes, group homes, or other similar living situations are included in population totals but are not considered households.
Household Types
According to the 2015-2019 ACS, there were a total of 16,796 households living in Culver City. The city’s average household size of 2.31 persons is small compared to the County as a whole (2.99 persons per household). The overall share of household types has shifted little over the past ten years, with family households making up about 57% of the total households and non-family households making up 43% (see Table 7).
2 Southern California Association of Governments (February 2009). “Westside Cities Workforce Housing Study. ”https://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/WestsideWorkforceHousingStudy_PPT.pdf 3 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (March 2015). “Subregional Mobility Matrix Westside Cities Final Report.” Prepared by Fehr & Peers. https://media.metro.net/projects_studies/lrtp/images/report_mobility_westside.pdf
City of Culver City Housing Element
13 Table 7: Number of Households by Type in Culver City Household Type 2010 2019 2010-2019
# % # % % Change
All Households 16,779 100 16,796 100 0.1
Family Households 9,344 56 9,529 57 2.0
Married-Couple 6,826 41 7,272 43 6.5
Other Families 2,518 15 2,257 13 -10.4
Non-Family Households 7,435 44 7,267 43 -2.3
Single 5,649 34 5,940 35 5.2
Other Non-Families 1,786 11 1,327 8 -25.7
Persons Living in group quarters 311 311 --
Average Household Size 2.30 2.31 --
Sources: BOC, Census, 2010; 2015-2019 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Tables S2501 and S1101; DOF, Table E-1, 2020
Tenure
Tenure in the housing industry typically refers to a housing unit’s occupancy status – whether the unit is owner- or renter-occupied. Tenure preferences are primarily related to the household’s income, composition, and ages of the householders. A household is cost-burdened if it spends more than 30% of its gross income on housing-related expenses, and renters tend to be more cost-burdened than owners. However, the high costs of homeownership in Southern California also result in a housing cost burden for many homeowners. The tenure distribution (owner versus renter) of a community’s housing stock influences several aspects of the local housing market. Tenure influences residential mobility, or turnover, as rental units experience a higher turnover rate than owner-occupied units.
Table 8 compares the number of owner- and renter-occupied units in the City to the County in 2000, 2010, and 2019. On average, the homeownership rate in Culver City between 2000 and 2019 was about 6% higher than in the County. The homeownership rate for Culver City and the County declined consistently from 2000 to 2019.
Table 8: Occupied Units by Tenure in Culver City and LA County Tenure 2000 2010 2019
Jurisdiction # % # % # %
Culver City
Owner 9,034 54 9,111 54 8,768 52
Renter 7,577 46 7,668 46 8,028 48
TOTAL 16,611 100 16,779 100 16,796 100
LA County
Owner 1,499,744 48 1,544,749 48 1,519,516 46
Renter 1,634,030 52 1,696,455 52 1,797,279 54
TOTAL 3,133,774 100 3,241,204 100 3,316,795 100
Sources: BOC, Census, 2000, 2010; 2015-2019 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Table S2504 Household Income
Household income is a primary factor affecting housing needs in a community. Except for households that own a home with little or no mortgage, residents’ ability to afford housing is directly related to household income. Table 9 shows median household income in Culver City, LA County, and other Westside cities in 2000, 2010, and 2019. The
City of Culver City Housing Element
14 City’s median household income in 2019 ($95,044) was substantially higher than that reported in LA County ($68,044), as had been the case in 2010 and 2000. Income growth in Culver City also outpaced growth in LA County from 2010 to 2017. When compared to other cities in the Westside region, Culver City is most similar in median household income to Santa Monica, while the median household income of Beverly Hills is significantly higher. Although West Hollywood has seen the largest growth in median household income, it still has the lowest median income of the Westside cities.
Table 9: Median Household Income in Culver City and LA County Jurisdiction 2000 ($) 2010 ($) 2019 ($) 2010-2019
(% Change)
Culver City 52,065 72,199 95,044 32
LA County 42,030 55,476 68,044 23
Santa Monica 50,714 68,842 96,570 40
Beverly Hills 70,945 83,463 106,936 28
West
Hollywood
38,914 52,009 74,044 42
Sources: BOC, Census, 2000,; 2006-2010 & 2015-2019 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Table S1903
Housing needs and assistance programs are based on income categories established in state and federal law. For the Housing Element, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has established five income groups based on area median income (AMI), as shown in Table 10.4
Table 10: HCD Income Categories
Income Category % of AMI
Extremely Low1 Up to 30% of AMI
Very Low1 31-50% of AMI
Low1 51-80% of AMI
Moderate 81-120%
Above Moderate Greater than 120% of AMI
Source: California Dept. of Housing and Community Development Notes: Extremely Low, Very Low and Low categories together are referred to as “Lower Income.” Under state and federal regulations, the AMI refers to the median income for a metropolitan statistical area; in this case, Los Angeles County. 5 The AMI for Los Angeles County, as determined by HCD, was $77,300 in 2020. According to HCD, county median income must be used to establish income groups for the Housing Element.
About 27% of Culver City households are Lower Income ( Table 11). 73% of Culver City households were within the moderate/above moderate income categories (greater than 80% AMI), a higher proportion of households compared to the county as a whole (59%).
4 State income definitions are different compared to federal definitions. For federal housing programs, eligibility is established for households with incomes up to only 80% of the AMI. Under the federal definition these households are considered moderate income. For housing plans that are required by federal regulations, such as the Consolidated Plan and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, the federal income definitions are used. 5 A metropolitan statistical area refers to a core area with a substantial population and the adjacent communities that are economically and socially connected to that core.
City of Culver City Housing Element
15 Table 11: Household Distribution by Income Category in Culver City and LA County Income Category
Income Category (% of
AMI) Culver City (%) LA County (%)
Extremely Low up to 30 11.7 20.6
Very Low 31 to 50 4.9 5.5
Low 51 to 80 10.4 15.2
Moderate 81 to 120 15.0 16.1
Above Moderate >120 58.0 42.6
Total 100 100
Source: SCAG, RHNA Final Allocation Calculator, March 20216 Housing Stock Characteristics
This section evaluates the characteristics of the community’s housing stock, such as the number and type of housing units, recent growth trends, age and condition, tenure, and vacancy, and helps identify and prioritize needs. A housing unit is defined as a house, apartment, mobile home, or group of rooms, occupied as separate living quarters, or if vacant, intended for occupancy as separate living quarters.
Housing Type and Growth Trends
Housing Growth
Between 2000 and 2020, the rate of housing stock growth in Culver City (4.0%) trailed that of the neighboring cities of Santa Monica (10%) and West Hollywood (7.2%) and was comparable to Beverly Hills (3.7%) (see Table 12). Over the last seven years since the 2013-2021 Housing Element was adopted, Culver City added a total of 333 net new housing units to its housing stock, representing a growth rate of 1.9%. Much of the City’s residential development activities involve the demolition of existing units and recycling into high density development. This growth rate is consistently lower than those in the neighboring cities of Santa Monica (2.8%) and West Hollywood (4.7%) and LA County (3.7%) from 2013 to 2020. Beverly Hills was the only neighboring city with a rate lower than Culver City (less than 0.1%) from 2013 to 2020.
Table 12: Westside Cities Housing Growth
Jurisdiction # Units % Change
2000 2013 2020 2013-2020 2000-2020
Culver City 17,130 17,486 17,819 1.9 4.0
Santa Monica 47,863 51,210 52,629 2.8 10.0
Beverly Hills 15,856 16,436 16,443 <0.1 3.7
West Hollywood 24,110 24,698 25,853 4.7 7.2
LA County 3,270,909 3,463,492 3,590,574 3.7 9.8
Sources: BOC, Census, 2010; DOF, Table E-1, 2013, 2020
6 SCAG’s RHNA methodology does not include the “extremely low” income category defined by HCD as up to 30% AMI.
Instead, SCAG combines both the “extremely low” and “very low” income HCD categories into the “very low” income category defined as households below 50% AMI. According to HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy data,
11.7% of households are extremely low income (less than 30% AMI). However, the precise methodology for developing income distribution by these two sources may be different.
City of Culver City Housing Element
16 Unit Type and Size
Table 13 provides the DOF estimates for housing types for 2013 and 2020. As shown, the proportional breakdown of various housing types within the city has changed very little over the previous planning period, reflecting the city’s slow growth rate and limited home construction. In 2020, the city was almost evenly divided between single-family units (48%) and multi-family units (51%). Single-family detached homes and larger multi- family complexes (5+ units) make up most of the city’s housing stock at approximately 39% each. Smaller multi-family complexes (with 2-4 units) comprise approximately 12% of the city’s units. About 9% of units were reported as single-family attached units (i.e., condominiums or townhomes), while mobile homes comprised the remaining 1%.
Table 13: Number of Housing Units by Type in Culver City Housing Type 2013 2020 2013-2020
Change
# % # % # %
Single-Family Homes 8,507 49 8,564 48 57 0.7
Single-Family Detached 6,920 40 6,963 39 43 0.6
Single-Family Attached 1,587 9 1,601 9 14 0.9
Multi-Family Homes 8,783 51 9,039 51 256 2.9
Multi-Family (2-4 units) 2,086 12 2,089 12 3 0.1
Multi-Family (5+ units) 6,697 38 6,950 39 253 3.8
Mobile Homes 196 1 216 1 20 10.2
TOTAL 17,486 100 17,819 100 333 1.9
Source: DOF, Table E-5, 2013, 2020
According to the 2015-2019 ACS, about two-thirds of housing units had two- to three- bedrooms (see Table 14). Studio and one-bedroom units made up 25% of the city’s housing stock. The city’s larger housing units (four or more bedrooms) only made up 11% of the housing stock.
Table 14: Number of Housing Units by Size in Culver City Unit Size 2019
# %
Studio 720 4
1 bedroom 3,480 21
2 or 3 bedrooms 10,754 64
4 or more bedrooms 1,842 11
TOTAL 16,796 100
Source: BOC, 2015-2019 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Table S2504 Vacancy Rates
A certain number of vacant units are needed to moderate the cost of housing, allow sufficient choice for residents, and provide an incentive for unit upkeep and repair.
Vacancy rates are generally higher among rental properties, as rental units have greater attrition rates than owner-occupied units. A healthy vacancy rate ― one which
City of Culver City Housing Element
17 permits sufficient choice and mobility among a variety of housing units ― is considered to be 2-3% for ownership units and 5-6% for rental units.
Housing tenure changed slightly from 2000 to 2019, with the rate of homeownership declining slightly from 54% in 2000 to 52% in 2019 (see Table 8). Similarly, the share of renter-households increased from 46% to 48% during the same period. In Culver City, the vacancy rates increased from 3% to 5.1% between 2000 and 2019 (see Table 15). This rise can be attributed to an increase in vacant for-rent units (which accounted for 32% of vacancies in 2000 versus 55% in 2019). Units categorized as “other vacant” also made up a sizeable portion of vacant units in all the years indicated (28% in 2000 and 2010 and 26% in 2019. Short-term rentals fall into this category; therefore, this number may indicate the extent of short-term rentals in the city. During the same period, the proportion of for-sale vacant units dropped to 0% from 22% in 2000. While the city’s rental vacancy rate is within the healthy range, the ownership vacancy rate is well below optimum providing homebuyers with virtually no choice when seeking to purchase a home within the city.
Table 15: Culver City Vacancy Statuses
Vacancy Status 2000 2010 2019
# % # % # %
Vacancy by Tenure
Owner-occupied 112 1.2 65 0.7 0 0
Renter-occupied 164 2.1 333 4.1 495 5.7
Overall vacancy rate 3.0 4.1 5.1
Vacancy by Type
For rent 164 32 333 47 495 55
Rented, not occupied 58 11 31 4 165 18
For sale only 112 22 65 9 0 0
Sold, not occupied 0 0 23 3 0 0
For seasonal, recreational, or occasional
use 42 8 62 9 11 1
Other vacant 143 28 198 28 236 26
Total Number of Vacant Units 519 100 712 100 907 100
Sources: BOC, Census, 2000, 2010; 2015-2019 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Table B25004 Note: “Other Vacant” as defined by the Census is a housing unit that does not fit into any year-round vacant category.
This may indicate the extent of short-term rentals in the City.
Housing Conditions
Age of Housing Stock
Housing age is often an important indicator of housing condition. Housing units built before stringent limits on the amount of lead in the paint were imposed in 1978, may have interior or exterior building components coated with lead-based paint. Housing units built before 1970 most likely need rehabilitation and have lead-based paint in deteriorated condition. Lead-based paint becomes hazardous to children under age six and pregnant women when it peels off walls, windows, and doors. In general, housing that is 30 years or older may exhibit a need for repairs based on the useful life of materials (such as the roof). Housing over 50 years old is considered aged and is more likely to exhibit a need for major repairs (such as electrical and plumbing systems).
City of Culver City Housing Element
18 Figure 2 provides the age composition of Culver City’s housing stock. About 63% of the city’s housing units were built at least 50 years ago (the dark green bars). The vast majority of the City’s housing stock, approximately 92%, are at least 30 years old (the dark green and medium green bars). These findings indicate that much of the city’s housing possibly needs some maintenance and rehabilitation, including remediation of lead-based paint.
Culver City’s housing stock is somewhat older when compared to the County as a whole. In LA County, approximately 86% of units are older than 30 years. While it is typical for housing units to remain in use for much longer than 30 years, it is important to note that older homes need more frequent maintenance and rehabilitation to maintain a good condition.
Figure 2: Age Composition of Culver City's Housing Stock
Source: BOC, 2015-2019 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Table B25034
HOUSING CONDITIONS
Housing is considered substandard when the living conditions do not meet the minimum standards defined in Section 1001 of the Uniform Housing Code. Households living in substandard conditions are considered to require housing assistance due to the threat to health and safety, even if they are not seeking alternative housing arrangements.
In addition to structural deficiencies and standards, the lack of infrastructure and utilities often indicates substandard conditions. Table 16 identifies the number of Culver City owner- and renter-occupied housing units lacking complete kitchen or plumbing facilities. Units lacking complete facilities are rare in Culver City. According to the 2015- 2019 ACS, no owner-occupied units and just 0.1% of renter occupied units lacked complete plumbing facilities. Further, only 0.1% of owner-occupied housing units and
2.8% of renter occupied units lacked complete kitchens. These numbers indicate that complete kitchen facilities are a greater need than plumbing facilities and that renter- occupied units have a greater need for rehabilitation.
City of Culver City Housing Element
19 Table 16: Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities
Owner Renter
2009 2019 2009 2019
# % # % # % # %
Occupied housing units 9,579 8,768 6,699 8,028
Lacking complete plumbing
facilities
19 0.2 0 0.0 13 0.2 11 0.1
Lacking complete kitchen
facilities
38 0.4 8 0.1 134 2.0 226 2.8
Source: BOC, 2005-2009 & 2015-2019 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Table S2504
Compared to the housing conditions reported in the 2013-2021 Housing Element, housing conditions have improved overall since 2009. However, the number of rental units lacking complete kitchen facilities has increased since 2009. It is also important to note that the ACS typically undercounts substandard housing conditions as it is not able to report on other subtler housing problems, such as inadequate wiring, leaks, or inadequate or lack of heating7. Despite the increase in units lacking kitchen facilities, Culver City’s housing stock is in relatively good condition with basic facilities present for most of its occupied units.
Assessing code enforcement activities provides additional insight on the overall condition of the city’s housing stock. The City’s Code Enforcement Services Division responds to an average of 886 complaints and requests for service each year. While Code Enforcement responds to these requests, many do not result in an open case. If Code Enforcement opens a case, it issues a Notice of Violation or a fine. The total number of cases, not complaints, that Code Enforcement has had since it began tracking them in 2010 is 4,715. Typically, Code Enforcement has about 470 cases per year and currently (June 2021) has 660 unresolved or ongoing cases.
Code enforcement cases are generally initiated when the Division receives a complaint of a violation, which is then confirmed by staff. Code enforcement focuses on violations of the municipal code in a variety of areas, including animal regulations, business licenses, graffiti, building code violations, property maintenance, and substandard housing. Of the City’s average of 470 cases per year, an average of nine are related to significant property maintenance issues, substandard housing, or hoarding. The most common issues reported were related to mold, leaks (roof or plumbing), and lack of heat. It is estimated that about half of these properties with violations need substantial rehabilitation while the other half need more minor repairs.
Since code enforcement activity is primarily complaint-driven, it is difficult to make accurate assumptions about the overall condition of the City’s housing stock based upon this data. However, if just nine of the city’s 16,796 occupied housing units have significant property maintenance issues, this represents less than 0.01% of the City’s housing stock. Even assuming only one in 10 cases would be reported to the City, the
7 While the ACS also reports on the lack of telephone services, in today’s mobile world, landline telephone services are no longer a required service. However, the ACS does not measure Internet access, which is a more important utility for communications.
City of Culver City Housing Element
20 extent of substandard housing in the City is limited (or generally estimated at 100 units) with no units requiring replacement.
Housing Costs & Affordability Gap Analysis
Comparing the costs of homeownership and renting to a household’s ability to pay for housing can help determine how affordable a community is. This section provides information on the homeownership costs and rental costs in Culver City and compares this to an affordability analysis for households as various income levels.
Home Values
Figure 3 compares median home values in the Westside cities and LA County as a whole, based on estimates from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. As shown, home values in the Westside are significantly higher than the County. Typical home values in Beverly Hills and Santa Monica are higher than in Culver City, while home values in West Hollywood are lower.
Figure 3: Westside Cities Median Home Values (2019)
Source: BOC, 2015-2019 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Table B25077
Since the most recent data available from the American Community Survey is from 2019, home values based on the Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) are included below to provide more recent data. The ZHVI is a smoothed seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range within a specific geography. According to the ZHVI, the typical home in Culver City was valued at $1,295,775 in December 2020. As shown in Table 17, home values have increased drastically since 2013 (69% increase overall). The value of single-family homes increased at a greater rate than condominiums (67% and 57%, respectively).
City of Culver City Housing Element
21 Table 17: Change in Typical Home Values in Culver City December 2013 ($) December 2020 ($) % Change
Typical Home Value 766,110 1,295,775 69
Single-family homes 888,187 1,486,379 67
Condominiums 410,233 642,220 57
Source: Zillow Home Value Index, accessed March 2021.
Rental Housing
Information on current rental rates in the city was obtained by reviewing advertisements posted on Zillow during June 2021. Table 18 summarizes median multi- family (apartment, condo, townhouses) and single-family home rents by unit size. A total of 192 units were listed for rent on Zillow in June 2021, with the majority of the listings for multi-family units (95%). Just nine single-family homes were listed for rent, with median monthly rents ranging from $2,775 for a one-bedroom unit to $5,200 for a three- bedroom unit. The median monthly rent for multi-family units ranged from $3,120 for a studio unit to $3,798 for a three-bedroom unit. It should be noted that the median monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment ($3,480) was higher than the rent for a two- bedroom apartment ($3,125). The median rent for studio apartments and two- bedroom apartments were nearly the same. This is likely because many studio and one-bedroom apartments located in newly constructed buildings were listed for rent.
Table 18: Median Rent by Unit Size in Culver City (June 2021) Unit Type #
Available
Median Rent by Unit Size ($)
Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedrooms 3+ Bedrooms
Multi-Family Unit 183 3,120 3,480 3,125 3,798
Single-Family Unit 9 N/A 2,775 4,250 5,200
All Units 192 3,120 3,475 3,150 4,990
Source: Zillow rental listings, www.zillow.com, accessed June 2, 2021
Table 19 compares median rents for Westside cities, based on data from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. As shown, rents in the Westside cities were higher than for LA County as a whole. Rents within the Westside cities were generally comparable; however, rents in Beverly Hills tended to be the highest.
Table 19: Comparison of Median Rent by Unit Size for Westside Cities (2019) Jurisdiction Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedrooms 3-
Bedrooms
4-
Bedrooms
5+
Bedrooms
Culver City 1,281 1,678 2,119 2,795 1,878 -1
Santa Monica 1,540 1,703 2,122 2,039 2,647 2,127
Beverly Hills 1,378 1,895 2,745 2,965 3,500+ -1
West Hollywood 1,157 1,606 2,080 2,964 2,850 3,500+
LA County 1,085 1,234 1,605 1,909 2,110 2,165
Source: BOC, 2015-2019 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Table B25077 Note: 1. Data unavailable, likely due to limited number of units of this size available.
City of Culver City Housing Element
22 Housing Affordability Gap Analysis
Housing affordability is defined as paying no more than 30 to 35% of the gross household income (depending on tenure and income level) on housing expenses (including utilities, taxes, and insurance).
Table 20 provides general estimates on affordable rents and home purchase prices by income category based on the 2020 HCD median household income of $77,300 for LA County and general cost assumptions for utilities, taxes, and property insurance.8 Given the high costs of homeownership, lower income households are usually confined to rental housing, but the affordability problem also persists in the ownership market. The situation is exacerbated for seniors with their fixed incomes and for large households with lower and moderate incomes given the limited supply of large rental units.
Based on the estimated affordable purchase prices shown in Table 19 and the typical home values presented in Table 17, lower income and moderate income households are unable to afford to purchase a single-family home or condominium in Culver City.
This data illustrates that public subsidies are generally required to reduce sales prices to a level that is affordable to low and moderate income buyers. With a typical condominium within the city valued at $642,000, there is an approximately $300,000 “gap” between the market value and the price a moderate income household can afford to pay, depending on household size. For low income households, this gap ranges from $300,000 to over $410,000, depending on household size.
Rental housing that does not impose a cost burden is also difficult to obtain for the city’s lower income and moderate income households. Median rents in the city ranged from $3,120 for a studio apartment to $4,990 for a three-bedroom unit (Table 18). As shown in Table 20, affordable monthly rents for lower income and moderate income households range from $442 to $2,240, depending on income category and household size. Therefore, a lower income or moderate income renter-household would not be able to afford a median priced rental unit without being cost burdened. More specifically, there is a $2,500 gap between what an extremely low income four-person household can afford to pay and the median monthly rent for a two-bedroom apartment. For a moderate income four-person household, there is an affordability gap of about $1,030 between what the household can afford and the median market rent for a two-bedroom unit.
8 State and federal income limits differ. For the Housing Element, State income limits are used, which are usually higher than the federal levels used in the City’s Consolidated Plan and other related documents.
City of Culver City Housing Element
23 Table 20: Housing Affordability Matrix - LA County (2020) Household
Annual
Income ($)
Monthly
Affordable
Housing
Costs ($)
Utilities
($)
Taxes and
Insurance
($)
Affordable
Monthly
Rent ($)
Affordable
Home
Purchase
Price ($)
Extremely Low Income (under 30% MFI)
1-Person 23,700 593 151 207 442 61,790
2-Person 27,050 676 166 237 510 72,096
3-Person 30,450 761 190 266 571 80,244
4-Person 33,800 845 223 296 622 86,069
5-Person 36,550 914 264 320 650 86,953
Very Low Income (31 to 50% MFI)
1-Person 39,450 986 151 345 836 129,241
2-Person 45,050 1,126 166 394 960 149,182
3-Person 50,700 1,268 190 444 1,077 166,966
4-Person 56,300 1,408 223 493 1,185 182,427
5-Person 60,850 1,521 264 532 1,257 191,020
Low Income (51 to 80% MFI)
1-Person 63,100 1,578 151 552 1,427 230,524
2-Person 72,100 1,803 166 631 1,637 265,026
3-Person 81,100 2,028 190 710 1,837 297,157
4-Person 90,100 2,253 223 788 2,030 327,179
5-Person 97,350 2,434 264 852 2,170 347,334
Moderate Income (81 to 120% MFI)
1-Person 64,900 1,623 151 568 1,472 238,233
2-Person 74,200 1,855 166 649 1,689 274,020
3-Person 83,500 2,088 190 731 1,897 307,435
4-Person 92,750 2,319 223 812 2,096 338,527
5-Person 100,150 2,504 264 876 2,240 359,325
Sources: HCD Income Limits (2020), and Veronica Tam and Associates (2020) Assumptions:
1. CA Dept. of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Income Limits, 2020.
2. Affordable housing costs are 30 percent of gross household income.
3. Utility costs based on Los Angeles County Development Authority (LACDA) Utility Allowance Schedule, 2020.
4. Taxes, insurance, PMI (private mortgage insurance), and HOA (homeowners association) are calculated at 35% of monthly affordable cost.
5. Affordable home purchase price is the total purchase price, assuming a 30-year fixed mortgage with a 3% interest rate and 10% down payment.
6. Taxes and insurance costs applies to owners only; renters do not usually pay taxes or insurance.
City of Culver City Housing Element
24 Housing Assistance Needs
This section outlines Culver City’s existing housing needs, including those resulting from being housing cost-burdened or living in overcrowding situations. It also evaluates the housing needs for special needs groups such as seniors; persons with disabilities or those experiencing homelessness; and female-headed, large, and/or extremely low-income households.
Housing Cost Burden
Housing cost burden is generally defined as households paying more than 30% of their gross income on housing-related expenses. For renters, housing costs include rent and utilities. For owners, housing costs include the mortgage payment, taxes, insurance, and utilities. High housing costs can cause households to spend a disproportionate percentage of their income on housing. This may result in payment problems, deferred maintenance, or overcrowding. Households paying more than 50% of their income on housing are experiencing a severe housing cost burden. These households may be at risk of homelessness in the event of illness/disability or a sudden loss of income.
This section uses data from the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The CHAS provides information related to households with housing problems, including cost burden and overcrowding.9 The most recent estimates posted by HUD were derived from the 2013-2017 ACS.
As shown in Table 21, nearly half of renter-households in Culver City experienced one or more housing problem, and 43% paid more than 30% of their incomes towards housing costs in 2017 compared to about one-third of homeowners. Extremely low-income households are the most vulnerable group. With limited income, 80% of the households in this income group experienced one or more housing problems, compared to 73% of very low-income households, 69% of low-income households, and 42% of households citywide. Severe housing cost burden impacted 72% of the extremely low-income households, compared to 45% of very low-income households, 26% of low-income households, and 18% of households citywide.
Table 22 provides information on housing problems and cost burden in Los Angeles County, as a point of comparison. Overall, the instance of cost burden and housing problems in general is lower in Culver City when compared to the County. However, the proportion of lower income households (HH) with a cost burden greater than 50% tends to be higher within Culver City.
9 The CHAS collects data on four housing issues: 1) housing unit lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2) housing unit lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3) household is overcrowded; and 4) household is cost-burdened.
City of Culver City Housing Element
25 Table 21: Housing Problems and Cost Burden in Culver City by Income and Tenure Household by Type, Income
& Housing Problem
Renters
(#)
Renters
(%)
Owners
(#)
Owners
(%)
Total HHs
(#)
Total HHs
(%)
Extremely Low
(0-30% AMI) 1,280 66 660 34 1,940 12
with any housing problems 1,045 82 510 77 1,555 80
with cost burden > 30% 1,020 80 515 78 1,535 79
with cost burden > 50% 925 72 475 72 1400 72
Very Low
(31-50% AMI) 750 55 625 45 1,375 8
with any housing problems 695 93 315 50 1,010 73
with cost burden > 30% 680 91 305 49 980 71
with cost burden > 50% 495 66 135 22 625 45
Low
(51-80% AMI) 1,015 50 1,025 50 2,040 12
with any housing problems 845 83 570 56 1,415 69
with cost burden > 30% 805 79 570 56 1,370 67
with cost burden > 50% 225 22 310 30 535 26
Moderate/Above Moderate
(>80% AMI) 4,660 42 6,530 58 11,190 68
with any housing problems 1,200 26 1,750 27 2,950 26
with cost burden > 30% 770 17 1,565 24 2,330 21
with cost burden > 50% 30 1 335 5 365 3
Total Households 7,705 47 8,840 53 16,545 100
with any housing problems 3,780 49 3,145 36 6,925 42
with cost burden > 30% 3,275 43 2,955 33 6,215 38
with cost burden > 50% 1675 22 1,255 14 2,930 18
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) dataset, based on 2013-2017 ACS
City of Culver City Housing Element
26 Table 22: Housing Problems and Cost Burden in Los Angeles County by Income and Tenure Household by Type, Income &
Housing Problem
Renters (%) Owners (%) Total HHs (%)
Extremely Low
(0-30% AMI) 79 21 19
With any housing problems 84 76 83
With cost burden > 30% 82 75 81
With cost burden > 50% 70 63 68
Very Low
(31-50% AMI) 68 32 15
With any housing problems 91 68 83
With cost burden > 30% 84 65 78
With cost burden > 50% 38 44 40
Low
(51-80% AMI) 59 41 18
With any housing problems 68 60 65
With cost burden > 30% 53 54 53
With cost burden > 50% 11 23 16
Moderate/Above Moderate
(>80% AMI) 38 62 48
With any housing problems 25 24 25
With cost burden > 30% 15 20 18
With cost burden > 50% 1 4 3
Total Households 54 46 100
With any housing problems 62 39 52
With cost burden > 30% 54 35 45
With cost burden > 50% 29 16 23
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) dataset, based on 2013-2017 ACS Overcrowding
HCD defines overcrowding as more than one person per room, including the living room and dining room, but excluding the kitchen and bathroom. Overcrowding occurs when some households cannot accommodate high-cost burdens and instead accept smaller housing or share housing with other individuals or families. The following situations may result in overcrowding:
• A family living in a home that is too small;
• A family that houses extended family members; or
• Unrelated individuals or families doubling up to afford housing.
However, cultural differences may also contribute to the overcrowded conditions.
Some cultures may prefer to share living quarters with extended family members, increasing their household sizes and creating a need for appropriately sized, affordable units.
Due to the additional stress imposed by more people living within a unit, overcrowding can strain physical facilities and the delivery of public services, reduce the quality of
City of Culver City Housing Element
27 the physical environment, contribute to a shortage of parking in a neighborhood, and accelerate the deterioration of homes.
According to the 2015-2019 ACS, about 5% of Culver City households are living in overcrowded conditions (786 households) (Table 23). Overcrowding was significantly more common among renter-households when compared to owner-households.
About 82% of overcrowded households are of renter households. Culver City residents live in relatively less crowded housing conditions than the rest of Los Angeles County, according to the ACS. The overall rate of overcrowding in the County is more than double that of Culver City at 11%, compared to 5% in the city.
Table 23: Overcrowding by Tenure in Culver City (2019)
Renters Owners Total
# % # % # %
Overcrowded Households
(1.01-1.5 persons per room) 363 4.5 116 1.3 479 2.9
Severely Overcrowded
(1.5+ persons per room) 283 3.5 24 0.3 307 1.8
All Overcrowded Households 646 82.2 140 17.8 786 4.7
All Households 8,028 47.8 8,768 53 16,796 100.0
Source: BOC, 2015-2019 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04 Special Needs
Certain groups in a community may have greater difficulty finding decent, affordable housing due to special circumstances, such as those related to one’s age, family characteristics, disability, or employment. As a result, some Culver City residents are at a greater risk of experiencing a cost burden, overcrowding, or other housing problems.
State Housing Element law considers persons with disabilities (including those with developmental disabilities), seniors, large households, female-headed households with children, persons experiencing homelessness, farmworkers, and extremely low-income persons and households to be “special needs” groups. These groups are not mutually exclusive, as a person or household may fall into more than one category. For example, a senior living alone may have a disability and live below the poverty level; or a large household may be female-headed and include a senior. Table 24 summarizes the population and households within these groups in Culver City.
City of Culver City Housing Element
28 Table 24: Culver City's Special Needs Populations/Households (2019) Special Needs Group1 # of Persons/
Households
% of Population/
Households
Households with Seniors2 4,779 28
Senior-Headed Households 4,136 25
Persons with a Disability 3,638 9
Persons with a Developmental Disability 485 1
Single Female-Headed Households with Children 577 3
Large Family Households (5+ persons) 658 4
Farmworkers (persons)3 29 <0.1
Persons Experiencing Homelessness 216 1
Extremely Low-Income Households 1,940 12
Sources: BOC, 2015-2019 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates; CA Dept. Developmental Services, 2019; Los Angeles Housing Services Authority (LAHSA), Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count, 2020; HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) dataset, based on 2013-2017 ACS
Notes:
1. All data is from the 2015-2019 ACS, except for Persons with Developmental Disabilities (CA DDS), Persons Experiencing Homelessness (LAHSA), and Extremely Low-Income Households (CHAS).
2. Includes all households with one or more person age 65 and over.
3. Includes all members of the civilian population over 16 employed in farming, fishing, and forestry occupations.
Persons with Disabilities
Federal laws define a person with a disability as "any person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; has a record of such impairment; or is regarded as having such an impairment.” In general, a physical or mental impairment includes hearing, mobility and visual impairments, chronic alcoholism, chronic mental illness, AIDS, AIDS Related Complex, and mental retardation that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Major life activities include walking, talking, hearing, seeing, breathing, learning, performing manual tasks, and caring for oneself.
According to the 2015-2019 ACS, about 9% (3,638 persons) of the population reported one or more disabilities. Disabilities are more common among the senior population, with 63% of the population with disabilities being 65 years or older (see Table 25).
Disability type also varies by age. Most seniors with disabilities have ambulatory difficulties and independent living difficulties, while cognitive difficulties are most common among children (see Table 26).
Table 25: Population with Disabilities in Culver City (2019) Age (Years) # Persons with a
Disability
% of Population with a
Disability % of Total Population
Under 5 0 0 0
5 - 17 232 6 4
18 - 64 1,128 31 4
65 years and
over 2,278 63 36
Total 3,638 100 9
Source: BOC, 2015-2019 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Table S1810
City of Culver City Housing Element
29 Table 26: Disability Type by Age in Culver City (2019) Disability Type1 % of Population with a Disability
Under 18 18 to 64 65+ Total
With a hearing difficulty 25 21 34 30
With a vision difficulty 16 23 26 24
With a cognitive difficulty 71 46 33 39
With an ambulatory difficulty 14 39 57 49
With a self-care difficulty 58 14 29 26
With an independent living difficulty -- 41 60 50
Total Disabled Persons 232 1,128 2,278 3,638
Source: BOC, 2015-2019 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Table S1810 Note: 1. A person may have more than one disability type.
Because a disability may prevent a person from working, restrict mobility, or make independent living and self-care difficult, persons with disabilities often have special housing needs. These needs may be related to limited income, accessibility, and location near public transportation and other services. Additionally, some persons with disabilities may need to reside in supportive housing or an institutional setting. State and federal legislation, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mandate that a percentage of units in new or substantially rehabilitated multi-family projects be made accessible to individuals with limited physical mobility. However, given the age of Culver City’s housing stock, there are limited accessible units within the city. The City’s Zoning Code allows for reasonable accommodations following state and federal requirements to allow exceptions to zoning regulations to better accommodate a person with a disability. Reasonable accommodations are discussed in further detail in the Housing Constraints section of the Housing Element.
Persons with Developmental Disabilities
State law considers an individual’s “developmental disability” to be severe and chronic if it:
• Is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments;
• Manifests before the individual attains age 18;10
• Is likely to continue indefinitely;
• Substantially limits a person’s ability to function in three or more of the following major life activity areas: self-care, receptive and expressive language, learning, mobility, self-direction, capacity for independent living, or economic self- sufficiency; and
• Requires a combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary, or generic services, individualized supports, or other forms of assistance that are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated.
The Census does not record developmental disabilities. However, according to the California Department of Developmental Services, there are an estimated 485 persons
10 The State of California defines developmental disabilities slightly differently than federal law. The main difference is the manifestation age, which is established at 22 under the federal definition.
City of Culver City Housing Element
30 with developmental disabilities living in Culver City. About 52% of these residents with developmental disabilities were 18 years or older. About 75% of the residents with developmental disabilities were living with parents or guardians while 15% were living independently.
While many persons with developmental disabilities can live and work independently, some may require a group living environment with supervision and support. Individuals with more severe disabilities may require an institutional setting where regular medical care and physical therapy can be provided.
According to the State Community Care Licensing Division, there are two facilities with a total capacity for 10 individuals providing 24-hour non-medical care for adults ages 18-59 who need assistance with their daily needs. Additionally, there are seven facilities within the City providing residential care for persons over 60, with a total capacity of 324 persons. Residential care facilities for six or fewer persons are permitted by-right in Culver City in all residential zones and all commercial zones allowing residential development. Larger facilities are generally permitted with a conditional use permit.
These requirements are discussed in more detail in the Housing Constraints section of the Housing Element.
Elderly
Seniors (persons age 65 and above) are gradually becoming a more substantial segment of the population. Americans are living longer and having fuller lives than ever before in our history and are expected to continue to do so. Elderly households are vulnerable to housing problems due to limited income, the prevalence of physical or mental disabilities, limited mobility, and high healthcare costs. The elderly, particularly those with disabilities, may face increased difficulty in finding housing accommodations.
According to the 2015-2019 ACS, about 17% of the city’s population was seniors (Table 27). Between 2010 and 2017, the proportion of elderly persons increased slightly from 15 to 17% (an increase of 670 persons) and senior-headed households increased from 23 to 25% (an increase of 260 households). In Culver City, there is a higher percentage of senior homeowners (73%) than countywide (65%). Senior renter-households comprised 27% of all households in the City.
Many seniors depend on fixed incomes and many have some type of disability.
According to the 2015-2019 ACS, 36% of the total senior population has a disability (Table 25). Senior homeowners may be physically unable to maintain their homes or cope with living alone. The housing needs of this group can be addressed through smaller units, second units on lots with existing homes, shared living arrangements, congregate housing, and housing assistance programs.
Table 27: Senior Population and Household Shares in Culver City Year Population over 65 Senior-Headed Households
# % of total # % of total
2010 5,806 15 3,876 23
2019 6,476 17 4,136 25
City of Culver City Housing Element
31 Source: BOC, Census, 2010; 2015-2019 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Table S1810
Large Households
Large households are defined as those with five or more members. These households are usually families with two or more children or families living with extended family members such as in-laws or grandparents. It can also include multiple families living in one housing unit to save on housing costs. Large households are a special needs group because the availability of adequately-sized, affordable housing units to serve their needs is often limited. To save for necessities such as food, clothing, and medical care, lower- and moderate-income large households may live in smaller units, resulting in overcrowding.
As shown in Figure 4, households with five or more members comprise the smallest proportion of households in Culver City, at just 4% of owner households and 3% of renter households. While this is generally consistent with the size composition of the city’s housing stock (see Table 14), it may also suggest that high housing costs for larger units deter large families from moving into the community. When compared to LA County, Culver City has a significantly higher proportion of one person households. Culver City’s proportion of larger households, including four person households and households with five or more people, is lower than the County’s.
Figure 4: Household Size in Culver City and LA County by Tenure
Source: BOC, Census, 2010; 2015-2019 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Table B25009
Single-Parent and Female-Headed Households
Single-parent households, particularly female-headed households, often require special consideration and assistance because they tend to have a greater need for affordable housing, accessible daycare, healthcare, and other supportive services. Due to their relatively lower per-capita income and higher living expenses, including daycare,
City of Culver City Housing Element
32 single-parent households have limited opportunities to find affordable, decent, and safe housing.
The number of households that are families with children has not changed greatly in the past decade (see Table 28). In 2019, 27% of households had children, compared with 25% of households in 2010. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, about 825 single-parent households lived within Culver City, representing 5% of the city’s households. The majority (70%) of these single-parent households were female-headed. The number of single-parent households, including female-headed, single-parent households, has declined slightly since 2010. While these households make up a small proportion of the population, their needs may be particularly acute due to the factors listed above.
Additionally, families with children still make up a quarter of the households in Culver City and may require special assistance.
Table 28: Households with Children in Culver City
Household Type 2010 2019
# % # %
Households with children under 18 4,266 25 4,464 27
Single-parent households 1,050 6 825 5
Female-headed households with children 722 4 577 3
All Culver City households 16,870 100 16,796 100
Source: BOC, 2006-2010 and 2015-2019 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Table S1101
Farm Workers
Farmworker households tend to have high rates of poverty, disproportionately live in housing that is in poor condition, have high rates of overcrowding, have low homeownership rates, and are predominately members of minority groups. Migrant farmworkers generally live near agricultural areas. Although agriculture produces a total annual gross value of about $136 million per year in LA County, no agricultural activities are found in Culver City or the surrounding communities.11 Further, the city does not have any areas zoned for agriculture. The 2019 ACS identified only 29 persons (0.1% of the civilian employed population 16 years over) working in farming, fishing, and forestry occupations in Culver City. Based on the above, farm workers are not considered to be a special needs group in Culver City.
No information is available on the number of seasonal and migrant farm workers in Culver City. Given the city’s distance from any significant farming activities, it is unlikely the City has migrant and seasonal farm workers. Regionally, 413 farms are located in Los Angeles County, employing 3,266 farm workers, according to the USDA Census of farm labor in 2017. Among the 413 farms, 238 farms employed 1,517 workers seasonally (working less than 150 days a year). Furthermore, 22 farms employed 395 migrant workers in 2017.
11 2017 Crop and Livestock Report, Los Angeles County Agricultural Commission.
City of Culver City Housing Element
33 Persons Experiencing Homelessness
HUD considers a person to be living in a state of homelessness if the person lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate night-time residence, or if:
• The person is living in a place not meant for human habilitation, in emergency shelter, transitional housing, or is exiting an institution where they temporarily resided;
• The person may lose their primary nighttime residence, which may include a motel or hotel, or a doubled-up situation, within 14 days; • A family with children or unaccompanied youth is unstably housed; or • The person is fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence.
Shelter and service needs of the homeless population are significantly different depending on the population subgroup. A Continuum of Care (CoC) is a program designed to assist a community in its effort to end homelessness by funding nonprofit providers, helping State and local governments quickly rehouse individuals and families experiencing homelessness; improve access to homeless services; and help individuals and families experiencing homelessness become self-sufficient. Los Angeles County’s CoC approach to homelessness is a coordinated and systematic local approach to meet the needs of individuals and families experiencing homelessness within these subgroups: chronic persons experiencing homelessness, episodic persons experiencing homelessness, and persons at risk of becoming homeless.
Homeless Count
While HUD mandates a homeless count every two years for all communities that receive federal funds for homeless programs, the Los Angeles Housing Services Authority (LAHSA), the lead agency for the Los Angeles CoC, conducts a homeless count yearly (see Table 29). The Point-in-Time Count provides a snapshot of the number of people without a permanent, habitable place to live.
The Count revealed a 68% increase in the number of men, women, and children experiencing homelessness in the Los Angeles CoC between 2016 and 2020. There were 66,436 persons experiencing homelessness in 2020, compared to 39,587 in 2016. There were notable increases in the number of unsheltered individuals (56%).
For Culver City, the Count showed a 67% increase in the total number of persons experiencing homelessness. The number of unsheltered persons increased dramatically by 109%, and the largest increase was for those living in tents and encampments (142% increase). While the number of persons experiencing homelessness has increased significantly in recent years, the City’s population of persons experiencing homelessness accounts for just 0.3% of the total County homeless population.
City of Culver City Housing Element
34 Table 29: Point-in-Time Homeless Population Counts in Culver City and LA County
Culver City Los Angeles County
2016
#
2020
#
%
Change
2016
#
2020
#
%
Change
All 129 216 67 39,587 66,436 68
Unsheltered 80 167 109 30,753 48,041 56
On the Street 28 62 121 10,850 17,059 57
In Cars/Vans/Campers 40 76 90 12,166 18,904 55
In Makeshift Shelters/Tents 12 29 142 7,737 12,078 56
Sheltered 49 49 0 8,847 18,395 108
In Emergency Shelters 49 49 0 4,387 14,077 221
In Transitional Housing 0 0 0 4,445 4,234 -5
In Safe Havens 0 0 0 15 84 460
Source: LAHSA, Homeless Counts by Community/City Dashboard, 2016, 2020
Emergency Shelter Facilities
Senate Bill 2 of 2007 (Government Code §65583) strengthened the planning requirements for local governments in emergency and transitional housing. Cities must estimate the number of persons in need of emergency shelter and determine whether adequate capacity currently exists to serve the need. If there is insufficient capacity, cities are required to identify zones where emergency shelters may be established “by- right” (i.e., without a conditional use permit).
There is one full-time emergency shelter within Culver City, Upward Bound House, located at the intersection of Washington Boulevard and Beethoven Street. This facility was approved for conversion from a motel to an 18-room emergency shelter in 2008. A maximum of 60 persons can be accommodated at the facility. The Housing Division handles the majority of housing referrals for persons experiencing homelessness. The Culver City Senior Center (4095 Overland Avenue also offers housing referral program materials. The Upward Bound House only focuses on families experiencing homelessness and not on single men or women; it does not meet the need of the entire Culver City homeless population. To minimize constraints to providing additional shelter facilities as SB 2 requires, the Zoning Code allows Emergency Shelters by-right in portions of the Industrial General (IG) zone and the East Washington Boulevard Overlay zone, an area which includes about 24 acres (119 parcels). These parcels are located along transportation corridors and therefore have access to services.
Additionally, on March 22, 2021, the City Council directed staff to move forward with the Venice Parking Lot site (9415-25 Venice Blvd.) to build 10 modular units for temporary shelter, affordable housing, or permanent supportive housing. A budget of $3 million has been allocated to this project. Another $6.8 million has been allocated to construct and operate a 70-bed sprung shelter on the Venice Parking Lot site.
Extremely Low-Income Households
State law requires that cities analyze the existing and projected housing needs for extremely low income (ELI) households. ELI households have incomes that are 30% or less of the AMI, adjusted for household size. The 2020 AMI for LA County was $77,300
City of Culver City Housing Element
35 (see Table 20), meaning that a four-person household considered to be ELI has an income of $33,800 or less.12
ELI households have various housing problems and needs. The relatively high cost of housing on the Westside often results in cost burden or overcrowding when ELI households “double-up” with more than one family sharing living space. Such conditions may lead to overtaxed utilities and infrastructure, stress, and adverse health effects. According to the 2013-2017 CHAS, there are 1,940 ELI households in Culver City.
ELI impacts renter households and senior households disproportionately. Among the ELI households, 66% are renters and 34% are owners. Senior households make up 39% of ELI renters and 64% of ELI owners.
However, ELI renter and owner households are similarly affected by housing problems and cost burdens (see Table 30). About 80% of ELI households have at least one housing problem,13 and 79% are cost-burdened, paying more than 30% of their monthly income on housing.
Table 30: ELI Households by Type and Tenure in Culver City (2017) Renter Owner Total
Senior Large
1 All All
(%)
Senior Large All All
(%)
ELI households (#) 495 40 1,280 66 420 0 660 34 1,940
Any housing problem
(%)
76 100 82 80 0 77 80
Cost-burdened (%) 77 100 80 80 0 78 79
Sources: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) dataset, based on 2013-2017 ACS Note: 1. Large households are households containing five or more members.
Though RHNA does not specifically call out ELI households as a category, meeting the housing needs of these persons is an issue for all municipalities. The Culver City Zoning Code allows the development of single room occupancy (SRO) housing as part of mixed use developments. The Zoning Code requires each SRO unit to include bathroom and kitchen facilities and must be a minimum of 200 square feet. SROs help to meet the needs of extremely-low- and very-low-income individuals.
12 HCD publishes annual household income limits for each county in California. The published income limits for extremely low, very low and low income households are used to determine eligibility for some assistance programs and are adjusted upward in high housing cost areas like Southern California. Therefore, the income limits published by HCD for Los Angeles County are higher than the calculated income categories that would result from the applicable percentages of AMI. 13 There are four housing problems in the CHAS data: 1) housing unit lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2) housing unit lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3) household is overcrowded; and 4) household is cost-burdened.
City of Culver City Housing Element
36 Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion
Overview of Assisted and At Risk Units
As part of the Housing Element, jurisdictions are required to identify lower income multi- family rental units with affordability covenants that could expire during the coming 10- year period (2021-2031). Appendix C lists affordable units that either participate in a federal, state, or local assistance program, or are income-restricted through some other control measure like a density bonus. The list specifically identifies those projects that may be at risk of converting to market rate housing. This information is used to establish quantified objectives for units that can be conserved during this planning period.
As noted in Appendix C, Table C-1, 310 assisted rental housing units were identified in Culver City. Assisted affordable units that are at-risk of conversion during 2021-2031 are listed in Table C-1. As shown in the table, there are a total of 231 units that are at risk during this period: 59 very low income units, 134 low income units, and 38 moderate income units.
At Risk Status
California Housing Element Law requires Housing Elements to include a study of all lower income rental housing units that may be lost from the affordable inventory through the expiration of affordability restrictions during the next ten-year period. For this Housing Element, the at-risk analysis covers the period from October 15, 2021, through October 15, 2031.
The premise of the Redevelopment Agency Housing Set-Aside Fund was to increase, improve, and preserve the community’s supply of affordable housing for families of very-low, low- and moderate-incomes (Health and Safety Code §33334.2(a)). Eligible activities included acquisition, rehabilitation, rental assistance, and assistance to first- time home buyers. In exchange for the use of Housing Set-Aside Funds, income and affordability restrictions were placed on the property in the form of covenants. These covenants are for 45 years for ownership projects and 55 years for rental projects.
Covenants are still in effect despite of the elimination of the Redevelopment Agency.
The Culver City Housing Authority oversees existing covenants. In Culver City, over the next 10 years, affordability covenants on 231 units have the potential to expire. These include three senior housing projects (190 units), one family rental housing project (20 units), and three group homes serving 21 persons experiencing homelessness and persons with developmental and physical disabilities. To estimate costs, the 21 persons being accommodated at the group homes are treated as separate “households” as they each can be relocated to different housing arrangements as a preservation option.
The majority of these projects were made available using the former Redevelopment Agency’s Housing Set-Aside funds. One project was funded with tax exempt financing.
While the projects may technically be eligible to convert to market rate housing, projects that are nonprofit-owned (such as 5100 Overland, 5166 Sepulveda, and the
City of Culver City Housing Element
37 various group homes for persons with disabilities), are not likely to convert to market rate, as these organizations’ mission is to provide affordable housing.
Cost Analysis
Preservation Costs
Preservation of at-risk units can be achieved by providing project-based rental assistance program. This type of assistance largely depends on the income of the household, the housing costs of the unit, and the number of years the assistance is provided. Given that most of the units at risk are either senior units or for persons with disabilities, and both groups tend to have smaller household size and lower incomes, the amount of subsidies required can be extensive. For a very low income two-person household in LA County, affordable rent is about $960 (2020 level). The difference between what this household can afford and the median rent for a one-bedroom unit ($3,480) is $2,520 per month, resulting in an estimated $30,240 in subsidy per unit per year and $6.38 million per year for the 211 units for seniors and persons with disabilities.
For the other 20 rental units not dedicated to a target population, an estimated subsidy of $1,768 per month per unit would be required based on the affordable rent of $2,030 for a four-person low income household and the median rent of $3,798 for a three- bedroom unit. Overall, $424,320 would be required annually to subsidize the 20 rental units.
New Construction/Replacement
New construction implies construction of a new property with the same number of units and similar amenities as the one removed from the affordable housing stock. The cost of constructing new housing units can vary greatly depending on factors such as location, density, unit sizes, construction materials, and on- and-off-site improvements.
The cost to construct a new unit in the City can easily exceed $600,000.14 To replace the 231 at-risk units would require more than $138 million.
Cost Comparison
In general, the costs to maintain affordability by providing subsidized rents are lower than new construction. This is particularly the case in Culver City as available land is limited and expensive. The City will actively seek out funding sources, including federal preservation dollars, to preserve these at-risk units.
14 Demystifying the High Cost of Multifamily Housing Construction in Southern California, February 2020, UC Riverside, School of Business.
City of Culver City Housing Element
38 Resources and Opportunities
Overview of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is a key tool for local governments to plan for anticipated growth. The RHNA quantifies the anticipated need for housing within each jurisdiction for the 8-year period from October 2021 to October 2029.
Communities then determine how they will address this need through the process of updating the Housing Element of the General Plan.
Under state law, regional councils of governments are required to develop housing needs plans for use by local governments in their Housing Element updates. The regional housing needs analysis is derived from the statewide growth forecast, which is then allocated to regions, cities, and counties based on a variety of factors such as local growth trends, future development potential, job growth, and physical constraints (e.g., floodplains, steep slopes, biological habitat). The current RHNA was adopted by SCAG in March of 2021. The methodology developed by SCAG to allocate the RHNA to local jurisdictions in the current planning cycle is notably different than previous cycles. In the 4th and 5th RHNA cycles, allocations were based only on projected household growth. In contrast, the 6th cycle methodology also considered existing housing needs, job accessibility, and transit accessibility. Also, special consideration was given to designated disadvantaged communities whereby a portion of their RHNA was distributed to jurisdictions that are not disadvantaged. According to SCAG’s Final RHNA Methodology, disadvantaged communities are “jurisdictions with more than half of the population living in high segregation and poverty are low resource areas as defined by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)/HCD Opportunity Index Scores”.
2021-2029 RHNA for Culver City
SCAG determined the RHNA for each city within the SCAG region, plus the unincorporated areas. The total housing growth need for the City of Culver City during the 2021-2029 planning period is 3,341 units. This total is distributed by income category as shown in Table 31.
Table 31: 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Assessment for Culver City Extremely Low* Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total 554 554 604 560 1,069 3,341
16.5% 16.5% 18.0% 17.0% 32.0% 100%
City of Culver City Housing Element
39 *The RHNA did not include the extremely low category. It is estimated to be ½ of the very-low-income need, per Government Code §65583.a.1. The total very-low-income RHNA is 1,108; therefore, 554 is designated as extremely-low-income and 554 is designated as very-low-income.
Source: SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan, adopted March 2021 Inventory of Sites for Housing Development
Section 65583(a)(3) of the Government Code requires Housing Elements to contain an “inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites.” A detailed analysis of vacant land and potential redevelopment opportunities has been prepared and is described in Appendix B. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 32 below, which indicates the number of dwelling units approved as well as potential units that could be built based on the analysis of parcels shown in Appendix B. The table shows that under the City’s current General Plan, available capacity is not adequate to accommodate the 6th cycle RHNA, based on the selection of available sites using objective criteria and known conditions. After adopting the 2045 General Plan (anticipated in 2022), assuming the Preferred Land Use Map, opportunities for housing development in Culver City would be significantly expanded.
Assignment of sites into RHNA income level is based on a combination of density and site size. A default density of 30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) or more is considered adequate to facilitate lower income housing, pursuant to State law (Assembly Bill [AB] 1397), provided that the site must be at least 0.5 acre in size. However, larger sites are conservatively assumed to be mixed income sites. Approved projects, pipeline projects, opportunities sites, sites recommended by community members, sites meeting the selection criteria offer an overall 223% buffer above the RHNA for Culver City in the 6th cycle.15
Table 32: RHNA Capacity Under Current and General Plan Preferred Land Use Map RHNA Strategy Lower Moderate Above
Moderate Total
RHNA 1,712 560 1,069 3,341
Approved/Entitled/Proposed/Pipeline Projects 603 20 1,438 2,061 Remaining RHNA 1,109 540 0 1,280
Capacity under Current General Plan
Projected ADUs (Conversion/Expansion) 240 24 136 400
Low Density Two-Family/Medium Density Multi-Family 0 190 6 196 CG/CN 704 545 0 1,249
Capacity (Projects + ADUs + Sites) 1,547 779 1,580 3,906 Surplus/(Shortfall) over Total RHNA (165) 219 551 (165) Capacity under 2045 General Plan Preferred Land Use
Map
Incremental Infill
15 HCD recommends a buffer of at least 15 to 30% to ensure that sufficient capacity exists in the Housing Element to accommodate the RHNA throughout the planning period. HCD, No Net Low Lass Memorandum, October 2, 2019.
City of Culver City Housing Element
40 RHNA Strategy Lower Moderate Above
Moderate Total
Projected ADUs (Conversion/Expansion Scenario) 240 24 136 400 Redevelopment Scenario 0 45 90 135
Opportunity Sites 60 40 493 593
Neighborhood Multi-Family (50 du/ac) 0 657 0 667
Mixed Use Medium (65 du/ac) 421 236 236 893
Mixed Use High (100 du/ac) 973 152 457 1,382
Neighborhood/Corridor MU1 0 92 0 92
Neighborhood/Corridor MU2 852 591 224 1,667
Industrial Mixed Use 92 91 274 457
Capacity (Projects + ADUs + Sites) 3,481 1,972 3,484 8,747 Surplus/(Shortfall) over Total RHNA 2,372 1,432 3,484 7,467 % Buffer over Total RHNA 139% 256% 326% 223%
Financial and Administrative Resources
The City has access to several funding sources to preserve at-risk housing, improvement of existing housing, and development of affordable housing.
State and Federal Resources
Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)
Federal funding is available from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through the CDBG program administered by Los Angeles County. The City receives about $200,000 in funding annually through Los Angeles County Development Authority (LACDA) CDBG Program. The City uses CDBG funds for programs serving seniors, persons with disabilities, and to fund infrastructure improvements.
Through the CARES Act, the City has received also additional one-time CDBG funding (CDBG-CV) from LACDA to address the needs associated with impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Section 8 Rental Assistance
The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program assists very low income seniors, families, and persons with disabilities with the cost of rental housing. Generally, a tenant pays 30% of their adjusted income towards the rent and the Section 8 program pays the balance directly to the landlord. The Culver City Housing Division selects program participants from a waiting list of qualified households, giving preference to Culver City residents, Veterans, the elderly and persons with disabilities. Currently, 215 households are being served with HCVs.
SB 2 Permanent Local Housing Allocation
In 2017, Governor Brown signed a 15-bill housing package aimed at addressing the State’s housing shortage and high housing costs. Specifically, it included the Building Homes and Jobs Act (SB 2, 2017), which establishes a $75 recording fee on real estate documents to increase the supply of affordable homes in California. Because the
City of Culver City Housing Element
41 number of real estate transactions recorded in each county will vary from year to year, the revenues collected will fluctuate.
The first year of SB 2 funds are available as planning grants to local jurisdictions. Culver City received $160,000 for planning efforts to facilitate housing production. For the second year and onward, 70 percent of the funding will be allocated to local governments for affordable housing purposes. A large portion of year two allocations will be distributed using the same formula used to allocate federal Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). However, as a non-entitlement jurisdiction participating in the CDBG program under the Los Angeles County CDBG program, Culver City is receiving funding under the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) component of SB 2 through LACDA. SB2 PLHA funds can be used to:
• Increase the supply of housing for households at or below 60 percent of AMI • Increase assistance to affordable owner-occupied workforce housing • Assist persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness • Facilitate housing affordability, particularly for lower and moderate income households
• Promote projects and programs to meet the local government’s unmet share of regional housing needs allocation
Project Homekey
HCD offers grant funding for local entities to support a variety of housing types for persons experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of homelessness. For the fiscal year 2021-2022, HCD set aside $1.4 billion in grant funding and is accepting applications on a rolling basis until funds are exhausted or May 2, 2022, whichever comes first. The various housing types it supports include multifamily and single-family housing, hostels, motels, hotels, adult residential facilities, and manufactured housing. The funding can also support adaptive reuse of projects into permanent or interim housing for this population. The Culver City Housing Division, Economic Development Division, and City Manager’s Office staff are collaborating across City Departments to apply for this funding to support persons experiencing and who are at risk of experiencing homelessness in Culver City. The City will submit a Homekey Round 2 application to acquire and rehabilitate two motels that will serve persons experiencing chronic homelessness. If awarded Homekey funds, the City will convert the motels to 35 units of interim housing and 38 units of Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH).
Local Resources
Culver City Successor Agency
The Culver City Housing Authority serves as the City’s Successor Agency to oversee the Low/Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund (LMIHAF). The City anticipates that about $12 million in LMIHAF will be available over the next six years. LMIHAF is used to implement the City’s various housing programs. Planned uses of the LMIHAF have been incorporated in the housing programs of this Housing Element.
City of Culver City Housing Element
42 Commercial Linkage Fee
The City adopted a Commercial Linkage Fee program that will go into effect in January 2022. The program applies a $5 per square foot fee on commercial development in the city. The City will collect the fee and use it to help produce or rehabilitate affordable housing units and/or acquire existing at-risk units. The fee may also fund studies and administration costs to support the fee program.
Public/Private Partnerships
The City will partner with nonprofit housing developers to preserve and develop affordable housing, including preserving low income housing projects that are at-risk of converting to market-rate housing. Active nonprofit developers in Southern California include, but are not limited to:
• Bridge Housing
• Community Corporation of Santa Monica
• Habitat for Humanity
• Jamboree Housing
• Linc Housing
• Los Angeles County Development Authority
• Menorah Housing Foundation
• Many Mansions
• Mercy Housing
• Meta Housing
• National CORE
The City will actively pursue affordable housing opportunities with qualified developers.
Energy Conservation Opportunities
State law (Government Code §65583(a)(7)) requires a Housing Element to provide an analysis of opportunities for energy conservation in residential development. Not only do such energy conservation measures reduce consumption of non-renewable or limited resources, but they can also substantially lower housing maintenance costs.
Despite the mild climate of Southern California, old fixtures and appliances and older housing construction may wastefully consume water, gas, and electrical resources.
In Culver City, where 50% of the housing stock was constructed before 1950 and more than two-thirds was built before the state adopted energy conservation standards in 1975, a substantial number of units are likely to be using energy and water inefficiently.
The City’s best strategy for effective energy conservation is to promote and encourage energy-efficient retrofitting of existing homes. Common and effective measures include weather-stripping, caulking doors and windows, and installing insulation in ceilings and walls.
All new residential construction in the city is required to be constructed in an energy efficient manner by complying with state energy conservation standards. Also, pursuant to the City’s Solar Photovoltaic Ordinance, all new construction projects, commercial or
City of Culver City Housing Element
43 multi-family, of 3 or more units or 10,000 new square feet or greater, are required to install 1 kilowatt (kw) of solar photovoltaic power for each 10,000 square feet of new construction, not including parking garage areas. Additionally, new additions of over 10,000 square feet or major renovations of over 10,000 square feet are required to install 1 kilowatt of solar photovoltaic power for each 10,000 square feet of major renovation or additional area. The solar photovoltaic requirement does not apply to new construction, major remodels, or additions of less than 10,000 square feet. One kilowatt of solar photovoltaic power is estimated to add less than half of 1% to the cost of construction. This ordinance not only helps to conserve energy, but also reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
The City’s Green Building Ordinance also helps to reduce energy costs by requiring new developments to incorporate Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) equivalent measures. These include energy-efficient glazing, additional building insulation, improved heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) efficiency; planting or retaining on-site trees providing shade; and using re-cycled materials during construction. While these requirements may add to the cost of development, energy conservation is a statewide goal. Many affordable housing programs also encourage the incorporation of green building measures. Furthermore, these measures would reduce long-term operating costs. There is no requirement that projects obtain LEED certification.
The City has also adopted a Water Conservation Ordinance designed to limit water consumption and effectively reduce monthly water costs.
These programs, along with land use strategies that promote transit-oriented development (TOD) projects, will further local and statewide energy conservation goals.
City of Culver City Housing Element
44 Constraints
Governmental Constraints
Transparency in Development Regulations
The City of Culver City complies with the requirement of providing transparency in development regulations. The City website’s Building & Development page provides information on building and development at
https://www.culvercity.org/Services/Building-Development. The information on the website covers the following topics:
• General Plan
• Permit requirements
• Planning documents
• Development-related City documents, such as the Municipal Code • Planning applications and forms, and the schedule of fees
Land Use Plans and Regulations
General Plan
Each jurisdiction in California must prepare a comprehensive, long-term General Plan to guide its future. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes the community’s vision, goals, and policies for the city’s urban form and physical development. The Land Use Element includes basic land use designations and density of development within the various areas of the City. In this way, the Land Use Element and its land use categories greatly influence the type and density of residential development that can occur with a jurisdiction. Culver City’s current General Plan was adopted in 1996; however, a comprehensive update to the General Plan, including the Land Use Element, is currently underway and anticipated to be completed in the Fall of 2022. The update will include significant changes to the City’s land use designations; therefore, both the current designations and draft proposed designations are discussed in this section.
Table 33 summarizes the six residential land use designations set forth in the existing Land Use Element. In addition to the residential land use categories, housing is also permitted in several commercial land use designations, including the Neighborhood Serving Corridor, General Corridor, and Downtown designations. Within the commercially designated areas, residential development must be part of a mixed-use (MU) development, which combines both commercial and residential uses within the same project. The industrial land use designations do not allow housing.
City of Culver City Housing Element
45 Table 33: Current Residential Land Use Categories - Culver City General Plan Designation
Maximum
Density
(du/ac)
Description
Low Density – Single Family 8.7
One dwelling unit per lot on lots typically 5,000 square feet in area, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), Junior
ADUs (JADUs)
Low Density – Two Family 17.4 One to two dwellings per lot/parcel on parcels of not less than 5,000 square feet, ADUs, JADUs
Low Density – Three Family 29 Up to three dwelling units per parcel at not less than 1,500 square feet of net lot area per unit, ADUs, JADUs Low Density -Multiple Family 15
Multiple family dwellings, as well as single family, two family and three family dwellings, on parcels of 15,000 square feet or more, ADUs, JADUs
Medium Density – Multiple
Family 29
Multiple family dwellings, as well as single family, two family and three family dwellings, on parcels of up to
13,000 square feet, ADUs, JADUs
Planned Residential
Development Flexible Large residential complexes which may consist of more than one building on a site of one acre or larger
Source: Culver City General Plan, 1996; ADU Ordinance (Code Section 17.400.095, 2020)
Table 34 summarizes the Preferred Land Use Map land use designations. Under the Preferred Alternative, new housing growth is distributed throughout the city. The previous Low Density Two Family, Three Family, and Multiple Family designations would be consolidated into the new Incremental Infill designations which would allow for infill development up to four units per parcel, inclusive of ADU and JADUs. The Neighborhood/Corridor designations would allow for a greater mix of uses compared to present conditions, including standalone residential, at more moderate densities. The proposed Mixed Use High designation allows for up to 100 units per acre, significantly higher than what is allowed in any designation under the existing Land Use Element.
Table 34: Draft Preferred Land Use Map Designations - 2045 General Plan Proposed Designations
Maximum
Density
(du/ac)
Description
Incremental Infill A
(Parcels <4,950 square feet) 8.7
• Detached single unit residential, ADUs, JADUs
• Standards consistent with existing residential single family (R1) zoning
Incremental Infill A
(Parcels >4,950 square feet) 35
• Detached or attached single unit residential, ADUs,
JADUs, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes
• Standards consistent with existing R1 zoning
• Allows up to 4 units per lot
• 4th unit must be affordable
• Triplex/fourplexes are inclusive of ADUs and JADUs
City of Culver City Housing Element
46 Proposed Designations
Maximum
Density
(du/ac)
Description
Incremental Infill B 35
• Detached or attached single unit residential, ADUs,
JADUs, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes
• Standards consistent with existing residential two
family (R2)/ residential three family (R3) zoning
• Allows up to 4 units per lot for R2
• Allows up to 5 units per lot for R3
• 4th unit must be affordable
• Triplex/fourplexes are inclusive of ADUs and JADUs
Incremental Infill C 15
• Detached or attached single unit residential, ADUs,
JADUs, duplexes, triplexes, and low density multi-
family
• Standards consistent with existing RLD zoning
Corridor Multi-Family 30
• Detached or attached single unit residential, ADUs,
JADUs, duplexes, triplexes, and moderate density
multi-family
• Standards consistent with RMD zoning
• Allows up to 9 units per lot
Neighborhood Multi-Family 50 • Mix of multi-family residential Neighborhood/Corridor MU
1 35
• Lower-scale, mixed use blending residential,
commercial, and retail uses and public spaces
serving both surrounding neighborhoods and visitors
from nearby areas
Neighborhood/Corridor MU
2 50 • Moderate-scale, mixed use blending residential,
commercial, retail uses, and public spaces
Mixed Use Medium 65
• A broad range of commercial, office, and
residential uses serving both surrounding
neighborhoods and visitors from nearby areas
Mixed Use High 100
• High-intensity active uses and mixed-use
development, including retail stores, restaurant,
hotels, services, residential, and office uses
Industrial Mixed Use 65 • A transition between mixed-use and high industrial areas with a mix of residential and industrial uses
Source: City of Culver City, City Council/Planning Commission Memo, June 28, 2021; Raimi and Associates, Designation Refinement Process, July 2021
As the City is updating the Land Use Element and the Housing Element simultaneously, it has ensured that the policies and land use designations of the Land Use Element will promote residential development to meet the City’s RHNA; therefore, the 2045 General Plan preferred land use map designations will not constrain residential development within the city.
Figure 5: Preferred Land Use Map - 2045 General Plan
City of Culver City Housing Element
47 City of Culver City Housing Element
48 Zoning Designations and Development Standards
The City regulates the type, location, density, and scale of residential development through the Municipal Code. Zoning regulations serve to implement the General Plan and are designed to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of residents. The Municipal Code also helps to preserve the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods, and sets residential development standards for each zone district. Once the City has adopted the new 2045 General Plan, a comprehensive update to the Zoning Code will be necessary to ensure that the Zoning Code is consistent with and can effectively implement the new General Plan. The following section contains an analysis of the current Zoning Code as it will continue to govern development in the City until updates are adopted.
The six zones that allow for exclusive residential use are as follows:
R1 Single-Family Residential
R2 Two-Family Residential
R3 Three-Family Residential
RLD Low Density Multiple-Family Residential
RMD Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential
RHD High Density Multiple Family Residential
In addition to these zones, residential uses are permitted within either mixed-use or live/work projects in the following four commercial zoning districts:
CN Commercial Neighborhood
CG Commercial General
CC Commercial Community
CD Commercial Downtown
A summary of the types of residential use permitted within each zoning district is provided in Table 35.
City of Culver City Housing Element
49 Table 35: Permitted Residential Development by Zone
Housing Type Permitted R1 R2 R3 RLD RMD RHD CN CG CC CD Single-family Detached1 P P P P P P
Duplex P P P P P
Triplex P P P P
Multi-Family P P P
Residential Care Facility
(6 or fewer residents) P P P P P P P P P P
Residential Care Facility
(7 or more residents) C3 C3 C3 C C C C C C
Supportive Housing4 P P P P P P P2 P2 P2 P2
Transitional Housing4 P P P P P P P2 P2 P2 P2
Accessory Dwelling Units P P P P P P
Emergency Shelters C C C
Single Room Occupancy
Units P2 P2 P2 P2
Senior Citizen
Congregate Care C C C C C C
Live/work units P P P P
Mixed Use Projects P P P P
P=Permitted Use; C=Conditional Use Permit Required
Source: Culver City Zoning Code
Notes:
1. Includes factory built modular homes and mobile homes/manufactured housing on permanent foundations
2. Use only allowed as part of a mixed use project.
3. Only allowed on 5+ acre sites
4. Use is subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.
The East Washington Boulevard Overlay Zone also provides for some residential uses, including live/work units and mixed use projects. Emergency shelters are also permitted by-right in some portions of the Overlay Zone. Low income housing can be accommodated in all zones permitting residential use in Culver City. These may include accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in the R1, R2, and R3 districts, multi-family apartments in the RLD, RMD and RHD zones, as well as high-density commercial/residential mixed-use developments within the Commercial districts.
The Residential Hillsides Overlay Zone (RH) provides area-specific regulations for incremental improvement and sustainable development of hillside neighborhoods. It has slightly different development standards than underlying zoning, mostly taking slope constraints into account.
Development Standards in Residential Districts
A summary of the development standards for the six zones permitting residential development is provided in Table 36. Allowable densities range from 8.7 units/acre in the R1 zone up to 29.0 units/acre in the RMD and RHD zones. These development standards continue to be viewed as necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare and maintain the quality of life, and are not considered constraints on the development of housing for all income levels.
City of Culver City Housing Element
50 The Planned Development (PD) District is applied to areas of existing large scale, multiple-family residential and commercial complexes and to sites suitable for similar large-scale development. Within the PD District, there is no maximum density - only minimum site area (one acre) and height limit (56 feet) apply. A Comprehensive Plan establishes all other standards within the PD District.
Table 36: Development Standards in Residential Zones
Development Standard6 R1 R2 R3 RLD RMD RHD
Minimum Lot Area (sq.ft.)1 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Minimum Front Yard (ft.) 20 15 102 102 102 102
Minimum Interior Side Yard
(ft.) 5 4 5 10 5 10
Minimum Rear Yard (ft.) 15 10 10 15 103 15
Maximum Building Height
(ft.) 30 30 30 30 30 40
Maximum Density
(units/acre)4 8.7 17.4 26.1 15.0 29.05 29.0
Minimum Unit Size (sq. ft.)
1,000
ground
floor
SF: 1,000
Duplex:
750/unit
SF: 1,000
Duplex/
Triplex:
750/unit
Micro-unit: 350
Studio: 500
1 Bedroom: 700
2 Bedroom: 900
3 Bedroom: 1,100
>3 Bedroom: 1,100 + 150 for each
additional bedroom
Minimum Unit Size (sq. ft.)
1,000
ground
floor
SF: 1,000
Duplex:
750/unit
SF: 1,000
Duplex/
Triplex:
750/unit
Micro-unit: 350
Studio: 500
1 Bedroom: 700
2 Bedroom: 900
3 Bedroom: 1,100
>3 Bedroom: 1,100 + 150 for each
additional bedroom
Source: Culver City Zoning Code, 2021
Notes:
1. Condominium, townhome, or planned development projects may be subdivided with smaller air space sizes for ownership purposes.
2. Or one-half of building height, whichever is greater
3. 5 feet when adjacent to an alley
4. Based on applicable minimum development standards (excluding density bonus)
5. Up to a maximum of 9 units (excludes RMD parcels on Grand View Blvd. between Washington Pl. and Herbert St.)
6. Parcels subject to the RH Overlay may have slightly different standards based on slope.
Development Standards in Mixed-Use Districts
Residential/commercial mixed-use projects are allowed in four of the City’s six commercial zoning districts at a base density of 35 units per acre. In February 2021, the City Council approved an ordinance modifying the City’s mixed-use development standards and modified the Community Benefit Incentive program to require a minimum of 15 percent affordable units in new mixed-use projects while also providing an increase in the base density up to 65 units per acre (see Table 37). The ordinance further incentivizes affordable units within mixed-use developments for projects that also
City of Culver City Housing Element
51 qualify for a State Density Bonus by allowing the State bonus to be calculated in addition to the Community Benefit Density Bonus, thus resulting in higher density. In other words, the State Density Bonus would be calculated based on the Community Benefit Density of 50-65 units per acre rather than calculated based on the base density of 35 units per acre.
Development standards for mixed-use projects are summarized in Table 37. These development standards allow building heights ranging from 35 to 56 feet depending on location. The 35-foot height limit only applies to parcels that are adjacent to lower- density R1 or R2 areas. The 56-foot height limit is on parcels in the CD and CG zones where they will not create conflicts with adjacent residential uses or on sites that are adjacent to a parcel in another jurisdiction where a density higher than 35 units/acre is permitted.
These current standards must be adjusted to implement the General Plan Update, particularly the proposed Mixed Use High designation which allows up to 100 units per acre. The City’s current development standards, such as setbacks and parking requirements, will be revised as part of the comprehensive update to the Zoning Code to reflect the General Plan Update’s proposals and facilitate development at the allowable densities. The minimum unit size for live/work units will also be addressed in the Zoning Code update. The City’s height limit of 56 feet was established by a voter- initiated ballot in 1990. This height limit may present a constraint to achieving the highest allowable density.
As part of the General Plan update, the City conducted a survey on the Land Use Alternative to solicit public input. When asked if respondents would allow development to exceed the 56-foot height limit, most (39%) suggested specific parcels in specific locations like near transit, 21% suggested higher density areas in the city, 18% suggested exemptions for projects that provide onsite open space, 17% would allow exemptions for projects that provide affordable housing that exceed the City’s requirements, and 6% would allow the exemption citywide.
Within the mixed use areas, the City has established a Community Benefit program which encourages the inclusion of 15% affordable housing. Virtually all development projects in the mixed use areas participate in this program and therefore qualify a State density bonus and concessions. Such concessions would allow the increase in height limit. Furthermore, projects located within transit areas would receive additional height bonus. Nevertheless, this Housing Element includes an action for the City to conduct outreach and education on the impact of height limit on development potential and to develop mitigating strategies.
City of Culver City Housing Element
52 Table 37: Mixed-Use Development Standards
Minimum Lot Size
5,000 square feet
(Two or more abutting parcels may be combined to create a total site development area that is at least 5,000 square feet.)
Density
Base Density: 35 dwelling units/acre
Density with Community Benefit Incentive:
1. Up to 50 dwelling units/acre; or,
2. Up to 65 dwelling units/acre on lots identified for transit-oriented development; or,
3. Up to a density allowed by an abutting jurisdiction (up to 65 dwelling units/acre) on a split jurisdiction lot
For projects that also qualify for a State Density Bonus, the density bonus shall be calculated in addition to the Community Benefit Density.
Height
Adjacent to R1 or R2
Zone
Adjacent to R3, RLD, RMD, or
RHD Zone
Adjacent to Non-
Residential Zone Split Jurisdiction Lot
CN/CD/CG Zone:
• 35 ft
• 45 ft for portion of
building ≥35 ft from
R1/R2 Zone
CN Zone: 45 ft
CD/CG Zone:
• 45 ft on lots <150 ft in
depth
• 56 ft on lots ≥150 ft in
depth
CN Zone: 45 ft
CD/CG Zone: 56 ft
CN Zone: 45 ft
CD/CG Zone: 56 ft
Setbacks1
Building Height Front
Side and Rear
Adjacent to
Residential Zone4
Side and Rear
Adjacent to Non-
Residential Zone
Underground None Required
Portion of building ≤15
ft
Ground-level 15 ft
pedestrian setback
required, except setback
may vary from 0-15 ft when
pedestrian improvements
are included in the setback
area as approved by the
Director2
10 ft3,5 0 ft5
Portion of building >15
ft
5 ft 60 degree clear-zone
angle must be
maintained,
measured from 15 ft
above existing grade
and 10 ft from the
rear/side property
lines
0 ft5
Portion of building >35
ft abutting R1 or R2
Zone
N/A 35 ft N/A
City of Culver City Housing Element
53 Portion of Building >45
ft abutting R3, RLD,
RMD or RHD Zone
N/A 50 ft N/A
Source: Culver City Zoning Code, 2021
1. Screening, landscaping or greater setback than prescribed herein, may be required where necessary to comply with visual clearance requirements for driveways and where the reviewing authority under a site plan review may condition the use necessary to protect the public interest due to lot, site plan or building configuration and operations.
2. Pedestrian improvements include landscaping, benches, outdoor dining, planters, additional bike racks, additional street trees, small plazas, mobility related improvement, or other similar features.
3. Adequate screening and landscaping shall be provided
4. The width of an alley may be credited toward the setback requirement for properties adjacent to residential zones.
5. If abutting an alley, a minimum 2-foot setback is required, except within the TOD area.
Off-Street Parking Requirements
The City’s parking requirements for residential zones vary by residential type and housing product (Table 38). Two off-street parking spaces are required per unit for single-family, duplex, or triplex dwellings. Parking requirements for multi-family dwellings and the residential component of mixed-use development are based on the number of bedrooms and include standards for guest parking. Mobile homes are required to have one space per site, plus one guest parking space for each two mobile home sites. The Code does not have a direct incentive to reduce parking standards for providing affordable housing. However, the city’s Density Bonus Ordinance includes incentives following Government Code §65915. The number of parking spaces provided may also be reduced by paying parking in-lieu fees or for implementing mobility measures as part of project approval.
The graduated parking requirement based on unit size in multi-family projects, and the reduced standard for senior housing units help encourage development of smaller, more affordable units. However, studio/one-bedroom units over 900 square feet require two parking spaces, similar to a two- or three-bedroom unit. With COVID changing how people live and work, the City’s parking standards for live/work units (up to four spaces per unit) may be re-assessed for appropriateness.
Reductions in parking for mobility measures aimed at improving transportation options for non-drivers can also benefit residents of affordable projects and encourage the development of new affordable housing. The City is pursuing a comprehensive parking code update which will consider eliminating parking minimums, adopting parking maximums, and measures to reduce required parking by implementing transportation demand management measures. The parking code update will address constraints for smaller units and overall the appropriate standards for facilitating the development intensities as anticipated in the General Plan update. The parking code update is expected to be completed by 2022.
City of Culver City Housing Element
54 Table 38: Residential Parking Requirements
Type of Unit Minimum Parking Space Required
Single Family, duplex, and triplex units,
includes supportive housing and
transitional housing
2 spaces per dwelling unit
Mobile home park 1 space for each mobile home site plus 1 guest space for each 2 mobile home sites
Multi-family dwellings and residential
component of mixed-use development,
includes supportive housing and
transitional housing
Studio micro-units – 0.5 space, or 0 spaces for units in the TOD district
Studio and 1 bedroom, less than or equal to 900 sf - 1
space
Studio and 1 bedroom, greater than 900 sf - 2 spaces
2-3 bedroom units – 2 spaces
4 bedroom units – 3 spaces
(plus 1 space for every bedroom greater than 4)
Guest parking – 1 space for every 4 units
Accessory dwelling units None required
Live/work unit
Up to 900 sf – 2 spaces
900 sf to 1500 sf–3 spaces
Greater than 1500 sf – 4 spaces
Senior housing 1 space per unit, plus 1 guest parking space for each 10 units
Senior citizen congregate care housing 1 space for each 2 residential units, plus one guest/employee space for each 4 units
Single room occupancy units 0.5 spaces per unit, none required if within TOD district Residential care facilities 1 space for each 3 patient beds Source: Culver City Zoning Code, 2021
Density Bonus
State density bonus regulations have changed significantly in recent years. AB 1763, adopted in 2019, requires a density bonus to be granted for projects that include 100 percent lower income units, but allows up to 20 percent of total units in a project that qualifies for a density bonus to be for moderate-income households. Additionally, density bonus projects must be allowed four incentives or concessions, and developments within ½ mile of a major transit stop are allowed a height increase of up to three additional stories or 33 feet. For most projects, a density bonus of 80 percent is required; however, there are no limitations on density for projects located with ½ mile of a major transit stop. The bill also allows developers to request the elimination of minimum parking requirements for rental units affordable to lower-income families that are either supportive housing or special needs housing, as defined. AB 2345, which took effect on January 1, 2021 further incentivizes the production of affordable housing by increasing the maximum density bonus from 35 percent to 50 percent for projects not composed exclusively of affordable housing.
The City last updated its Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Density Bonus in 2005 (Chapter
17.580). However, the ordinance was written in anticipation of future state legislative
City of Culver City Housing Element
55 changes to density bonus law in that it consistently references California Government Code Section 65915 rather than explicitly stating the requirements within the ordinance.
Therefore, the City’s density bonus regulations comply with recent changes to state law and are not required to be updated at this time. The city has used the Density Bonus Program in the past to support dwelling units developed for lower-income seniors, persons with disabilities, and families.
Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Persons with physical, mental, and/or developmental disabilities may have special housing needs related to restricted mobility or difficultly caring for oneself. The City’s Zoning Code, permitting procedures, and building codes have been analyzed to identify any potential constraints to development of housing for persons with disabilities.
The city’s provisions for these housing types are discussed below.
Residential Care Facilities
The Culver City Municipal Code provides the following definition for residential care facilities:
Facilities providing 24-hour residential, assisted living, social and personal care for children, the elderly, and people with limited ability for self-care. Varying levels of care and supervision are provided.
Residential care facilities may include basic services and community space. Includes board and care homes; children’s homes; orphanages; rehabilitation centers; convalescent homes, nursing home and similar facilities. Excludes emergency shelters, transitional housing, supportive housing, and facilities for persons requiring surgical or other primary medical treatment.
Health and Safety Code §§1267.8, 1566.3, and 1568.08 require local governments to treat licensed residential care facilities with six or fewer residents no differently than other by-right single-family housing uses. “Six or fewer persons” does not include the operator, the operator’s family, or persons employed as staff. Local agencies must allow these licensed residential care facilities in any area zoned for residential use and may not require licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer persons to obtain conditional use permits or variances that are not required of other family dwellings.
The Code identifies residential care facilities that serve six or fewer persons as permitted uses within all residential zones and all commercial zones allowing residential development with no required discretionary review. Large residential care facilities (7 or more persons) are conditionally permitted in all residential zones, as well as the CN, CG and CC zones. In the R1, R2, and R3 zones, a minimum 5-acre site is required. This minimum site size is constraining the development of larger residential care facilities as the number of large sites in the City is limited. The City will revise the Zoning Code to address the provision of residential care facilities for seven or more persons in residential zones.
The Zoning Code requires one parking space for each three patient beds for residential care facilities. For small facilities with six or fewer persons, this constitutes a parking
City of Culver City Housing Element
56 requirement equivalent to that of a single-family residence. The Zoning Code contains no other development standards that are specific to residential care facilities.
There are currently two group homes in Culver City that address the supportive service and housing needs of persons ages 18 to 59 with developmental disabilities. These homes serve a total of 10 persons.
Definition of Family
Some definitions of “family” may impermissibly limit the development and siting of group homes for persons with disabilities by defining a family based on biological relation or by size. However, California court cases have ruled that such definition is invalid. The Culver City Zoning Code contains no definition of family and therefore does not place any constraints on housing for persons with disabilities in this regard.
Reasonable Accommodation Procedures
In July of 2013, the City Council adopted amendments to the Zoning Code that provide for reasonable accommodation procedures consistent with State law. According to the definition in the Zoning Code, reasonable accommodation means “providing an individual with a disability, or developers of housing for individuals with disabilities, flexibility in the application of land use and zoning regulations or policies, including the modification or waiver of certain requirements when necessary to eliminate barriers to housing opportunities.” The Director may grant reasonable accommodations using the same procedures that are applied to administrative modifications.
Generally, the process involves the following:
1. Submission of a No-Fee Reasonable Accommodations application including plans and written request describing why there is no reasonable alternative accommodation that complies with the Code.
2. Staff level review of application.
3. After staff level review, mail notice of Pending Administrative Decision to all Adjacent Property Owners and Occupants for a 15-day comment period.
4. Shortly after the comment period, the Community Development Director administratively decides and issues a notice of decision letter which may include Project conditions.
5. A 15-day appeal period follows the Notice of Decision.
6. At end of appeal period, the applicant has 12 months to submit for plan check, pull building permits, and start construction.
The Zoning Code (Section 17.550.020) outlines the findings for reasonable accommodations. The Director shall record the decision in writing with the findings on which the decision is based. The Reasonable Accommodation may be approved with or without conditions only after making all the following findings:
City of Culver City Housing Element
57 1. The dwelling, which is the subject of the request for reasonable accommodation, will be used by an individual with a disability.
2. The requested accommodation is necessary to make the dwelling available to an individual with a disability.
3. There is no reasonable alternative accommodation that will comply or come closer to complying with the development standards of this Title.
4. The requested accommodation will not negatively impact surrounding uses or properties.
5. Approval of the reasonable accommodation would not be detrimental to the public health, interest, safety, or general welfare and would not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and in the same zoning district.
The finding requiring the requested accommodation to not negatively impact surrounding uses or properties may be viewed as subjective with the potential to impede providing housing for persons with disabilities. The Housing Plan includes an action to remove this finding.
Provision For A Variety Of Housing Types
Housing Element law specifies that jurisdictions must identify adequate sites to be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards to encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including single- and multi-family homes, mobile homes, transitional and supportive housing, emergency shelters and low barrier navigation centers, and farmworker housing. A summary of the housing types permitted in each zoning designation is provided in Table 35. Additional discussion on various housing types is included below.
Single-Family Homes
The Culver City Zoning Code defines single-family dwellings as “a building designed for and/or occupied exclusively by one family. The definition also includes: factory-built, modular housing units, constructed in compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC), and mobile homes/manufactured housing on permanent foundations.” Single- family homes are permitted by-right in all of the City’s residential zones. To encourage the efficient use of the City’s multi-family residential land, the City may consider requiring a minimum density requirement for residential projects in multi-family neighborhoods during the comprehensive Zoning Code Update process.
With the General Plan update, the Preferred Land Use Map proposes to replace the Low Density Residential designation with Incremental Infill, which would allow single- family lots above 4,950 square feet to be developed with a total of three units, or four units if one of the units is deed restricted as affordable housing, inclusive of an ADU and JADU.
City of Culver City Housing Element
58 The City will implement SB9 in the eligible Single-Family Residential zone. Standard size sites (roughly 5,000 square feet) in the new Incremental Infill designation will follow the City’s own development standards. SB9 and Incremental Infill will allow the same number of units (inclusive of ADUs), with the difference being Incremental Infill will give the city more control of its zoning.
Mobile Homes/Manufactured Housing
There is often an economy of scale in manufacturing homes in a plant rather than on site, thereby reducing cost. State law precludes local governments from prohibiting the installation of mobile homes on permanent foundations on single-family lots. It also declares a mobile home park to be a permitted land use on any land planned and zoned for residential use and prohibits requiring the average density in a new mobile home park to be less than that permitted by the Municipal Code.
As noted above, mobile homes and manufactured housing on a permanent foundation are included in the definition of single-family dwelling and are, therefore, permitted by-right in all of the City’s residential zones and subject to development standards consistent with single-family detached dwellings.
Multi-family Housing
The Zoning Code defines multiple-family dwellings as “a building or a portion of a building used and/or designed as residences for four or more families living independently of each other. Includes: apartments; townhouse development (four or more attached single-family dwellings where no unit is located over another unit); senior citizen multiple-family housing; and common interest development (such as condominiums).”
Currently, multi-family housing is permitted in the RLD, RMD, and RHD zones. Multi-family housing is also permitted as part of mixed use projects within the CN, CG, CC, and CD zones. Duplexes are also permitted in all residential zones except for the R1 zone and triplexes in all residential zones except for the R1 and R2 zones.
Pursuant to the Preferred Land Use Map for 2045 General Plan, duplex, triplex, and fourplex structures will be permitted in Incremental Infill, inclusive of ADUs and JADUs. In addition, multi-family housing will be permitted in Corridor Multi-Family and Neighborhood Multi-Family areas. Standalone multi-family housing will also be permitted in all mixed use designations, and not required to be part of a mixed use project.
Farm Worker Housing
The City’s Zoning Ordinance does not identify farm worker housing separately as a permitted use. No agricultural activities are found within Culver City or in the surrounding communities. Additionally, the 2014-2018 American Community Survey identified only 18 persons with agricultural occupations residing in Culver City. Therefore, there is no significant need to provide farm worker housing.
City of Culver City Housing Element
59 Emergency Shelters and Low Barrier Navigation Centers SB 2 of 2007 strengthened the planning requirements for local governments in the area of emergency shelters and transitional/supportive housing. Cities must estimate the number of persons in need of emergency shelter and determine whether adequate capacity currently exists to serve the need. If there is insufficient capacity, cities are required to identify at least one zone where emergency shelters may be established “by-right” (i.e., without a conditional use permit) or enter into a multi-jurisdictional agreement with up to two other agencies to provide a facility.
Passed in 2019, Assembly Bill 139 limits the standards for emergency shelters that may be imposed by local jurisdictions to only standards that apply to residential or commercial development within the same zone, except that a local jurisdiction may apply standards that include the following:
• The maximum number of beds
• Sufficient parking to accommodate all staff, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses in the same zone
• The size and location of onsite waiting and client intake areas • The provision of onsite management
• The proximity to other emergency shelters, provided that emergency shelters are not required to be more than 300 feet apart
• The length of stay
• Lighting
• Security during hours that the emergency shelter is in operation In Culver City, emergency shelters are allowed by-right in parts of the IG zone, the East Washington Boulevard Overlay zone, and along Sepulveda Boulevard as designated in the Zoning Code. The area where emergency shelters are allowed includes about 119 parcels (24 acres) of land. Most parcels are between 0.4 acre to slightly over one acre.
The types of industrial uses in Culver City are usually related to creative technology. No manufacturing uses are located in the city. Therefore, these areas do not have environmental hazard issues that are typically associated with manufacturing or heavy industrial uses and not suitable for human habitation. As shown in Appendix B, many industrial properties are old and developed with low existing FAR. The Proposed Land Use Plan redesignates these areas as Industrial Mixed Use, allowing residential uses in these areas.
The Culver City Zoning Code currently has the following specific standards for emergency shelters, which comply with state law:
• Minimum lot size – 0.25 acre
• Number of beds – 30 beds per shelter
• Separation of another shelter – 300 feet
City of Culver City Housing Element
60 In addition, on March 22, 2021, the City Council directed staff to move forward with the Venice Parking Lot site (9415-25 Venice Blvd.) to build 10 modular units for temporary shelter, affordable housing, or permanent supportive housing. A budget of $3 million has been allocated to this project. Another $6.8 million has been allocated to construct and operate a 70-bed sprung shelter on the Venice Parking Lot site.
According to the 2020 point-in-time homeless count completed by LAHSA, there are an estimated 49 sheltered and 167 unsheltered persons experiencing homelessness living in Culver City. Based on this population, the parcels where emergency shelters are allowed by-right, along with the Venice Parking Lot projects, are adequate to provide emergency shelters for the unsheltered homeless population. Emergency shelters are also conditionally permitted within the CN, CG and CC commercial zoning districts.
Chapter 17.320 of the Zoning Code (Off-Street Parking and Loading) requires that one parking space be provided for each bed within an emergency shelter. Additional standards related to the development of emergency shelters are contained in Section
17.400.046 of the Zoning Code and include requirements related to lot size, facilities for laundry, secure storage of personal property and refuse, and limitations on outdoor activity. As part of the Zoning Code update to implement 2045 General Plan, the City will address the parking standards for emergency shelters.
Enacted in 2019, AB 101 requires cities to permit a Low Barrier Navigation Center development by-right in areas zoned for mixed uses and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses if it meets specified requirements. A “Low Barrier Navigation Center” is defined as “a Housing First,16 low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing.” Low Barrier shelters may include options such as allowing pets, permitting partners to share living space, and providing storage for residents’ possessions. AB 101 also sets a timeline for jurisdictions to act on applications for Low Barrier Navigation Center developments. The requirements of this bill are effective through the end of 2026, at which point they are repealed. As part of the Zoning Code update to implement 2045 General Plan, the City will address the provisions for Low Barrier Navigation Centers.
Transitional and Supportive Housing
Per State Law (SB 2 passed in 2007 and SB 745 passed in 2013), transitional and supportive housing shall be considered residential uses that are subject only to those procedures and requirements that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. In July of 2013 zoning code amendments were adopted by the City Council that contain definitions for transitional and supportive housing and provide regulations for these uses that are no more restrictive than other residential developments of the same type in the same zone.
16 Housing First refers to an approach to serving people experiencing homelessness by first providing a decent, safe place to live before addressing any other barriers that may have resulted in the person’s homelessness and could put them at risk of homelessness again (e.g., increasing income, improving health, or reducing harmful behaviors).
City of Culver City Housing Element
61 Adopted in 2018, AB 2162 requires supportive housing projects of 50 units or fewer (for cities with a population of less than 200,000) to be permitted by-right in zones where multi-family and mixed-use developments are permitted. The supportive housing project must meet certain criteria, such as providing a specified amount of floor area for supportive services. The bill also prohibits minimum parking requirements for supportive housing within ½ mile of a public transit stop and requires developers to provide the planning agency with documentation detailing the type of supportive services that would be provided with the housing development. The Housing Plan includes a program to address supportive housing as part of the Zoning Code update to implement 2045 General Plan.
Single Room Occupancy
In July of 2013, the City Council adopted Zoning Code amendments (Section
17.400.106) that include explicit reference, development standards and permit procedures to encourage and facilitate Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing. SRO housing is a permitted use as part of mixed use projects in the CN, CG, CC, and CD zones. The Zoning Code requires SRO housing units to be a minimum of 200 square feet and include kitchen and bathroom facilities. One parking space is required for each unit. This Housing Element includes an action for the City to consider allowing SRO housing as a standalone residential use.
Accessory Dwelling Units
The creation of an accessory dwelling unit is permitted by right in all residential zones.
Recent state legislation, including AB 68, AB 587, AB 881, and SB 13, modifies the fees, application process, and development standards for accessory dwelling units, with the goal of lowering barriers to accessory dwelling unit development and increasing overall numbers of accessory dwelling units. In January 2020, the City Council adopted updates to the zoning ordinance to comply with current state law (Section 17.400.095).
Per the Zoning Code, accessory dwelling units may not exceed 850 square feet for a one-bedroom unit or 1,200 square feet for a two-bedroom or larger unit. The Zoning Code does not require parking for an accessory dwelling unit, and replacement parking is not required when existing off-street parking is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit. Accessory dwelling units may not be sold separately from the primary dwelling or rented for less than 30 days.
The proposed 2045 General Plan redesignates the single-family neighborhoods as Incremental Infill areas. Each single-family lot over 4,950 square feet can accommodate up to four units if one of the units is dedicated as affordable housing, inclusive of ADUs and JADUs. The Zoning Code will be updated to implement the 2045 General Plan, including amending the ADU ordinance to implement the Incremental Infill concept, should the City Council adopt the General Plan with the Preferred Land Use Map (adoption scheduled for Fall 2022).
Employee Housing
State Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5) specifies that any employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer employees should
City of Culver City Housing Element
62 be deemed a single-family structure with a residential land use designation. In Culver City, caretaker and employee housing is allowed with a conditional use permit in the Light Industrial (IL) and General Industrial (IG) zones. The Housing Plan includes a program to address employee housing as part of the Zoning Code update to implement the 2045 General Plan.
Condominium Conversions
Section 17.400.040 of the Zoning Code contains provisions for the conversion of existing rental dwelling units to condominiums. Condominium conversions of existing developments of five or more rental dwelling units may be permitted subject to approval of a Site Plan Review and Tentative Map by the Planning Commission.
Compliance with basic development standards for the zoning district is required.
Developments of less than five rental units are prohibited from converting to condominiums.
Building Codes and Enforcement
State law prohibits the imposition of building standards that are not necessitated by local geographic, climatic, or topographic conditions and requires that local governments making changes or modifications in building standards must report such charges to the Department of Housing and Community Development and file an expressed finding that the change is needed.
The City’s Building Code currently incorporates the 2019 California Building Codes (CBC) as mandated by the State. Newly constructed and renovated buildings must conform to the standards of the CBC.
In 2019, the City also adopted local amendments to the CBC to establish “Reach Code” standards (Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC) Section 15.02.1100). The purpose of the Reach Code is to reduce the use of natural resources, create healthier living environments, and minimize the negative impacts of development on local, regional, and global ecosystems. The City’s Reach Code is in addition to all current Title 24 Energy Code requirements. The extent of additional improvements required is based upon the type and size of the project.
Additionally, the City’s Solar Photovoltaic Ordinance requires all new construction projects of 10,000 square feet or greater to install 1 kilowatt (kw) of solar photovoltaic power for each 10,000 square feet of new construction, not including parking garage areas. Additionally, new additions of over 10,000 new square feet or major renovations of over 10,000 square feet are required to install 1 kilowatt of solar photovoltaic power for each 10,000 square feet of major renovation or additional area. The solar photovoltaic requirement does not apply single- and two-family residences. One kilowatt of solar photovoltaic power is estimated to add less than half of 1% to the cost of construction.
These codes and regulations are reasonable and necessary to ensure health and safety, as well as encourage energy conservation and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. No additional regulations have been imposed by the city that would unnecessarily add to housing costs.
City of Culver City Housing Element
63 The CBC and the City’s amendments to the CBC are implemented by the Building Division during the plan check and permit issuance process. Additionally, Code Enforcement Division staff is responsible for monitoring compliance with the CBC and other property maintenance issues. Code Enforcement staff attempts to assist property owners in carrying out needed maintenance and repairs by providing information and referrals to city assistance programs, particularly for low-income persons, persons with disabilities, and the elderly.
Short Term Rentals
As home-sharing websites have risen in popularity in recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of homes being offered on a short-term basis to generate rental income. Homes may be offered as “home-shares,” where the primary resident offers one or more rooms to visitors while remaining on site, or whole homes may be rented on a daily or weekly basis. While the impact of short-term rentals on housing availability and affordability is still being evaluated, there is evidence that short- term rentals have a negative effect on housing affordability by changing the way residential properties are used and reducing housing availability for local residents.
Jurisdictions vary in their approach to short-term rentals. On one end of the spectrum, some cities remain silent on the issue and do not create specific permits or regulations for short-term rentals. On the other end, some cities choose to ban short-term rentals of any kind in their city. Many cities do allow short-term rentals in at least some zones, while also requiring permits for rental properties and including performance standards for short-term rentals.
Currently, short-term rentals (less than 30 days) are prohibited in Culver City. The City Council has considered changing the regulations to permit short-term rentals in some form. To provide guidance on this issue, the City formed both a task force and City Council Subcommittee in 2017. Several public meetings were held to gather input from the public on the topic, and to consider proposed short term rental regulations. In February 2019, the City Council held a special meeting to begin the formal process of drafting policy recommendations for short term rentals. Following public input and discussion, the City Council directed staff to begin writing a short-term rental ordinance that would:
1. Allow short term residential rentals in Culver City
2. Limit short term rentals to the host’s primary residence only
3. Allow both hosted and unhosted short term rentals
4. Not impose a limitation on the number of nights short term rented annually
5. Not allow short term rental of a duplex, triplex, or apartment unit, except for the primary residence of the owner if it is on site
6. Require neighbor notification by hosts
7. Require annual reporting to City Council on short term residential rentals
City of Culver City Housing Element
64 Development Processing Procedures
Residential Permit Processing
State Planning and Zoning Law provides permit processing requirements for residential development. Within the framework of state requirements, the city has structured its development review process to minimize the time required to obtain permits while ensuring that projects receive careful review.
Early consultation with City staff is encouraged to identify issues as soon as possible and reduce processing time. Many residential uses are permitted by-right and do not require discretionary permits (see Table 35). However, some permitted uses do require Preliminary Project Review (PPR) and/or administrative site plan review as described below.
For projects requiring discretionary permits, the applicant must submit a formal discretionary application with the Current Planning Division after addressing any changes/comments made during the PPR process. Concurrent processing of required discretionary entitlements (e.g., subdivision and site plan review requests) is also provided to expedite the review process. Discretionary project applications are first reviewed by the Project Review Committee (consisting of staff representatives from the Public Works, Building Safety, Fire Prevention, and Current Planning Departments and Divisions). The applicant will then make any required corrections or provide additional information prior to the item being scheduled for a Planning Commission public hearing. Once a decision is made by the Planning Commission, the discretionary application is then ready for building permit plan check (unless the discretionary entitlement procedures require final approval by City Council). The procedures for common discretionary permits are described in greater detail below.
Preliminary Project Review
Applicants are required to undergo a PPR for some discretionary projects. This process allows the applicant to determine the feasibility of the project and make adjustments during the preliminary planning stages to minimize costs. A PPR Request form summarizing the project, along with a proposed site plan indicating parking, and pedestrian and vehicular access, are circulated among city departments for review.
The applicant then attends a meeting of the Project Review Committee (PRC) (comprised of representatives of the reviewing departments) at which comments and corrections are provided by the PRC. The PRC meeting is typically held within two to three weeks after the PPR request submittal. Ministerial or non-discretionary projects do not require PPR or PRC review. For discretionary projects, the applicant should address any comments/corrections from the PRC prior to submitting a discretionary permit application.
Site Plan Review
As stated in Chapter 17.540 of the Zoning Code, the purpose of the Site Plan Review process is to ensure compliance with the required standards, design guidelines, and ordinances of the City; minimize potential adverse effects on surrounding properties and the environment; and protect the integrity and character of the residential, commercial, and public areas of the City. Site Plan Review is required for residential
City of Culver City Housing Element
65 projects which include the construction of three or more units. For projects consisting of less than ten units, the Community Development Director may approve the site plan review administratively. However, for residential projects proposing ten or more units, or projects that require approval of another discretionary permit, a public hearing is required in front of the Planning Commission, which is the approval authority. The City is currently working on a text amendment to increase the thresholds for Site Plan Review to increase the number of housing units that may be approved administratively that include affordable housing. This is anticipated to be complete in 2021.
Pursuant to AB 1397, RHNA sites that require rezoning to accommodate the lower income RHNA shortfall are subject to by-right approval if the project includes 20% affordable units. To avoid inconsistent application of this incentive, the City will extend the by-right approval to all multi-family projects that include 20% affordable to lower income households.
To approve a site plan review, the Director or Planning Commission must make the following required findings:
• The general layout of the project, including orientation and location of buildings, open space, vehicular and pedestrian access and circulation, parking and loading facilities, building setbacks and heights, and other improvements on the site, is consistent with the purpose and intent stated above, the requirements of the zoning district in which the site is located, and with all applicable development standards and design guidelines.
• The architectural design of the structure(s), and their materials and colors, are compatible with the scale and character of surrounding development and other improvements on the site. The designs are also consistent with the purpose and intent stated above, the requirements of the zoning district in which the site is located, and with all applicable development standards and design guidelines. • The landscaping, including the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials, provisions for irrigation, and protection of landscape elements, has been designed to create visual relief, complement structures, and provide an attractive environment, and is consistent with the purpose and intent stated above, the requirements of the zoning district in which the site is located, and with all applicable development standards and design guidelines. • The design and layout of the proposed project will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, will not result in vehicular or pedestrian hazards, and will be in the best interest of the public health, safety, and general welfare.
• The existing or proposed public facilities necessary to accommodate the proposed project (e.g., fire protection devices, parkways, public utilities, sewers, sidewalks, storm drains, streetlights, traffic control devices, and the width and pavement of adjoining streets and alleys) will be available to serve the subject site.
City of Culver City Housing Element
66 • The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.
With the development objective design standards (see Housing Program 4.H – Objective Design Standards), the finding regarding the design and layout of the proposed project may need to be revised. However, the finding related to compatibility with character of surrounding development is based on design and layout of the project, and has never been used to deny a housing project. The development of objective design standards will also address this finding. Furthermore, the General Plan update will establish specific performance standards for public facility improvements for new development. These standards are comparable to those required for urbanized communities and are necessary for serving the new development.
Conditional Use Permit
Conditional use permits are discretionary permits intended to allow for specific activities and uses whose effect on the surrounding area cannot be determined before being proposed for a particular location (Chapter 17.530 of the Zoning Code). Conditional use permits are not required for the majority of residential uses; however, the City requires a conditional use permit for all large residential care facilities, emergency shelters in the CN, CG, and CC zones, and senior citizen congregate care facilities.
Conditional use permits require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. To approve a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission must make five required findings as stated in Chapter 17.530 of the Zoning Code. The Planning Commission may also impose conditions of approval to ensure that the project complies with the required findings. The typical processing time for conditional use permits is three to six months.
Tentative Tract Map / Tentative Parcel Map
Subdivision of land is regulated by Chapter 15.10 of the Culver City Municipal Code and the Subdivision Map Act. Tentative parcel maps are required when a project proposes to subdivide land into four or fewer parcels. Projects proposing the creation of more than four parcels require a tentative tract map. Both tentative tract maps and tentative parcel maps require a public hearing before the Planning Commission, which is the approval authority. Both tentative tract and tentative parcel maps take approximately three to six months to process.
Environmental Review
Environmental review is required for all development projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Most projects in Culver City are either Categorically Exempt or require only an Initial Study and Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. Developments that have the potential of creating significant impacts that cannot be mitigated require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.
Environmental review typically occurs concurrently with entitlement review and the time it takes to process a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration does not typically add to the overall processing time for an application. Additionally, Categorical Exemptions such as accessory dwelling units require a minimal amount of
City of Culver City Housing Element
67 time to process. As a result, state-mandated environmental review does not pose a significant constraint to housing development.
Plan Check
The building permit plan check review period for the processing of residential building permits is generally ten days for the first round of reviews by various city departments and five days for resubmittal, depending on the city’s workload. Building codes are applied to new construction, and are monitored and inspected under the building permit process. Where no permits have been obtained, inspections are made in response to request and complaints. As indicated previously, the City’s Building Code incorporates the California Building Codes 2019 Edition. The city’s Building, Mechanical, Plumbing and Electrical codes include minor revisions and amendments to the Uniform Codes that exceed state standards. These amendments are related to fire alarms, smoke detectors, sprinkler systems, and other basic safety measures. All new structures are required to provide fire sprinklers. Although this requirement adds incrementally to the cost of construction, it is considered a vital public safety issue that justifies the additional cost.
Processing Time
Permit processing times are often cited as a factor that contributes to the high cost of housing. However, development review and permit processing procedures are necessary to ensure that development proceeds in an orderly manner, consistent with the General Plan. Additionally, the City is obligated to comply with various time requirements imposed by State law, including the Permit Streamlining Act, the Subdivision Map Act, and the California Environmental Quality Act. The processing times listed in Table 39 include the preliminary plan review process and environmental review, as well as entitlement review.
Table 39: Planning Permit Processing Times
Development Application Processing Time
(months) Reviewing Body
Site Plan Review 6-12 Community Development Director /
Planning Commission
Conditional Use Permit 3-6 Planning Commission
Variance 3-6 Planning Commission/City Council
Zone Change 9-12 Planning Commission/City Council
General Plan Amendment 9-12 Planning Commission/City Council Tentative Parcel Map 3-6 Planning Commission
Tentative Tract Map 3-6 Planning Commission/City Council Source: City of Culver City, 2021
In summary, the City’s review procedures and related processing times help to ensure that the development review process meets all legal requirements and facilitates high quality development within the City. Many proposed residential developments can be approved administratively and discretionary permits are processed concurrently to minimize processing time. Therefore, the city’s review procedures do not cause a significant unwarranted constraint to housing development.
City of Culver City Housing Element
68 Planning and Development Fees
State law limits fees charged for development permit processing to the reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. Various fees and assessments are charged by the City and other public agencies to cover the costs of processing permit applications and providing services and facilities such as schools, parks, and infrastructure. Almost all of these fees are assessed through a pro rata share system, based on the magnitude of the project's impact or on the extent of the benefit that will be derived.
Table 40 shows the planning fees for the City of Culver City compared to other Westside cities. As shown, Culver City’s fees are most similar to the City of Beverly Hills; however, all the cities shown are generally comparable. Per state law, these fees may not exceed the city’s cost to review and process the permit. The City periodically evaluates the actual cost of processing development permits when revising its fee schedule. The last fee schedule update was adopted in 2013.
While the planning fees such as General Plan Amendment (GPA), Zone Change, and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) appear high, these fees are charged on a per-project basis, not per unit. Extensive consultation took place for the development of the land use policy, which offers high levels of flexibility for development. Therefore, upon the completion of the General Plan and Zoning Code update, the need for developers to pursue GPA, Zone Change, and CUP would be minimized. Furthermore, the City encourages the development of high-density residential projects. The new Zoning Code will include appropriate development standards to facilitate the achievement of maximum allowable density for the respective zones. Therefore, economies of scale can be achieved on a per-unit basis, encouraging the development of high-density residential projects and maximizing the number of units. To facilitate affordable housing, the City will waive/reduce/defer city planning fees.
Furthermore, the City conducted a nexus study in July 2020 to establish a Commercial Linkage Fee program. The Nexus Study also researched the impact fees as a percentage of development value among neighboring jurisdictions. The study concluded that the City’s overall impact fee level is around the median value compared to other jurisdictions and therefore not considered a constraint to development.
City of Culver City Housing Element
69 Table 40: Comparison of Planning Fees for Westside Cities Fee Type Culver City1 Santa
Monica Beverly Hills West Hollywood
Site Plan
Review
Administrative:
$4,411
Planning
Commission:
$20,541
N/A N/A
Development
Permit, Class A:
$23,910
Development
Permit, Class B:
$6,855
Conditional
Use Permit
1-2 Units: $8,392
Other: $19,4012 $17,241 $21,457 Major: $9,082
Minor: $6,246
Variance $17,833 $14,328 $14,954 $8,021
Zone Change $28,627 $24,527
Actual cost;
deposit
determined by
staff
$19,012
General Plan
Amendment $30,310 $16,513
Actual cost;
deposit
determined by
staff
$19,012
Tentative
Parcel Map $15,1303 $8,247 $20,247 $4,084
Tentative Tract
Map $16,663 + $30/lot $8,247 $20,247 $4,084
Time Extension
Administrative:
$358
Planning
Commission: 50%
of application fee
Without public
hearing: $1,070
With public
hearing: $1,774
Administrative:
$2,079
Planning
Commission: 50%
of application fee
Notes:
1. Fee includes a 4% Technology Fee.
2. CUP fee for multi-family is project-based and therefore represents a lower per-unit fee compared to the fee for 1-2 units.
3. Fee is reduced to $7,868 if processed in conjunction with a site plan review.
Sources: City of Culver City, 2013; City of Santa Monica, 2020; City of Beverly Hills, 2020; City of West Hollywood, 2018
In addition to the planning entitlement fees discussed above, development projects are subject to building permit, plan check, impact, and development fees. Plan check, building permits, and other associated fees cover the cost for the City to review the project to ensure compliance with the California Building Code. Development fees are assessed on new development projects to cover the cost of the additional burden the project places on existing infrastructure and services, including the sewer system, transportation network, parks, and schools. Impact and other fees may be required to support amenities like mobility and parks infrastructure and paying a fair share of costs toward affordable housing. For example, the City recently approved a mobility improvement fee and linkage fee.
City of Culver City Housing Element
70 Because many of the City’s fees are based on building valuation, it is difficult to summarize total fees that apply to all residential projects. Therefore, a specific project example is used to provide a per unit cost for illustrative purposes. Table 41provides a summary of the development fees and permit costs for a mixed-use project which includes 97 apartment units, approximately 14,000 square feet of commercial space, and one level of subterranean parking. As shown, the total fees per unit for the project are $15,589. However, it should be noted that for a mixed-use project, it is difficult to separate certain fees by the residential and commercial portions of the project; therefore, the actual per unit cost for a standalone residential project is likely lower than what is presented because some fees that apply to the commercial portion of the project have been included in the per unit calculation below. It is also important to note that not all of these costs are due during the entitlement phase of the project.
Some fees, including school and sewer facility fees, are due at building permit issuance or before receiving the certificate of occupancy.
Since the City provides an exemption from the public art fee and the parkland fee for affordable projects, a per unit cost for a hypothetical affordable project is also included in Table 41. With these fees excluded, the per unit cost is $14,766.
Table 41: Summary of Fees for a Typical Mixed-Use Development at 11924 Washington Blvd Project Specifics: Mixed-use development including 97 apartment units (86,501 s.f.), 13,687 s.f. of retail and restaurant space, and one level of subterranean parking (35,313 s.f.)
Fee Description Cost ($)
Planning Entitlement Fees
Preliminary Plan Review 2,392
Site Plan Review 20,541
Environmental Analysis: Mitigated
Negative Declaration 6,045
Surcharge for New Residential
Construction ($250/unit, $12,750
maximum)1
12,750
Building & Safety Fees
Building Permit Fee (based on project
valuation) 373,108
Seismic Fees
(Residential, 3 stories or less = valuation x
$0.00013, Commercial or Residential, over
3 story = valuation x $0.00028)
Residential: 3,564
Commercial: 834
Plan Check Fees (75% of building permit
fee) 279,943
Other Fees 100
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy
(3 at $500 each) 1,500
CA Building Standards Fee 1,216
Fire Prevention Plan Check Fee 59,697
Structural Outside Review Fee 11,165
City of Culver City Housing Element
71 Project Specifics: Mixed-use development including 97 apartment units (86,501 s.f.), 13,687 s.f. of retail and restaurant space, and one level of subterranean parking (35,313 s.f.)
Fee Description Cost ($)
Technology Surcharge
(4% of all permit/plan check fees) 28,565
Development and Impact Fees
School Fees
(Residential=$4.08/s.f., Commercial =
$0.66/s.f.)
Residential: 484,065
Commercial: 7,569
Commercial/Industrial Tax ($25 for first
$250,000 of valuation plus 1.5% of any
amount over $250,000)2
40,947
In Lieu Parkland Fee3 79,854
New Development Impact Fee2 8,124
Culver City Sewer Facility Fee 80,451
City of LA Sewer Facility Fee 67,172
Art in Public Places3 (1% of project
valuation) Project chose an installation over fee
Total Fees 1,569,601
Cost per Square Foot (entire project) 11.58
Cost per Unit4 15,589
Cost per Unit for Affordable Project5 14,766
Source: City of Culver City, Planning, Building & Safety and Public Works Departments Notes:
1. This fee was enacted as means of recovering the cost of staff time associated with projects - larger projects tend to take up more time so the fee is based on number of units rather than a flat rate.
2. Applies to commercial projects only.
3. Affordable projects are exempt from parkland and public art fees.
4. The cost per unit calculation excludes fees specifically applied to the commercial portion of project. However, in some cases (i.e. building permit fees and plan check fees), it is difficult to separate the fees based on the commercial/residential portions of the project. Therefore, per unit costs for a standalone development of 97 units would likely be lower than what is presented here.
5. The cost per unit for affordable project calculation excludes fees specifically applied to the commercial portion of the project, parkland fees, and public art fees.
As shown in Table 41, development impact fees make up a significant proportion of the total required fees for a project. A discussion of these fees is included below.
School Fees
The city collects school fees on behalf of the Culver City Unified School District to pay for new facilities and the ongoing maintenance of existing buildings and facilities.
School fees are levied for all new development, both commercial and residential, over 500 square feet. However, since new residential development naturally creates an additional need for school facilities through the resulting population growth, school fees are significantly higher for residential projects than for commercial projects ($4.08 per square foot compared to $0.66 per square foot). While school fees are often the largest individual fee required to be paid by a developer, the fee amounts are set by the District and the City has no authority over this constraint.
City of Culver City Housing Element
72 Parkland and Public Art
Public parks are developed and maintained by the City’s Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department. Municipal Code Title 15, §§15.06.300-15.060.330 (Residential Development Park Dedication and In Lieu Parkland Fee) requires that all new residential developments of two or more dwelling units or additions of one or more units on existing residential developments either dedicate land or pay a fee for the development and/or maintenance of public parks. Title 15 states a goal of providing 3 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents or, if no land is available, to pay a fee that quantifies the 3 acres per 1,000 resident objective.
Culver City implements an Art in Public Places Program (APPP) requirement for all new residential development projects of five or more units, or remodels of five or more units.
The required APPP allocation is 1% of the project valuation. If the APPP allocation is $75,000 or less, it is required to be paid into the Culver City Cultural Trust Fund. If the APPP allocation is greater than $75,000, then the developer may choose to either deposit the amount into the Fund or commission a work of art equivalent in value to the APPP allocation.
To facilitate development of covenanted low and moderate-income units, the City specifically exempts such projects from In-lieu Parkland Fees and Art in Public Places Fees.
Sewer Facility Fees
In Culver City, sewer facility fees are due to both the City of Culver City and the City of Los Angeles. Fees are used to fund ongoing maintenance of the wastewater system and expansion of capacity as necessary. The City’s wastewater infrastructure is discussed further in the Infrastructure Constraints section Mobility Improvement Fee
In June 2021, the City Council adopted the Mobility Improvement Fees Ordinance to partially fund mobility improvement projects and programs to support forecasted growth related to new development. This Ordinance will apply a Mobility Improvement Fee requirement to both new residential and nonresidential development. Beginning August 27, 2021 (the effective date), the fee for new residential developments will be $7,636 per single-unit residential unit, $3,394 per multi-unit residential unit, and $3,818 per accessory dwelling unit. While the City completed a nexus study and economic analysis to ensure the appropriateness of the fee, the City Council has expressed an interest in ongoing monitoring of this new fee to ensure that it does not constrain residential development. Currently, affordable housing and ADUs are exempt from the Mobility Improvement Fees.
Affordable Housing Linkage Fee
In July 2021, the City Council adopted the Affordable Housing Commercial Development Impact Fee Ordinance to fund affordable housing projects. This Ordinance will apply a “linkage” fee to new non-residential development. Beginning in January 2022, the fee will be applied to new non-residential development at $5 per net
City of Culver City Housing Element
73 leasable square foot. The City completed a nexus study to ensure the appropriateness of the fee.
On- and Off-Site Improvements
After the passage of Proposition 13 and its limitation on local governments’ property tax revenues, cities and counties have faced increasing difficulty in providing public services and facilities to serve their residents. One of the main consequences of Proposition 13 has been the shift in funding of new infrastructure from general tax revenues to development impact fees and improvement requirements on land developers.
The City requires developers to provide on-site and off-site improvements necessary to serve their projects. On- and off-site improvements are required when discretionary permits are issued (such as site plan reviews, comprehensive plan, zone change, or General Plan amendment). The City uniformly attaches the conditions of approval (COA) that include fees, such as parkland fees and administrative fees, for monitoring affordability covenants. The COAs also specify the standard improvements. Such improvements may include water, sewer and other utility extensions, street construction and traffic control device installation that are reasonably related to the project.
Dedication of land or in-lieu fees may also be required of a project for rights-of-way, transit facilities, recreational facilities, and school sites, consistent with the Subdivision Map Act.
The City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) contains a schedule of public improvements including streets, bridges, and other public works projects to facilitate, among other things, the continued build-out of the City’s General Plan. The CIP also helps to ensure that construction of public improvements is coordinated with private development.
City road standards vary by roadway designation as provided in Table 41. The City’s road standards are typical for cities in Los Angeles County and they do not act as a constraint to housing development. Since the City is fully developed, it is unlikely that any new streets or roadway widening will be required through the subdivision process.
With new development projects (housing, commercial, or mixed-use), the City’s Public Works Department will usually require improvements for public rights-of-way adjacent to proposed development projects. These improvements can vary depending on the specifics of each development and may include relocation of utilities, new street trees and tree grates, repaving or repair of adjacent alleys, repaving of adjacent sidewalks and streets, restriping of traffic lanes, and installation of traffic signals.
City of Culver City Housing Element
74 Table 42: Road Improvement Standards
Roadway Designation Number of Lanes Right-of-Way Width
Primary Arterial 4 - 6 95 ft.
Secondary Arterial 2 - 4 80 – 94 ft.
Collector Street 2 60 – 79 ft.
Local Street 2 60 ft. or less
Source: City of Culver City General Plan, Circulation Element
Although development fees and improvement requirements increase the cost of housing, cities have little choice in establishing such requirements due to the limitations on property taxes and other revenue sources needed to fund public improvements.
Overall, the City’s nexus study on Commercial Linkage Fees found that Culver City’s total development impact fees are comparable to surrounding jurisdictions.
Non-Governmental Constraints
Environmental Constraints
Environmental constraints include physical features such as steep slopes, fault zones, floodplains, sensitive biological habitat, and agricultural lands. In many cases, development of these areas is constrained by state and federal laws (e.g., Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain regulations, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, and the State Fish and Game Code and Alquist- Priolo Act). The Public Safety Element of the City’s General Plan discusses the environmental hazards that have the potential to impact the city, including urban fires, seismic shaking, and landslides. The Public Safety Element contains policies to address these hazards and “reduce adverse economic, environmental, and social conditions resulting from fires and geologic hazards.” In keeping with the goals and policies of the Public Safety Element, the City’s land use plans have been designed to protect sensitive areas from development, and to protect public safety by avoiding development in hazardous areas. While these policies constrain residential development to some extent, they are necessary to support other public policies.
Infrastructure Constraints
As in most cities of similar age, Culver City faces challenges of aging infrastructure and related maintenance issues. However, the city’s physical infrastructure is generally of adequate size and capacity to accommodate the projected build-out of the General Plan.
Wastewater
The city is served by the Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant operated by the City of Los Angeles. The treatment plant has a design capacity of 450 million gallons per day. It is currently functioning at approximately 275 million gallons per day which is about 61% of its capacity. It is unlikely, but expansion of the Hyperion treatment plant may be required if changes in Los Angeles or Culver City land uses cause increased wastewater flows. Costs for wastewater system expansions are passed on to Culver City by the City
City of Culver City Housing Element
75 of Los Angeles in accordance with the Amalgamated Sewer Agreement between the cities. Culver City collects sewer facility charges from new developments to offset these costs. In addition, new development has the potential to impact the local sewer collection system and require capacity upgrades. Developers are required to fund these improvements when necessary. As noted in the previous section, developers are also required to pay sewer facility fees to both Culver City and Los Angeles to fund ongoing maintenance and necessary increases in capacity.
Water
Water for city residents is supplied by Golden State Water Company and the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (for the portion of the city west of McLaughlin Avenue). The system depends primarily on imported water from Metropolitan Water District (MWD). Water system expansions to individual projects are the responsibility of the developer with fees paid to cover major capital expenditures.
Dry Utilities
Gas, electricity, cable, internet, and telephone services are provided by Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison, as well as AT&T, Spectrum, and Verizon Communications. All systems are adequate and are upgraded as demand increases. Supplies of natural resources, such as gas, currently appear adequate.
Storm Water Drainage
Storm water runoff is primarily handled by a flood control system maintained by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Surface drainage uses streets and gutters until the runoff reaches catch basins. The storm drain system is currently operating within capacity and is sized to accommodate planned growth within the city. The City is required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to address water quality runoff for construction activities and post-construction runoff from all types of development, including residential projects. In November 2016, city residents approved Measure CW, which provides funding for stormwater projects to improve water quality in the city and region. Best management practices (BMPs) are implemented through the city’s NPDES regional storm-water discharge permit.
Individual projects are required to comply with all applicable NPDES requirements.
Road Improvements and Parking
Roadways in Culver City are subject to high levels of traffic, which would be further impacted by new development. To the extent possible, the City addresses this issue by requiring developers to mitigate negative traffic impacts through various methods, such as improvements to the roadway network and traffic control systems, implementation of the Travel Demand Management strategies, and Mobility Improvement Fees to pay a fair share into citywide mobility improvements to reduce vehicle miles traveled.
One of the primary infrastructure issues associated with the current level of development is the limited capacity of on-street parking. The City is addressing this constraint incrementally by ensuring that all new developments, both residential and commercial, provide adequate off-street parking.
City of Culver City Housing Element
76 The City has a Capital Improvement Program to schedule public improvements including roadway network, traffic control systems and other public works projects to allow for, among other things, the continued build-out of the city’s General Plan. This helps to ensure the progression of improvements is coordinated with anticipated development.
Land Costs
Land represents one of the most significant components of the cost of new housing.
Land values fluctuate with market conditions, and overall have been steadily increasing since the Great Recession. Like much of the region, Culver City has little to no vacant land available for residential development. An online survey of residential and commercial real estate listing websites (Zillow and LoopNet) conducted in January 2021 indicated that no vacant property was listed for sale within Culver City. Therefore, properties with existing improvements must be recycled, further adding to the high cost of land.
Per-unit land cost is directly affected by density – higher density allows the cost to be spread across more units, reducing the total unit price. The Culver City Zoning Code allows a base density of 35 units per acre in some areas of the city, which can be increased up to 65 units per acre for projects that incorporate community benefits and located within ½ mile of major transit facilities and higher for projects that use the affordable housing density bonus pursuant to State Density Bonus law. This facilitates lower per-unit land costs compared to lower-density development.
Construction Costs
Construction cost is affected by the price of materials, labor, development standards and general market conditions. According to Cumming, a project management company that compiles data on the construction industry, construction costs in the Los Angeles area can reach over $200 per square foot for single-family residential development, and $294-$529 per square foot for multi-family residential development.17 The city has no direct influence over materials and labor costs, and the building codes and development standards in Culver City are not substantially different from other cities in the West Los Angeles area.
Similar to land costs, higher density development allows for a reduction in construction costs through economies of scale. This reduction in cost can be particularly beneficial when a project is also receiving a density bonus for affordable housing. Chapter 17.580 of the Culver City Municipal Code contains provisions for density bonuses for developments providing affordable housing as required by state law.
Timing and Density
Market factors can also constrain the timing between project approval and requests for building permits. In some cases, this may be due to developers’ inability to secure
17 Source: Cumming, U.S. Costs per Square Foot of Gross Floor Area 2020
City of Culver City Housing Element
77 financing for construction or the applicant’s ability to respond quickly to requests for corrections. However, building permit applications are applicant-driven. For example, the recently completed mixed use project with 48 units (The Haven) was approved in December 2015 but the developer did not submit a permit application until March 2017. Alternatively, other mixed use projects can turn around and submit permit applications shortly after project approval. The Lucky mixed use project with 37 units was approved in September 2016 and the developer requested a building permit in December 2016. Similarly, Icon West (mixed use project with 12 units) was approved in February 2021 and filed a permit application in May 2021.
The City’s Mixed Use Ordinance offers a Community Benefits program, whereby if a mixed use project includes 15% of the units as affordable housing, the project would be eligible for a local density bonus that increases the base density to 50 du/ac or up to 65 du/ac if the project is located within the Transit Oriented Development District. The project would also be eligible for the State density bonus (to be calculated after the Community Benefit bonus is applied). Inclusion of micro units also provides additional density bonus up to 14%. Therefore, mixed use projects in Culver City typically achieve over 65 du/ac and up to 80 du/ac using a combination of local and State density bonus laws (see Appendix B for examples of recent mixed use projects and their achieved densities). Also, residential development projects in medium density residential zones rarely go below 80% of the allowable density due to the high land costs.
Financing and Foreclosures
Culver City is similar to most other communities with regard to private sector home financing programs. The crisis in the mortgage industry and 2008 recession affected the availability and cost of real estate loans and rate of foreclosures. Foreclosures peaked in Culver City in 2011, with 94 foreclosures that year and a total of 410 foreclosures between 2007 and 2018. However, as of 2018, foreclosure rates had dropped to pre- recession levels, with only three foreclosures in 2018.18 The rise in foreclosure rates and subsequent changes in mortgage underwriting standards are likely to have greater impacts on low-income families than other segments of the community.
The sharp rise in unemployment as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic may impact households’ ability to pay their mortgage, particularly lower income households, and may result in an uptick in foreclosures. However, historically low interest rates have also resulted from the pandemic, creating more opportunity for home purchases and refinancing. Overall, the full impact of the pandemic is still unknown.
Table 43 summarizes applications for home loans in Culver City in 2018. Of the total applicants, 68 percent were approved. Loan approval rates are similar to rates in Los Angeles County overall, where 67 percent of all county loans were approved in 2018.
Applications for refinance were the most common, comprising about half of all loan applications. Refinance applications were approved 67 percent of the time.
18 Source: SCAG 2019 Local Profiles, City of Culver City
City of Culver City Housing Element
78 Approximately 36 percent of applications were for conventional purchase loans, which were approved 77 percent of the time. Home improvement loans had the highest denial rate at 38 percent.
Under state law, it is illegal for real estate lending institutions to discriminate against entire neighborhoods in lending practices because of the physical or economic conditions in the area (“redlining”). City staff is not aware of any significant incidence of discriminatory lending practices in recent years.
Table 43: Home Purchase and Improvement Loan Applications in Culver City (2018) Loan Type Total
Applicants
Percent
Approved
Percent
Denied
Percent
Withdrawn
Conventional Purchase 538 77 8 16
Government-Backed Purchase 3 67 0 33
Home Improvement 208 53 38 10
Refinance 757 67 19 14
Total 1,506 68 17 14
Source: www.ffiec.gov, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data for 2018.
Note: Approved applications include those that are approved and originated (accepted by the applicants) and those that are approved but not accepted by the applicants.
In 2018, FFIEC changed the format of HMDA reporting. Due to delays in the reformatting of data, publicly available data after 2018 is not currently available at city level.
City of Culver City Housing Element
79 Housing Plan
Goals, Objectives and Policies
Goals, objectives, and policies convert the community’s vision for housing into actions.
Goals describe a desired future condition or “end” state and are based on needs and constraints, meant to be aspirational, and orient changes and outcomes. Objectives are specific statements of purpose to achieve goals and policies guide the related actions needed.
Goal 1 A city that proactively provides equitable access to safe, healthy, and affordable housing for all income levels to create a balanced jobs-to- housing ratio and commits to addressing the housing needs of persons experiencing homelessness and special needs populations.
Goal 2 A city with a variety of rental and ownership housing opportunities that complement and enhance the city's goals for continued economic vitality and prosperity.
Goal 3 A city that plans to grow sustainably and intelligently by revisiting policies and programs frequently to update and adjust if they are not meeting goals.
Goal 4 A city that affirmatively furthers fair housing to reverse the legacy of segregation and provide housing and opportunity for historically disenfranchised groups.
Objective 1. Housing Maintenance. Encourage a high level of housing maintenance to promote the availability of decent housing and to protect the quality of neighborhood environments.
Policy 1.A Maintain a housing stock free of health or safety hazards.
Policy 1.B Maintain quality neighborhood living environments throughout the entire city.
Policy 1.C Assist low and moderate income and special needs households to encourage the rehabilitation and adequate maintenance of existing housing units.
Policy 1.D Monitor the maintenance of residential properties and enforce the provisions of the City's building code and property maintenance regulations.
Policy 1.E Promote assistance programs and enforce applicable health and safety standards to prevent overcrowding in units.
Policy 1.F Promote sustainable development through energy conservation, water consumption, and waste reduction measures to reduce future operating costs, and ensure local regulations support
City of Culver City Housing Element
80 environmental justice that protects public health and open space, and expands the tree canopy.
Policy 1.G Promote rehabilitation or replacement of substandard housing with healthy, safe, and affordable housing.
Objective 2. Housing Supply. Expand opportunities for developing a variety of housing types.
Policy 2.A Provide for a residential lifestyle that is environmentally sound and aesthetically pleasing and that places a high priority on quality development.
Policy 2.B Coordinate the plans, programs, and policies of all city departments to ensure that residential development is orderly, and that new development is adequately and effectively served by a balanced system of transportation, transit, amenities, community facilities, and public services. Residential development must be sensitive to the environmental, recreational, social, and economic needs of the community. The City should promote access, where feasible, to the LA Metro E Line Culver City Station, for new residential development.
Policy 2.C Promote mixed use residential development that is sensitive to adjacent residential uses and reinforce the compatible
nonresidential uses of the area.
Policy 2.D Encourage the incremental infilling of residential neighborhoods to enhance housing affordability and supply through the provision of smaller units.
Policy 2.E Promote programs that seek to provide housing opportunities to meet the needs of people who work in the city.
Policy 2.F Streamline entitlement, environmental, and permitting processes for sustainable buildings and affordable housing.
Policy 2.G Promote reduced parking requirements and discretionary thresholds for review, for affordable housing, to incentivize production
Policy 2.H Encourage infill development, such as brownfield site redevelopment.
Policy 2 I Explore repurposing of City-owned surface parking lots for affordable housing development.
Objective 3. Housing Affordability. Encourage a diverse range of rental and ownership housing opportunities that are compatible with the needs of all socioeconomic segments of the community.
City of Culver City Housing Element
81 Policy 3.A Encourage the inclusion of affordable housing units in new housing developments by granting incentives as called for by the Zoning Code and the State Density Bonus law.
Policy 3.B Actively support affordable housing development by private and non-profit housing developers.
Policy 3.C Conserve existing affordable housing, particularly rental and assisted units such as affordable housing that exists naturally in the market.
Policy 3.D Explore strategies to Incentivize and reduce the costs of affordable housing production like a 100% affordable housing overlay zone, transit-oriented communities programs, and partnership funding opportunities.
Policy 3.E Incentivize converting existing market rate and vacant rental units into affordable units and extend expiring affordability covenants to preserve affordability.
Policy 3.F Encourage an equitable distribution and the production of affordable housing in areas that have historically not
accommodated affordable housing or have excluded diverse housing opportunities, especially in the highest opportunity areas, to help overcome historic patterns of segregation. Explore strategies like public funding, incentives, infrastructure investments, and a “Right to Return” program to support historically displaced families and individuals in Culver City with housing.
Policy 3.G Explore partnering with a non-profit organization to form a community land trust to assist housing providers in developing housing for lower income households.
Policy 3.H Encourage new affordable housing production by providing incentives to consolidate adjacent lots and assisting affordable housing developers to identify and consolidate lots.
Policy 3.I Explore City-owned sites for 100% affordable housing production.
Policy 3.J Incentivize housing development on surface parking lots on underused sites that would not displace existing residents.
Policy 3.K Incentivize adaptively reusing existing structures for affordable housing and existing ground floor commercial space for artists and live-work use.
Objective 4. Housing Access. Improve access to quality housing for all members of the community by eliminating discrimination, reducing governmental and non- governmental constraints, increasing the number of affordable housing units, and supporting access to emergency shelters.
City of Culver City Housing Element
82 Policy 4.A Promote efforts aimed at the development of housing available to all income and age levels.
Policy 4.B Promote housing opportunities for households of all income levels to help maintain the family-oriented character of the city into the future.
Policy 4.C Assist first time home buyers to purchase housing with alternative financing mechanisms.
Policy 4.D Promote rental assistance programs to minimize the extent to which lower income households must pay more than 30% of their income for housing.
Policy 4.E Promote fair housing and non-discrimination in housing sales and rentals for all, including those outside of designated protected classes, by supporting organizations that provide information, counseling and mediation on fair housing laws and landlord-tenant disputes.
Policy 4.F Prohibit discrimination in the sale or renting of housing to anyone on the basis of their special characteristics as protected by state and federal fair housing laws.
Policy 4.G Encourage the rehabilitation and construction of barrier-free housing for persons with disability.
Policy 4.H Enable elderly and/or persons with disabilities to age in place by providing housing arrangements and programs that
accommodate their needs.
Policy 4.I Promote the education of homebuyers and renters on their rights, for housing practices and requirements, financing, available subsidies, protections, and housing unit changes.
Policy 4.J Explore ways to encourage the development of ownership housing for affordable, moderate/workforce housing, including
opportunities for employer-provided permanent housing.
Policy 4.K Promote home ownership and related wealth generation opportunities through accessible education and technical assistance, particularly in communities of color and among special needs populations.
Policy 4.L Increase access and transparency in the lease-up process for restricted affordable housing units, particularly for those who have experienced or are at-risk of displacement and those who may not be aware of affordable housing choices.
Objective 5 Housing Stability. Preserve existing affordable housing, prevent the displacement of existing residents, and prevent homelessness.
City of Culver City Housing Element
83 Policy 5.A Actively work to prevent or minimize the displacement of existing residents and neighborhood instability from foreclosures. Ensure that rehabilitation of existing units does not negatively impact or permanently displace existing residents. The City shall notify residents about Ellis Act protections and other rights, and provide resident protections including a temporary relocation program with oversight during construction to minimize resident disruption.
Policy 5.B Promote outreach and education programs that protect communities, particularly communities of color and special needs populations, from predatory lending, speculative real estate transactions, land acquisition, and other practices that undermine intergenerational wealth growth and housing stability.
Policy 5.C Assist persons experiencing homelessness by referral to services and provision of emergency services.
Policy 5.D Ensure an adequate supply of emergency or temporary housing for people experiencing or who are at risk of homelessness.
Policy 5.E Promote the rapid re-housing of persons experiencing homelessness.
Policy 5.F Apply a Housing-First approach to ending homelessness that matches persons experiencing homelessness with appropriate services or services with housing, like permanent supportive and rapid-re-housing options.
Policy 5.G Provide a high level of outreach to priority populations experiencing homelessness, as determined by the lead Continuum of Care agency, to inform them of their rights and opportunities for housing and support services.
Policy 5.H Encourage a regional fair share approach to providing housing opportunities and assistance to households with special needs, those experiencing homelessness, and extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households.
Policy 5. I Create a community engagement and education program to continuously connect with the community on the complexity of how individuals become unhoused and the multitude of solutions and programs needed to support rehousing.
Policy 5.J Remove barriers to housing for persons experiencing homelessness, including those related to siting and operating restrictions, that disproportionately affect populations in protected classes, and special needs populations.
Objective 6 Housing Production Accountability. Monitor rental and ownership housing production effectiveness throughout the planning period and adjust as necessary to meet projected needs.
City of Culver City Housing Element
84 Policy 6.A Conduct a mid-cycle assessment of the City’s progress toward achieving RHNA, and adjust if needed.
Policy 6.B Should a mid-cycle assessment require adjustment, implement strategies like establishing a density bonus on inventory sites that is proportionate to the deficit accrued during the first half of the planning period, an affordable housing overlay that applies the density and design standards of the Neighborhood Multi Family designation to Incremental Infill lots for development of deed- restricted affordable units, and expansion of development types subject to by-right approvals.
Policy 6.C Monitor and report on housing production towards achieving RHNA periodically throughout the planning period.
Policy 6.D Facilitate a balanced jobs to housing ratio citywide.
Policy 6.E Continue to evaluate and reduce regulatory and procedural barriers to housing production , such as streamlining the entitlement, environmental, and building permit processes for households of all income levels and those with special needs.
Policy 6.F Periodically review City regulations and fees to ensure they are not suppressing housing development.
Policy 6.G Ensure that local regulations support innovations in construction technology to the extent that is technically feasible.
Policy 6.H Create a community engagement and education program to continuously connect with the community on growth, housing need, homelessness, discriminatory housing practices, how current land use patterns and socioeconomic disparities reflect historically racist policies, planning, zoning, and real estate practices; and the benefits of mixed use and income communities, and amplify and prioritize underrepresented voices to ensure more equitable outcomes.
Policy 6.I Explore a pre-approved standard plan program for ADUs subject to ministerial entitlement approval.
Policy 6.J Develop objective design standards for residential and mixed use projects to add certainty to the permitting process, promote quality development that maximizes the benefit of nearby amenities and minimizes exposure to features that may result in negative health or environmental impacts, apply universal design principles, promote complete neighborhoods with amenities like open space, and ensure seamless transitions between single-family and multi-family development, commercial and residential development, and industrial and residential development.
City of Culver City Housing Element
85 Policy 6.K Promote public outreach and education on the need to address housing needs relative to other important outcomes like health, the environment, public safety, and transportation.
Quantified Objectives
The City’s eight-year quantified housing objectives are described in Table 44. These objectives reflect the City’s assessment of what is feasible during the planning period in light of existing and proposed housing programs, land use policies, financial resources, and anticipated economic conditions.
Table 44: Quantified Objectives
Extremely
Low Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate Total
New
Construction 554 554 604 560 1,069 3,341
Preservation 30 30 60 0 0 120
Conservation 29 30 134 38 0 231
Housing Programs
California State housing law requires that the Housing Element set forth an eight-year schedule of actions for the 2021-2029 planning period that the City intends to undertake to implement its stated policies and objectives. The following section describes the measures that the city plans to implement consistent with its identified policies and objectives described above. Table 45 identifies the timeframe, responsible agency, and funding source for implementation of housing programs and their quantitative objectives.
Measure 1. Programs to Enhance Housing Affordability
A. Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. Help very low and extremely low income households secure decent, safe and sanitary affordable housing through the provision of rental subsidies through the Section 8 program and conduct outreach to attract new property owners. Through the County of Los Angeles Homeless Initiative and approved by HUD, 50% of annual turnover vouchers will be provided to unhoused individuals.
B. Rental Assistance Program. Assist extremely low income up to and including moderate income households to pay for housing through the Rental Assistance Program (RAP).
C. Shared Housing. Through the Los Angeles County Measure H Rapid Rehousing Program, assist persons experiencing homelessness with up to 18 months of rental assistance and supportive services.
D. Existing Covenanted Buildings. Monitor existing covenanted buildings for compliance with affordability restrictions, and with occupancy and maintenance covenants to upgrade and maintain the character and condition of the neighborhoods while preserving affordability to residents.
City of Culver City Housing Element
86 Housing units covered in the monitoring program include: ownership units assisted under the Mortgage Assistance Program (MAP), affordable rent- restricted units, mobile home park units, and group homes for persons with disabilities.
E. Preserve At-Risk Affordable Housing Units. There are a total of 231 affordable units at risk between 2021 and 2031. Pursuant to new State law, the Housing Division will contact property owners at least three years in advance to inquire about their interest in extending their covenants. In exchange for extending covenants the City will offer property owners funding assistance for rehabilitation to address deferred maintenance through the Neighborhood Preservation Program (NPP) and rental assistance to qualified households through the Rental Assistance Program should funding becomes available. In addition, the City will contact non-profit organizations with the capacity to assist in preserving the at-risk units.
F. Affordable Housing Development Assistance. Provide financial support and technical assistance to organizations that acquire/rehabilitate and/or develop housing for lower and moderate income households (including extremely low income) and populations with special needs (including persons experiencing homelessness, seniors, persons with developmental or other disabilities). To encourage the inclusion of affordable housing units in new housing development, the City will undertake the following actions:
• Partnership between the Housing Division and the Current Planning Division to offer density bonuses and financial assistance (as funding permits) to developers. Through the City’s Housing Funds programming, the City will provide funding to assistance in affordable housing development with the goal of assisting 250 housing units. For FY 2021-FY 2024, the City has already allocated funding to four projects with an anticipated 113 affordable units.
• Inform developers when they first contact Current Planning that the City may be able to provide some financial assistance to their project in exchange for affordability commitments.
• Current Planning will continue to inform developers about the benefits of density bonus when projects are submitted for review. • Waive/reduce/defer City fees for affordable housing projects. • Exempt multi-family housing from the Mobility Improvement fee. • Provide priority processing for affordable housing projects.
G. Inclusionary Housing. The City amended its Mixed Use Ordinance (§17.400.065) in February 2021 to incentivize inclusion of affordable units in mixed use development projects with a community benefit density bonus.
The City will review the ordinance to ensure consistency with 2045 General Plan.
City of Culver City Housing Element
87 H. Linkage Fee. In July 2021, the City Council adopted the Affordable Housing Commercial Development Impact Fee Ordinance to fund affordable housing projects. This Ordinance will apply a “linkage” fee to new non- residential development. Beginning in January 2022, the fee will be applied to new non-residential development at $5 per net leasable square foot. The City completed a nexus study to ensure the appropriateness of the fee.
Measure 2. Programs to Address Special Housing Needs
A. Homeless and Special Needs Housing. The City identified several Successor Agency owned properties for affordable housing (including extremely low income) and special needs housing (including for persons experiencing homelessness, seniors, persons with developmental or other disabilities). The City will continue to evaluate other agency-owned properties or opportunity sites available on the market for affordable and special needs housing.
B. Zoning Code Amendments to Address Special Needs Housing. Various bills were passed in the last few years to address the housing choices available to special needs groups. The City will revise the Zoning Code to address the provision for emergency shelters, supportive housing, low barrier navigation center, employee housing, and residential care facilities in residential zones. Specifically, the City will address the provisions for large residential care facilities by removing the five- acre minimum lot size and by establishing objective criteria for project approval.
The Zoning Code will also be revised to remove required findings for reasonable accommodations that may be considered subjective. Specifically, one finding requires that the requested accommodation to not impact surrounding uses and properties negatively. This finding is subjective and may serve to impede the request for accommodation.
C. Homeless Service Referrals. Through a contract with Saint Joseph Center, the City provides homeless outreach, data collection, service referral, and emergency motel vouchers. Homeless outreach was expanded to include evenings until 10 pm and Saturdays.
D. Emergency Shelters. Upward Bound House (UBH) Family Shelter provides 18 emergency housing beds for families with children experiencing homelessness.
Through a contract with UBH, the City provides case management and supportive services to children and their families experiencing homelessness and to children experiencing homelessness and attending Culver City Unified School District.
E. Group Homes. A total of six group homes for persons with developmental disabilities provide affordable housing and supportive services to 26 low to moderate income individuals annually. Monitor group homes and housing for persons with special needs to ensure compliance with the Federal Housing Quality Standards (HQS), and City Health and Safety Codes.
City of Culver City Housing Element
88 Measure 3. Programs to Improve Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
A. The Neighborhood Preservation Program (NPP). The NPP provides Deferred Maintenance Grants of up to $5,000 are provided to multi-family property owners who will lease to a Section 8 household or household experiencing homelessness.
B. Healthy and Safe Grant. The program also offers Healthy and Safe Senior Grants of up to $1,500 to low income seniors to address life safety and code enforcement violations.
C. Graffiti Removal. Work with property owners to remove graffiti through the Public Works Department and encouraging local monitoring by owners. Continue to help community groups to organize volunteer graffiti removal activities.
Measure 4. Programs to Facilitate Additional Housing
A. Adequate Sites for RHNA and Monitoring of No Net Loss (SB 166). The current Culver City General Plan does not offer adequate capacity and housing choices to meet the community’s housing needs or the State mandated RHNA of 3,341 units for the 6th cycle Housing Element. Based on the current General Plan and objective criteria and local knowledge used to identify available sites with near- term development potential, the City has an overall shortfall of 165 lower income units.
Based on direction from the Culver City City Council, the 2045 General Plan provides for significantly higher density and capacity above the City’s RHNA requirements. The City anticipates adopting the 2045 General Plan by Fall 2022.
Pursuant to State law, land use designations and implementing zoning to accommodate RHNA shortfall of 165 lower income units, plus a buffer to accommodate no net loss requirements. For lower income RHNA and buffer, the sites will provide maximum density of at least 30 du/ac and minimum density of at least 20 du/ac on sites that can accommodate at least 16 units on site.
Because the City will be fulfilling the RHNA shortfall on sites identified for mixed use zoning in General Plan 2045, these zoning districts must allow 100 percent standalone residential uses and for mixed use projects must not require the nonresidential component to be more than 50 percent of the floor area. To fulfill the 165-unit shortfall, the City will redesignate a minimum of seven acres at a maximum density of at least 30 du/ac (assuming an average density of 25 du/ac). The City will complete the Zoning Code Update to implement 2045 General Plan within three years from October 15, 2021. The Zoning Code update will establish appropriate development standards to facilitate the achievement of maximum allowable density for the respective zones.
The City will develop a monitoring procedure to ensure adequate capacity remains to accommodate the City’s remaining RHNA for all income groups, as sites are being developed for residential, nonresidential, or mixed use developments. The City will also conduct a midterm review of the effectiveness
City of Culver City Housing Element
89 of the new land use policies and development standards to ensure the City is on track with its housing production goals.
B. By-Right Approval. Pursuant to AB 1397, RHNA sites that are require rezoning to accommodate the lower income RHNA shortfall are subject to by-right approval if the project includes 20% affordable. To avoid inconsistent application of this incentive, the City will extend the by-right approval to all projects that include 20% affordable to lower income households.
C. Density Bonus Program. Provide information on the various density bonus incentives to housing and mixed use development applicants. These include:
• Mixed Use Ordinance – Inclusionary Incentive with Community Benefit Program
• Micro Units Bonus
• State Density Bonus
D. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) Ordinance. This program has two components:
• ADU Ordinance Amendment: Amend the ADU Ordinance to implement the Incremental Infill designation of 2045 General Plan, which allows up to three units on lots over 4,950 square feet, or up to four units if one of the units is dedicated as affordable housing, inclusive of the ADU and JADU units. The designation would also reimagine the hierarchy of unit size and allow for all units to be of equal size, or whatever breakdown desired by project.
• Monitor ADU Trend: The Housing Element projects 400 ADUs to be constructed over eight years. Monitor the trend of ADU construction to evaluate the effectiveness of Incremental Infill and ADU construction in other residential zones, especially regarding occupancy and affordability. If necessary, adjust the ADU Ordinance to provide additional incentives or remove constraints to ADU construction.
E. Affordable ADU Incentive Program. Provide information on the various incentives the City offers to facilitate affordable ADUs:
• Tier 1: Workforce. Provide grants of $25,000 in exchange for affordability covenants.
• Tier 2: Low/Moderate Income. Through an Amnesty Program, provide grants of $50,000 to legalize illegally converted ADUs in exchange for affordability covenants.
• Tier 3: Homeless. One year trial for the creation of homeless units through the provision of $50,000 rehabilitation grants with a ten-year affordability covenant. ADU owners will also receive additional landlord incentives through the Homeless Incentive Program, and tenants will be paired with a Culver City HCV.
• Develop pre-approved ADU plans.
• Pursue funding from the State to assist homeowners in ADU construction.
City of Culver City Housing Element
90 F. Affordable Housing Tools and Best Practices: The City will explore additional tools and best practices by other communities to facilitate affordable housing. These may include, but are not limited to:
• 100% Affordable Housing Overlay
• Transit-Oriented Communities concept
• Affordable housing partnership funding opportunities
• Enhanced Density Bonus
• Lobby for Article 34 Authority to permit the City to be directly engaged in the development and ownership of affordable housing
• ADU pre-approved standard plans program
• Right to Return program
• HCD Prohousing Designation
The City created a part-time staff position in the fall of 2021 to study these tools. Staff began studying these concepts in 2021 and will continue to do so through 2022.
After completing the study in 2022, City staff will present the findings and recommendations to City Council for direction on how to implement them. City staff will also apply for HCD’s Prohousing Designation Program for additional support.
G. Hotel/Motel Conversion. The City conducted a hotel/motel conversion study and identified potential properties for conversion into affordable housing. The City will continue to pursue properties for acquisition and adaptive reuse or redevelopment as affordable and special needs housing.
H. Objective Design Standards. Develop objective design standards to comply with SB 330.
I. Permit Streamlining and Monitoring. The Current Planning Division is drafting a proposal that will increase the unit threshold that triggers discretionary site plan review. As part of its annual Planning Commission Work Plan review, the Current Planning Division will continue to evaluate processing time improvements to streamline the process. This will include establishing a method to monitor and periodically report on processing times. The Current Planning Division will also continue to recommend adjusting to facilitate housing production when needed.
J. Zoning Code Review and Amendments to Address Constraints to Housing Production. As part of the City's comprehensive Zoning Code update to implement the General Plan, the City will review and amend the Code to remove potential constraints to housing production. These include:
• Considering expanding areas (beyond as part of mixed use projects only) where SRO housing may be permitted, including as a standalone residential use.
• Establishing appropriate development standards (such as setbacks, parking, and height) to ensure that development projects could achieve the maximum allowable density in the respective designation. This
City of Culver City Housing Element
91 includes reassessing the definition, minimum unit sizes, and parking requirements of live/work units.
• Completing the comprehensive parking code update to ensure appropriate parking standards are established to facilitate the achievement of allowable densities under the General Plan Update, including parking standards for studio/one-bedroom units and live/work units.
• Conducting an outreach and education program regarding the impact of height limit on development potential and develop mitigating strategies to address this constraint.
• Considering setting minimum density requirements for development in multi-family neighborhoods.
• Establishing tools and incentives to encourage lot consolidation. These may include: additional density bonus, reduction in setbacks or other development standards, ministerial review of lot line adjustments, and assistance in identifying potential parcels appropriate for consolidation. • Amending the required findings for project approval to ensure findings are based on objective criteria that can be implemented to promote certainty in outcomes.
During this Zoning Code Update process and any subsequent amendments to the Zoning Code, the City will ensure that it complies with applicable State laws. For example, the State recently passed SB 9, 10, and 478, which set guidelines regarding zoning standards and CEQA requirements for residential projects.
Measure 5. Programs to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement
A. Fair Housing Outreach and Counseling. The City participates in the CDBG program under the LACDA CDBG Urban County program. Through the County’s program, the Housing Rights Center (HRC) is retained as the fair housing service provider for the participating jurisdictions. The City will continue to refer fair housing inquiries to the HRC.
Housing Mobility and New Housing Opportunities in High Resource Areas B. Source of Income Protection. SB 329 and SB 222 require rental property owners to accept Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) and other public assistance as legitimate sources of income for housing payments. Property owners no longer have the ability to reject HCV, Veterans Affairs Supporting Housing (VASH), or other rental assistance. The City will develop outreach and education materials regarding the use of HCVs. Focus outreach to the Incremental Infill areas and other high opportunity areas to encourage property owners to accept HCVs.
City of Culver City Housing Element
92 C. Landlord Roundtable. The Housing Division will continue to hold joint roundtable discussions between the Landlord Tenant Mediation Board (LTMB) and the Advisory Committee on Housing and Homelessness (ACOHH) with local property owners. The discussions cover landlord incentives and owner concerns about renting to low income households and persons experiencing homelessness.
D. Community Conversation on Affordable Housing. The Housing Division will continue to work with the Advisory Committee on Housing and Homelessness and the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission to talk with the community about affordable housing and how to expand housing opportunities and accessibility for all residents. These conversations focus on addressing issues of homelessness and examining methods to broad housing access and affordable housing opportunities.
E. Landlord Fair. The Housing Office will host annual Landlord Fairs to attract and retain property owners to participate in the various housing programs. Property owners will be informed of the incentives offered to lease to households that receive rental assistance and those exiting homelessness. This is an opportunity for property owners to meet with various City departments, such as Sanitation, Police, and Fire, as well as community organizations. The Housing Rights Center and Bet Tzedek19 will also attend the fair to inform property owners about Fair Housing Law.
F. Inter-Agency Agreement with the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA). To extend housing choices and to deconcentrate poverty, the Housing Office is currently negotiating with HACLA to overlap with their jurisdiction by up to one mile. This will allow Culver City Section 8 voucher holders to expand housing options and remain in the westside area of Los Angeles.
See also Affordable ADU Incentive Program under Measure 4.E.
Anti-Displacement and Tenant Protections
G. Permanent Rent Control Ordinance. The Culver City Permanent Rent Control Ordinance sets restrictions on rent increases. Its intention is to respond to rising real estate costs, which have resulted in the decreased affordability and stability of the housing stock, and data that demonstrates that renter households are more likely to be cost-burdened (see Tables 8, 21, and 30, for examples). Overall, a permanent Rent Control Ordinance is meant to alleviate the housing cost burden on households, particularly lower-income households, and includes the following provisions:
• Landlords may not impose more than one Rent increase for a Covered Rental Unit in any 12- month period.
• The maximum permissible annual rent increase is based on the average annual change in the consumer price index (“CPI change”).
19 Bet Tzedek attorneys and advocates provide free legal services to low-income Los Angeles County residents.
City of Culver City Housing Element
93 • If CPI change is less than 2%, maximum allowable annual rent increase is 2%. • If CPI change is more than 5%, maximum allowable annual rent increase is 5%. • A Landlord may impose a Rent increase that takes effect sooner than twelve (12) months following the date of the latest permitted Rent increase under the Interim Rent Control Ordinance, but the prior increase under Interim Rent Control Ordinance in combination with a rent increase under permanent ordinance may not exceed the maximum allowable annual rent increase under the permanent ordinance.
Exemptions to the Ordinance include:
• Dwelling units expressly exempt from rent control per state or federal law. • Dwelling units occupied after February 1, 1995.
• Single-family homes, condominiums and townhomes.
• Subdivided interest in a subdivision.
• Government subsidized dwelling units.
H. Landlord-Tenant Mediation Board. The City’s bylaws on the Landlord-Tenant Mediation Board (LTMB) were expanded to include mediation for habitability issues and to require property owners to include a lease addendum for all tenants informing them about the LTMB and mediation services.
I. Landlord Incentives. The City instituted the Landlord Incentives program to house persons experiencing homelessness. Culver City Housing Division contracted with the Los Angeles County Development Authority to administer the Homeless Incentives Program (HIP). This program’s aim is to increase the number of landlords participating in the City’s Section 8 program by providing incentives to landlords who rent to a family or individual experiencing homelessness.
Incentives include:
• Holding Fee - one month's free rent
• Security Deposit - (up to double the rent) and Utility assistance • Damage mitigation up to $2,000
Culver City Housing Division also administers an internal Landlord Incentive Program to attract and retain property owners. Incentives include:
• Neighborhood Preservation Grant - $5,000 grant to renovate rental unit in exchange for two years of participation in the Culver City Section 8 program.
• Security Deposit – (up to double the rent) and Utility assistance • Housing Locator / Liaison – assistance with landlord and tenant mediation.
J. Plan to Prevent and Combat Homelessness. The Housing Division will regularly update the Plan to Prevent and Combat Homeless by setting seven goals over three-year periods to address homeless and expand housing access. The next update will be in 2023.
City of Culver City Housing Element
94 K. Housing Replacement. This program has two components:
• AB 1397 Replacement Requirement: Development on nonvacant sites with existing residential units is subject to replacement requirement, pursuant to AB 1397. The City will amend the Zoning Code to require the replacement of units affordable to the same or lower income level as a condition of any development on a nonvacant site consistent with those requirements set forth in State Density Bonus Law.
• Replacement of Units Lost due to Successor Agency Actions: Use financial resources, if available, to help replace residential units lost as a result of Successor Agency actions.
L. Promotion of Housing Programs. Market the availability of various housing programs with brochures, flyers, and other public information materials.
Specifically, focus promotion of housing programs to neighborhoods with concentrated areas of housing issues.
Measure 6. Programs to be Initiated or Reinstated with
Additional Funding
With the elimination of redevelopment, the City has limited funding to implement housing programs and services. During the 2021-2029 Housing Element planning period, the City will actively pursue funding to reinstate or initiate the following programs:
A. Temporary Emergency Rental and Relocation Assistance Program. Provide funds for security deposit for individuals forced to relocate due to government action such as code enforcement actions or changes in land use.
B. Property Acquisition and Rehabilitation Program. Provide opportunities to create affordable housing through the Property Acquisition and Rehabilitation program.
The program may consider strategies such as providing loan assistance, for example through establishing a trust fund. It may also consider identifying funding for nonprofit affordable housing providers and allowing such providers the right of first offer to acquire existing multi-unit residential properties as they come to market.
C. West Culver City Residential Rehabilitation Program. Offer rehabilitation grants to eligible property owners in West Culver City and provide grants to affordable housing developers who wish to acquire and rehabilitate units to provide low income rental housing.
D. Surcharge Fee for New Construction. Offset the New Construction Surcharge fee for affordable units assisted by LMIHAF.
E. Homebuyer Assistance. Explore resources, financing mechanisms, and/or partnership with nonprofits and lenders to facilitate affordable homeownership opportunities for first-time buyers.
F. Community Land Trust. Explore the feasibility of establishing a Community Land Trust that can be used for various affordable housing activities.
City of Culver City Housing Element
95 Table 45: Program Implementation Summary - 2021-2029 Implementation
Measures/
Programs
Responsible
Agency
Funding
Source Objectives Schedule
Measure 1. Programs to Enhance Housing Affordability
A. Section 8
Housing
Choice
Voucher
Program
Housing
Authority
HUD 215 households Annually
reviewed with
Housing Authority
Budget and Work
Plan approval
B. Rental
Assistance
Program
Housing
Authority
LMIHAF 16 households Annually
reviewed with
Housing Authority
Budget and Work
Plan approval
C. Shared Housing Housing
Authority
Measure H
Rapid
Rehousing
Program
5 households Annually
reviewed with
Housing Authority
Budget and Work
Plan approval
D. Existing
Covenanted
Buildings
Housing
Authority
Housing
Authority
Compliance with
affordability agreement,
Housing Quality
Standard, and
occupancy
requirements.
Annually
reviewed with
Housing Authority
Budget and Work
Plan approval
E. Preserve At-Risk
Affordable
Housing Units
Housing
Authority
Housing
Authority
• Monitor the at-risk
status of 231
affordable units that
are potentially at risk
of converting to
market-rate housing.
• Pursuant to new State
law, contact property
owners at least three
years prior to
covenant expiration
dates for at-risk
projects. If owners
intend to file a Notice
of Intent to opt out of
affordable housing,
ensure their
compliance with the
three-year, one-year,
and six-month
noticing requirements.
• Contact nonprofit
developers with the
capacity and interest
Annually
reviewed with
Housing Authority
Budget and Work
Plan approval
City of Culver City Housing Element
96 Implementation
Measures/
Programs
Responsible
Agency
Funding
Source Objectives Schedule
in assisting in the
preservation of at-risk
units.
• Pursue funding to
assist in the
preservation of at-risk
units.
• Provide information on
rental assistance
available to affected
tenants.
F. Affordable
Housing
Development
Assistance
Housing
Authority
• LMIHAF
• Apply for
Project
Homekey
funding
• Facilitate the
development of 250
affordable units over
eight years.
• Projects with
allocated resources
for FY 2021-FY 2024
include:
o Venice Parking Lot
– 10 modular
housing units for
persons
experiencing
homeless
o Virginia Parking Lot
– 12 modular
housing units for
persons
experiencing
homeless
o Community
Garden – 6
modular units as
permanent
supportive housing
o United Methodist
Church – 95
affordable units
Housing Authority
staff will
coordinate with
other Community
Development
Department staff
to actively
identify sufficient
development
opportunity sites
for persons
experience
homelessness.
G. Inclusionary
Housing
Current
Planning
Division
Current
Planning
Division
Budget
• Review and revise the
Mixed Use Ordinance
as appropriate to
ensure consistency
with 2045 General
Plan.
• Monitor to ensure the
Mixed Use Ordinance
effectively supports
• By 2023
• Ongoing
City of Culver City Housing Element
97 Implementation
Measures/
Programs
Responsible
Agency
Funding
Source Objectives Schedule
affordable housing
production.
H. Linkage Fee Economic
Developme
nt Division
Economic
Development
Division
Budget
• Review and revise the
Affordable Housing
Commercial
Development Impact
Fee Ordinance as
appropriate to ensure
consistency with 2045
General Plan.
• Monitor to ensure the
Affordable Housing
Commercial
Development Impact
Fee Ordinance
effectively supports
affordable housing
production.
• By 2023
• Ongoing
Measure 2. Programs to Address Special Housing Needs
A. Housing for
Homeless and
Special Needs
Housing
Authority
Housing
Authority
• Venice Parking Lot –
10 modular housing
units for persons
experiencing
homelessness and 70-
bed sprung shelter on
balance of lot
• Virginia Parking Lot –
12 modular housing
units for persons
experiencing
homelessness and
100-unit supportive
housing or mixed
income housing on
balance of lot
• Community Garden –
6 modular units as
permanent supportive
housing
• Annually identify other
agency-owned
properties for
affordable and
special needs
housing.
Complete site
plan for Venice
Parking Lot in
2021 and begin
construction in
2022
Pursue supportive
housing at
Virginia Parking
lot by 2022
Pursue housing at
Community
Garden by 2022
Estimated
entitlement to
construction for
all three projects:
12-18 months.
B. Zoning Code
Amendments
to Address
Planning
Division
Planning
Division
Budget
• Supportive Housing
(AB 2162) - Supportive
housing projects of 50
By 2023, as part
of the
comprehensive
City of Culver City Housing Element
98 Implementation
Measures/
Programs
Responsible
Agency
Funding
Source Objectives Schedule
Special Needs
Housing
units or less (for cities
with a population of
less than 200,000) to
be permitted by right
in zones where multi-
family and mixed-use
developments are
permitted. The
supportive housing
project must meet
certain criteria, such
as providing a
specified amount of
floor area for
supportive services.
The bill also prohibits
minimum parking
requirements for
supportive housing
within ½ mile of a
public transit stop.
• Emergency Shelter
(AB 139) – Parking
standards be
established solely
based on staffing
level.
• Low Barrier Navigation
Center (AB 101) –
Requires cities to
permit a Low Barrier
Navigation Center
development by right
in areas zoned for
mixed uses and
nonresidential zones
permitting multifamily
uses if it meets
specified
requirements. A “Low
Barrier Navigation
Center” is defined as
a “Housing First, low-
barrier, service-
enriched shelter
focused on moving
people into
permanent housing
that provides
Zoning Code
update to
implement 2045
General Plan
City of Culver City Housing Element
99 Implementation
Measures/
Programs
Responsible
Agency
Funding
Source Objectives Schedule
temporary living
facilities while case
managers connect.
individuals
experiencing
homelessness to
income, public
benefits, health
services, shelter, and
housing.” CGC
§65660
• Employee Housing
(California Health and
Safety Code Section
17021.5) – Requires
that housing for fix or
fewer employees be
considered a single-
family residential use.
• Residential Care
Facilities for Seven or
More Persons in
Residential Zones – to
remove the 5-acre
requirement and to
establish objective
criteria for project
review to ensure
certainty in outcomes.
• Reasonable
Accommodation –
Remove findings that
are subjective (such
as negatively
impacting surrounding
uses or properties).
C. Homeless
Service
Referrals
Housing
Authority
Housing
Authority
• Continue to work with
St. Joseph and/or
another homeless
service provider to
conduct homeless
outreach and
connect individuals
experiencing
homelessness to
services.
• Continue to provide
up to 50 hotel/motel
• Ongoing
• Annually
reviewed with
Housing
Authority
Budget and
Work Plan
approval
City of Culver City Housing Element
100
Implementation
Measures/
Programs
Responsible
Agency
Funding
Source Objectives Schedule
vouchers as needed
D. Emergency
Shelters
Housing
Authority
Housing
Authority
Provide 18 year-round
beds for women with
dependent children
through Upward Bound
House Family Shelter.
Ongoing
E. Group Homes Housing
Authority
Housing
Authority
Monitor six group homes
for persons with
developmental
disabilities annually.
Ongoing
Measure 3. Programs to Improve Housing and Neighborhood Conditions A. Neighborhood
Preservation
Program
Housing
Authority
LMIHAF Provide 10 NPP Deferred
Maintenance Grants.
Annually
reviewed with
Housing Authority
Budget and Work
Plan approval
B. Healthy and
Safe Grant
Housing
Authority
LMIHAF Provide 5 Safe and
Healthy Senior and
Disabled Rehabilitation
Grants.
Annually
reviewed with
Housing Authority
Budget and Work
Plan approval
C. Graffiti
Removal
Public
Works
Public Works
Budget
Remove graffiti within 48
hours.
Ongoing
Measure 4. Programs To Facilitate Additional Housing
A. Adequate Sites
for RHNA
Advance
Planning
Division
Advance
Planning
Division
Budget
• Adopt 2045 General
Plan to provide
adequate capacity
for RHNA.
• Develop a procedure
to monitor for No Net
Loss (SB 166) to ensure
the City continue to
have adequate sites
for its RHNA for all
income groups.
• Complete Zoning
Code Update to
implement 2045
General Plan.
• Update the sites
inventory to
determine adequate
capacity for
remaining RHNA.
• If the City is not
meeting its housing
production goals,
• By Fall 2022
• By 2022
• At least semi-
annually
• Within three
years from
October 15,
2021
• 2024
City of Culver City Housing Element
101
Implementation
Measures/
Programs
Responsible
Agency
Funding
Source Objectives Schedule
review and revise the
Land Use policy and
development
standards as
appropriate to
facilitate housing,
especially affordable
housing for lower
income households
and those with special
needs.
B. By-Right
Approval
Advance
Planning
Division
Advance
Planning
Division
Budget
As part of the
Comprehensive Zoning
Code Update to
implement 2045 General
Plan, amend the Zoning
Code to provide by-right
approval of projects that
set aside 20% affordable
units for lower income
households.
Within three years
from October 15,
2021
C. Density Bonus
Program
Current
Planning
Division
Current
Planning
Division
Budget
Continue to promote the
various density bonus
incentives to residential
and mixed use
development applicants.
Ongoing
Housing
Authority
Housing
Authority
As funding permits,
provide financial
assistance to affordable
housing approved with a
Density Bonus.
Ongoing
D. Accessory
Dwelling Units
Ordinance
Current
Planning
Division
Current
Planning
Division
Budget
Amend ADU Ordinance
to implement the
Incremental Infill
designation of 2045
General Plan, assuming
the Preferred Land Use
Map is adopted, with the
goal of achieving 400
ADUs through
conversion/expansion of
existing properties and
135 ADUs/multiplexes
through the demolition/
reconstruction of
properties. Update to the
ADU Ordinance will
implement Incremental
Upon adoption
of General Plan
2045 and within
three years from
October 15, 2021
City of Culver City Housing Element
102
Implementation
Measures/
Programs
Responsible
Agency
Funding
Source Objectives Schedule
Infill and ensure
consistency with SB 9
requirements.
Current
Planning
Division
Current
Planning
Division
Budget
• Monitor the
construction trend of
ADUs.
• If ADU construction
falls below projection,
amend the ADU
Ordinance to provide
additional incentives
or to remove
constraints to
development.
• Annually
• By 2024
E. Affordable
ADU Incentive
Program
Housing
Authority
Housing
Authority
Assist homeowners to
pursue affordable ADUs:
Tier 1: Workforce – 43
Affordable ADUs
Tier 2: Low/Mod – 20
Amnesty Properties
Tier 3: Homeless – 4
Affordable ADUs
Develop pre-approved
ADU plans to expedite
ADU review and
approval timelines per
City Council direction
Pursue funding to assist
homeowners in
construction ADUs
Add information
regarding funding
resources for
homeowners (e.g., the
California Housing
Finance Agency,
CalHFA, ADU Grant
Program)
Create fee waiver for
development projects
that include an
affordable ADU
Ongoing
Develop pre-
approved plans
by 2023
Pursue funding in
2023 and as
needed
thereafter
Regularly update
the ADU page on
the City website
with funding
resources such as
the CalHFA ADU
Grant Program
Develop
affordable ADU
fee waiver
program during
comprehensive
fee update
process
F. Affordable
Housing Tools
Advance
Planning
Advance
Planning
Study and prioritize the
various affordable
Complete study
with summary of
City of Culver City Housing Element
103
Implementation
Measures/
Programs
Responsible
Agency
Funding
Source Objectives Schedule
and Best
Practices
Division Division
Budget
housing tools for research
and analysis, such as
Affordable Housing
Overlay Zones, Transit
Oriented Communities
(TOCs) programs, and
affordable housing
funding opportunities
findings and
recommendatio
ns by 2022
Update City
Council on the
research progress
by 2022
Pursue affordable
housing funding
opportunities by
2022
Apply for HCD
Prohousing
Designation by
2022
G. Hotel/Motel
Conversion
Housing
Authority
Housing
Authority
Continue to identify
properties and negotiate
for acquisition and
adaptive reduce or
redevelopment as
affordable and special
needs housing.
Submit Project Homekey
application for 2022
funding cycle.
Submit a Homekey
Round 2 application to
acquire and rehabilitate
two motels that will serve
persons experiencing
chronic homelessness.
If awarded Homekey
funds, convert the motels
to 35 units of interim
housing and 38 units of
Permanent Supportive
Housing (PSH).
Ongoing
Obtain $2.84M
earmarked as
matching grant
funds from LA
County
Begin pursuing
Homekey
funding in 2022
State grant
funding decision
Q1: 2023
City study motel
conversion
feasibility Q2 and
Q3 2022
Submit Round 2
application by
early 2022
If funded,
complete
projects and
have units
occupied by end
City of Culver City Housing Element
104
Implementation
Measures/
Programs
Responsible
Agency
Funding
Source Objectives Schedule
of 2022
H. Objective
Design
Standards
Advance
Planning
Division
Advance
Planning
Division
Budget
Develop Objective
Design Standards to
comply with SB 330.
By 2023
I. Permit
Streamlining
and Monitoring
Current
Planning
Division
Current
Planning
Division
Budget
Establish a permit
processing time tracking,
monitoring, and reporting
system.
By 2023
J. Zoning Code
Review and
Amendment to
Address
Constraints to
Housing
Production
Advance
Planning
Division
Advance
Planning
Division
Budget
• Consider expanding
areas when SRO may
be permitted,
including as a
standalone
residential use
• Establish appropriate
development
standards to allow
achieving the
maximum allowable
density
• Conduct an
outreach and
education program
and develop
mitigating strategies
to address the 56-
foot height limit
• Establish appropriate
parking standards to
facilitate the
achievement of
allowable densities
By 2023
Measure 5. Programs to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A. Fair Housing
Counseling
LACDA/HR
C
Urban
County
CDBG
• Continue to refer fair
housing inquiries to
the HRC.
• Advocate to LACDA
to provide separate
reporting of fair
housing service
records specific to
Culver City to better
understand the
nature/extent of fair
housing issues in
Ongoing
Expand website
by 2022
City of Culver City Housing Element
105
Implementation
Measures/
Programs
Responsible
Agency
Funding
Source Objectives Schedule
Culver City.
• Continue to
consistently update
the City website and
expand fair housing
information and
resources.
B. Source of
Income
Protection
Housing
Authority
Housing
Authority
Develop outreach and
education materials and
implement an outreach
campaign.
Include a fair housing
factsheet in ADU,
Incremental Infill, and SB9
application packets.
Conduct source
of income
protection
outreach by 2023
C. Landlord
Roundtable
Housing
Authority
Housing
Authority
Hold joint roundtable
discussions with LTMB and
ACOHH
Annually
D. Community
Conversation
on Affordable
Housing
Housing
Authority
Housing
Authority
Conduct community
meetings on affordable
housing issues
Annually
E. Landlord Fair Housing
Authority
Housing
Authority
Host landlord fairs Annually
F. Inter-Agency
Agreement
with HACLA
Housing
Authority
Housing
Authority
Establish agreement with
LACLA to allow use of
City vouchers within one
mile from city limits
Present to City
Council in Winter
2021/early 2022
By 2022 to allow
20 vouchers to
be used in City of
LA
G. Permanent
Rent Control
Ordinance
Housing
Authority
Housing
Authority
Continue to implement
the Rent Control
Ordinance.
Ongoing
H. Landlord-
Tenant
Mediation
Board
Housing
Authority
Housing
Authority
Provide services as
requested throughout
the planning period
Ongoing
I. Landlord
Incentive
Housing
Authority
Housing
Authority
Continue to implement
program
Increase landlord
participation by
15 landlords
annually (5 at the
County level, 10
at the local level)
City of Culver City Housing Element
106
Implementation
Measures/
Programs
Responsible
Agency
Funding
Source Objectives Schedule
J. Plan to Prevent
and Combat
Homelessness
Housing
Authority
Housing
Authority
Update plan to address
homelessness
By 2023
K. Replacement
Housing
Current
Planning
Division
Current
Planning
Division
Budget
Amend Zoning Code to
comply with AB 1397,
requiring replacement
housing as a condition of
project approval on
nonvacant sites with
existing units.
By 2022
Housing
Authority
Housing
Authority
Continue to use financial
resources of the
Redevelopment Agency
to help replace
residential units lost as a
result of Successor
Agency actions as
applicable.
Ongoing
L. Promotion of
Housing
Programs
Housing
Authority
Housing
Authority
By 2023
Measure 6. Programs to be Initiated or Reinstated with Additional Funding A. Temporary
Emergency
Rental and
Relocation
Assistance
Program
Housing
Authority
Not Available Explore available funding
from County, State, and
Federal programs.
Annually
reviewed with
Housing Authority
Budget and Work
Plan approval
B. Property
Acquisition and
Rehabilitation
Program
Housing
Authority
Not Available Explore available funding
from County, State, and
Federal programs.
Annually
reviewed with
Housing Authority
Budget and Work
Plan approval
C. West Culver
City Residential
Rehabilitation
Program
Housing
Authority
Not Available Explore available funding
from County, State, and
Federal programs.
Annually
reviewed with
Housing Authority
Budget and Work
Plan approval
D. Reduced
Surcharge Fee
for New
Construction/
Other Fees
Current
Planning
Division
Not Available Explore available funding
from County, State, and
Federal programs.
Annually
reviewed with
Housing Authority
Budget and Work
Plan approval
E. Homebuyer
Assistance
Housing
Division
Not Available Pursue funding sources
available from HCD and
HUD and to seek
Annually
reviewed with
Housing Authority
City of Culver City Housing Element
107
Implementation
Measures/
Programs
Responsible
Agency
Funding
Source Objectives Schedule
partnership with
nonprofits and lenders to
provide homebuyer
assistance.
Evaluate financial
feasibility of reinstating
program with additional
funding sources.
Facilitate affordable
homeownership for 40
households over eight
years.
Budget and Work
Plan approval
F. Community
Land Trust
Housing
Division
Not Available Explore resources,
financing mechanisms,
and/or partnership with
nonprofits and lenders
Annually
reviewed with
Housing Authority
Budget and Work
Plan approval
Table 46: AFFH Actions Matrix
Program Specific Commitment Timeline Geographic
Targeting
2021-2029
Metrics
Fair Housing Outreach and Education
Measure 5A:
Fair Housing
Outreach and
Counseling
Continue to refer fair
housing inquiries to the
Housing Rights Center
Advocate LACDA to
provide fair housing
service records specific
to Culver City
Ongoing
Citywide
Increase fair
housing inquiries
by 20 percent
over eight years
Update City website to
provide information of
fair housing rights and
resources
Expand
website
by 2022
and
update
annually
Measure 5B:
Source of Income
Protection
Develop outreach and
education materials
and implement an
outreach campaign
Include a fair housing
factsheet in ADU,
Develop
outreach
materials
by 2023
Citywide with
emphasis in
Higher Resource
tracts
At least 20
percent of new
vouchers in
Higher Resource
areas over eight
years
City of Culver City Housing Element
108
Program Specific Commitment Timeline Geographic
Targeting
2021-2029
Metrics
Incremental Infill, and
SB9 application packets
Housing Mobility
Measure 1A:
Housing Choice
Vouchers
Conduct outreach to
attract new property
owners
Annually
Citywide with
emphasis on
Higher Resource
tracts
Increase
landlord
participation by
15 landlords
annually (5 at
the County
level, 10 at the
local level)
Measure 5C:
Landlord
Roundtable
Hold joint roundtable
discussions with LTMB
and ACOHH
Annually
Measure 5E:
Landlord Fair Host landlord fairs Annually
Measure 2A:
Homeless and
Special Needs
Housing
Facilitate the
development of housing
for special needs
populations
2021-2029 Citywide
28 modular units
at
Venice/Virginia
lots and
community
garden
70-bed sprung
shelter at Venice
lot
100 supportive
housing units at
Virginia lot
Measure 2B:
Zoning Code
Amendments to
Address Special
Needs Housing
Zoning Code
amendments to
address:
- Supportive Housing
- Emergency Shelter
- Low Barrier
Navigation Center
- Employee Housing
- Residential Care
Facilities for seven or
more persons
- Reasonable
Accommodation
2023 Citywide
Facilitate special
needs housing for
200 households
or persons over
eight years
Measure 4G:
Hotel/Motel
Conversion
Identify properties and
negotiate for acquisition
and adaptive reduce or
redevelopment as
affordable and special
needs housing
2021-2029
Citywide with
emphasis in
Higher Resource
tracts
Pursue two
hotel/motel
conversion as
special needs
housing over
eight years
Measure 5F:
Inter-Agency
Agreement with
Establish agreement
with LACLA to allow use
of City vouchers within
Annually One mile from
City limits
20 vouchers to
be used in the
City of Los
City of Culver City Housing Element
109
Program Specific Commitment Timeline Geographic
Targeting
2021-2029
Metrics
HACLA one mile from city limits Angeles annually
Measure 5L:
Promotion of
Housing Programs
Develop multi-media
informational materials
to promote the various
housing programs
By 2023
Citywide with
emphasis in
West Culver City
tracts (7028.01
and 7028.03)
Participate in two
community
events annually
to promote
housing
programs
Measure 6E:
Homebuyer
Assistance
Pursue funding sources
available from HCD and
HUD and to seek
partnership with
nonprofits and lenders
to provide homebuyer
assistance
Annually
Citywide with
emphasis in
West Culver City
tracts (7028.01
and 7028.03)
Reinstate
homebuyer
assistance
program
New Opportunities in High Resource Areas
Measure 1F:
Affordable
Housing
Development
Assistance
Use a variety of
incentives, including
funding and expedited
review to facilitate the
development of
affordable units
2021-2029
Citywide with
emphasis on
Higher Resource
tracts
Facilitate the
development of
250 affordable
units over eight
years
Measure 6D:
Surcharge Fee for
New Construction
Pursue funding to offset
the New Construction
Surcharge fee for
affordable units assisted
by LMIHAF
Annually
Measure 1G:
Inclusionary
Housing
Facilitate the
development of
affordable housing in
mixed income
developments
2021-2029
Citywide with
emphasis in
Higher Resource
tracts
Target at least 50
percent of
affordable units
in Higher
Resource tracts
over eight years
Measure 4F:
Affordable
Housing Tools and
Best Practices
Study and prioritize the
various affordable
housing tools for
research and analysis,
such as Affordable
Housing Overlay Zones,
Transit Oriented
Communities (TOCs)
programs, and
affordable housing
funding opportunities
2022-2024
Measure 5D:
Community
Conversation on
Affordable
Housing
Talk with the community
about affordable
housing and how to
expand housing
opportunities and
accessibility for all
Ongoing
City of Culver City Housing Element
110
Program Specific Commitment Timeline Geographic
Targeting
2021-2029
Metrics
residents
Measure 6E:
Community Land
Trust
Explore resources,
financing mechanisms,
and/or partnership with
nonprofits and lenders
Annually
Measure 4A:
Adequate Sits for
RHNA
Create new
opportunities for housing
especially through new
Mixed Use designations
and Incremental Infill
2021-2029
Citywide with
emphasis in
Higher Resource
tracts
Fully
accommodate
the RHNA of
3,341 units for all
income groups
Measure 4D:
Accessory
Dwelling Units
Ordinance
Amend ADU Ordinance
to implement the
Incremental Infill
designation of 2045
General Plan
By
October
2024
Citywide with
emphasis in
Higher Resource
tracts
Achieve 400
ADUs through
conversion/
expansion of
existing
properties and
135
ADUs/multiplex
es through the
demolition/
reconstruction
of properties
over eight years
Measure 4E:
Affordable ADU
Incentive
Assist homeowners to
pursue affordable ADUs 2021-2029
Citywide with
emphasis in
Higher Resource
tracts
Tier 1: Workforce
– 43 Affordable
ADUs
Tier 2: Low/Mod –
20 Amnesty
Properties
Tier 3: Homeless –
4 Affordable
ADUs
Place-Based Strategies for Neighborhood Improvements
Measure 3A:
Neighborhood
Preservation
Provide Neighborhood
Preservation Program
(NPP) Deferred
Maintenance Grants to
multi-family property
owners who will lease to
a Section 8 household
or household
experiencing
homelessness
Annually
Citywide with
emphasis in
West Culver City
tracts (7028.01
and 7028.03)
Provide 10 NPP
Deferred
Maintenance
Grants annually
Measure 3B:
Healthy and Safe
Grant
Offer Healthy and Safe
Senior Grants to low
income seniors to
address life safety and
Annually
Citywide with
emphasis in
West Culver City
tracts (7028.01
Provide 5 Safe
and Healthy
Senior and
Disabled
City of Culver City Housing Element
111
Program Specific Commitment Timeline Geographic
Targeting
2021-2029
Metrics
code enforcement
violations.
and 7028.03) Rehabilitation
Grants annually
Measure 3C:
Graffiti Removal
Work with property
owners to remove
graffiti through the
Public Works
Department and
encouraging local
monitoring by owners
2021-2029
Citywide with
emphasis in
West Culver City
tracts (7028.01
and 7028.03)
Remove all
reported graffiti
Measure 6C:
West Culver City
Residential
Rehabilitation
Explore available
funding from County,
State, and Federal
programs.
Annually
West Culver City
tracts (7028.01
and 7028.03)
Reinstate
program
Measure 6B:
Property
Acquisition and
Relocation
Explore available
funding from County,
State, and Federal
programs.
Annually
West Culver City
tracts (7028.01
and 7028.03)
Reinstate
program
Tenant Protection and Anti-Displacement
Measure 1B:
Rental Assistance
Provide rental assistance
to lower and moderate
income households
Annually Citywide
Assist 5
households
annually
Measure 1C:
Shared Housing
Provide rapid rehousing
for persons experiencing
homelessness
Annually Citywide
Assist 5
households
annually
Measure 1D:
Preserve at-Risk
Affordable Units
Preserve affordable
units at risk of converting
to market-rate housing
2021-2029 Citywide Preserve 231 units
Measure 5G:
Permanent Rent
Control
Ordinance
Continue to implement
the Rent Control
Ordinance
2021-2029 Citywide
Reduce
complaints
regarding
unlawful evictions
by 20 percent
over eight years
Measure 5H:
Landlord-Tenant
Mediation Board
Provide services as
requested throughout
the planning period
Ongoing Citywide Successful
mediation of all
requests for
services
Measure 5L:
Landlord
Incentives
Increase the number of
landlords participating
in the City’s Section 8
program by providing
incentives to landlords
who rent to a family or
individual experiencing
homelessness
Ongoing Citywide Increase
landlord
participation by
15 landlords
annually (5 at
the County
level, 10 at the
local level)
Measure 5K: Amend Zoning Code to By 2022 Citywide Zero net loss of
City of Culver City Housing Element
112
Program Specific Commitment Timeline Geographic
Targeting
2021-2029
Metrics
Housing
Replacement
comply with AB 1397,
requiring replacement
housing as a condition
of project approval on
nonvacant sites with
existing units
units affordable
to lower income
households due
to
redevelopment
Measure 6A:
Temporary
Emergency Rental
and Relocation
Assistance
Explore available
funding from County,
State, and Federal
programs
Annually Citywide Reinstate
program
Appendix A – Evaluation of the 2013-2021 Housing Element Table of Contents
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................... A-1 Appendix A: Evaluation of the 2013-2021 Housing Element ................................................. A-1 Effectiveness in Addressing Special Needs ........................................................................... A-1
List of Tables
Table A- 1: Housing Element Program Evaluation, 2014-2021 ............................................... A-2 Table A- 2: Progress in Achieving Quantified Objectives ....................................................A-20
Appendix A – Evaluation of the 2013-2021 Housing Element A-1
Appendix A: Evaluation of the 2013-
2021 Housing Element
Section 65588(a) of the Government Code requires that jurisdictions evaluate the effectiveness of the existing Housing Element, the appropriateness of goals, objectives and policies, and the progress in implementing programs for the previous planning period. This appendix contains a review of the housing goals, policies, and programs of the previous housing element, adopted in 2014 and evaluates the degree to which these programs have been implemented during the previous planning period. This analysis also includes an assessment of the appropriateness of goals, objectives, and policies. The findings from this evaluation have been instrumental in determining the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Implementation Program.
Table A- 1 summarizes the programs contained in the previous Housing Element along with the source of funding, program objectives, accomplishments, and implications for future policies and actions. Table A- 2 presents the City’s progress in meeting the quantified objectives from the previous Housing Element.
Effectiveness in Addressing Special Needs
The extent of special housing needs far exceeds the City’s financial capacity, especially with the elimination of redevelopment. Many of the City’s special needs housing programs had to be defunded or substantially reduced in scope due to funding limitation.
Nevertheless, the City was able to pursue Measure H funds and partnership with LACDA and nonprofits such as Upward Bound House to address special housing needs, especially for persons experiencing homelessness.
The City was able to reinstate the Home Secure program to provide rehabilitation grants for low income and households with disabilities to address health and safety issues in their homes. The most significant progress in addressing special needs population is the City’s continued efforts in implementing the Comprehensive Housing Strategy (CHS).
The following projects are in progress:
• Venice Parking Lot – Working on site plans to install 12 modular residential units on the lot as temporary shelter. Long-term, this site is targeted for affordable housing or permanent supportive housing.
• Virginia Lot – Working on site plans for up to 24 modular units as housing for persons experiencing homelessness.
• Community Garden Site – Working on plans to install 6 low-income modular units. • Pilot ADU Program for Homeless Housing - One year trial using Measure H funds for the creation of homeless units through the provision of $50,000 rehabilitation grants with 10-year covenants. ADU owners will also receive additional landlord incentives through the Homeless Incentive Program, and tenants will be paired with a Culver City Section 8 voucher. • Acquisition and repurposing two motels for a homeless shelter and permanent supportive housing
• Linkage Fee – The Current Planning and Economic Development Divisions are preparing for adoption of a linkage fee requiring a per square foot fee for new commercial
Appendix A – Evaluation of the 2013-2021 Housing Element A-2
developments. The City will use the entitlement process for new commercial development to generate low moderate income housing funds. Additionally, the City will use accumulated linkage fees to fund new affordable housing projects by entering into development agreements with project developers. The Ordinance was adopted in 2020 and is being implemented. All funds are to be deposited into the Housing Authority Low Moderate Income Housing Fund.
• Opportunity Sites – The Current Planning & Economic Development Divisions are implementing Opportunity Site components through code changes and repeal of existing building height referendum. This will include providing new development incentives for reduced parking and increased building height and density on larger, targeted “Opportunity Sites.” Implementation requires repeal of the citywide height referendum and code changes. The program will require City Council-initiated repeal of the Building Height referendum. City staff will pursue code changes on increased building height, density, and reduced parking for targeted project sites.
The City will continue to pursue additional funding to facilitate affordable housing and special needs housing.
Appendix A – Evaluation of the 2013-2021 Housing Element A-2
Table A- 1: Housing Element Program Evaluation, 2014-2021 Implementation
Measures/Programs
Responsible
Agency Funding Source
Implementation
Measure/Program
Objectives
Accomplishments Recommended Future
Actions
Measure 1. Continue Current Housing Programs
1.A. Section 8 Program Housing Authority Department of
Housing and
Urban
Development
(HUD)
Continue to assist 384
very and extremely low
income households to
pay for housing through
the Section 8 Program.
Funding of $1.3 million
serves up to 215
households annually. A
Section 8 Waiting List was
created in 2016 and
approximately 9,000
applicants are on the
waiting list. Staff has
pulled 1,000 applications
from the list. Through the
County of Los Angeles
Homeless Initiative and
approved by HUD, 50%
of annual turnover
vouchers will be
provided to individuals
experiencing
homelessness (a total of
5 vouchers for Culver
City). To date, 6 turnover
vouchers have been
issued to persons
experiencing
homelessness and 4
voucher holders have
secured permanent
units.
Continue to assist very low
income households
through the Section 8
program and conduct
outreach to attract new
property owners.
1.B. Rental Assistance
Program
Housing Authority Implementation of
this measure is de-
funded due to
state legislative
action eliminating
the City
Redevelopment
Agency.
Assist 68 extremely low to
moderate income
households to pay for
housing through the
Rental Assistance
Program (RAP).
Due to reduced funding
as a result of the
elimination of the
Redevelopment
Agency, this program will
sunset within the next 5-
10 years. Rental subsidy
to persons experiencing
With the elimination of the
Redevelopment Agency
the waiting list is closed for
this program and no new
applicants will be pulled
from the waiting list.
Appendix A – Evaluation of the 2013-2021 Housing Element A-3
Implementation
Measures/Programs
Responsible
Agency Funding Source
Implementation
Measure/Program
Objectives
Accomplishments Recommended Future
Actions
homelessness, elderly,
and persons with
disabilities created under
the former RDA are
winding down. The
program size has been
reduced to 16
households ($239,220
expended annually).
1.C. Shared Housing Housing Authority Implementation of this measure was
de-funded due to
state legislative
action eliminating
the City
Redevelopment
Agency. Measure
H funds have
been identified as
a new funding
source.
Continue to assist 150
households to locate
alternative independent
living situations through
the Shared Housing
Program.
The shared housing
program was eliminated
in FY 2010-2011 due to
the elimination of the
Redevelopment
Agency. In FY 2019-2020,
the program was
reintroduced with
funding from the County
of Los Angeles Measure
H Rapid Rehousing
Program. Up to 5 persons
experiencing
homelessness will be
assisted with up to 18
months of rental
assistance and
supportive services.
Currently, there are 6
applicants pending
approval. The program is
funded at $30,000.
Continue to use Measure H
funding to assist up to 5
persons experiencing
homelessness annually.
1.D. Existing
Covenanted Buildings
Housing Authority Housing Authority Continue monitoring annually and as needed
to assure compliance.
Monitoring of income
and affordable rent
restricted units is
conducted annually and
starts in November.
Monitoring for
compliance continues
on all Mortgage
Assistance Program
Continue to monitor
existing covenanted
buildings for occupancy
and maintenance.
Appendix A – Evaluation of the 2013-2021 Housing Element A-4
Implementation
Measures/Programs
Responsible
Agency Funding Source
Implementation
Measure/Program
Objectives
Accomplishments Recommended Future
Actions
(MAP), senior housing,
mobile home park units,
group homes for persons
with disabilities, and
multi-family housing units
with income and rent
restrictions.
1.E. Homeless Service
Referrals
Housing Authority Housing Authority Continue to assist
individuals and families
experiencing
homelessness through
referral to a sponsor
agency; provide 20
individuals with
hotel/motel vouchers as
needed; work with a
homeless service
provider to conduct
homeless outreach
Through a contract with
Saint Joseph Center, the
City provides homeless
outreach, data
collection, service
referral, and emergency
motel vouchers.
Homeless outreach was
expanded to include
evenings until 10 pm and
Saturdays. For the period
of July 1-December 30,
2020, the following
services were provided:
• Total of 184 individuals
served/referred to
supportive services
• 21 persons linked to
housing programs
• 9 persons placed in
permanent housing
• 30 motel vouchers
issued
Continue to work with St.
Joseph and/or a homeless
service provider to
conduct homeless
outreach and connect
individuals experiencing
homelessness to services.
Continue to provide
hotel/motel vouchers as
needed.
1.F. Emergency
Shelters
Housing Authority Housing Authority Continue to make
existing facilities
available and provide 65
year-round beds for
women with dependent
children through the
Upward Bound House
Family Shelter.
Upward Bound House
(UBH) Family Shelter
provides 18 emergency
housing beds for families
with children
experiencing
homelessness. Through a
contract with UBH, the
Continue to support the
Upward Bound House
Family Shelter to provide
emergency shelter services
to children and their
families experiencing
homelessness. Continue to
contract with UBH to
Appendix A – Evaluation of the 2013-2021 Housing Element A-5
Implementation
Measures/Programs
Responsible
Agency Funding Source
Implementation
Measure/Program
Objectives
Accomplishments Recommended Future
Actions
City provides case
management and
supportive services to
children and their
families experiencing
homelessness in addition
to children experiencing
homelessness attending
Culver City Unified
School District. For 2020:
• Total of 108 persons (57
children)/42 families
served
• 52 persons/20 families
placed in permanent
housing
provide case
management and
supportive services to
children and families
experiencing
homelessness.
1.G. Emergency Food
Vouchers
Parks, Recreation
& Community
Services
Department
(PRCS)
PRCS Budget Continue to refer needy
clients to food voucher
providers; secure food
vouchers from providers.
The City has referred
many patrons in need to
the Culver City Area
Interfaith Alliance and
the SAVES program of St.
Augustine Catholic
Church. Patrons are also
referred to the following
organizations: S.O.V.A.
Food Pantry (West LA
location), the Christian
Food Center, St. Gerard’s
Food Bank, St. Joseph
Family Center and Food
Pantry, and Muslim Food
Bank of Los Angeles. Not
all organizations will
provide vouchers, but all
will provide food.
The city will continue to
refer needy clients to the
Culver City Interfaith
Alliance, the SAVES
program at St. Augustine
Catholic Church and other
organizations.
However, this program
does not involve direct
City funding. It is not
included in the 2021-2029
Housing Element as a City
program.
1.H. Group Homes Housing Authority Housing Authority Continue to monitor group homes annually or
as-needed to ensure
A total of six group
homes for persons with
developmental
Continue to monitor group
homes to ensure
compliance.
Appendix A – Evaluation of the 2013-2021 Housing Element A-6
Implementation
Measures/Programs
Responsible
Agency Funding Source
Implementation
Measure/Program
Objectives
Accomplishments Recommended Future
Actions
compliance with the
city’s Group Home
Programs.
disabilities provided
affordable housing and
supportive services to 26
low to moderate income
individuals annually.
1.I. Neighborhood
Preservation Program
(NPP)
Housing Division Implementation of
this measure was
de-funded due to
state legislative
action eliminating
the City
Redevelopment
Agency. This
program has
been
reintroduced due
to DOF approval
of Educational
Revenue
Augmentation
Fund (ERAF)
payments.
Continue to implement
the Neighborhood
Preservation Program
(NPP) for qualified low
and moderate income
households and to
owners of multi-family
housing with qualified
low income tenants. The
annual objective is 75
units.
The program was
reintroduced in FY 2018-
2019. Neighborhood
Preservation Grants of up
to $5,000 are provided to
multi-family property
owners who will lease to
a Section 8 or
households experiencing
homelessness. Healthy
and Safe Senior Grants of
up to $1,500 are
provided to low income
seniors to address life
safety and code
enforcement violations.
Continue to provide
Neighborhood
Preservation Grants to
multi-family property
owners who lease to
homeless and low income
households and Safe
Senior Grants to low
income seniors.
1.J. Graffiti Removal Public Works Public Works
Budget
Continue to work with
building owners to
remove graffiti by
coordinating the services
of removal companies
and encouraging local
monitoring by owners.
Continue to help
community groups
organize volunteer
graffiti removal activities.
Achieve a 48 hour
removal rate.
The Culver City Graffiti
Crew continues to work
with local businesses and
homeowners to abate
graffiti.
Continue to work with
property owners,
businesses, and residents
to identify and remove
graffiti within 48 hours.
1.K. Fair Housing
Counseling
Housing Authority Implementation of
this measure was
de-funded due to
state legislative
Continue to provide
information and
assistance regarding
landlord/ tenant rights
The City has contracted
with Bet Tzedek to
provide Fair Housing
counseling services. The
Although funding for this
program was eliminated,
the Housing Division will
continue to provide fair
Appendix A – Evaluation of the 2013-2021 Housing Element A-7
Implementation
Measures/Programs
Responsible
Agency Funding Source
Implementation
Measure/Program
Objectives
Accomplishments Recommended Future
Actions
action eliminating
the City
Redevelopment
Agency.
and issues as needed;
sponsor one fair housing
workshop annually.
City enacted Permanent
Rent Control and Tenant
Protection Ordinances in
September 2020. Bet
Tzedek provides legal
services for Culver City
residents under the
Ordinances. Bet Tzedek
also provides legal
services for Culver City
resident under the
Statewide Eviction
Moratorium.
housing information and
refer to the Housing Rights
Center.
The 2021-2029 Housing
Element includes a new
series of programs and
actions that the City will
undertake to affirmatively
furthering fair housing.
1.L. Landlord-Tenant
Mediation Board
Housing Authority Housing Authority Continue to mediate disputes between
landlords and tenants
through the Landlord
Tenant Mediation Board
as requested.
The bylaws on the
Landlord-Tenant
Mediation Board (LTMB)
were expanded to
include mediation for
habitability issues and to
require property owners
to include a lease
addendum for all
tenants informing them
about the LTMB and
mediation services. In
2019, a total of 6
mediations were
requested and 3
mediations were
conducted. No
mediations were
requested in 2020.
Continue to fund
mediations of rent increase
and habitability issues
between landlords and
tenants through the
Landlord-Tenant
Mediation Board.
1.M. Temporary
Emergency Rental
and Relocation
Assistance Program
Housing Authority Implementation of
this measure is de-
funded due to
state legislative
action eliminating
the City
Redevelopment
Agency.
Continue to provide
security deposit
assistance to individuals
forced to relocate due
to change of use or
code enforcement as
needed.
This program was not
implemented due to the
dissolution of the
Redevelopment
Agency.
Implementation of the
measure will be
resurrected once funding
from State/Federal
resources becomes
available and the city is
eligible for such funding
sources.
Appendix A – Evaluation of the 2013-2021 Housing Element A-8
Implementation
Measures/Programs
Responsible
Agency Funding Source
Implementation
Measure/Program
Objectives
Accomplishments Recommended Future
Actions
1.N. Property
Acquisition and
Rehabilitation Program
Housing Authority Implementation of
this measure is de-
funded due to
state legislative
action eliminating
the City
Redevelopment
Agency. I
Provide opportunities to
eliminate blight and
create affordable
housing by providing
assistance for
management and
preservation of
affordable housing to
specified problem
buildings.
This program was
discontinued prior to its
scheduled
implementation due to
the elimination of the
Redevelopment
Agency.
Implementation of the
measure will be
resurrected once funding
from State/Federal
resources becomes
available and the city is
eligible for such funding
sources.
1.O. Home Secure Housing Authority Implementation of
this measure was
de-funded due to
state legislative
action eliminating
the City
Redevelopment
Agency. This
program has
been
reintroduced due
to DOF approval
of ERAF payments.
Continue to contract
with Jewish Family
Services to install security
and safety devices and
offer education &
community resource
information to the elderly
and persons with
disabilities, with an
annual objective of 20
households.
This program was
reintroduced in FY 2018-
2019 due to DOF
approval of ERAF
payments. The Healthy
and Safe Grant Program
provides rehabilitation
grants up to $1,500 to
low income and/or
households with
disabilities to address
health and safety issues
in their homes.
Continue to provide
Healthy and Safe Grants to
low income and/or
households with disabilities
to address health and
safety issues in their homes.
1.P. Affordable
Housing Development
Assistance
Housing Authority Implementation of
this measure was
de-funded due to
state legislative
action eliminating
the City
Redevelopment
Agency. This
program has
been
reintroduced due
to DOF approval
of ERAF payments.
Offer funding assistance
to affordable housing
developers to acquire,
rehabilitate, and provide
affordable housing as
feasible opportunities
become available.
This program was
reintroduced in FY 2018-
2019 due to DOF
approval of ERAF
payments. In January
2021, the Council
adopted an Inclusionary
Mixed Use Ordinance
including the approval of
micro-units of 350 sq. ft. A
total of 357 new units is
projected to be
constructed over the
next 5 fiscal years. Other
incentives include:
administrative approval
of affordable housing
Through the
implementation of the
mechanisms listed,
continue to offer
affordable housing
development assistance.
Appendix A – Evaluation of the 2013-2021 Housing Element A-9
Implementation
Measures/Programs
Responsible
Agency Funding Source
Implementation
Measure/Program
Objectives
Accomplishments Recommended Future
Actions
units and reduction of
building permit fees for
affordable and
workforce housing units.
1.Q. Redevelopment
Agency Housing
Replacement
Housing Division Implementation of
this measure is de-
funded due to
state legislative
action eliminating
the City
Redevelopment
Agency.
Continue to use financial
resources of the
Redevelopment Agency
to help replace
residential units lost as a
result of Successor
Agency actions as
applicable.
There were no residential
units lost due to
Redevelopment Agency
actions during the
planning period.
This measure will remain in
the event that actions by
the Successor Agency
results in a loss of units.
A new replacement
housing requirement
pursuant to AB 1397 is
included in the 2021-2029
Housing Element.
1.R. Linkage Fee Current Planning
and Economic
Development
Divisions
Adoption of a
linkage fee
requiring a per
square foot fee for
new commercial
developments
Use entitlement process
for new commercial
development to
generate low moderate
income housing funds
Ordinance was adopted
in 2020 and is being
implemented. All funds
are to be deposited into
the Housing Authority
Low Moderate Income
Housing Fund.
Use accumulated linkage
fees to fund new
affordable housing
projects by entering into
development agreements
with project developers.
Measure 2. Programs To Facilitate Additional Housing
2.A. Density Bonus
Program
Housing Authority
and Current
Planning Divisions
Housing Authority
and Current
Planning Division
Budgets
Implement local Density
Bonus Ordinance and
provide information to
applicants.
Information regarding
the Density Bonus
Program is provided to
developers inquiring
about construction of
new residential units.
Continue to provide
information to
applicants/developers
and process any Density or
Other Bonus Incentive
(DOBI) applications that
are submitted during the
next Planning Cycle.
Additionally, provide
appropriate funding for
affordable housing
approved with a Density
Bonus if such funding
sources become available
in the future.
Appendix A – Evaluation of the 2013-2021 Housing Element A-10
Implementation
Measures/Programs
Responsible
Agency Funding Source
Implementation
Measure/Program
Objectives
Accomplishments Recommended Future
Actions
2.B. West Culver City
Residential
Rehabilitation Program
Housing and
Current Planning
Divisions
Implementation of
this measure is de-
funded due to
state legislative
action eliminating
the City
Redevelopment
Agency.
Implement program to
offer rehabilitation grants
to eligible property
owners and provide
grants to affordable
housing developers to
acquire and rehabilitate
units to provide housing
to lower income renters.
This program was not
implemented during the
planning period due to
dissolution of the
Redevelopment
Agency.
Implementation of this
program will be
resurrected once funding
from State/Federal sources
becomes available.
2.C. Accessory
Dwelling Ordinance
Current Planning
Division
Current Planning
Division Budget
Implement the
ordinance which permits
accessory dwelling units
subject to an
Administrative Use
Permit.
In January 2020, the City
adopted an updated
ADU ordinance to
comply with recent
changes in state law
including AB 68, AB 587,
AB 670, AB 671, and AB
881.
The Affordable ADU
Incentive Program
commenced outreach
in December 2020. The
program provides grants
to homeowners who wish
to create an ADU unit
either through new
construction or garage
conversion. The grant
amounts are up to
$50,000 depending upon
the level affordability, in
exchange for a
covenant restriction to
rent to workforce,
low/moderate and
households experiencing
homelessness.
The Current Planning
Division will continue to
work with applicants who
wish to build ADUs under
the Accessory Dwelling
Ordinance provisions. The
Division will continue to
monitor changes in State
law pertaining to ADUs
and update the City’s
zoning code accordingly.
The General Plan update
introduces a new strategy
for ADU development
through the Incremental
Infill land use designation.
2.D. Design Guidelines Current Planning
Division
Current Planning
Division Budget
Develop Design
Guidelines to streamline
permitting for residential
Design guidelines have
been completed for the
Gateway and Gateway
The 2021-2029 Housing
Element includes a
program to develop
Appendix A – Evaluation of the 2013-2021 Housing Element A-11
Implementation
Measures/Programs
Responsible
Agency Funding Source
Implementation
Measure/Program
Objectives
Accomplishments Recommended Future
Actions
zones to ensure new
multi-family
development housing
production is consistent
with the existing low-
density character. Ensure
that the guidelines do
not cause an undue
burden on housing
supply and affordability.
Adjacent
neighborhoods. The City
is in the process of
creating guidelines for
the remaining residential
neighborhoods.
objective design standards
pursuant to SB 330.
2.E. Nine Units per Lot
Restriction
Current Planning
Division
Current Planning
Division Budget
Submit to City Council
an analysis of the
impact(s) of the 9 units-
per-lot restriction by
September 2014.
The Current Planning
Division will study this issue
and report their findings
to the City Council.
The General Plan update
proposes a new Land Use
Plan that addresses the
nine units per lot restriction.
2.F. Comprehensive
Housing Strategy
(CHS)/
Redevelopment Site
Study
Redevelopment
Agency
Housing Authority/
Implementation of
this measure is de-
funded due to
state legislative
action eliminating
the City
Redevelopment
Agency.
Complete and present a
study of former
Redevelopment
Agency-owned sites to
analyze opportunities for
housing or mixed-use
developments with
affordable components,
as identified beyond
years one and two of the
CHS, including sites
along commercial
corridors that are
currently underutilized to
determine the feasibility
of small-scale parking
garages combined with
housing.
Due to the elimination of
Redevelopment funding,
only years 1 & 2 were
completed which
include: Culver Villas (3
low income, 9 moderate
income units); Tilden
Terrace (14 very low
income, 6 low income,
and 12 moderate
income units); and
Globe Ownership
Housing (4 low income, 4
moderate income, 2
workforce units). For FY
2020-2021, $8 million is
earmarked to support
affordable housing
production and the
implementation of an
ADU Incentive Program.
Assist CHS sites with
appropriate funding
should funding sources
become available in the
future. For FY 2020-2021, $8
million is earmarked to
support affordable housing
production and the
implementation of an ADU
Incentive Program.
2.G. Comprehensive
Housing Strategy and
Current Planning
Division
Current Planning
Division Budget/
ERAF payments
Pursue affordable
housing development in
years one and two by
Current Planning staff
monitors incoming
projects and interest in
Staff will continue to
process affordable
housing development
Appendix A – Evaluation of the 2013-2021 Housing Element A-12
Implementation
Measures/Programs
Responsible
Agency Funding Source
Implementation
Measure/Program
Objectives
Accomplishments Recommended Future
Actions
Infill Development
Programs
monitoring development
applications and
encouraging developers
to use DOBI or similar
programs to ensure the
incorporation of an
affordable housing
component.
project sites to discuss
and encourage DOBI
applications in order to
include affordable
housing within
development projects.
With the introduction of
ERAF payments, a series
of Request for Proposals
were released in FY 2018-
2019 soliciting firms to
provide site plans for
both residential and
commercial lots
throughout the City.
These lots will be
considered for the
production of affordable
and workforce housing
and housing for the
persons experiencing
homelessness. These
studies will review
conversion of
underutilized motels for
the creation of
affordable units or
emergency shelters, site
planning for a Safe
Parking Program for the
homeless and a regional
homeless shelter, and
other alternative housing
types for affordable
housing such as storage
containers and micro-
units.
proposals that are part of
the CHS and encourage
DOBI applications to
include affordable units
within proposed residential
developments. Continue
to study selected lots for
potential sites for
affordable and workforce
housing, and/or housing
for persons experiencing
homelessness. Specific infill
Successor Agency owned
properties that are
targeted for affordable
housing are incorporated
into the 2021-2029 Housing
Element.
2.H. Comprehensive
Housing
Housing Division Implementation of
this measure is de-
funded due to
Facilitate production of
the city’s RHNA
allocation within the
Prior to its
implementation this
program was defunded
Specific infill Successor
Agency owned properties
that are targeted for
Appendix A – Evaluation of the 2013-2021 Housing Element A-13
Implementation
Measures/Programs
Responsible
Agency Funding Source
Implementation
Measure/Program
Objectives
Accomplishments Recommended Future
Actions
Strategy/Housing
Priority List
state legislative
action eliminating
the City
Redevelopment
Agency.
planning period by
acquiring sites on the
priority list.
due to State legislated
elimination of the
Redevelopment
Agency.
affordable housing are
incorporated into the
2021-2029 Housing
Element.
2.I.
Washington/Venice
Land Use
Current Planning
Division
Current Planning
Division Budget
Present feasibility analysis
of the two sites identified
in the CHS for potential
multi-family affordable
housing development
after year 1 and 2 of the
CHS.
This program has been
eliminated due to lack of
funding.
Specific infill Successor
Agency owned properties
that are targeted for
affordable housing are
incorporated into the
2021-2029 Housing
Element.
2.J. Work Force
Housing
Current Planning
Division
Current Planning
Division Budget
Increase awareness of
need for workforce
housing and present CHS
feasibility sites to the
Redevelopment Agency
after program year 2 of
the CHS.
This program has been
eliminated due to lack of
funding.
Specific infill Successor
Agency owned properties
that are targeted for
affordable housing are
incorporated into the
2021-2029 Housing
Element.
2.K. Single Room
Occupancy (SRO)
Housing
Current Planning
Division
Current Planning
Division Budget
Work with developers
wishing to construct SRO
Housing.
An amendment
addressing SRO’s was
adopted by the City
Council in July of 2013
Process applications for
SRO development. This
routine function is not
included in the 2021-2029
Housing Element as a
separate program.
2.L. Zoning for
Emergency Shelters
and Transitional/
Supportive Housing
Current Planning
Division
Current Planning
Division Budget
Work with developers
wishing to construct
emergency shelters and
Transitional/Supportive
Housing. Amend the
Zoning Code for
Supportive Housing to
ensure consistency with
SB2 by July of 2014.
An amendment
addressing emergency
shelters and
transitional/supportive
housing was adopted by
the City Council in July of
2013.
AB 2162, adopted in 2018,
imposes new requirements
on how cities regulate
supportive housing. This
program will be modified
to include updating the
Zoning Code to comply
with new requirements.
Process applications for
Emergency Shelters and
Transitional/Supportive
Housing development.
Appendix A – Evaluation of the 2013-2021 Housing Element A-14
Implementation
Measures/Programs
Responsible
Agency Funding Source
Implementation
Measure/Program
Objectives
Accomplishments Recommended Future
Actions
2.M. Definition of
“Family”
Current Planning
Division
Current Planning
Division Budget
Add a definition of
“family” in the Municipal
Code in 2013-2014 to be
consistent with State law.
The Housing Element
contains a definition of
“family” which is
consistent with State law.
The Zoning Code
contains no definition
and there is no need for
a definition within the
Code at this time.
This program has been
completed and is not be
included in the 2021-2029
Housing Element.
2.N. Reasonable
Accommodation
Procedures
Current Planning
Division
Current Planning
Division Budget
Work with individuals
who apply for
Reasonable
Accommodations.
An amendment
addressing reasonable
accommodation
procedures was
adopted by the City
Council in July of 2013.
Staff continues to work
with individuals who
apply for Reasonable
Accommodations.
Continue to process
applications for
Reasonable
Accommodations. This
routine function is not
longer listed in the 2021-
2029 Housing Element as a
separate housing
program.
2.O. Reduced Parking
For Affordable Units
Current Planning
Division
Current Planning
Division Budget
Adopt reduced parking
in the Municipal Code in
2013-2014.
The Current Planning
Division has continued to
study this issue and will
report their findings to
the City Council. The City
currently complies with
State Density Bonus Law
regarding parking for
affordable housing
projects.
This will be conducted as
part of the comprehensive
Zoning Code update to
implement the new
General Plan.
2.P. Reduced
Surcharge Fee for New
Construction/Other
Fees
Current Planning
Division
Implementation of
this measure is de-
funded due to
state legislative
action eliminating
the City
Redevelopment
Agency.
The city will offset the
New Construction
Surcharge fee for
affordable units assisted
by the Redevelopment
Agency with housing set-
aside funds.
This measure cannot be
implemented due to the
State legislated
elimination of
Redevelopment
Agencies. It will be
resurrected when
funding sources become
available.
This program will be
resurrected should
state/federal funding
sources become available
and the city is eligible for
such funding.
Appendix A – Evaluation of the 2013-2021 Housing Element A-15
Implementation
Measures/Programs
Responsible
Agency Funding Source
Implementation
Measure/Program
Objectives
Accomplishments Recommended Future
Actions
2.Q. Opportunity Sites Current Planning
& Economic
Development
Divisions
Implement
Opportunity Site
components
through code
changes and
repeal of existing
building height
referendum
Provide new
development incentives
for reduced parking and
increased building
height and density on
larger targeted
“Opportunity Sites”
Implementation requires
repeal of the citywide
height referendum and
code changes
The program will require
City Council initiated
repeal of Building Height
referendum. City staff will
pursue code changes on
increased building height,
density, and reduced
parking for targeted
project sites.
Measure 3. Housing Division Administrative Activities
3.A. Financial Support
and Technical
Assistance
Housing Authority Implementation of
this measure was
de-funded due to
state legislative
action eliminating
the City
Redevelopment
Agency. This
program has
been
reintroduced due
to DOF approval
of ERAF payments.
Provide ongoing
financial support and
technical assistance to
organizations that
develop housing for
populations with special
needs as feasible
projects are identified.
This program was
reintroduced in FY 2018-
2019 due to DOF
approval of ERAF
payments. A total of $7.5
million is programmed
over 5 fiscal years to
provide capital costs for
modular housing units
and gap financing for
new construction of 186
affordable housing units.
Continue to provide
technical assistance and
financial support as
funding allows.
3.B. Facilitate
Financing
Negotiations for
Affordable Housing
Development
Housing Authority Implementation of
this measure is de-
funded due to
state legislative
action eliminating
the City
Redevelopment
Agency. This
program has
been
reintroduced due
to DOF approval
of ERAF payments.
Work with local lending
agencies, on behalf of
developers, to assist in
securing financing for
low- and moderate-
income rental housing,
as feasible projects are
identified.
This program was
reintroduced in FY 2020-
2021 due to DOF
approval of ERAF
payments. A total of $7.5
million is programmed
over 5 fiscal years to
provide capital costs for
modular housing units
and gap financing for
new construction of 186
affordable housing units.
Continue to provide
technical assistance and
financial support as
funding allows.
3.C. Facilitate
Financing
Housing Authority Implementation of
this measure is de-
funded due to
Work with private lenders
to encourage them to
provide mortgage
This measure cannot be
implemented due to the
State legislated
This program will be
modified and reinstated
should state/federal
Appendix A – Evaluation of the 2013-2021 Housing Element A-16
Implementation
Measures/Programs
Responsible
Agency Funding Source
Implementation
Measure/Program
Objectives
Accomplishments Recommended Future
Actions
Negotiations for Home
Purchases
state legislative
action eliminating
the City
Redevelopment
Agency.
financing that facilitates
home ownership.
elimination of
Redevelopment
Agencies. It will be
resurrected when
funding sources become
available.
funding sources become
available, and the City is
eligible for such funding.
3.D. Preserve At-Risk
Housing Units
Housing Authority Implementation of
this measure is de-
funded due to
state legislative
action eliminating
the City
Redevelopment
Agency.
Contact property
owners one year prior to
covenant expiration
dates for at-risk projects,
to gauge interest in and
incentivize further
participation. Offer NPP
funding (should it
become available) to
property owners to
address deferred
maintenance in
exchange for extending
affordability covenants.
This measure cannot be
implemented due to the
State legislated
elimination of
Redevelopment
Agencies. It will be
resurrected when
funding sources become
available.
Preservation of at-risk
housing is a requirement of
the Housing Element law.
This program is modified in
the 2021-2029 Housing
Element to focus on
monitoring and
coordination with
nonprofits with the
financial capacity of
preserve at-risk housing.
4. Regulatory Incentives
4.A. Development
Incentives
Current Planning
Division
Current Planning
Division Budget
Publicize the DOBI
program on the city
website and at the
public counter, work with
developers wishing to
participate by
dedicating a
percentage of dwelling
units as affordable in
exchange for incentives,
and process applications
as received.
Current Planning staff
continues to provide
information on the
availability of affordable
housing density bonus
incentives to applicants
constructing multi-family
housing projects.
The City will continue to
provide information on the
DOBI program and work
with developers who wish
to process a DOBI
application.
4.B. Streamline Permit
Approval Process
Current Planning
Division
Current Planning
Division Budget
Give priority processing
to projects providing
affordable units to
reduce development
costs associated with
time delays. The City’s
The City has made efforts
in streamlining
applications with
affordable housing
components. No
additional application
The 2021-2029 Housing
Element includes a
program to develop
procedures to comply with
SB 35 streamlined
processing.
Appendix A – Evaluation of the 2013-2021 Housing Element A-17
Implementation
Measures/Programs
Responsible
Agency Funding Source
Implementation
Measure/Program
Objectives
Accomplishments Recommended Future
Actions
recently approved
Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) Ordinance
screens projects from
traffic studies with 15%
project affordability to
facilitate project
streamlining
fee or special request by
the applicant is required.
4.C. Consultant Priority
Processing Program
Current Planning
Division
Current Planning
Division Budget
Facilitate affordable
housing development by
giving applicants the
option to expedite
project processing
through the use of
outside contract staff
throughout the planning
period.
The Fee for Service
program has not been
requested by applicants
and staff has not
needed to use this
program for processing in
a timely manner.
The City will continue to
offer this service should
applicants request it.
However, this is a routine
function and is not
included in the 2021-2029
Housing Element as a
separate housing
program.
5. Distribute Public Information
5.A. Promotion of
Housing Programs
Housing Authority Housing Authority
budget
Continue to promote the
housing rehabilitation
and maintenance
programs with
brochures, flyers, and
other public information
materials.
In an effort to attract
and retain property
owners to participate in
affordable housing
programs, an Owner Fair
was approved for the
2019-20 FY. The program
was scheduled for April
2020. This program is on
hold due to the COVID-
19 pandemic. The
program will promote
incentives to property
owners to lease to
Section 8 and persons
experiencing
homelessness. Incentives
include signing bonuses,
rehabilitation grants,
vacancy loss and
Continue to promote the
housing rehabilitation and
maintenance programs
with brochures, flyers, and
other public information
materials. Hold an Owner
Fair to promote incentives
to property owners to
lease to Section 8 and
unhoused persons when
permitted by public health
guidelines.
Appendix A – Evaluation of the 2013-2021 Housing Element A-18
Implementation
Measures/Programs
Responsible
Agency Funding Source
Implementation
Measure/Program
Objectives
Accomplishments Recommended Future
Actions
assistance with security
deposits.
5.B. Distribution of Anti-
Graffiti Design
Information
Current Planning
Division
Current Planning
Division Budget
Continue to promote
anti-graffiti program and
provide developers with
information regarding
architectural designs,
building materials and
landscaping that serve
to deter graffiti.
City staff has yet to
formally research this
program. However, the
following anti-graffiti
design measures are
utilized: Public Works
Department requires
anti-graffiti coating on
certain items such as
poles for discretionary
projects.
Current Planning Division
has landscaping
requirements which on a
case-by-case basis will
serve to deter graffiti.
This is a routine staff
function and is not
included in the 2021-2029
Housing Element as a
separate housing
program.
5.C. Distribution of
Noise Abatement
Information
Current Planning
Division
Current Planning
Division Budget
Continue to distribute
information about noise
abatement practices,
and materials including
landscape elements
such as walls or berms
that may reduce noise
impacts to the
community.
The City’s Noise
Ordinance is enforced
by the Code
Enforcement Division
and Police Department.
Formal distribution of
information regarding
noise abatement
practices and materials
has not been conducted
by the City. However,
upgraded noise
reduction measures for
multi-family and mixed-
use projects are required
either by code or as
project-specific
mitigation measures.
Continue enforcement of
the Noise Ordinance by
Code Enforcement and
the Police Department.
Continue to incorporate
noise reduction measures
into multi-family and mixed
use projects as required
either by code or as
project-specific mitigation
measures.
5.D. Database of
Housing Opportunities
Current Planning
Division and
Housing Authority
Current Planning
Division and
Continue to maintain
database of housing
development
With the introduction of
ERAF payments, a series
of Requests for Proposals
Pursuant to State law, the
City will provide the land
inventory for residential
Appendix A – Evaluation of the 2013-2021 Housing Element A-19
Implementation
Measures/Programs
Responsible
Agency Funding Source
Implementation
Measure/Program
Objectives
Accomplishments Recommended Future
Actions
Housing Authority
Budgets
opportunities on
commercial and
industrial lots in the city.
will be released in 2019
and 2020 soliciting firms
to provide site plans,
maps, and cost
estimates for both
residential and
government-owned
properties throughout
the City. These properties
will be considered for the
production of affordable
and workforce housing,
and housing for the
unhoused, and an
emergency shelter. The
Emergency Shelter
Feasibility Study and the
Motel Reuse Feasibility
Study were completed
and City currently
considering next steps.
development on City
website and update at
least annually. This is
incorporated into the
Adequate Sites for RHNA
program.
Appendix A – Inventory of Affordable Housing Units
A-20
Table A- 2: Progress in Achieving Quantified Objectives Program Category Quantified Objective Progress
2013-2021
New Construction*
Very Low 48 39
Low 29 13
Moderate 31 25
Above Moderate 77 717
Total 185 890
Rehabilitation
Very Low 13
Low 12
Moderate 15
Above Moderate 0
Total 40
Conservation
Very Low 101
Low 7
Moderate 4
Above Moderate 0
Total 112
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
Table of Contents
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. B-1 List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. B-1 Appendix B: Residential Sites Inventory ................................................................................. B-1 Overview ............................................................................................................................... B-1 Progress Toward RHNA ........................................................................................................ B-1 Opportunity Sites .................................................................................................................. B-2 Incremental Infill ................................................................................................................... B-4 Infilling Single-Family Neighborhoods ............................................................................. B-4 Estimating Capacity for RHNA ........................................................................................ B-6 Inventory of Sites .................................................................................................................. B-8 Conditions of Existing Nonresidential Uses ..................................................................... B-8 Average development density .................................................................................... B-10 Intensifying Existing Multi-Family Neighborhoods ........................................................ B-11 Integrating Residential Uses in Commercial and Industrial Areas ............................. B-12 Summary .......................................................................................................................... B-15 Environmental Constraints ............................................................................................. B-18 Availability of Infrastructure and Water and Sewer Services ..................................... B-18 Review of 5th Cycle Sites Inventory ................................................................................. B-47 Outcome of the 5th Cycle Sites Inventory .................................................................... B-47 Benchmarking Against Outcome of the 5th Cycle Sites Inventory............................ B-48
List of Tables
Table B- 1: Progress Toward RHNA ......................................................................................... B-2 Table B- 2: Opportunity Sites ................................................................................................... B-3 Table B- 3: ADU Income Distribution Per SCAG Affordability Study .................................... B-6 Table B- 4: Density of Recent Residential and Mixed Use Projects ................................... B-10 Table B- 5: Capacity for RHNA Under Current General Plan and 2045 General Plan Preferred Land Use Map ....................................................................................................... B-16 Table B- 6: Preferred Land Use Alternative Compared to Existing Zoning ....................... B-49 Table B- 7: Parcel Sizes .......................................................................................................... B-51 List of Figures
Figure B- 1: Incremental Infill Illustrative Exhibits .................................................................... B-5
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
Figure B- 2: Summary of Sites Inventory ............................................................................... B-17
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-1
Appendix B: Residential Sites Inventory
Overview
This appendix details the residential sites inventory for accommodating the RHNA. The City of Culver City is in the process of updating the General Plan. This Housing Element is consistent with the Preferred Land Use Map for 2045 General Plan. The sites identified represent a subset of sites made available through the General Plan update and meeting certain criteria for being considered with development or redevelopment potential at the time of writing this Housing Element. These criteria include existing uses, existing FAR, age of structures (year structure built), improvement-to-land ratio, lot size, adjacency to parcels with redevelopment potential and lot consolidation potential, and expressed interest of developers or property owners, among others. It should be noted that sites properly designated for residential and mixed use development, but do not meet these objective criteria are not included in the sites inventory. However, not making the sites inventory list in the Housing Element does not preclude properties from being able to develop according to their General Plan designation and zoning.
Progress Toward RHNA
While the 6th cycle Housing Element planning period covers from October 15, 2021, through October 15, 2029, the RHNA projection period begins June 30, 2021. Table B- 1 shows the progress towards meeting the RHNA. Housing projects that have been proposed, approved, or entitled for construction during the projection period can be credited against the 6th cycle RHNA. Pipeline projects are those with development application forthcoming. Income distribution of the units is based on project applications, proposals, or discussions with project developers/property owners.
The number and affordability of units identified in Table B- 1 is determined by specific project applications and funding:
• 3725 Robertson – two affordable units (one low and one moderate income) as inclusionary units in exchange for developer incentives • Triangle Site 12717 Washington – 17 affordable units (5 very low, 11 moderate, and one workforce) as inclusionary units in exchange for density incentives • 11111 Jefferson – 19 very low income units as inclusionary units in exchange for density incentives
• Community Garden 10808-10860 Culver Blvd – City owned site with funding set aside for the development of six low income units, with funding identified in the City’s housing funds for FY 2021-FY 2024
• 7th Day Adventist 11828 Washington Blvd – Church proposing to develop housing on site and income distribution (4 very low and 8 moderate income units) as proposed by applicant
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-2
• 4646 Sepulveda Blvd - United Methodist Church project - City is providing a $2 million permanent loan to help construct 95 low income affordable units at the rear of the Church parking area – project is currently in plan check • Virginia lot - The City is currently developing site plans to provide 24 modular (or other type of) low-income housing units on City owned property, with funding identified in the City’s housing funds for FY 2021-FY 2024 • Venice Lot – The City is currently developing site plans to provide 12 low-income modular housing units on City owned property, with funding identified in the City’s housing funds for FY 2021-FY 2024
• Culver Center (see APNs below) – This 11.4-acre site is currently a shopping center and is comprised of 32 small parcels. Existing uses include Best Buy, Ralphs, Bank of America, Rite Aid, LA Fitness, and other uses. The shopping center also has large areas dedicated to surface parking. The developer has approached the City regarding site redevelopment for a mixed use commercial and residential project.
A preliminary project envisions a 1,200-unit project with 420 low income and 180 workforce units (up to 129% AMI). Culver Center APNs:
4208-016-001
4208-016-010
4208-016-011
4208-016-012
4208-016-013
4208-016-015
4208-016-016
4208-016-017
4208-016-018
4208-016-024
4208-016-025
4208-016-026
4208-017-003
4208-017-021
4208-017-022
4208-017-024
4208-017-025
4208-017-026
4208-017-027
4208-017-028
4208-017-030
4208-017-032
4208-017-039
4208-017-044
4208-017-045
4208-017-046
4208-017-048
4208-017-049
4208-017-029
4208-016-009
4208-016-020
4208-016-023
The City has held meetings with the developer to confirm interest in redeveloping the plaza during the Housing Element planning period.
• Venice and Sepulveda, 11166 Venice Blvd., 3816, 3838, and 3848 Sepulveda Blvd – This site is comprised of four parcels, totaling 3.14 acres, is being proposed by the project developer for a mixed use project of 347 units. Specifically, the developer is proposing 17 very low income units along with 35 workforce units. Existing uses include a car wash, a fast food restaurant, and a plant nursery. • 5915 Blackwelder – The property owner is proposing to convert existing industrial/creative office space into 10 live/work units.
All of these projects can and are expected to be permitted within the eight-year timeframe of the 6th cycle Housing Element. Specifically, the City conducted an Opportunity Sites Development meeting on July 18, 2022, with attendance by the owners and/or developers of many of the pipeline and opportunity sites and confirmed the interest in redeveloping the sites within the timeframe of this Housing Element. One project – United
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-2
Methodist Church – has already submitted its project application, which is currently in plan check.
Table B- 1: Progress Toward RHNA
Project Type
Extremely
Low/
Very Low
(50 AMI)
Low
(80 AMI)
Moderate
(120 AMI)
Workforce
(129 AMI)
Above
Moderate Total
Plan Check
3725 Robertson Mixed Use 1 0 1 1 9 12
United Methodist - 4464
Sepulveda Residential 0 95 0 0 0 95
Entitled
Jackson Condos - 4051
and 4055 Jackson Residential 0 0 0 0 9 9
Proposed
Triangle Site - 12717
Washington Mixed Use 5 0 11 1 87 104
11111 Jefferson Mixed Use 19 0 0 0 211 230
Community Garden (City-
Owned) - 10808-10860
Culver Blvd
Mixed Use 0 6 0 0 0 6
7th Day Adventist - 11828
Washington Residential 4 0 8 0 0 12
Pipeline Projects
Virginia Lot Modular (or
Other Type) of Low
Income units - 10555
Virginia
Residential 0 24 0 0 0 24
Venice Lot Residential 0 12 0 0 0 12
Culver Center Regency
(see APNs in list above) Mixed Use 0 420 0 180 600 1,200 Venice and Sepulveda -
11166 Venice Blvd., 3816,
3838, and 3848
Sepulveda Blvd
Mixed Use 17 0 0 35 295 347
5915 Blackwelder Residential 0 0 0 0 10 10
Total 46 557 20 217 1,221 2,061
Opportunity Sites
City staff identified several opportunity sites for future residential housing (see Table B- 2):
Virginia Lot - 10555 Virginia: This City-owned site is being planned for residential uses. A portion of this site is being planned for 24 modular units (or other type of units) (see Pipeline Projects above). The balance of the site (about 2.37 acre) has a parking lease that is set to expire in 2025. The City plans to pursue either permanent supportive housing or a mixed
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-3
income affordable housing project upon expiration of the parking lease. Funding identified in the City’s housing funds for FY 2021-FY 2024.
This site has a Neighborhood/Corridor MU2 designation under 2045 General Plan, with a base density of 50 units per acre. Given the lot site the City anticipates 100 mixed income units can be achieved.
Westfield Culver City (JC Penney) – APN 4134-003-011: Based on the City’s discussions with the property owner and prospective buyer/developer, future plans for the shopping center include adding residential units to the back of the shopping center. An estimated 193 market rate units have previously been proposed by the property owner.
Entrance Parcels to West Los Angeles Community College (WLAC), APNs 4296-001-902 and 4296-001-903: The Los Angeles Community College District owns two vacant parcels (totaling 7.87 acres) toward the entrance to the WLAC. The College District has expressed interest in making the parcels available for residential development. Current zoning for these parcels is IG but will become Neighborhood/Corridor MU2 under 2045 General Plan.
An estimated 300 market rate units can be accommodated on these vacant parcels.
Table B- 2: Opportunity Sites
Site Current Status
2045 General
Plan Preferred
Land Use
Allowable
Density
(du/ac)
Size
(ac)
Potential
Units
RHNA
Income
Level
Virginia Lot
10555 Virginia
APN:
4209030901
Remaining piece
of property,
excluding
modular units (or
other unit type)
site
Current parking
lease expires in
2025
Target for
supportive
housing or
affordable
housing
Neighborhood/
Corridor MU 2
50 2.37 100 40% Very
Low
20% Low
40%
Moderate
Westfield Culver
City
APN:
4134003011
Westfield is for
sale and
developer in
discussion with
City regarding
acquisition and
development of
housing to the
back of the mall
Mixed Use High 100 3.57 193 Market rate
housing
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-4
Parcel at
entrance to
WLAC
APN:
4296001902
4296001903
Site owned by
College District
Neighborhood/
Corridor MU 2
50 3.93
3.94 300 Market rate
housing
Incremental Infill
Infilling Single-Family Neighborhoods
The Culver City 2045 General Plan preferred land use map introduces a new concept – Incremental Infill – into the City’s existing low density residential neighborhoods, allowing for more than just detached single-family units, ADUs, and JADUs, in these neighborhoods. See Figure B- 1 for illustrations of incremental infill. Lots over 4,950 square feet will allow up to four units, if the fourth one is dedicated as affordable housing to lower income households, inclusive of an ADU and JADU. Specifically:
Proposed development standard changes:
• Modification (relaxation) of ADU standards
• Allowance of up to 3 market-rate and 1 additional affordable unit (4 total), effectively increasing the density to 35 units per acre, compared to the existing 8.7 units per acre
• No size limitation for individual units, i.e. all units could be the same size and type • Current standards are 1,200 square feet for a two-bedroom detached ADU, 800 square feet for a one-bedroom ADU, and 500 square feet for a JADU • Maintain all existing R1 height and setback standards Development options:
Infilling the single-family neighborhood can occur under two different scenarios:
• Conversion and/or addition: An owner can convert and add to an existing single- family home for a total of up to four units on the property, inclusive of ADU/JADU.
The total square footage is intended to match what is currently allowed in the associated zoning district.
• Redevelopment: New construction of up to four new units, inclusive of ADU/JADU, with the total square footage intended to match what is currently allowed in the associated zoning district.
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-5
Figure B- 1: Incremental Infill Illustrative Exhibits
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-6
Estimating Capacity for RHNA
The estimate of development potential in the single-family neighborhoods separately account for these two scenarios. Both development scenarios are estimated based on different development trends and are not duplicated.
Conversion/Addition Scenario
Under the conversion/addition scenario, units will be added primarily as ADUs or JADUs.
These units may be added anywhere in the city where ADUs/JADUs are permitted, not limiting to the Incremental Infill areas. Where permitted, a property owner can take advantage of the flexible ADU standards and develop two to three additional units on site.
Pursuant to State law, estimate of ADU capacity for RHNA purposes can only be based on trend and not on eligible lots. The City updated its ADU Ordinance in August 2020 and implementation has contributed to the following trends:
• The production of more, smaller housing units - Since the adoption of the ordinance, no existing single-family residential homes have been completely demolished without being rebuilt with an ADU. The average rebuild (including the ADU floor area) totaled 3,370 square feet, approximately 300 square feet less than the average in preceding years when less than 10% were rebuilt with an ADU. • A higher percentage of overall single-family residential building permits that resulted in renovation/remodel with an ADU as opposed to full demo/rebuild. • A higher ratio of new units produced per building permit issued because when individuals are choosing to invest in their properties, they are opting to add units as opposed to just demolition/rebuild or remodel their existing home.
Using August 14, 2020, as the cutoff date for establishing trend, the City’s ADU production trend from conversion/expansion is as follows:
• August 14, 2017 – August 13, 2018: 29 ADUs
• August 14, 2018 – August 13, 2019: 50 ADUs
• August 14, 2019 – August 13, 2020: 52 ADUs
• August 14, 2020 – August 13, 2021: 49 ADUs (projected) Data is based on building permit records and units finaled in 2019 and 2020.
Based on the ADU production trend, it would be conservative to assume 50 ADUs per year from conversion/expansion, assuming a stable trend similar to the past three year. Housing Element law requires that the City facilitate the development of ADUs. The income distribution of the 400 ADUs shown in Table B- 3 over eight years is based on SCAG’s survey and recommended distribution, which have been received and approved by the State HCD for use in the Housing Element. This Housing Element also includes Implementation Measures 4.D, 4.E, and 4.F to facilitate ADU production.
Table B- 3: ADU Income Distribution Per SCAG Affordability Study Extremely
Low Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate Total
SCAG Affordability Study 15.0% 2.0% 43.0% 6.0% 34.0% 100.0% Projected ADUs 60 8 172 24 136 400
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-7
Note: SCAG Affordability Study takes into consideration that a portion of the ADUs/JADUs are being available to family and extended family members at no or reduced rents.
Redevelopment scenario
Based on the Assessor’s data on estimated lot size, about 5,000 parcels within the Incremental Infill designation are over 4,950 square feet and therefore eligible to use the flexibility offered by this designation. However, many factors can affect the overall yield, most critically the condition and placement of the existing units on site and the property owners’ interest in redevelopment or infill development.
Within the Incremental Infill designation, a property owner can choose to redevelop the site into any configuration, including a fourplex (inclusive of the ADU and JADU), and not restricted to single-family detached/attached units with ADUs. As mentioned before, about 5,000 parcels designated Incremental Infill meet the lot size requirement of 4,950 square feet or larger. However, it is unrealistic to anticipate that all the eligible properties will be redeveloped. The following criteria are used to exclude the less likely properties:
• Sites currently occupied by public uses such as parks and utility easements • Sites with existing structure built within the last 50 years • Sites with Improvement-to-Land Value Ratio more than 0.50 (i.e., improvements on site worth 50% of land value and less are more likely to be demolished) • Existing FAR more than 0.25 (and therefore redevelopment is less likely to yield significant net increase in square footage above the allowable FAR of 0.45 plus 1,200 square feet)
• Net increase (subtracting existing units on site) is not more than two units Application of these criteria would remove about 75% of the parcels as potential redevelopment sites, with 1,346 parcels remaining. Assuming each parcel would redevelop to maximize the potential on site (four units), the net increase would be 4,038 units or an average yield of just above three units per parcel. However, property owners’ interest in redevelopment, which is not measurable, is the most critical factor in determining the realistic yield in the Incremental Infill area. The list of potential properties is further reduced based on comments submitted by specific property owners who had expressed intent to be excluded from the list. Overall, 100 parcels have been removed by requests from property owners, leaving a remaining list of 1,246 parcels.1 According to data collected for a study conducted by UCLA, which examines the trend of recycling in single-family neighborhoods 2, Culver City could potentially expect 109 market feasible units per 1,000 eligible parcels for recycling. Therefore, the 1,246 eligible parcels could be expected to generate 135 market feasible units. While the City’s Incremental Infill concept encourages the inclusion of affordable units in recycling activities, this Housing Element conservatively assumes about 1/3 of the net new units as moderate income units and the remaining as above moderate income units.
1 While more than 200 property owners requested to be removed from the eligible properties, only 100 of the identified properties are actually on the list. It should be noted that being removed from the list of potential properties based on lot size, age of structure, improvement to land value, and existing FAR does not change the Proposed Land Use Map designation as incremental Infill.
2“One to Four: The Market Potential of Fourplexes in California’s Single-Family Neighborhoods” by Paavo Monkkonen, Ian Carlton, and Kate Macfarlane, June 2020.
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-8
Inventory of Sites
Conditions of Existing Nonresidential Uses
As part of the General Plan Update, the City conducted a Socio-Economic Profile and Market Analysis of Culver City’s baseline conditions as of 2019. However, the report does not account for the potential impacts of the pandemic.
The report states that national trends for big box and shopping center retail could impact retail performance in Culver City and the City’s long-term financial sustainability.
Already, the City’s commercial corridors and regional shopping centers are showing some weakness, evidenced by mainly stagnating shopping center rents since the 2008 recession. For example, both the Westfield Culver City and Regency Culver Center have expressed interest from property owners and developers to reconfigure the mall sites to include residential uses.
About 31% of the office uses in Culver City is Class A (desirable) and is concentrated in Downtown and Fox Hills. About 53% of the office space is Class B (utilitarian space with no special attractions) and 16% is Class C (below average quality). Rent differentials between Class A and Class B/C spaces are significant (about 20-25% lower for Class B/C). Class C office space is spread out across the main commercial corridors of Venice and Sepulveda Boulevards. The majority of mixed use sites identified in the sites inventory are located along Sepulveda.
As of 2018, Culver City had a total of 4.6M SF of retail, per CoStar estimates. Retail uses are primarily located along east-west Venice Boulevard and north-south Sepulveda Boulevard, with a large concentration of square feet in Fox Hills due to the Westfield shopping mall. Westfield Culver City alone makes up one of the largest portions (29%) of Culver City’s overall retail footprint. Half of Culver City’s retail was built between 1950 and1980, with relatively less retail built after 1980.
Culver City shopping center rents have dipped by 18% since 2010, from $41.30 to $33.90 in 2018 (NNN3). Shopping center rents have not recovered to pre-Recession levels, which is a common trend across mall-type developments and community shopping centers in Southern California. The trends in Culver City reflect the market weakness of Fox Hills and strip shopping centers. The sites inventory includes strip commercial and shopping centers, with the objective of repurposing a portion of the retail and parking space by adding residential uses. As shown in Table B-4, recycling nonresidential uses has resulted in recent mixed use development. Table B-1 also identifies a number of pipeline projects that demonstrate the strong trend of redeveloping commercial uses along major corridors for residential and mixed use development. For example, the 357- unit project at the corner of Venice and Sepulveda is consolidating four parcels that include a car wash, Carl’s Junior, and a plant nursery.
3 NNN refers to a Triple Net Lease, which are those where “the tenant is responsible for all expenses associated with their proportional share of occupancy in the building.” Source:
https://www.costar.com/about/costar-glossary
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-9
The feasibility of redeveloping existing nonresidential uses into residential or mixed use development is significantly improved with the Proposed Land Use Plan, which would allow standalone residential uses in mixed use areas.
Development Interest for Commercial and Industrial Sites City staff are actively reaching out to property owners at these identified “Potential Opportunity Sites” to learn of their interest in re-developing to provide housing and advance the City’s housing goals. Staff sent 30 letters to some of these property owners at the end of 2021 inquiring about their interest and explaining the City’s housing goals and the potential for development incentives if the sites are redeveloped as housing. At the beginning of 2022, staff sent 183 letters to all the property owners of the identified “Potential Opportunity Sites,” including the 30 property owners contacted at the end of 2021. The 183 letters referenced a total of 290 parcels letters to all property owners. City staff will continue to reach out to the property owners through 2022. As of the writing of this Housing Element, no nonresidential property owners have voiced concerns over being included in the sites inventory and about a dozen property owners replied, expressing interest.
On July 18, 2022, Culver City hosted an Opportunity Sites Development meeting.
Panelists included the City Manager, Community Development Director, and Advance Planning Manager. There were 13 attendees representing property owners and developers for generally larger commercial sites, but also included representatives from smaller parcels. The property owners/developers expressed interest in redeveloping the sites within the timeframe of the Housing Element. Based on discussions during the meeting or follow-up phone conversations:
• Pavilions – 16-acre site, with a potential to redevelop 20% (3.2 acres) of the site. • Raintree Plaza – 6.8-acre site, with a potential to redevelop 20% (1.3 acres) of the site
• Ross/Target/Bed Bath and Beyond – 16.5-acre site, with a potential to redevelop 20% (3.3 acres)
• Culver Center (including Regency Center, Bank of America, and Rite Aid) – 11.4- acre site with the plan to redevelop 1,200 units
• Marshall’s – 7.16-acre site, with the potential to redevelop the entire site • 5645 & 5670 Sepulveda Blvd (office and Del Taco) -1.14-acre site with the potential to redevelop the entire site
• 3562 Eastham Drive – 1.38-acre site with the potential to redevelop the entire site • 5844 Perry Drive (industrial park) – 0.09-acre site with the interest to redevelop the entire site into a five-story building
• 8660 Hayden Place (industrial park) – 2.57-acre site with the potential to redevelop the entire site
• 5942 Washington Blvd (industrial park) – 0.86-acre site with the potential to redevelop the entire site
• 3525 Eastham Drive – 1.2-acre site with potential to redevelop the entire site Many of these sites are included in the inventory as pipeline/opportunity sites. Also, because of the positive response from property owners and developers, new sites are added to the sites inventory (e.g., the Marshall’s site and industrial properties).
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-10
Average Development Density
Residential recycling in Culver City primarily occurs on small lots zoned for R2, R3, RLD and RMD. Given the high cost of land and small lots, the average yield is about 14 du/ac at R2 and RLD lots (about 83% of the allowable density). See Table B- 4 for more information on the density of recent residential and mixed use projects. Average yield is about 25 du/ac at R3, RMD, and RHD lots (about 85% of the allowable density). For this sites inventory analysis, an average yield of 80% is used for recycling residential properties.
However, the majority of the residential construction in recent years has occurred as part of a mixed use development within the City’s various commercial districts. Underused commercial uses are being redeveloped into multi-story mixed use projects, often involving the consolidation of at least two to three parcels. Under the current General Plan, standalone residential projects are not allowed in these commercial districts but would be permitted under the 2045 General Plan Preferred Land Use Map. Under current General Plan and zoning, base density for mixed use development is 35 du/ac but increases to 50- 65 du/ac if located within the Transit-Oriented District. Due to the community benefit program for mixed use projects with15% inclusionary housing, virtually all mixed use projects exceed 65 du/ac with State density bonus. For mixed use development or residential projects in mixed use areas, the sites inventory assumes an average yield at 90% of the allowable density, excluding density bonus.
Most selected parcels meet all three criteria (old structures, low existing FAR, and low improvement-to-land ratio) and exclude existing uses that are not likely to recycle. Such uses include existing public uses or uses that are associated with national or regional chains where redevelopment potential involves the strategic planning of a larger than local context. However, some parcels that do not meet all three criteria are included because the parcels are located within a block of primarily underused properties, or high vacancies render the properties feasible for redevelopment even if the structures may be somewhat valuable.
Table B- 4: Density of Recent Residential and Mixed Use Projects Project Type Site
Size
(ac)
Units Zone Allowed
Density
(du/ac)1
Actual
Density
In du/ac
# Conso-
lidated
Parcels
Prior Uses Affordable
Units
Residenti
al
4044-4068
Globe
For-
Sale
0.74 10 R2 17.4 13.5 5 Caltrans
surplus
property
8 L
1 M
1 WF
4219-4229
Ince
For-
sale
0.42 6 R2 17.4 14.4 3 Residential 6 AM
4112-4118
Wade
For-
Sale
0.27 4 RLD 15 14.8 1 Residential 4 AM
3906-3910
Sawtelle
Rental 0.16 4 RMD 29 25.0 2 Residential 4 AM
4032-4038
La Salle
For-
Sale
0.16 4 RMD 29 25.0 1 Residential 4 AM
4180
Duquesne
For-
Sale
0.16 4 RMD 29 25.0 1 Residential 4 AM
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-11
Project Type Site
Size
(ac)
Units Zone Allowed
Density
(du/ac)1
Actual
Density
In du/ac
# Conso-
lidated
Parcels
Prior Uses Affordable
Units
4051-4055
Jackson*
For-
Sale
0.31 9 RMD 29 29.0 2 Residential 3 VL
3 L
3 M
Mixed
Use
3725
Robertson
Rental 0.14 12 IG 35 85.7 1 City-owned
parking
Underused
Industrial
1 L
1 M
9 AM
11141
Washingt
on
Assiste
d
Living
Units
0.88 116 CG 35 131.8 4 Underused
Commercia
l
116 AM
11111
Jefferson
Rental 3.43 230 CG 35 67.1 4 Surface
Parking,
USPS,
Restaurant,
Auto Repair
19 VL
211 AM
12821
Washing-
ton
Rental 0.55 37 CG 35 67.3 2 Motel 3 VL
31 AM
11048
Washing-
ton Blvd*
Rental 0.74 33 CG 35 44.6 1 Underused
commercial
14 VL
6 L
13 M
Notes:
1. Based on applicable minimum development standards (excluding density bonus)
Acronyms:
VL = Very Low Income
L = Low Income
M = Moderate Income
WF = Workforce
AM = Above Moderate
*100% affordable housing development
R2 = Residential Two Family
RLD = Residential Low Density Multiple
RMD = Residential Medium Density Multiple
IG = Industrial General
CG = Commercial General
Intensifying Existing Multi-Family Neighborhoods
Under the current General Plan, the existing multi-family residential neighborhoods offer densities between 15 and 29 du/ac. The majority of the residential recycling activities have resulted in small condo/townhome developments that do not provide opportunity for affordable housing. The 2045 General Plan Preferred Land Use Map provides two multi- family residential designations: Corridor Multi-Family (30 du/ac) and Neighborhood Multi- Family (50 du/ac). Within the Corridor Multi-Family area, recycling opportunities are limited despite the increase to 30 du/ac, given the lot sizes and existing uses. Therefore, this
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-12
analysis of recycling opportunities focuses on the Neighborhood Multi-Family designation, which offers a density of up to 50 du/ac, significantly above the current allowable densities.
To identify potential properties for recycling, the following criteria were applied:
• Existing lot is vacant
• For nonvacant lots:
o Existing use is not condos, townhomes, apartments, or civic uses (i.e., schools) o Existing structure is at least 50 years old
o Existing Improvement-to-Land Ratio (ILR) is less than 1.0 (i.e., the land is more valuable than the structure)
o Net increase in housing units if redeveloped under 2045 General Plan at 40 du/ac (80% of allowable density) is at least four times the existing number of units on site
A total of 161 parcels met these criteria all containing only a single-family home or duplex units on site. The current General Plan designates these parcels primarily as Low Density Two Family and Medium Density Multi-Family and would yield only 220 net new units. Given the small lot sizes and density ranging from 17 to 29 du/ac, these parcels could facilitate moderate income housing only.
With a significantly increased density to 50 du/ac, these properties present potential for intensification to yield a total of 657 net new units under 2045 General Plan Preferred Land Use Map. Without lot consolidation, however, these parcels are too small individually to facilitate affordable housing pursuant to the state law threshold of 0.5 acre as minimum size. For the purpose of RHNA estimates, these sites are assigned to the moderate income category.
Integrating Residential Uses in Commercial and Industrial Areas Under the current General Plan, mixed use development is permitted in CN, CD, and CG zones at a base density of 35 du/ac. However, the City amended the Mixed Use Ordinance in 2021, incentivizing 15% of the units to be affordable from low to workforce income levels in a mixed use development if a developer takes advantage of the community benefit density bonus, and increasing the base density to 50-65 du/ac. 2045 General Plan provides for several mixed use designations.
Consistent with the findings of the Market Analysis discussed above and as demonstrated by the expressed interest of property owners and developers during the Opportunity Sites Development meeting, redevelopment of commercial and industrial uses in Culver City is the current and future trend. Owners/developers in the meeting represent properties that are currently developed with a range of commercial and industrial uses, such as shopping centers, retail, banks, offices, restaurants, warehouses, and industrial park uses, etc. Existing structures are at least 30 years old, with existing FARs ranging from 0.16 and 1.09, and improvement to land ratio ranging from 0.01 to 1.65. These thresholds are consistent with the criteria used to select parcels to be included in the inventory. Parcel-level data provided includes how each parcel meets these criteria (with just a few minor exceptions explained in the following sections).
To identify potential properties for redevelopment, the following criteria were applied:
• Existing lot is vacant
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-13
• For nonvacant lots:
o Existing structure is at least 30 years old
o Existing ILR is less than 1.0 (i.e., the land is more valuable than the structure) o Existing FAR is less than 1.0
These thresholds are generally more stringent than the characteristics of properties being recycled. Occasionally, parcels that do not meet the ILR or existing FAR thresholds are also included in the sites inventory based on known conditions on site or expressed development interests. For example, while some buildings may have high improvement values, weak sales or business revenues due to the changing structure of the economy would render the existing uses of the properties irrelevant or less than competitive in the market. These are particularly true for shopping centers, strip retail uses, or restaurant uses with large parking lots. As demonstrated by the responses from the property owners and developers at the Opportunity Sites Development meeting, these types of properties have potential for redevelopment due to declining traditional formats of retail/office uses.
Based on community input, specific parcels that may not meet these objective criteria, but have been identified by local residents, architects, and developers as being ripe for redevelopment, have been added to the inventory. Similarly, parcels that have been identified by the community as unlikely to redevelop over the next eight years due to long- term leases and other factors have been removed from the inventory.
Aerial photos were reviewed to examine the exterior condition, lot dimensions, and physical configuration of structures on site to determine if there are obvious constraints to redevelopment. A few small parcels, while not meeting the above criteria, are included in the inventory because they are located adjacent to groups of contiguous underutilized parcels.
Neighborhood/Corridor Mixed Use and Industrial Mixed Use Many areas proposed to be designated as Neighborhood/Corridor Mixed Use 1 have been identified by local architects and developers as exhibiting signs of disrepair and decline. The challenge in these areas is small lot sizes. A total of 25 parcels were identified to have near-term potential due to existing conditions and uses. These parcels total 3.42 acres and can accommodate 92 units. Based on existing conditions, these parcels have an average FAR of only 0.73 and ILR of 0.84. Most existing structures were constructed more than 50 years ago. However, due to their small sizes, these parcels are assigned as moderate income RHNA sites.
Several blocks of commercial strip businesses within the Neighborhood/Corridor Mixed Use 2 area have been identified with redevelopment potential. Average existing FAR among these is 0.40 with an average ILR of 0.54. The majority of these structures were built during the 1950s and 1960s. These areas are currently zoned CG that allows mixed use development at 50 du/ac. Under 2045 General Plan Preferred Land Use Map, the Neighborhood/Corridor Mixed Use designation would also allow standalone residential development at 50 du/ac and up to four stories. Based on existing conditions, these areas (total 41.2 acres) present potential for redevelopment and can facilitate the development of lower and moderate income housing. An estimated 1,667 units can be accommodated at 90% of the allowable density. Most parcels are over 0.5 acre. These blocks of contiguous parcels can be developed as large-scale developments or by consolidating three to four
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-14
parcels into moderately sized projects. Consolidating three to four parcels for mixed use and multi-family development is a typical trend in Culver City. However, as a conservative assumption, parcels less than 0.5 acre are assigned as moderate income RHNA sites.
Another area with redevelopment potential as identified by the community is the triangular site that currently is developed with two small office buildings and one restaurant (Del Taco). The office buildings show vacancies and the restaurant has small footprint with significant surface parking lot. Owners of this area attended the Opportunity Sites Development meeting and expressed interest in redeveloping the site. The proposed Venice and Sepulveda project located at 11166 Venice Blvd., 3816, 3838, and 3848 Sepulveda Blvd demonstrates that redevelopment of restaurant use is feasible.
Furthermore, new development may not necessarily involve removing the existing restaurant uses on site.
Input from the community also identifies three areas that have in recent years been transitioning from industrial and commercial uses to creative office spaces. These are the Smiley Blackwelder, Hayden Tract, and Jefferson corridor areas. Under the current General Plan, these areas are zoned IG (Industrial – General). Under the 2045 General Plan Preferred Land Use Map, these areas are zoned Neighborhood/Corridor Mixed Use 2 or Industrial Mixed Use. There have been expressed interest in providing live/work housing in these areas to complement the creative office uses. One such project is currently being proposed at 5915 Blackwelder for ten units on a 0.36-acre site (28 units per acre), converting existing low intensity industrial uses to housing.
Because of the current trend of converting these areas into creative office uses, with an emerging trend of providing live/work housing, the near-term potential for housing in this area is anticipated to be experimental and limited. These three areas encompass 163 parcels (excluding Ballona Creek). Among these, 51 parcels are occupied by low intensity industrial and commercial storage/warehousing uses and have ILR of 0.50 or less and buildings are older than 30 years. The low ILR may mean that these properties have not been reassessed or improved for many years. Using a more conservative density of 25 units per acre (lower than 5915 Blackwelder), only 18 parcels are large enough to yield at least 10 units, with an estimated potential of 338 live/work units in these industrial areas (158 units in Industrial Mixed Use and 180 units in Neighborhood/Corridor Mixed Use 2). In addition, eight parcels are included due to owner interest to redevelop into high density residential uses. Therefore, capacity at these additional parcels is estimated at 90% of the allowable density, with the potential to add 341 units.
Mixed Use Medium
A total of 30 parcels of existing underutilized commercial and industrial uses offer potential for redevelopment, including two shopping centers with single-story structures and significant areas designated for surface parking. Currently, these areas are designated CRR, CG, CN, and IG, and are developed with single-story and mostly antiquated commercial and industrial uses. Average existing FAR among these properties is only 0.57 and an average ILR of 0.38.
Two shopping centers with potential for residential development similar to the scenario presented by the Westfield Culver City and Culver Center (see “Opportunity Sites” and Pipeline Projects discussions) are included in the inventory:
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-15
• Target Site (with uses as Target, 99 Cents, Pet Smart, Toys R US, which went out of business) – only 20% of this site (primarily the parking area) is used to estimate potential for residential units.
• Trader Joe’s site – Trader Joe’s and a fast food restaurant are the primary tenants.
Only 20% of this site (primarily the parking area) is used to estimate potential for residential units.
Development of the surface parking areas at the shopping center sites is expected to most likely yield mixed income projects.
Mixed use development is permitted in the CG and CN properties at a base density of 50 du/ac. An estimated 215 units can be accommodated on the parcels currently zoned CG and CN. The other CRR and IG properties have no potential for new housing based on current development regulations.
Under 2045 General Plan Preferred Land Use Map, these areas are designated for Mixed Use Medium with a density of 65 du/ac and allow up to four stories. Overall, these areas blocks can potentially accommodate 893 units. Parcels larger than 0.5 acre can potentially facilitate the development of 421 lower income units based on density.
Mixed Use High
Mixed Use High area is currently developed with hotels, office parks, commercial/retail uses, and public institutional uses; most may not have near-term redevelopment potential.
However, four parcels designated for Regional Center under the current General Plan are developed with older single-story office use. Structures were constructed more than 30 years ago. Average existing FAR is about 0.30. 2045 General Plan Preferred Land Use Map designation of Mixed Use High would allow this area to intensity ten-folds and up to five stories. This designation includes 21.2 acres of potentially re-developable parcels and can accommodate 1,382 units at 100 du/ac. Based on density, Mixed Use High can facilitate lower income housing. Parcels can potentially be developed separately or jointly, with each parcel exceeding 0.5 acre in size.
included in this designation are Raintree Plaza and Marshall’s. Raintree Plaza is located adjacent to existing medium density residential uses. This shopping center was built in 1974 with a low use of the land. Tenants at this single-story shopping center include small restaurants, grocery store, and a UPS store. Only 20% of this site (primarily the parking area) is used to estimate potential for 130 residential units. A mixed income project is assumed in this sites inventory. The Marshalls site has also been added to the inventory based on owner interest.
Summary
Table B- 5 summarizes the capacity of the sites selected following the above methodology. These sites offer limited residential potential under the current General Plan. With 2045 General Plan Preferred Land Use Map, the same sites offer a buffer of 223% above the RHNA. In general, larger sites are conservatively assumed to be mixed income sites although all mixed use and multi-family sites meet the State default density for facilitating lower income housing. Figure B-2 provides a visual summary of the sites inventory.
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-16
The City recognizes that not all mixed use sites will be redeveloped as mixed use or standalone residential uses. However, under the current General Plan, the City does not have any mixed use zoning, but mixed use projects are allowed in commercial zones.
With the adoption of General Plan 2045, which allows standalone residential, future redevelopment of mixed use sites is more likely to include a residential component.
Furthermore, just among the properties with expressed owner/developer interest to redevelop as housing/mixed use projects, the City would be able to accommodate an estimated 1,559 units (306 lower income, 336 moderate income, and 917 above moderate income units), representing 28 percent of the remaining lower income RHNA and 62 percent of the remaining moderate income RHNA. Furthermore, the sites inventory offers a significant buffer (139 percent for lower income and 256 percent for moderate income). This buffer will be more than adequate to compensate for the potential loss of sites due to commercial development.
Table B- 5: Capacity for RHNA Under Current General Plan and 2045 General Plan Preferred Land Use Map RHNA Strategy Lower Moderate Above
Moderate Total
RHNA 1,712 560 1,069 3,341
Approved/Entitled/Proposed/Pipeline Projects 603 20 1,438 2,061 Remaining RHNA 1,109 540 0 1,280
Capacity under Current General Plan
Projected ADUs (Conversion/Expansion) 240 24 136 400
Low Density Two-Family/Medium Density Multi-Family 0 190 6 196 CG/CN 704 545 0 1,249
Capacity (Projects + ADUs + Sites) 1,547 779 1,580 3,906 Surplus/(Shortfall) over Total RHNA (165) 219 551 (165) Capacity under 2045 General Plan Preferred Land
Use Map
Incremental Infill
Projected ADUs (Conversion/Expansion Scenario) 240 24 136 400 Redevelopment Scenario 0 45 90 135
Opportunity Sites 60 40 493 593
Neighborhood Multi-Family (50 du/ac) 0 657 0 667
Mixed Use Medium (65 du/ac) 421 236 236 893
Mixed Use High (100 du/ac) 973 152 457 1,382
Neighborhood/Corridor MU1 0 92 0 92
Neighborhood/Corridor MU2 852 591 224 1,667
Industrial Mixed Use 92 91 274 457
Capacity (Projects + ADUs + Sites) 3,481 1,972 3,484 8,747 Surplus/(Shortfall) over Total RHNA 2,372 1,432 3,484 7,467 % Buffer over Total RHNA 139% 256% 326% 223%
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-17
Figure B- 2: Summary of Sites Inventory
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-18
The parcel level sites inventory is presented on the following pages.
Environmental Constraints
The sites identified in the inventory are all within urbanized neighborhoods and have been previously developed. There are no environmental constraints that would preclude redeveloping these sites.
Availability of Infrastructure and Water and Sewer Services The City receives its water service from the GSWC, which purchases water from the West Basin Municipal Water District (WBMWD). According to WBMWD’s Urban Water Management Plan, water supply is projected to be 195,760 acre-feet per year (AFY), while water demand is expected to reach 165,660 AFY in 2040. Supply would thus exceed demand. In addition, since the RHNA allocation for the region has been included in SCAG’s Connect SoCal growth forecast for the years 2020‐2030, the projected population growth has also been captured in the WBMWD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Therefore, adequate water supply is available to accommodate the city’s housing needs through 2040, well beyond the current RHNA planning period.
Approved/Entitled/Pipeline Projects
Incremental Infill
Opportunity Sites
Neighborhood Multi-Family
Neighborhood/Corridor MU1
Neighborhood/Corridor MU2
Mixed Use Medium
Mixed Use High
Industrial Mixed Use
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-19
The Culver City Department of Public Works maintains the existing sewer lines within the city. The City’s wastewater treatment and conveyance system includes four wastewater treatment and water reclamation plants that LA Sanitation (LASAN) operates. LASAN provides service within two service areas: the Terminal Island Service Area and the Hyperion Service Area. The Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant, which has a design capacity of 450 million gallons per day (mgd), serves the city. It is currently functioning at about 275 mgd which is about 61 percent of its capacity. Therefore, the plant has a remaining daily capacity of approximately 175 mgd, which would be enough to serve future development facilitated by the plan.
Dry utilities for the city include gas, electricity, cable, Internet, and telephone services that are provided by Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison, AT&T, Spectrum, and Verizon Communications. All systems are adequate and are upgraded as demand increases. Parcels identified for future development in the land inventory process for the 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element are within an urbanized area and are currently served by existing wet and dry utilities. These utilities include water, wastewater, solid waste removal systems, natural gas, electricity, telephone and/or cellular service, cable or satellite television systems, and Internet or Wi-Fi services. The 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element provides a framework for meeting the housing needs of existing and future residents.
The City is not the water or sewer service provider for its residents and businesses.
Pursuant to SB 1087, the City will provide a copy of the adopted Housing Element to its water (GSWC) and sewer (LASAN) service providers.
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-20
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-21
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-22
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-23
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-24
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-25
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-26
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-27
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-28
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-29
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-30
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-31
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-32
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-33
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-34
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-35
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-36
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-37
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-38
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-39
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-40
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-41
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-42
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-43
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-44
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-45
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-46
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-47
Review of 5th Cycle Sites Inventory
One of the Guiding Principles for the 2021-2029 Housing Element calls for an assessment of the probability of development based on the experience of the 5th cycle Housing Element. This section reviews the outcome of the 5th cycle Housing Element sites inventory, and considerations for using that outcome to benchmark the 6th cycle inventory for RHNA.
Outcome of the 5th Cycle Sites Inventory
For the previous 5th cycle Housing Element, the City had a RHNA of only 185 units:
• 48 very low income units
• 29 low income units
• 31 moderate income units
• 77 above moderate units
Based on units approved at the time of the Housing Element update, the City had already met its above moderate income RHNA units. The residential sites inventory included in the 5th cycle Housing Element identified a total capacity of 490 lower income units and 51 moderate income units for the remaining RHNA of 108 lower and moderate income units. These sites are presented as Tables B-3 through B-5 of the 2013- 2021 Housing Element:
• Table B-3: Culver City Housing Strategy Sites
• Table B-4: Mixed Use Sites within TOD Area
• Table B-5: Vacant Land Inventory
Among the Culver City Comprehensive Housing Strategy Sites, only two of the sites were identified as Tier One sites, one of which – 4044-4068 Globe was developed. Among the Tiers Two, Three, and Four sites, three projects are substantial rehabilitation of existing units or redevelopment of existing units that overall, did not intend to yield significant net increases in units. Nevertheless, these Comprehensive Housing Strategy sites were not pursued due primarily to the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency. The site in Table B-4 in the 5th cycle Housing Element is developed as the Ivy Station. Table B-5 included seven vacant sites, two of which have been developed. Among the remaining five vacant sites, two are less than 2,500 square feet and at best could accommodate only one unit each. Overall, excluding the Comprehensive Housing Strategy Sites, four of the eight sites (50%) identified in the 5th sites inventory were developed. However, none of these sites are being reused in the 6th cycle Housing Element. These sites are not vacant according to the current accessor data.
Furthermore, the City was able to meet a significant portion of its RHNA for the 2013- 2021 Housing Element. Specifically, the City was able to achieve the following:
• 39 very low income units (81.3% of RHNA)
• 13 low income units (44.8% of RHNA)
• 25 moderate income units (80.6% of RHNA)
• 717 above moderate income units (931.2% of RHNA)
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-48
The 5th cycle Housing Element also includes Table B-6: Underdeveloped RMD Parcels.
These sites, with an estimated potential 660 new units, were intended to provide additional opportunities for above moderate income RHNA units only. However, upon close examination of these sites, the majority were not feasible sites. Many sites showed a zero or negative yield or the net yield ratio was too low to render redevelopment financially feasible. For these exact reasons, the 6th cycle RHNA for the 2021-2029 Housing Element does not rely on areas that are currently developed as medium density residential for accommodating the RHNA because the likelihood of redevelopment is limited and the net yield is insignificant.
Benchmarking Against Outcome of the 5th Cycle Sites Inventory The outcome of the 5th cycle sites inventory can be used as a reference for developing the 6th cycle inventory of sites. However, benchmarking the outcome of the 5th cycle inventory as a standard for the 6th cycle sites inventory may be inappropriate for the following reasons:
Magnitude of RHNA Increase
The 6th cycle RHNA for Culver City is 3,341 units – a 17-fold increase – compared to the RHNA of 185 units for the 5th cycle. Developing a sites inventory for 3,341 RHNA units is understandably far more challenging than compiling sites for 185 units (and half of it had already been met at the time of the Housing Element adoption). The City was able to use vacant sites – TOD and Mixed Use sites – to fulfill its remaining RHNA. There are few vacant sites left in Culver City (and none of significant size). The sites inventory for the 6th cycle must rely on nonvacant sites with potential for redevelopment over the next eight years. The characteristics and magnitude of the sites requirements make benchmarking the 6th cycle against the outcome of the 5th cycle sites less relevant.
General Plan 2045
The 5th cycle sites inventory relies on the current General Plan and zoning regulations for development potential. However, the City is undergoing a comprehensive update to the General Plan. As part of the General Plan update, the City proposes to increase density for most of the City as shown in Table B- 6. The significant land use policy change would incentivize redevelopment of existing nonvacant sites. A particular incentive that is critical to the City’s 6th cycle RHNA strategy is allowing standalone residential development in Mixed Use areas. The current General Plan does not permit standalone residential development in these areas. Regional and local development trends all point to the preference and demand for residential development or mixed use development, over 100 percent commercial development.
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-49
Table B- 6: Preferred Land Use Alternative Compared to Existing Zoning Preferred Land Use Alternative Existing Zoning
Residential Types
Incremental
Infill A
For Parcels <
4,950 SF
• Detached single unit residential,
ADUs, JADUs
• Standards consistent with existing
R1
• Allows up to:
o 2 stories
o 8.7 du/ac
R1 • Allows up to:
o 2 stories
o 8.7 du/ac
Incremental
Infill A
For Parcels >
4,950 SF
• Detached or attached single unit
residential, duplexes, triplexes, and
fourplexes, inclusive of ADU/JADUs
• Standards consistent with existing
R1
• Allows up to:
o 4 units per lot (4th unit must be
affordable)
o 2 stories
o 35 du/ac
Incremental
Infill B
• Detached or attached single unit
residential, duplexes, triplexes, and
fourplexes, inclusive of ADU/JADUs
• Standards consistent with existing
R2/R3
• Allows up to:
o 4 units per lot (4th unit must be
affordable)
o 2 stories
o 35 du/ac
R2 and
R3
• Allows up to:
o 2 stories
o 35 du/ac
Incremental
Infill C
• Detached or attached single unit
residential, duplexes, triplexes, and
low density multifamily, inclusive of
ADU/JADUs
• Allows up to:
o 2 stories
o 15 du/ac
RLD • Allows up to:
o 2 stories
o 15 du/ac
Corridor Multi-
Family
• Detached or attached single unit
residential, duplexes, triplexes, and
moderate density multifamily,
inclusive of ADU/JADUs
• Allows up to:
o 9 units per lot
o 2 stories
o 30 du/ac
RMD • Allows up to:
o 2 stories
o 29 du/ac
Neighborhood
Multi-Family
• A mix of multifamily residential
• Allows up to:
o 3 stories
o 50 du/ac
RHD,
RMD
• Allows up to:
o 2 stories
o 29 du/ac
Commercial and Mixed Use Types
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-50
Preferred Land Use Alternative Existing Zoning
Neighborhood/
Corridor MU 1
• Lower-scale, mixed use blending
residential, commercial, and retail
uses and public spaces serving
both surrounding neighborhoods
and visitors from nearby areas
• Allows up to 35 du/ac
CC, CD,
CG, CN,
CRB, CRR
• Allows up to:
o 35' - 65'
o 35 - 65 du/ac, no
residential in CRB, CRR
o Development intensity
determined site-by-site
based on adjacent
standards and
setbacks
Neighborhood/
Corridor MU 2
• Moderate-scale, mixed use
blending residential, commercial,
retail uses, and public spaces
• Allows up to 50 du/ac
CC, CD,
CG, CN,
CRB, CRR
• Allows up to:
o 35' - 65'
o 35 - 65 du/ac, no
residential in CRB, CRR
o Development intensity
determined site-by-site
based on adjacent
standards and
setbacks
Mixed Use
Medium
• A broad range of commercial,
office, and residential uses serving
both surrounding neighborhoods
and visitors from nearby areas
• Allows up to 65 du/ac
CC, CD,
CG, CN,
CRB, CRR
• Allows up to:
o 35' - 65'
o 35 - 65 du/ac, no
residential in CRB, CRR
o Development intensity
determined site-by-site
based on adjacent
standards and
setbacks
Mixed Use High • High-intensity active uses and
mixed-use development, including
retail stores, restaurant, hotels,
services, residential, and office uses
• Allows up to 100 du/ac
CC, CD,
CG, CN,
CRB, CRR
• Allows up to:
o 35' - 65'
o 35 - 65 du/ac, no
residential in CRB, CRR
o Development intensity
determined site-by-site
based on adjacent
standards and
setbacks
Industrial Mixed
Use
• A transition between mixed-use
and high industrial areas with a mix
of residential and industrial uses
• Allows up to 65 du/ac
IG, IL • Development intensity
determined site-by-site
based on adjacent
standards and setbacks
• No residential allowed
School • School sites and facilities
• Allows up to 8.7 du/ac
Rule of Adequate Sites Has Changed
AB 1397 sets strict requirements for adequate sites for lower income RHNA. Specifically, sites must be between 0.5 acre and 10 acres to be considered feasible for lower income. The City of Culver City has many very small sites that do not qualify for facilitating lower income RHNA under new State law. As shown in Table B- 7, not even
Appendix B – Residential Sites Inventory
B-51
500 parcels in the City meet the size requirement under AB 1397 and lot consolidation is required to assemble properties into an adequately sized site to facilitate development, especially affordable housing.
Table B- 7: Parcel Sizes
Parcel Size Number Percent
<4,950 SF 1,635 17
4,950 SF to 0.5 acres 7,233 77
0.5 acres to 10 acres 499 5
More than 10 acres 24 0
Total 9,391 100
However, as stated before, a site not meeting the criteria as RHNA sites can be equally developed according to its General Plan and zoning designations. There is no material difference to the property owner or developer whether the site is included in the inventory because the City of Culver City proposes to extend the by-right approval of projects with 20 percent lower income units to all multi-family projects regardless of whether the site is included in the inventory.
Likelihood of Redevelopment on Nonvacant Sites
When a jurisdiction relies on nonvacant sites for more than 50% of the lower income RHNA, AB 1397 requires the resolution adopting the Housing Element to include a specific finding. This finding must state that the uses on nonvacant sites identified in the inventory to accommodate the lower income RHNA are likely to be discontinued during the planning period and the factors used to make that determination. In order to legitimately make this finding, HCD requires that local jurisdictions be as diligent as possible in selecting sites with potential for redevelopment and exclude sites that are not probable. Including a significant number of sites but then discounting them by a probability factor may appear to be internally conflicting with this finding that the City would have to make.
This Housing Element sites inventory uses objective criteria – year of structure, existing FAR, and improvement to land ratio, as well as local knowledge, to compile the sites inventory. This approach is intended to facilitate the ability to include the required finding when adopting the Housing Element. This is also a front-end approach to the probability analysis, rather than a back-end approach by including more potential sites using less stringent criteria and then discount the sites by a probability factor.
Furthermore, using less stringent criteria to include more sites in the inventory and then discounting the sites by a probability factor may prematurely include sites that are less viable for redevelopment. This approach would make the 7th cycle Housing Element update more challenging, as sites identified in the 6th cycle Housing Element inventory that are not developed during the planning period, are subject to a higher standard of feasibility analysis during the next housing cycle round.
HCD’s Sites Inventory Guidebook recommends a buffer for the lower and moderate income RHNA for 15 to 30%. This Housing Element compiles a sites inventory that includes a buffer of 121% overall and 73% for the lower income RHNA.
Appendix C – Inventory of Affordable Housing Units
Table of Contents
Appendix C: Inventory of Affordable Housing Units ........................................................... C-1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... C-1 Inventory of Assisted Units .................................................................................................. C-1 Units at Risk ........................................................................................................................... C-1
List of Tables
Table C- 1: Inventory of Income-Restricted Rental Units in Culver City ............................ C-1
Appendix C – Inventory of Affordable Housing Units
C-1
Appendix C: Inventory of Affordable
Housing Units
Introduction
This appendix identifies all multi-family rental housing projects in Culver City that are under an affordability covenant, along with those housing projects that are at risk of losing their affordability restrictions within the ten-year period of October 2021 to October 2031. This information is used in establishing quantified objectives for units that can be conserved during this planning period. The inventory of assisted units includes all units that have been assisted under any federal, state, or local program.
Inventory of Assisted Units
Table C- 1 provides an inventory of all government assisted rental properties in Culver City.
Generally, the inventory consists of HUD 202 and 811, former Culver City Redevelopment Agency Housing Set-Aside Fund, and density bonus properties. Target income affordability levels include very low, low, and moderate income groups. A total of 319 assisted rental housing units were identified in Culver City.
Units at Risk
Affordable units that are at-risk of conversion during the period between 2021 and 2031 are included at the top of Table C- 1. As shown in the table, there are a total of 231 units that are at risk during this period: 59 very low income units, 134 low income units, and 38 moderate income units. The analysis of preservation options for these units is contained in Section II, Housing Needs Assessment.
Table C- 1: Inventory of Income-Restricted Rental Units in Culver City Address Covenan
t Expires Description # of Units Income
Level Owner
Units At Risk of Conversion, 2021-2031
5100
Overland
Avenue
2022 Multi-unit
complex for
up-to-low
income
seniors.
Purchased
property for
$800,000 from
Agency. Must
submit HUD
forms.
100 100 Up-to-
Low
Rotary Plaza
c/o Gloria Caster, Regional Mgr.
Retirement Housing Foundation
911 No. Studebaker Road
Long Beach, CA 90815
8692
Washington
Blvd.
2027 Multi-family
complex for
low-to-
moderate
20 10 Low
10 Moderate
Tina and Anthony Mollica
3928 Van Buren Avenue
Culver City, CA 90230
Appendix C – Inventory of Affordable Housing Units
C-2
Address Covenan
t Expires Description # of Units Income
Level Owner
income
households at
affordable
rents.
Received
total of
$329,000 in
loans from
Agency.
5166
Sepulveda
Blvd.
2029 Multi-unit
complex for
elderly and
low- income
seniors with
disabilities.
Section 202
program.
Purchased
property for
$400,000 from
Agency.
48 48 Very
Low
Menorah Housing Foundation
10991 W. Pico Bl
Los Angeles, CA 90064
3434
Caroline
Avenue
2030 Group home
for low
income at a
total house
rent no more
than $781.
Purchased
from Agency
with a
forgivable
loan of
$91,500.
3 3 Low Caroline House Corp.
Norma Delgado, General Mgr.
5601 W. Slauson Ave., Suite 180
Culver City, CA 90230
3975
Overland
Avenue
(Studio
Royale)
In
Perpetuit
y
Studio
Royale (1
VL & 2 L
units) -
2031
Multi-unit
complex for
seniors.
Agency
provided tax
exempt
financing of
$4,638,000.
Palm Court
units
transferred to
Studio Royale
(3995
Overland).
42 11 Very
Low
21 Low
10 Moderate
G & K Management
Gabby Chavez
Head of Compliance
P.O. Box 3623
Culver City, CA 90231
11124
Fairbanks
Way
2031 Group home
for low-to-
moderate
income for
those with
development
al disabilities
at affordable
rents.
Received
6 6 Up-to-
Moderate
Kayne/ERAS Center
5350 Machado Lane
Culver City, CA 90230
Appendix C – Inventory of Affordable Housing Units
C-3
Address Covenan
t Expires Description # of Units Income
Level Owner
$319,211
grant.
10918
Barman
Avenue
2031 Group home
for low-to-
moderate
income for
those with
development
al disabilities
at affordable
rents.
Received
$390,500 for
purchase of
property.
6 6 Up-to-
Moderate
Exceptional Children Foundation
(ECF)
Attn: Scott Bowling
8740 Washington Bl
Culver City, CA 90230
10181
Braddock
Drive/4180
Jasmine
Avenue
2032 Group home
for low-to-
moderate
income
persons with
development
al disabilities
at affordable
rents.
Purchased
property from
Agency for
$412,250.
6 6 Up-to-
Moderate
Home Ownership Made Easy
(HOME)
Norma Delgado, General Mgr.
5601 W. Slauson Ave., Suite 180
Culver City, CA 90230
Total At Risk 231 59 Very
Low
134 Low
38 Moderate
Appendix C – Inventory of Affordable Housing Units
C-4
Address Covenan
t Expires Description # of Units Income
Level Owner
Units Not at Risk of Conversion
4061
Grandview
Bl.
DOBI –
2036
CCRA –
2061
Senior Assisted
Living
CCRA: 1 Low
and 3
Moderate
units
Density Bonus:
8 Low and 11
Moderate
units
23 9 Low
14 Moderate
Management Company:
Sunrise Senior Living Attn: Janice
Johndrow
Janice.johndrow@sunriseseniorliv
ing.com
206-618-7549
Culver Villas
4043 Irving
Place
2068 Culver Villas-
Low to
Moderate-Pay
$5,000 check
to Housing
each
monitoring
cycle.
12 3 Low
9 Moderate
George Matsonsus
Sal Gonzales
Lonsdale Real Estate
4043 Irving Place, Unit #206
Culver City, CA 90232
(323)788-9309
Tilden
Terrace
11042-11056
West
Washington
Blvd.
2069 Mixed
income,
mixed-use
multi-family
rental housing.
32 14 Very
Low
6 Low
12 Moderate
1 Manager
Los Angeles Housing Partnership,
Inc. (LAHP)
Attn: Charles Kim
800 South Figueroa, Suite 1270
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Baldwin
Project/Luck
y
Apartments
12821
Washington
Blvd.
2075
Upward
Bound House
Preference
Density Bonus
3 3 - Very
Low
Jim Suhr
Tooley Asset Services Company
(424) 291-6580
4031-35
Jackson
Avenue
In
Perpetuit
y
Multi-family
complex for
low-to-
moderate
income
households.
Purchased by
CCRA in 2002
for $1,010,000.
9 3 Very
Low
3 Low
3 Moderate
Culver City Housing Authority
(CCHA)
c/o Metropolitan
12240 Venice Blvd. #23
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Total Not At
Risk
79 20 Very
Low
21 Low
38 Moderate
Total Units 310 79 Very
Low
155 Low
76 Moderate
Source: City of Culver City, Housing Division, 2021.
Appendix D – Public Participation
Table of Contents
Appendix D: Public Participation .............................................................................................. D-1 Overview ............................................................................................................................ D-1 Engagement Summary ......................................................................................................... D-2
Appendix D – Public Participation
D-1
Appendix D: Public Participation
Overview
The City of Culver City created and implemented a robust engagement program for the General Plan, including the Housing Element. Throughout the General Plan Update (GPU) and Housing Element Update process, City staff consistently asked the public to provide feedback on how to improve the engagement process and to share information about the effort to all they know who live, work, and play in Culver City. During the General Plan process, the GPU team tried to increase awareness of the GPU and Housing Element, including among underrepresented groups, by presenting information about the GPU at various community meetings and having a table with staff and materials at various community events. Many of the groups represent, and attendees at the community events included, diverse and underrepresented voices in planning processes.
Groups
- Advisory Committee on Housing and
Homelessness
- Cultural Affairs Commission
- Fox Hills Neighborhood Association
- Lindberg Park Group
- Blair Hills Association
- Leadership Culver City
Events
- Abilities Carnival
- Art Walk and Roll
- CicLAvia
- Community Conversations
- Experience Elenda - GoHuman
- Farmers Market
- Fiesta La Ballona
- Summer Concert Series
- Speaker Series
- Voting Center
By presenting information about the GPU and Housing Element to these groups and having a booth at the events listed above, City staff attempted to reach populations who may not typically participate in public meetings. Attendees and passersby had the opportunity to sign up for the City’s listserv to learn about upcoming events and activities related to the GPU, including the Housing Element.
The GPU team also held a series of stakeholder interviews at the beginning of the GPU process to learn more about the stakeholders’ visions and goals for Culver City. The stakeholders interviewed included industry leaders, educational entities, political representatives, and organizations. The GPU process also included an arts, culture, and creative economy report, for which the GPU team interviewed architects, City stakeholders, a few artists living and working in Culver City, and City of Culver City Council and Departments. These interviews served as a platform to help engage a broader audience in the GPU process.
A summary of the engagement activities is attached at the end of this appendix. This Appendix consists of a comprehensive package of community meetings, surveys, and
Appendix D – Public Participation
D-2
other activities materials and summaries for the General Plan, specifically related to housing, and specifically related to the Housing Element. It includes links to more information where available.
Throughout the General Plan/Housing Element development process, a key message from the community that most significantly influences the General Plan and Housing Element is the desire of the community to move toward a proactive local affordable housing agenda. The General Plan Preferred Land Use Alternative responds to this community goal by incorporating the Incremental infill concept that significantly reduces the amount of land available for single-family residential uses. Replacing single-family homes are infill opportunities that allow up to four units per low-density residential lot, inclusive of accessory units. This approach will allow additional affordable housing opportunities to be spread throughout the community. The pro-housing community goal also led to density increase in almost all residential and mixed designations in the city and introduction of mixed use development in some industrial areas.
Other significant input from the community includes exploring affordable housing tools such as:
• Affordable Housing Overlay
• Streamlining for affordable housing development
• Emergency streamlining of housing development (increasing the threshold for site plan review requirements)
• Community land trust
• Article 34 authority
Specifically, the Housing Element includes a program to prioritize and explore the various options for affordable housing. The City Council has directed staff to begin studying these various tools, rather than delaying until after the adoption of the Housing Element.
Pursuant to AB 1397, RHNA sites that require rezoning after the statutory deadline of the Housing Element (October 15, 2021) would be subject to by-right approval if the project includes 20% affordable units. The Housing Element recommends extending by-right approval of all projects with 20% affordable units, regardless of whether the site is identified as a RHNA site.
Engagement Process
Public notices of all public meetings and hearings related to the Housing Element for the City Council and Planning Commission were published in the local newspaper in advance of each meeting. The GPU team went beyond State-mandated noticing requirements to share information on the GPU, including the Housing Element and land use alternatives informing the Housing Element. These efforts were meant to ensure that people were properly informed of the GPU and Housing Element and to engage the voices of those who are typically underrepresented at public meetings. Information about the Draft Housing Element and land use alternatives, including public meetings and hearings covering it, requests to review and comment, the comment submission deadline, and requests to share information about it were distributed:
Appendix D – Public Participation
D-3
• In the “News” section on the City website;
• On the GPU project website www.PictureCulverCity.com/. Regardless of which link visitors clicked to access the site, visitors were immediately greeted with pop-up windows with informational updates about the Housing Element, land use, and the GPU;
• Through the City’s virtual newsletter, GovDelivery, to those subscribed to the E-mail listservs to receive GPU project updates: ‘General Plan Advisory Committee’ (1,888 subscribers) and ‘General Plan Update’ (2,502 subscribers). The newsletters were also distributed to those subscribed to the City’s ‘Public Notifications’ (2,156 subscribers) and ‘Culver City News and Events’ (9,030 subscribers) listservs; • On the City’s social media channels, including Nextdoor, Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter; and its cable channel;
• To the following neighborhood groups and community-based organizations, many of which represent the interests of lower-income persons, including persons experiencing homelessness; groups with special needs; and voices often missing from planning processes, such as youth;
Neighborhood Groups
o Cameo Woods
Homeowners Association
o Raintree Homeowners
Association
o Village Green Homeowners
Association
o Blair Hills Neighborhood
Association
o Downtown Neighborhood
Association
o Fox Hills Alliance
o Fox Hills Neighborhood
Association
o Lindberg Park
Neighborhood Association
o Rancho Higuera
Neighborhood Association
o Sunkist Park Neighborhood
Association
Service Organizations
o Ballona Creek Renaissance
o Culver City Julian Dixon
Library
o Big Brothers Big Sisters
Culver City Branch
o YMCA, Culver-Palms
o St. Joseph Center
Faith-Based Groups
o Culver-Palms Methodist
Church
o King Fahad Mosque
o St. Gerald Majella Church
o Temple Akiba
o Vintage Faith Foursquare
o West Los Angeles Christian
Center
Education and Research-Based
Institutions
o Antioch University
Appendix D – Public Participation
D-2
o Culver City Unified School
District
o Culver City High School
o RAND
o West Los Angeles College
Businesses
o Twichell Studio, Ballona
Creek Renaissance
o wHY
o Kirk Douglas Theater/Center
Theater Group
o The Actor's Gang
o Downtown Business
Association
o Culver City Chamber of
Commerce
o Arts District Business
Improvement District
o Amazon Studios
o Apple
o Sony Studios
o LOWE Enterprises
o Hackman Capital Partners
o Samitaur
o Industry Partners
o Southern California Hospital
at Culver City
• To the GPU’s Volunteer Communications Network and the GPU’s advisory bodies (the General Plan Advisory Committee - GPAC and the Technical Advisory Committee - TAC); and
• Through two citywide mailed notices. On June 16, 2021, the City mailed a notice citywide that included upcoming dates related to the Housing Element. A second, citywide mailed notice with more information on the Housing Element was sent out on August 13, 2021. Both of these notices were mailed out in response to community requests to do so and at City Council’s direction.
Note that the list above does not comprehensively list all the individuals, groups, and interests reached in the process, as Members on the GPAC, TACs, Volunteer Communications Network, e-mail listservs, and other groups listed above belong to other groups and organizations.
While nearly every GPU engagement event and activity has touched on housing to a degree, the below summarizes the most recent and closely related to housing. These events were held on varying days and times of the week to attract participants with different schedules. The GPU team also provided diverse opportunities to participate, either through virtual meetings, interactive polls in the meetings, small group breakouts, online surveys, and noticing and engagement materials in English and Spanish. This was meant to attract voices to the process that are typically underrepresented in public meetings.
COVID-19 delayed non-essential community engagement events, even virtual meetings, between March 16, 2020 through the end of Spring 2020.
Throughout the Housing Element community engagement period, COVID-19 safety regulations and concerns restricted engagement online. However, the GPU team worked to ensure engagement events and activities online and in-person were informative (through presentations and materials distributed beforehand), included interactive ways to
Appendix D – Public Participation
D-2
provide feedback (through in-meeting polls, small breakout rooms, and surveys both during and after the event), and included information on how to remain engaged in the process.
The GPU team also remained responsive to community input on how to improve engagement. For example, the GPU team distributed a survey asking community members to indicate their preferred times of day and days of the week for events and tried to schedule events and activities accordingly. Additionally, after asking the GPAC how to improve the meetings and hearing requests for a more interactive setup, the GPU team adjusted, based on technologic capabilities, and incorporated more in-meeting polling activities.
The GPAC and Housing Technical Advisory Committee (HTAC) have received presentations on and discussed Culver City's existing conditions, issues, opportunities, and alternatives related to housing and reviewed the Draft Housing Element. The Advisory Committee on Housing and Homelessness (ACOHH) received a presentation on and discussed the Draft Housing Element. The Planning Commission (PC) and City Council (CC) held several meetings on land use and housing that informed the Draft Housing Element, including City Council’s meetings on the Housing Element Guiding Principles and PC’s review and discussion of the Draft Housing Element. See Introduction, Section VI. City Council Guiding Principles for further detail.
• August 13, 2020: GPAC – Housing, land use, and community design • September 10, 2020: GPAC – Land use and community design • October 8, 2020: GPAC – Land use and community design • December 8, 2020: HTAC – Identify housing issues and opportunities • January 27, 2021: Community workshop on land use scenarios • January 27, 2021: CC/PC – Land use scenarios
• March 11, 2021: HTAC – Innovative housing programs, initiatives, tools • April 8, 2021: GPAC – Proposed land use alternatives
• April 12, 2021: CC – Adopted Housing Element Guiding Principles • April 20, 2021: HTAC – Land use strategies and alternatives • April 29 and May 5, 2021: Community workshops on land use alternatives • April 29 to June 13, 2021: Online land use alternatives survey • May 12, 2021: PC – Housing Element kickoff
• June 10, 2021: GPAC – Proposed land use alternatives
• June 23, 2021: CC/PC – Discussion on exclusionary zoning practices and direction to staff on affordable housing studies
• June 23 and 28: CC/PC – Direction on preferred land use map to inform the Housing Element sites inventory analysis
• July 22, 2021: GPAC – Draft Housing Element review
• July 28, 2021: HTAC – Draft Housing Element review
• July 28, 2021: PC – Draft Housing Element review
• August 16, 2021: ACOHH – Draft Housing Element review • July 19 to October 1, 2021: Online Draft Housing Element public comment period • September 13 to November 9, 2021: HCD 60-day review and comment period • September 27, 2021: CC – Informational update on the Draft Housing Element and recommendations from the Planning Commission
• October 7 – November 8, 2021: 30-day CEQA circulation
Appendix D – Public Participation
D-3
• November 30, 2021: PC - Discussed updates on the Housing Element and related CEQA findings
• December 10, 2021: CC – Discussed updates on the Housing Element and related CEQA findings
• January 6, 2021: PC Adoption Hearing – Recommended that 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
Housing Element Process and Engagement
The City began drafting the 2021-2029 Housing Element after holding a Housing Element kickoff meeting with the Planning Commission on May 12, 2021 to discuss minimum requirements, contents, RHNA, past accomplishments, process, and timeline. However, community engagement around Culver City’s housing needs and goals for the Housing Element began much earlier when the General Plan Update (GPU) project launched in September 2019. In June 2020, the City released a report and video summary on Culver City’s existing housing conditions as of 2019 for the GPU and asked community members for their input on housing priorities, priority populations, and desired housing types through a survey. Since then, the City has held a series of community meetings and workshops asking for input on the community’s housing needs and goals that informed the preparation of the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
The Preferred Land Use Map informed the Sites Inventory and its corresponding analysis. As noted in the timeline above, the GPU held 12 events, activities, and discussions around land use and its relationship to housing. During these conversations, the GPU team invited input on goals to increase housing supply, including in single family, R1, neighborhoods.
These events were noticed and held over the course of nearly one year, beginning on August 13, 2020 during the GPAC meeting on housing, land use, and community design, and ending on June 28, 2021 when the City Council provided direction on which Land Use Alternative to study. After holding seven meetings on land use, including a community workshop on it, the GPU team held a series of three additional community workshops to gauge interest on the land use and mobility alternatives under consideration. Originally, the GPU team only planned for two workshops on the alternatives: one on land use and one on mobility. However, after hearing requests for more meetings on the land use alternatives, the GPU team added a second workshop on land use alternatives. The online survey on the land use alternatives was open for over a month, beginning on the day of the first workshop, April 29, 2021, and ending on June 13, 2021. At the June 28, 2021 City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to study Incremental Infill development as part of the proposed Preferred Land Use Map.
The City posted a First Draft of the Housing Element on the GPU project website for public review on July 19, 2021 and accepted comments through October 1, 2021. During the public review period, the City also presented and discussed the Draft Housing Element with the GPAC on July 22, 2021; the HTAC on July 28, 2021; the Planning Commission on July 28, 2021; and the ACOHH on August 16, 2021. During July and August 2021, the City received draft Housing Element input from the GPAC, HTAC, ACOHH, and PC and the public.
Appendix D – Public Participation
D-4
The GPU team considered all the diverse perspectives reflected in the community’s comments and input received to date and revised technical aspects of the Draft Housing Element wherever feasible before submitting this draft version to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for their 60-day review period. The revised Draft Housing Element was submitted to HCD on September 13, 2021. The Second Draft was made available for public review on the GPU project website at www.PictureCulverCity.com/Housing-Element while the City continued to accept comments on the First Draft. The community was encouraged to review and provide input on the Second Draft as well.
The community continued to leave comments on the interactive public review draft online at pictureculvercity.com/draft-housing-element through October 1. Another round of revisions were made in November and December, after the GPU team reviewed all comments received on the online draft from July 10 to October 1 and from HCD. These revisions were reflected in the Final Housing Element for Planning Commission and City Council consideration.
Through the July 19 through October 1, 2021, public comment period, City staff received 106 emailed correspondences; 331 comments on the interactive online First Draft Housing Element posted on July 19, 2021; and 100 comments on the interactive online Second Draft Housing Element submitted to HCD on September 13, 2021 and posted on the GPU project website the same day. HCD received 342 public comments during their 60-day review period.
After presenting an update on the Housing Element to the Planning Commission on November 30, 2021 and to the City Council on December 10, 2021, City staff received an additional 114 emailed public comments. Additionally, City staff received 154 emailed public comments for the January 6 Planning Commission hearing on the Housing Element and 202 emailed public comments for the January 24 City Council adoption hearing on the Housing Element bringing the total number of emailed public comments submitted to the City to 576.
Public Comments and Responses
The type of input received includes the following: sites inventory and related methodology; housing plan (policies and programs); fair housing assessment; and other revisions that do not materially affect the document. Comments received on specific sections of the Draft Housing Element Update were primarily on how the draft could be improved, other sites to consider for the inventory, and on where the Housing Element does not comply with the City of Culver City City Council’s Housing Element Guiding Principles, some with suggestions on how to do so. After reviewing the public comments received, the GPU team identified several key themes. The sections below summarize those comments by theme and how the GPU team or the Housing Element addresses them.
CEQA
1. Comments: Commenters expressed concern that a full environmental impact report (EIR) was not prepared for the Housing Element.
Appendix D – Public Participation
D-2
Response: The General Plan Update (GPU) environmental consultant, ESA, conducted an environmental review of the Housing Element through an Initial Study and Negative Declaration (IS/ND) and found the plan would not result in significant environmental impacts since it is a policy document that will not result in physical development at this time. A full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared for the entire GPU, which will include the updated Housing Element. The GPU EIR will evaluate the environmental impacts the future development contemplated by the GPU will have on Culver City.
The Frequently Asked Questions page on the General Plan Update (GPU) project website explains how a full EIR will be prepared for the GPU at www.pictureculvercity.com/faq. Staff emailed a public notice explaining the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for the Housing Element and GPU on November 19, 2021, to those subscribed to receive information through the following listservs: "Culver City News and Events," "General Plan Advisory Committee," "General Plan Update," and "Public Notifications." In total, 9,745 recipients received the public notice.
Incremental Infill, R1, and Fair Housing
2. Comments: Commenters have both stated opposition to and support for studying changes to the R1 (single-family residential) zone associated with the GPU’s preferred land use map, which informed the Housing Element.
The number of commenters in opposition to changes in R1 zoning has been greater than comments in support. Common concerns expressed include, but are not limited to, impacts to existing properties, changes that might occur from more people living in existing neighborhoods, Incremental Infill will not result in affordable housing being built, inadequate infrastructure, impacts to schools, and parking and traffic increases. Commenters stated that the State rejected the notion that R1 zoning has to change to meet RHNA and that the City can reach its RHNA allocation with existing its land use and zoning.
Recommendations to meet RHNA without increasing density in R1 zones included allowing for more units along corridors and on larger opportunity sites, and allowing for increased density, height, and other standards in such areas to allow for more units. Most related comments also requested the State to deny certification of the Housing Element because of multi-family units being considered on non-vacant sites in the R1 zones.
Commenters speaking in support expressed common themes, including but not limited to, equitably distributing housing to affirmatively further fair housing, notably affordable housing, throughout the city and especially in the highest resourced areas including R1 zones and changing the exclusionary impacts of R1 zoning. Commenters stated that the AFFH analysis and associated programs are insufficient as most lower income RHNA units are located in the lowest resource neighborhoods and vice versa, and existing single-family sites flagged for Incremental Infill are located in neighborhoods that were historically redlined.
Recommendations to revise the Housing Element to address the AFFH analysis included that the Housing Element should include clearer actions including to identify the percent of low- income sites located in the highest income neighborhoods, if there are as many or more sites in the city's higher income neighborhoods as lower-income ones, the specific programs that will get affordable units built in these high opportunity neighborhoods, detail and specific timelines for program implementation, annual monitoring and recalibration as needed, annual funding needs estimates, and initiatives to encourage lower income unit production, increase the concentration of lower-income households in areas of the city where the existing concentration of lower-income households is low, reduce the concentration of lower-income households in areas with significant exposure to noise/pollution, prioritize high-
Appendix D – Public Participation
D-3
opportunity census tracts and well-resourced areas when selecting sites for lower-income housing opportunities, adequately identify funding sources, public resources, and density bonus programs to maximize the likelihood that projects with below-market-rate units are built.
Response: When reviewing the public comments related to single family neighborhoods (R1), Incremental Infill, and affirmatively furthering fair housing requirements, the GPU team found that many of the comments in opposition to allowing Incremental Infill in R1 zones came from property owners.
City staff clarified the matter of the existing General Plan land use designations and Zoning Code compared to the General Plan Update's preferred land use alternatives with community members through several public meetings, the GPU project website's FAQ page, public notices, emails, and phone calls. When studying the land use strategies to address the RHNA, the GPU team found that the existing General Plan land use designations and Zoning Code cannot accommodate the RHNA, but that the RHNA could be accommodated without applying the Incremental Infill land use designation in R1 as long as residential units are concentrated along corridors. Staff presented this land use alternative to City Council and Planning Commission on June 23 and 38, 2021, and presented tradeoffs with this option.
Significantly, applying this approach would not equitably distribute units of all incomes throughout the city, including lower income units in the highest resources areas, as required by the "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing" stipulation under California Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686). Another issue with this approach that staff has described is that concentrating growth along the corridors exposes those residents to higher levels of pollution. Since renters tend to be lower-income and minority households, this approach would conflict with the City's efforts to advance environmental justice goals, as outlined in the Equity, Community Health, and Environmental Justice Element in the General Plan. The City Council voted to move forward with studying the alternative which included Incremental Infill.
Several programs in the Housing Programs section were revised to address how zoning standards, including height and density, will need to change in the Zoning Code Update process to accommodate the RHNA. Housing Program 4.F. indicates the City's commitment to studying affordable housing tools, like Transit Oriented Community (TOC) programs. The purpose of TOCs is to encourage housing production with access to transit, reduce traffic impacts, and support climate sustainability and environmental justice goals by discouraging reliance on single occupancy vehicles and other inefficient transportation methods that increase pollution. Through Program 4.F., City staff will research funding sources to finance affordable housing projects. The "Consistency with Other Elements of the General Plan" section in the Housing Element also describes how the Housing Element considers the relationship between the proposed housing plan and efforts related to transportation, land use, environmental justice, schools, public infrastructure, and other General Plan topics.
Additionally, the GPU team revised the Fair Housing Assessment section in the Housing Element (Appendix E) to discuss Culver City’s history with redlining and other trends that affect fair housing. It also expands on how the distribution of housing affects the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing and environmental justice goals and how it impacts populations by income, race and ethnicity, ability, and other groups.
Sites Inventory
3. Comments: Commenters stated that the sites inventory must be expanded and should add a new column indicating the estimate of development likelihood. Reasons explaining why the inventory should be expanded include that the inventory inflates realistic development
Appendix D – Public Participation
D-4
capacity, e.g., concerns that Table B-5 overestimates anticipated unit production in the planning period and that substantial evidence is not included to show that nonvacant sites will be redeveloped. Related comments included that all sites, not just R1, should show the probability of development data and assessment and that the quantified objectives should be informed by this assessment and backed by evidence.
Response: Appendix B explains the assumptions used to calculate realistic capacity, including on nonvacant sites. For example, regarding Incremental Infill capacity assumptions, the Sites Inventory referred to a 2020 UCLA study that calculated a recycling trend rate for single-family neighborhoods. The “Outcome of the 5th Cycle Sites Inventory” and “Likelihood of Redevelopment on Nonvacant Sites” sections also discuss related factors considered in calculating realistic capacity, or the likelihood of redevelopment. The "Intensifying Existing Multi-Family Neighborhoods" section in Appendix B describes how Culver City's residential recycling activities informed the assumptions applied in these neighborhoods. Furthermore, the "Integrating Residential Uses in Commercial and Industrial Areas" section describes how community input informed the additions of a few sites the community identified as being ripe for redevelopment. City staff and the GPU consultant team carefully analyzed the sites to determine their suitability for residential development and re-examined sites if requested by community members.
4. Comments: Commenters requested certain properties be removed from the Sites Inventory citing various factors, e.g., local/owner statement that property will not be redeveloped, double-counting of sites, historic building present, exclude parcels containing Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) housing units, and existing non-residential project taking place.
Requests to remove properties included all sites in the Culver Crest neighborhood related to the prohibition of accessory dwelling units due to problems of emergency access on substandard width streets in proximity to a high fire safety zone with surficial slope instability.
Response: The GPU team reviewed each of the sites identified in public comments and removed residential properties from the Sites Inventory if the property owners indicated their lack of plans or interest to add additional residential units to their property. Noncommercial properties were removed based on ground-truthing research provided by commenters (e.g., information on property leases or environmental studies). The Sites Inventory was revised to remove all properties in the Culver Crest neighborhood based on findings from an environmental study conducted associated with the City’s ADU prohibition in the neighborhood related to the factors mentioned by the commenters. The GPU team did a scan and removed any erroneous site duplications.
5. Comments: Commenters questioned the need to have a buffer higher than HCD's recommended 15-30% and questioned the buffer’s purpose.
Response: HCD recommends that jurisdictions include a 15-30% buffer of additional sites listed in their Sites Inventory to reduce the likelihood of having to rezone. In Culver City's case, the Sites Inventory includes a 121% buffer. Having a buffer gives jurisdictions needed flexibility over the eight-year Housing Element planning cycle to remain in compliance with State law.
For example, many factors could affect development trends and decisions. Specifically, the No Net Loss Law (Government Code § 65863) ensures that assumptions jurisdictions make in Housing Element site inventories match what is actually built. Unless jurisdictions have more sites in their Housing Element inventory than the minimum required, there is a risk they may fall out of compliance due to factors over the planning period like reducing a site’s residential density, approving development applications with fewer units on the site than identified in the Inventory, or approving development applications with higher income units than stated in the Housing Element. Having a buffer exceeding the minimum best practices enables the
Appendix D – Public Participation
D-5
City to further ensure compliance with the No Net Loss requirements without having to rezone throughout the planning period.
6. Comments: Commenters stated the Housing Element should consider various steps in assessing the Site Inventory capacity, including that it should estimate and report both the likelihood of development and the net new units if developed of vacant and nonvacant inventory sites, report the proportion of sites from the previous inventory that were developed during the previous planning period and use HCD-recommended methodologies and data sources to analyze sites’ realistic development capacity, use statistical methods to determine that sites’ existing uses are likely to be discontinued during the planning period, provide a quantitative estimate of the likelihood that pipeline projects will be completed, based on historical data, and should adjust the number of pipeline units counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA target accordingly, and commit to a mid-cycle review to verify the housing element’s assumptions about development probabilities.
Response: The Housing Element includes a section "Benchmarking Against Outcome of the 5th Cycle Sites Inventory," which describes how the outcome from the 5th Cycle Housing Element informed the 6th Cycle Housing Element. Appendix B's section, "Progress Toward RHNA," describes the pipeline projects considered in the Housing Element and on what assumptions the likelihood of development was based (e.g., based on discussions with the developer or project proposals). The Housing Element includes Objective 6 "Housing Production Accountability" and Policy 6.B, which commits the City to a mid-cycle review to make any adjustments necessary to achieve the RHNA. Appendix B in the Housing Element elaborates on the methodology used to determine the sites' realistic development capacity.
For example, the Sites Inventory referred to a 2020 UCLA study that calculated a recycling trend rate for single-family neighborhoods. The "Intensifying Existing Multi-Family Neighborhoods" section in Appendix B describes how Culver City's residential recycling activities informed the assumptions applied in these neighborhoods. Furthermore, the "Integrating Residential Uses in Commercial and Industrial Areas" section describes how community input informed the additions of a few sites the community identified as being ripe for redevelopment. City staff and the GPU consultant team carefully analyzed the sites to determine their suitability for residential development and re-examined sites if requested by community members.
Outreach
7. Comments: Commenters stated that the Housing Element public engagement efforts were inadequate and the City failed to conduct diligent efforts to engage the community, including that noticing about the R1 zoning change being studied by the City was not clearly conveyed to the public with enough time to provide feedback, a lack of in-person meetings, and better efforts to engage communities who were not well-represented in the process. Commenters also stated that the State was unhappy with the public engagement efforts, the City did not respond to the public comments received, and the City Council did not listen to community concerns. Some commenters stated concern that staff, under direction from elected officials, purposely took actions to inhibit public review of drafts.
Response: Appendix D has been expanded to explain how noticing was conducted for the Housing Element and the discussions around land use and R1 zoning. Appendix D also explains how noticing for the Housing Element and land use exceeded State-mandated requirements, how COVID-19 restricted engagement online for public health and safety reasons, and the efforts the City made to engage communities who are typically underrepresented in planning meetings. Appendix B shows how the City responded to
Appendix D – Public Participation
D-6
community feedback regarding the Sites Inventory, and as discussed above under the “Sites Inventory” section.
8. Comments: Some of the public comments raised during the Housing Element hearing process recommended denial of the Housing Element for not complying with the public noticing requirements under Assembly Bill 215 (AB 215).
Response: AB 215 was passed on September 28, 2021, and requires local governments to make the first draft revision of the housing element available for public comment for at least 30 days and take at least 10 additional business days to consider and incorporate public comments submitted during that time into the draft revision before submitting it to the department. This 30-day requirement applies to the first draft of the Housing Element only.
Culver City complied with AB 215 before the State passed it. Culver City posted its First Draft revision of the Housing Element online for a 60-day review and comment period on July 19, 2021. After considering and incorporating public comments the City received on the First Draft, the City drafted a revised, Second Draft of the Housing Element and submitted it to HCD for their review on September 13, 2021. The City posted this Second Draft online and sent out public notices inviting public comments on September 13, 2021.
The City's public comment period on the First and Second drafts of the Housing Element extended from July 19, 2021, through October 1, 2021. AB 215 requires jurisdictions to post any subsequent draft revisions to the Housing Element online for at least seven days before submitting it to HCD. Staff are considering the comments it received on the First and Second Drafts from both the community and HCD before submitting the Third Draft to HCD after adoption. AB 215 also requires that jurisdictions notify individuals who have requested notices related to the Housing Element. Culver City will meet this requirement when the agenda and materials, including the Third Draft of the Housing Element, for the January 24, 2022, City Council Housing Element adoption hearing are finalized. City staff will send public notices informing the community of the availability of the Third version of the Housing Element, including a GovDelivery notice to those who have singed up to receive GPU emails, through the City’s social media platforms, emails to the Volunteer Communications Network to spread the word, and on the City’s cable channel and GPU project website.
Housing Constraints
Parking
9. Comments: Commenters expressed concerns that Incremental Infill would not be adequately parked, especially in areas not readily served by transit. Others expressed concern that requiring parking, especially parking minimums, is a disincentive to affordable housing development. Some expressed support for eliminating parking requirements in transit-rich areas.
Response: The Housing Element includes Measure 4.J. "Zoning Code Review and Amendments to Address Constraints to Housing Production," which states that the City will complete a comprehensive parking code update to ensure it has appropriate parking standards to accommodate the allowed densities under the GPU. These updates will include the parking standards for studio, one-bedroom, and live/work units. Overall, these updates are meant to encourage affordable housing development.
Objective 2 in the Housing Element includes Policy 2.B. around ensuring that the Housing Element coordinates its plans, policies, and programs with other City departments, including
Appendix D – Public Participation
D-7
the Transportation and Public Works Departments. This is meant to ensure that residential development is adequately and effectively served by transit and active transportation options so that it is planned in an orderly way that is least disruptive or even improves the quality of life for existing and future residents.
As noted in the section "Consistency with Other Elements of the General Plan" the Mobility Element includes a goal around creating transit-oriented communities in which residents and workers have equitable and affordable access to transit and other mobility services through mobility planning in travel demand management and transit-oriented districts, and transit- oriented development. By tying mobility and transit-oriented efforts into the Housing Plan, the Housing Element is attempting to reduce the impacts of increased housing supply on traffic.
Housing Program 4.F. indicates the City's commitment to studying affordable housing tools, like Transit Oriented Community (TOC) programs. TOCs help ensure that the City constructs housing that has access to transit, reduce impacts to traffic, and support climate sustainability and environmental justice goals by discouraging reliance on single occupancy vehicles and other inefficient transportation methods that increase pollution.
Permitting
10. Comments: Commenters stated the Housing Element must streamline housing entitlements and ease permitting processes, timelines, fees, standards, and overall development restrictions; include existing data on processing times and fees from actual projects, not typical averages; put measurable goals in place that can be tracked to ensure compliance with State law; and that much more residential construction should be eligible for ministerial approval to remove constraints to housing production.
Response: The HE includes Measure 4.I. "Permit Streamlining and Monitoring," which describes the City's current and future commitment to streamline the permitting and development process. Policy 2.F. under Objective 2 in the Housing Element also describes the City's commitment to expanding opportunities to develop various housing types by streamlining entitlement, environmental, and permitting processes for sustainable buildings and affordable housing.
Process
11. Comments: During the Housing Element hearing process, commenters expressed concern over the City adopting a Housing Element before HCD has determined that the Housing Element substantially complies with State law.
Response: City staff have outlined the Housing Element process noted below through public meetings with the GPU advisory committees (the GPAC and the TAC), Planning Commission, City Council, and the Advisory Committee on Housing and Homelessness. City staff have also explained this process, including the adoption requirements through community newsletters and e-mailed correspondence.
HCD cannot determine whether a Housing Element substantially complies with State law until the City first adopts its Housing Element. HCD outlines a 4-step process for jurisdictions to follow when updating their Housing Elements. State law requires that jurisdictions revise their Housing Element (Step 1), then submit a draft of the updated Housing Element to HCD for review for substantial compliance (Step 2). “Substantial Compliance” is the best a jurisdiction can achieve and there is no “certification.” “Certification” is a colloquial term not used in State law. After submitting the Draft Housing Element to HCD in Step 2, HCD provides a “pre-
Appendix D – Public Participation
D-8
submittal” comment letter documenting its assessment of the Housing Element for compliance with State law. The jurisdiction is required to “consider” HCD comments before adopting the Housing Element during Step 3 of the process. After adopting the Housing Element in Step 3, the jurisdiction must submit the adopted Housing Element to HCD for review. If the jurisdiction’s revisions satisfy HCD, HCD will issue a letter stating that the Housing Element substantially complies with State law. If HCD determines that the Housing Element requires additional revisions, the City can make additional revisions and adopt an amended version of the Housing Element.
Housing Programs
12. Comments: Commenters stated the Housing Element should include stronger programs and measures to ensure renter protections, including just-cause eviction protections and an enforcement program; codify tenants’ right to counsel in eviction proceedings; strengthen programs to inform tenants of their rights and how to access eviction defense resources; require that no net loss provisions apply to parcels in the Site Inventory and rezoning program with a monitoring and implementation program; and institute local programs and funding sources to preserve existing affordable housing.
Response: The Housing Programs section was revised to add more information on the Permanent Rent Control Ordinance and include programs around expanding opportunities for affordable housing. Program 1.E. describes resources for tenants in at-risk affordable housing units. Programs under Measure 5 are dedicated to affirmatively furthering fair housing, and include programs related to anti-displacement efforts and tenant protections.
For example, Program 5.E., the Landlord Fair, educates landlords on leasing units to households that receive rental assistance and those exiting homelessness. Program 5.J. describes the City's resources around mediating landlord and tenant disputes and Program
5.H. describes the City's efforts around spreading information about the City's landlord-tenant mediation board. Program 4.A. describes the City's efforts to abide by the no net loss requirements. Through Program 4.F., City staff will research funding sources to finance affordable housing projects.
13. Comments: Commenters stated the Housing Element should include programs to prioritize affordable housing including locally funding and/or incentivizing affordable housing, prioritize developing affordable housing on public land, and include programs for 100% affordable housing zoning overlays and ensure they apply to high-opportunity areas, including R1.
Response: Housing Programs under Measure 5 are dedicated to affirmatively furthering fair housing and include programs like 5.B., which will focus outreach to areas designated for Incremental Infill and other high opportunity areas to encourage property owners to accept Housing Choice Vouchers. Program 4.F. commits the City to finish studying affordable housing tools and best practices like 100% affordable housing zoning overlays, providing a report of the findings and recommendations, and pursuing funding opportunities to implement those tools, catered to Culver City's needs.
14. Comments: Commenters suggested that the HCD-recommended methods should be used to forecast housing production and the Housing Element should include a mid-cycle adjustment with the ability to shift regulations if housing production is lower than projected to make up for shortfalls.
Response: Appendix B in the Housing Element describes the methodologies to forecast housing production. The Housing Element includes Objective 6 "Housing Production Accountability" and Policy 6.B, which commits the City to a mid-cycle review to make any adjustments necessary to achieve the RHNA.
Appendix D – Public Participation
D-9
State Law
15. Comments: Commenters stated that the Housing Element should be revised to be consistent with changes in State law including Senate Bill (SB) 9, 10, and 478. Regarding SB 9, some comments were received that the Housing Element should make fourplex development allowed by-right (ministerial) on all single family lots in a more flexible manner, e.g., allowing fourplexes without a lot split, not requiring that the future inhabitant act as developer, and allowing/promoting condo-ized fourplexes to provide more starter home opportunities.
Regarding SB 10, comments were received that the Housing Element should consider allowing increased units near transit, including allowing up to six units in single family zones by right when units are affordable. Regarding SB 478, comments were received that the Housing Element should comply with the minimum 1.0 floor area ratio and no minimum lot size requirements. Comments were also received in opposition to the City being compelled to comply with these State laws.
Response: The Housing Element includes Program 4.J. "Zoning Code Review and Amendments to Address Constraints to Housing Production" which states that the City will review and amend the Zoning Code during the comprehensive Zoning Code update process to remove potential constraints to housing production. Through that program, the City will also ensure that it is meeting State laws including SB 9, 10, and 478 as the City is required to comply with all State laws.
Next Steps
The GPU team anticipates the Housing Element will be amended after adoption during the remaining GPU process based on the results of the Westside Cities Council of Governments' Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) Grant project. The REAP project seeks to develop a comprehensive subregional approach to accelerate housing production to accommodate critically needed affordable housing within the Westside subregion. Refer to Item C-4 on the August 9, 2021, City of Culver City Council agenda for the full REAP scope.
Public Participation Materials
The following pages include engagement and event summary materials related to Housing Element engagement. A summary of engagement information can also be found at pictureculvercity.com/housing-element.
E-1
Table of Contents
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. E-2 Appendix E: Fair Housing Assessment .................................................................................... E-1 Overview of AB 686 .............................................................................................................. E-1 Assessment of Fair Housing Issues ....................................................................................... E-2 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach ...................................................................... E-2 Integration and Segregation .......................................................................................... E-5 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty ............................................... E-29 Access to Opportunities ................................................................................................ E-42 Disproportionate Housing Needs .................................................................................. E-64 Historical Trends and Other Relevant Factors ............................................................. E-90 Summary of Fair Housing Issues ..................................................................................... E-94 Identification and Prioritization of Contributing Factors ................................................ E-96 Lack of Housing Opportunities in High Resource Areas and Housing Mobility ........ E-96 Displacement Risk of Low Income Residents Due to Economic Pressures ............... E-97 Substandard housing Conditions .................................................................................. E-97
E-2
List of Tables
Table E- 1: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends - Urban County and Los Angeles County .. E-5 Table E- 2: Racial/Ethnic Composition of LA County, Culver City and Neighboring Cities ................................................................................................................................................... E-6 Table E- 3: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends - Culver City ................................................... E-7 Table E- 4: Change in Racial/Ethnic Composition (2010-2019) .......................................... E-7 Table E- 5: Distribution of RHNA Units by Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentration ............... E-8 Table E- 6: Distribution of RHNA Units by Population of Persons with Disabilities ............. E-13 Table E- 7: Change in Household Type Composition (2010-2019) ................................... E-18 Table E- 8: Distribution of RHNA Units by Children in Married Couple Households ......... E-19 Table E- 9: Distribution of RHNA Units by Children in Female-Headed Households ........ E-20 Table E- 10: Income Distribution in Culver City and Los Angeles County ........................ E-25 Table E- 11: Breakdown of RHNA Units by LMI Population ................................................ E-26 Table E- 12: Poverty Status by Race/Ethnicity and Disability Status ................................. E-31 Table E- 13: Distribution of RHNA Units by Median Income ............................................... E-37 Table E- 14: Domains and Indicators for Opportunity Maps ............................................. E-44 Table E- 15: HUD Opportunity Indicators ............................................................................. E-45 Table E- 16: TCAC Opportunity Map Scores by Census Tract ........................................... E-46 Table E- 17: Distribution of RHNA Units by TCAC Opportunity Score ................................ E-47 Table E- 18: Distribution of RHNA Units by CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score ............................. E-56 Table E- 19: Housing Problems by Race/Ethnicity .............................................................. E-64 Table E- 20: Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity - Los Angeles County .................................. E-66 Table E- 21: Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity - Culver City ................................................. E-67 Table E- 22: Distribution of RHNA Units by Percent of Cost Burdened Owners ................ E-67 Table E- 23: Distribution of RHNA Units by Percent of Cost Burdened Renters ................ E-68 Table E- 24: Overcrowding by Tenure ................................................................................. E-73 Table E- 25: Incomplete Plumbing or Kitchen Facilities ..................................................... E-77 Table E- 26: Housing Stock Age ............................................................................................ E-78 Table E- 27: Homeless Population Demographics (2019-2020) ......................................... E-84 Table E- 28: Homeless Populations and Special Needs Groups ....................................... E-85 Table E- 29: Homeless Count Data by Census Tract .......................................................... E-89 Table E- 30: CES Assessments by Type and Services .......................................................... E-89 Table E- 31: Summary of Fair Housing Issues........................................................................ E-94
List of Figures
Figure E- 1: Public Housing Building, FHEO Inquiries, and HCVS .......................................... E-4 Figure E- 2: Regional Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentrations .............................................. E-9 Figure E- 3: Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentrations (2010) ................................................ E-10 Figure E- 4: Minority Concentrations and RHNA Sites (2018) ............................................. E-11 Figure E- 5: Regional Concentration of Persons with Disabilities ...................................... E-14 Figure E- 6: Concentration of Persons with Disabilities (2014) ........................................... E-15 Figure E- 7: Persons with Disabilities and RHNA Sites (2019) ............................................... E-16 E-3
Figure E- 8: Households with Children - LA County, Culver City, and Neighboring Cities .. E- 18 Figure E- 9: Regional Concentration of Children in Married Couple Households .......... E-21 Figure E- 10: Regional Concentration of Children in Female-Headed Households ....... E-22 Figure E- 11: Concentration of Children in Married Couple Households and RHNA Sites . E- 23 Figure E- 12: Concentration of Children in Female-Headed Households and RHNA Sites E- 24 Figure E- 13: Regional Concentration of LMI Households ................................................. E-27 Figure E- 14: Concentration of LMI Households .................................................................. E-28 Figure E- 15: R/ECAPS, TCAC Areas of High Segregation and Poverty, and Poverty Status ................................................................................................................................................. E-32 Figure E- 17: Predominant Racial/Ethnic Populations ........................................................ E-38 Figure E- 18: Regional Median Income by Block Group ................................................... E-39 Figure E- 19: Racial/Ethnic Minority Populations and Median Income by Block Group E-40 Figure E- 20: Regional TCAC Opportunity Areas (Final Category) ................................... E-48 Figure E- 21: TCAC Opportunity Areas (Final Category) and Sites Inventory .................. E-49 Figure E- 22: Regional TCAC Economic Scores .................................................................. E-51 Figure E- 23: TCAC Economic Scores ................................................................................... E-52 Figure E- 24: Regional TCAC Education Scores .................................................................. E-53 Figure E- 25: TCAC Education Scores .................................................................................. E-54 Figure E- 26: Regional TCAC Environmental Scores ........................................................... E-57 Figure E- 27: TCAC Environmental Scores ........................................................................... E-58 Figure E- 28: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores and RHNA Sites ................................................. E-59 Figure E- 29: Regional Jobs Proximity Indices and HQTAS ................................................. E-62 Figure E- 30: Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group ............................................................. E-63 Figure E- 31: (A) Overpayment by Homeowners (2010-2014) ........................................... E-69 Figure E- 32: (A) Overpayment by Renters (2010-2014) ..................................................... E-71 Figure E- 33: Regional Concentration of Overcrowded Households ............................... E-74 Figure E- 34: (A) Overcrowded Households by Census Tract ........................................... E-75 Figure E- 35: Median Year Structure Built by Census Tract ................................................ E-78 Figure E- 36: Regional Communities at Risk of Displacement ........................................... E-80 Figure E- 37: Sensitive Communities at Risk of Displacement ........................................... E-81 Figure E- 38: Los Angeles County Homeless Population PIT Count Trend (2015-2020) ... E-82 Figure E- 39: Los Angeles County Homeless Count Density (2020) ................................... E-83 Figure E- 40: Los Angeles CoC Homeless Population by Race/Ethnicity ......................... E-85 Figure E- 41: Los Angeles CoC Homeless Population by Age ........................................... E-86 Figure E- 42: Culver City Homeless Population PIT Count Trend (2016-2020) ................... E-87 Figure E- 43: Culver City Homeless Population Summary .................................................. E-88 Figure E- 44: Regional Redlining Map – Los Angeles County and Vicinity (1939) ........... E-92 Figure E- 45: Redlining Map – Culver City and Vicinity (1939) .......................................... E-93 E-1
Appendix E: Fair Housing Assessment
Overview of AB 686
In 2017, Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686) introduced an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) into California state law. AB 686 defined “affirmatively further fair housing” to mean “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combat discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity” for persons of color, persons with disabilities, and other protected classes. The Bill added an assessment of fair housing to the Housing Element, which includes the following components:
• A summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the jurisdiction’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity;
• An analysis of segregation patterns, concentrations of poverty, disparities in access to opportunities, and disproportionate housing needs;
• An assessment of contributing factors; and
• An identification of fair housing goals and actions.
The AFFH rule was originally a federal requirement applicable to entitlement jurisdictions (with population over 50,000) or participating jurisdictions (population under 50,000) through a county program to receive HUD Community Planning and Development (CPD) funds from HUD. Before the 2016 federal rule was repealed in 2019, jurisdictions receiving CPD funds were required to prepare an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) or Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI). AB 686 states that jurisdictions can incorporate findings from either report into the Housing Element.
This analysis relies on the following data sources: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) 2021 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Data Viewer, 2018 Los Angeles County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (2020 AI), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 2021 AFFH Data, 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) (5-Year Estimates), and HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data based on the 2013-2017 ACS, among others.
This analysis also considered input from City staff and the community. During engagement events, City staff and community members discussed how multifamily housing historically was concentrated in neighborhoods with low-income residents. Community members discussed the relationship between income and race and ethnicity, noting that this concentration of housing by income historically impacted communities of color. To counter this, some community members advocated for equitably distributing housing throughout the city, also noting the environmental justice benefits of doing so. However, those in the community who wanted to concentrate multifamily housing outside of single family neighborhoods and along transportation corridors discussed the existing racial diversity they saw in their single family neighborhoods. These community members also questioned whether distributing more housing in single family neighborhoods would be
E-2
financially feasible and advance the Housing Element’s RHNA goals. Some noted this distribution approach would increase displacement.
For the purpose of HUD CPD funds (CDBG, HOME, and ESG)1, the Los Angeles County Development Authority (LACDA) functions as the lead agency to receive these funds on behalf of 48 small cities (with population less than 50,000), including Culver City, and the unincorporated County areas. Collectively, this geography is known as the Urban County.
Much of the data provided by HUD for AFFH analysis is based on this collective Urban County geography.
Assessment of Fair Housing Issues
Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
The Los Angeles County CDBG Urban County program contracts with the Housing Rights Center (HRC) for fair housing services. HRC contract does not include providing fair housing records for individual jurisdictions participating in the Urban County program.
In FY 2019-2020, HRC received 2,038 calls for general housing inquiries and 356 calls related to fair housing inquiries. Among the 356 inquires, fair housing issues relating to disabilities (physical and mental) represented the majority (82%) of the protected classifications.
Trailing distantly behind was source of income at 5% of the inquiries.
During FY 2019-2020, 83 housing discrimination cases were opened, the majority were reconciled or withdrawn. Two cases were referred to litigation and three cases were referred to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). Among the 83 cases opened, physical disability (47%), mental disability (22%), and source of income (19%) represented the majority of the protected classes.
Annually, HRC conducts outreach and education throughout the Los Angeles Urban County. Typical activities include Public Service Announcements/media/advertisements; community presentations; literature distribution; and management trainings.
For federally funded Urban County programs, the County has committed to complying with the Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq., by ensuring that housing is available to all persons without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, disability, familial status (having children under age 18), or sex. LACDA prohibits discrimination in any aspect of housing on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, familial status, or sex. Furthermore, HRC under contract with LACDA, monitors fair housing compliance for both state and federal fair housing laws.
Figure E- 1 shows public housing buildings, HUD Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity inquiries (FHEO), and housing choice vouchers (HCV) for Culver City and the surrounding areas. There are no public housing buildings in Culver City. Between January 2013 and March 2021, HUD received 26 FHEO inquiries from Culver City residents; four related to disability, one related to race, three related to familial status, two related to sex,
1Community Development Block Grants (CDBG); HOME investment Partnership (HOME); and Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG).
E-3
and 16 general inquiries. Less than 5% of renters in three Culver City tracts are receiving Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs). To protect the confidentiality of those receiving HCV Program assistance, tracts containing 10 or fewer voucher holders have been omitted from this data set.
E-4
Figure E- 1: Public Housing Building, FHEO Inquiries, and HCVS Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD 2020 Public Housing Program data, HUD FHEO 2013-2021 data, HUD 2020 HCV data), 2021.
E-5
Integration and Segregation
Race and Ethnicity
HUD tracks racial or ethnic dissimilarity2 trends for Urban County programs. Dissimilarity indices show the extent of distribution between two groups, in this case racial/ethnic groups, across census tracts. The following shows how HUD views various levels of the index:
• <40: Low Segregation
• 40-54: Moderate Segregation
• >55: High Segregation
HUD only records AFFH data, including dissimilarity indices for jurisdictions receiving CDBG funds. Culver City is part of the County CDBG program, collectively known as the Urban County. Because the HUD index is not available for Culver City alone, dissimilarity indices for the City were calculated using 2000 Census, 2010 Census, and 2015-2019 ACS block group demographics estimates. This section also includes an analysis of racial/ethnic minority trends geographically and over time using the 2021 HCD AFFH Data Viewer and ACS estimates.
Regional Trend. Dissimilarity indices for the Los Angeles Urban County and Los Angeles County region from 1990 to 2020 are shown in Table E- 1. Dissimilarity between non-White and White communities in the Los Angeles Urban County and throughout the Los Angeles County region has worsened since 1990. For both Los Angeles Urban County jurisdictions and the entire County, dissimilarity between Black and White communities has improved slightly, while dissimilarity between Hispanic/White and Asian or Pacific Islander/White communities has worsened. Based on HUD’s index, segregation between Asian or Pacific Islander/White in the Los Angeles Urban County communities is moderate, while segregation between non-White/White, Black/White, and Hispanic/White Los Angeles Urban County communities is high.
Table E- 1: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends - Urban County and Los Angeles County Racial/Ethnic Group 1990 2000 2010 2020
Los Angeles Urban County (Including Culver City)
Non-White/White 53.33 53.62 53.85 55.87
Black/White 68.29 63.51 60.24 64.21
Hispanic/White 62.81 64.99 64.38 65.12
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 41.58 48.57 49.62 52.79 Los Angeles County
Non-White/White 55.32 55.5 54.64 56.94
Black/White 72.75 68.12 65.22 68.85
Hispanic/White 60.12 62.44 62.15 63.49
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 43.46 46.02 45.77 49.78 Source: HUD AFFH Data, 2020.
2 Index of dissimilarity is a demographic measure of the evenness with which two groups are distributed across a geographic area. It is the most commonly used and accepted method of measuring segregation.
E-6
Ethnic and racial composition of a region is useful in analyzing housing demand and any related fair housing concerns, as it tends to demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such as household size, locational preferences, and mobility. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, approximately 54% of the Culver City population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group (Table E- 2). In comparison, racial/ethnic minorities make up 74% of the population countywide. Culver City’s racial/ethnic minority population is smaller than neighboring jurisdictions to the east and south including Hawthorne (89.7%, Inglewood, (95.5%), and the City of Los Angeles (71.5%) but larger than the northern adjacent cities of Beverly Hills (22.2%), Santa Monica (35.4%) and West Hollywood (24.6%).
Table E- 2: Racial/Ethnic Composition of LA County, Culver City and Neighboring Cities Jurisdiction White Black Amer.
Ind. Asian Pac.
Isldr. Other Two or
More
Hispanic/
Latino
LA County 26.2% 7.8% 0.2% 14.4% 0.2% 0.3% 2.3% 48.5%
Culver City 45.8% 8.7% 0.1% 16.2% 0.1% 0.6% 4.8% 23.7%
Beverly Hills 77.8% 1.9% 0.2% 9.1% 0.0% 0.4% 4.7% 5.9%
Hawthorn 10.3% 24.1% 0.2% 7.5% 0.3% 0.5% 2.2% 54.8%
Inglewood 4.5% 39.6% 0.3% 2.0% 0.4% 0.4% 2.2% 50.6%
Los Angeles
(city) 28.5% 8.6% 0.2% 11.5% 0.1% 0.4% 2.3% 48.5%
Santa Monica 64.6% 4.4% 0.1% 9.8% 0.1% 0.6% 5.0% 15.4%
West Hollywood 75.4% 3.6% 0.1% 5.6% 0.3% 0.3% 4.5% 10.3% Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
Figure E- 2 shows the racial/ethnic minority concentrations in the region. Central Los Angeles County areas have high concentrations of non-White populations. The San Fernando Valley is also composed of mainly of block groups with non-White majority populations. Coastal communities, including coastal South Bay cities through Malibu, tend to have smaller racial/ethnic minority populations. The areas around Beverly Hills and West Hollywood also have smaller concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities.
Local Trend. Dissimilarity indices for Culver City were calculated using 2000 Census, 2010 Census, and 2015-2019 ACS block group demographic estimates (Table E- 3). The 2015- 2019 ACS data indicates that Culver City is less segregated than the Urban County and Los Angeles County collectively. Since 2000, segregation between Black and White communities and Asian and White communities has worsened. Dissimilarity indices for Hispanic and White populations have gone down since the 2000 Census. Based on HUD’s dissimilarity index thresholds, Black and White populations are moderately segregated while segregation between White populations and non-White, Asian, and Hispanic populations is low. Entropy indices for were also calculated for Culver City block groups.3 The entropy index is a multigroup measurement of segregation and diversity ranging from 0 to 1. A score of less than 0.37 indicates low diversity and a score greater than 0.74 indicates high diversity.4 Culver City has an entropy index score of 0.10.
3 Monkkonen, Paavo. University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Culver City Entropy Indices, August 2021. 4 Othering & Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley, The Roots of Structural Racism Project – Technical Appendix, 2021.
E-7
Table E- 3: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends - Culver City Racial/Ethnic Group 2000* 2010 2019
Non-White/White 22.65 17.24 21.71
Black or African American/White 39.27 46.96 44.64
Asian/White 13.72 14.64 29.57
Hispanic or Latino/White 35.31 26.80 26.14
Note: One block group (tract 7030.01, block group 3) contains some area that is not is not within the Culver City limits.
* 2000 Census block group data was not available for one tract (7030.01, block groups 1-3)) and one block group (tract 7025.02, block group 3).
Source: Veronica Tam & Associates, 2021; 2000 Census, 2010 Census, 2015-2019 ACS block group demographic estimates; HCD AFFH Guidance for All public Entities and for Housing Elements, April 2021.
Table E- 4 shows the change in racial/ethnic composition in Culver City using the 2006-2010 and 2015-2019 ACS. Overall, the racial/ethnic minority population has increased since from
52.8% in 2010 to 54.2% currently. The White and Black/African American populations have decreased slightly, while the population of Asian, Hispanic/Latino, and persons of two or more races has increased.
Table E- 4: Change in Racial/Ethnic Composition (2010-2019) Race/Ethnicity 2010 2019
White 18,314 47.2% 17,937 45.8%
Black or African American 4,043 10.4% 3,403 8.7%
American Indian and Alaska Native 58 0.1% 54 0.1%
Asian 5,680 14.6% 6,329 16.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 12 0.0% 38 0.1% Some other race 218 0.6% 220 0.6%
Two or more races 1,384 3.6% 1,897 4.8%
Hispanic or Latino 9,118 23.5% 9,291 23.7%
Total 38,827 100.0% 39,169 100.0%
Source: 2006-2010 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
Figure E- 3 and Figure E- 2 compare the racial/ethnic minority population in Culver City between 2010 and 2018. The racial/ethnic minority population in most block groups has increased since 2010. Block groups with the highest percent of racial/ethnic minorities (between 60 and 80%) are located along the western and northeastern City boundaries, and in block groups in the southern section of the City. Racial/ethnic minorities make up between 40 and 60% in a majority of the City.
Sites Inventory. This inventory includes entitled/approved/ pipeline projects, potential Incremental Infill sites, and vacant and nonvacant sites throughout the City. However, ADUs are not included since that the sites inventory does not account for ADU potential on a site-specific basis. Since submitting the Draft Housing Element to HCD for review, the City has adjusted the sites inventory to remove and add sites based on public comments, and to update the pipeline project lists to reflect new opportunities expressed by developers and property owners on specific sites.
E-8
Figure E- 4 also shows the sites inventory used to meet the City’s 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). RHNA sites are generally evenly distributed throughout Culver City. Most RHNA sites, regardless income category, are located in areas with 41% or more of minority population. However, 54% of the City population is minority and therefore, this distribution is unavoidable. Most very low and low income RHNA units are in block groups where racial/ethnic minorities make up between 41% and 60% of the population.
Approximately 61% of moderate income units and 67% of above moderate income units are located in 41% to 60% racially/ethnically minority concentrated block groups. Overall, though, a higher proportion of the RHNA sites are located in areas with a lower minority concentration. Specifically, 62% of all sites are located in areas with 41-60% minority, compared to 36% in areas with 61-80% minority (Table E- 5). High density sites, feasible for lower income housing, are located primarily along the city’s major transportation corridors – Jefferson Boulevard and Sepulveda Boulevard. These areas are characterized by access to jobs, transportation, and services. The City will continue to improve these areas in order to build a decent and suitable living environment for its residents.
Table E- 5: Distribution of RHNA Units by Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentration Racial/Ethnic
Minority
Concentration
(Block Group)
Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
All RHNA Units
21-40% 0 0 73 148 221
41-60% 613 915 1,876 3,815 7,219
61-80% 630 611 1,144 1,746 4,131
Total 1,243 1,526 3,093 5,709 11,571
Racial/Ethnic
Minority
Concentration
(Block Group)
Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
All RHNA Units
21-40% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 2.6% 1.9%
41-60% 49.3% 60.0% 60.7% 66.8% 62.4%
61-80% 50.7% 40.0% 37.0% 30.6% 35.7%
Total 1,243 1,526 3,093 5,709 11,571
Note: The RHNA sites in this analysis include 1,246 Incremental Infill parcels that met the objective criteria for site selection.
E-9
Figure E- 2: Regional Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentrations Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (Esri 2010, 2018), 2021.
E-10
Figure E- 3: Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentrations (2010)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (Esri 2010, 2018), 2021.
E-11
Figure E- 4: Minority Concentrations and RHNA Sites (2018)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (Esri 2010, 2018), 2021.
E-12
Disability
Persons with disabilities have special housing needs because of their fixed income, the lack of accessible and affordable housing, and the higher health costs associated with their disability.
Regional Trend. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, approximately 9.3% of Culver City residents experience a disability, compared to 9.9% countywide. The neighboring cities of Beverly Hills (8.7%), Hawthorne (9.6%), and Santa Monica (9.4%) have populations of persons with disabilities below the County average, while Inglewood (12.5%), the City of Los Angeles (10.1%), and West Hollywood all have larger populations of persons experiencing disabilities.
As shown in Figure E- 5, tracts in Culver City are generally consistent with the concentrations of persons with disabilities in the region. Tracts with populations of persons with disabilities exceeding 20% are in the central Los Angeles County areas, Santa Monica (Sawtelle Veterans Affairs (VA) Center), San Fernando Valley, and San Gabriel Valley areas.
Local Trend. Since the 2008-2012 ACS, the disabled population in Culver City and the county has increased from 8% and 9.3%, respectively. The most common disability types in Culver City are independent living difficulties and ambulatory difficulties. Approximately
5.8% of the Culver City population has an independent living difficulty and 4.8% has an ambulatory difficulty. Disabilities are most common amongst elderly residents; 12.4% of the population 65 years and older and 19.6% of the population 75 years and older experience a disability. Despite the smaller proportion of persons with disabilities in Culver City, Culver City has a larger population of seniors aged 65 or older (16.5%) compared to Los Angeles County as a whole (13.3%).
Figure E- 6 and Figure E- 7 compare the disability population over time using the 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 ACS. The concentration of persons with disabilities has increased in tracts in the northeastern and southern sections of the City. In three tracts, the 10 to 20% of the population are persons with disabilities. In the remainder of the City, less than 10% of the population experiences a disability. Tracts with larger populations of persons with disabilities are not generally concentrated in one area of Culver City.
Sites Inventory. Figure E- 7 also shows the distribution of RHNA sites along with the current disability concentration by census tract. Some of the larger sites used to meet the City’s 2021-2029 RHNA are in tracts in the southern areas of the City, where the persons with disabilities make up more than 10% of the total tract population. As presented in Table E- 6:
Distribution of RHNA Units by Population of Persons with Disabilities, 34.4% of all RHNA units are in tracts where less than 10% of the population experiences a disability, and 65.6% of units are in tracts where 10-20% of the population experiences a disability. Half of very low income units and 64.5% of low income units are in tracts with a disabled population exceeding 10%, compared to 64.9% of moderate income units, and 69.6% of above moderate income units. In general, more RHNA sites, regardless of income category, are located in areas with higher percentage of persons with disabilities. Higher density sites are more appropriate for housing for persons with disabilities, given that these sites are located primarily along the City’s major commercial and transportation corridors. Therefore, access to public transportation, jobs, and services renders these locations more convenient to persons with disabilities.
E-13
Table E- 6: Distribution of RHNA Units by Population of Persons with Disabilities Disabled
Population
(Tract)
Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
All RHNA Units
<10% 621 541 1,085 1,734 3,981
10-20% 622 985 2,008 3,975 7,590
Total 1,243 1,526 3,093 5,709 11,571
Disabled
Population
(Tract)
Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
All RHNA Units
<10% 50.0% 35.5% 35.1% 30.4% 34.4%
10-20% 50.0% 64.5% 64.9% 69.6% 65.6%
Total 1,243 1,526 3,093 5,709 11,571
Note: The RHNA sites in this analysis include 1,246 Incremental Infill parcels that met the objective criteria for site selection.
E-14
Figure E- 5: Regional Concentration of Persons with Disabilities
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2021.
E-15
Figure E- 6: Concentration of Persons with Disabilities (2014)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2010-2014 ACS), 2021.
E-16
Figure E- 7: Persons with Disabilities and RHNA Sites (2019)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2021
E-17
Familial Status
Familial status refers to the presence of children under the age of 18, whether the child is biologically related to the head of household, and the martial status of the head of households. Families with children may face housing discrimination by landlords who fear that children will cause property damage. Some landlords may have cultural biases against children of the opposite sex sharing a bedroom. Differential treatments such as limiting the number of children in a complex or confining children to a specific location are also fair housing concerns. Single-parent households are also protected by fair housing law.
Regional Trend. Approximately 25.4% of Culver City households are households with children (Figure E- 8). The City’s share of households with children is smaller than the county (28.3%) and the neighboring cities of Hawthorne (33.6%), and Inglewood (29.2%), but larger than Beverly Hills (24%), the City of Los Angeles (25.2%), Santa Monica (17.1%) and West Hollywood (4.2%). Figure E- 8 shows the distribution of households with children in Los Angeles County, Culver City, and neighboring jurisdictions. Hawthorne and Inglewood have the highest share of single-parent households. Culver City, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood have significantly smaller shares of single-parent households compared to 9% countywide.
Figure E- 9 and Figure E- 10 show the regional concentration of children living in married couple and single-parent female-headed households. Tracts where more than 40% of children live in female-headed households are concentrated in the central County areas around Inglewood and the City of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and in a few tracts in the San Fernando Valley and San Gabriel Valley areas. In most tracts, more than 60% of children live in married couple households.
E-18
Figure E- 8: Households with Children - LA County, Culver City, and Neighboring Cities
Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
Local Trend. As discussed above, 25.4% of Culver City households are households with children, including 20.4% married couple households, 1.5% single male-headed households, and 3.4% single female-headed households. As shown in Table E- 7: Change in Household Type Composition (2010-2019), the City’s share of households with children has remained constant since the 2006-2010 ACS. The proportion of married couple families with children has increased slightly, while the proportion of single-parent households has decreased.
Table E- 7: Change in Household Type Composition (2010-2019) Household Type 2010 2019
Households Percent Households Percent
With Children 4,266 25.3% 4,258 25.4%
Married Couple 3,216 19.1% 3,433 20.4%
Male Headed 328 1.9% 248 1.5%
Female Headed 722 4.3% 577 3.4%
Total HHs 16,870 100.0% 16,796 100.0%
Source: 2006-2010 & 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
As shown in Figure E- 11, over 60% of children in all Culver City tracts live in married couple households. In the northern and southern areas of the City, over 80% of children live in married couple households. Figure E- 12 shows the percentage of Children in female- headed households. In two tracts, 20-40% of children live in female-headed households.
Fewer than 20% of children in the remainder of the City live in female-headed households.
E-19
Sites Inventory. Figure E- 11 and Figure E- 12 also show the sites inventory used to meet the City’s 2021-2019 RHNA. As discussed above, Culver City is primarily comprised of tracts where 60-80% of children live in married couple households and tracts where over 80% of children live in married couple households. Approximately 45% of all RHNA units are in tracts where 60-80% of children live in married couple households, and 55% of units are in tracts where over 80% of children live in married couple households (Table E- 8). A larger proportion of lower income units are in tracts with a higher concentration of children in married couple households; 70.1% of very low income units and 77.5% of low income units are in tracts where over 80% of children are in married couple households, compared to only 51% of moderate income units and 47% of above moderate income units.
Table E- 8: Distribution of RHNA Units by Children in Married Couple Households Percent of Children
in Married Couple
Households (Tract)
Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
All RHNA Units
60-80% 372 344 1,507 3,036 5,259
>80% 871 1,182 1,586 2,673 6,312
Total 1,243 1,526 3,093 5,709 11,571
Percent of Children
in Married Couple
Households (Tract)
Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
All RHNA Units
60-80% 29.9% 22.5% 48.7% 53.2% 45.4%
>80% 70.1% 77.5% 51.3% 46.8% 54.6%
Total 1,243 1,526 3,093 5,709 11,571
Note: The RHNA sites in this analysis include 1,246 Incremental Infill parcels that met the objective criteria for site selection.
As shown in Table E- 9, majority of very low (97%), low (97%), and moderate income units (91%) are in tracts where fewer than 20% of children live in single-parent female-headed households. A larger proportion of above moderate income units (14%) are in tracts with a higher concentration of children female-headed households. As previously shown, only
3.4% of the City households are female-headed. Therefore, the distribution of units in areas with low concentrations of female-headed households with children is expected. Female- households generally have higher needs for childcare services and access to public transportation. Locating high density housing along transportation corridors offers access to transportation opportunities.
E-20
Table E- 9: Distribution of RHNA Units by Children in Female-Headed Households Percent of Children
in Female-Headed
Households (Tract)
Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
All RHNA Units
<20% 1,203 1,482 2,808 4,925 10,418
20-40% 40 44 285 784 1,153
Total 1,243 1,526 3,093 5,709 11,571
Percent of Children
in Female-Headed
Households (Tract)
Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
All RHNA Units
<20% 96.8% 97.1% 90.8% 86.3% 90.0%
20-40% 3.2% 2.9% 9.2% 13.7% 10.0%
Total 1,243 1,526 3,093 5,709 11,571
Note: The RHNA sites in this analysis include 1,246 Incremental Infill parcels that met the objective criteria for site selection.
E-21
Figure E- 9: Regional Concentration of Children in Married Couple Households
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2021.
E-22
Figure E- 10: Regional Concentration of Children in Female-Headed Households
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2021.
E-23
Figure E- 11: Concentration of Children in Married Couple Households and RHNA Sites
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2021.
E-24
Figure E- 12: Concentration of Children in Female-Headed Households and RHNA Sites
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2021.
E-25
Income
Identifying low- or moderate-income (LMI) geographies and individuals is important to overcome patterns of segregation. HUD defines a LMI area as a census tract or block group where over 51% of the population is LMI.
Regional Trend. HUD’s 2013-2017 CHAS data (Table E- 10) shows that 32.4% of Culver City households earn 80 percent or less than the county area median income (AMI) and are considered lower income, a smaller share than the county (51.6%). According to the 2015- 2019 ACS, the median household income in Culver City is $95,044, higher than $68,044 in the County and the adjacent jurisdictions of Hawthorne ($54,215), Inglewood ($54,400), the City of Los Angeles ($62,142) and West Hollywood ($74,044), but lower than Beverly Hills ($106,936) and Santa Monica ($96,570).
Table E- 10: Income Distribution in Culver City and Los Angeles County Income Category Culver City Los Angeles County
Households Percent Households Percent
<30% AMI 1,940 11.7% 641,055 19.5%
31-50% AMI 1,375 8.3% 482,070 14.6%
51-80% AMI 2,040 12.3% 578,285 17.5%
81-100% AMI 1,575 9.5% 312,595 9.5%
>100% AMI 9,615 58.1% 1,281,195 38.9%
Total 16,545 100.0% 3,295,200 100.0%
Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on the 2013-2017 ACS, 2020.
Figure E- 13 shows concentrations of Lower and Moderate Income (LMI) concentrations by tract regionally. Tracts with high concentrations of LMI households exceeding 50% of the population are located in the central Los Angeles County areas, and parts of the San Gabriel Valley and San Fernando Valley. Generally, coastal areas, the South Bay cities of Palos Verdes Estates and Rolling Hills through Malibu, have fewer LMI households.
Local Trend. As discussed previously, less than a third of the Culver City population is considered low income. Figure E- 14 shows LMI areas in the City by census block group.
There are no block groups in Culver City with LMI populations exceeding 75%. The western side of the City has higher concentrations of LMI households making up 50 to 75% of the population. There is a total of five block groups in the City with LMI populations exceeding 50%. Most of the City is made up of block groups where the LMI population is less than 50%.
Sites Inventory. Figure E- 14 also shows the sites used to meet the City’s RHNA. As discussed previously, sites are generally evenly distributed throughout the City. Table E- 11 shows that 31% of all RHNA units are in block groups where fewer than 25% of households are LMI, 46% of units are in block groups where 25-50% of households are LMI, and 23% of units are in block groups where 50-75% of households are LMI. Approximately 34% of moderate income units and 30% of above moderate income units are located in block groups where less than 25% of the population is LMI, compared to 35% of very low income units and 23% of low income units. The majority of the high density housing is located along transportation and commercial corridors. Such areas also have the higher probability of qualifying for housing funds such as the Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and Sustainable E-26
Communities and Affordable Housing funds. Furthermore, the City’s inclusionary housing program will also foster mixed income housing in these areas.
Table E- 11: Breakdown of RHNA Units by LMI Population
LMI Population
(Block Group)
Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
All RHNA Units
<25% 430 343 1,059 1,710 3,542
25-50% 634 601 1,352 2,747 5,334
50-75% 179 582 682 1,252 2,695
Total 1,243 1,526 3,093 5,709 11,571
LMI Population
(Block Group)
Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
All RHNA Units
<25% 34.6% 22.5% 34.2% 30.0% 30.6%
25-50% 51.0% 39.4% 43.7% 48.1% 46.1%
50-75% 14.4% 38.1% 22.0% 21.9% 23.3%
Total 1,243 1,526 3,093 5,709 11,571
Note: The RHNA sites in this analysis include 1,246 Incremental Infill parcels that met the objective criteria for site selection.
E-27
Figure E- 13: Regional Concentration of LMI Households
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD, 2011-2015 ACS), 2021.
E-28
Figure E- 14: Concentration of LMI Households
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD, 2011-2015 ACS), 2021.
E-29
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) In an effort to identify racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), HUD has identified census tracts with a majority non-White population (greater than 50%) with a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or is three times the average tract poverty rate for the metro/micro area, whichever threshold is lower. The California Fair Housing Task Force, made up of the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and HCD, created Opportunity Maps to identify opportunity characteristics for California jurisdictions. The TCAC Opportunity Maps identify areas of high segregation and poverty. TCAC Opportunity Maps area discussed in detail in Section 4, Access to Opportunities, of this Fair Housing Assessment.
According to HUD’s 2020 R/ECAP mapping tool based on the 2009-2013 ACS, there are no R/ECAPs in Culver City. There are also no areas of high segregation and poverty identified in the city. A regional view of R/ECAPs, TCAC designated areas of high segregation and poverty, and poverty status by tract in Los Angeles County are shown in Figure E- 15.
R/ECAPs, areas of high segregation and poverty, and tracts with higher concentrations of persons under the poverty level are most concentrated in the central county areas.
R/ECAPs and areas of high segregation and poverty closest to Culver City are in the City of Los Angeles, east and southwest of Culver City. There are no tracts in the city where the population of persons below the poverty level exceeds 20%. In all but three Culver City tracts, less than 10% of the population is below the poverty level.
Poverty Status Trends. Certain types of housing such as subsidized housing, mobile home parks, and public housing buildings, may reveal why certain areas have larger populations of persons below the poverty level. The tracts with populations of persons below the poverty level exceeding 10% are shown along with subsidized housing units in Figure E- 16.
There are no public housing buildings in the City. There are eight subsidized housing projects in the City: Caroline House (three affordable units), Accessible Apts. No 3 (13 affordable units), Eras Home II (six affordable units), Tilden Terrace (20 affordable units), Culver City Rotary Plaza (99 affordable units), Culver City Senior Housing (47 affordable units), Homeward Bound – Culver City (eight affordable units), and Homeward Bound – Hawthorne (eight affordable units). Tilden Terrace and Culver City Rotary Plaza are both located in tracts where the population of persons below the poverty level exceed 10%.
While there are no subsidized housing units in the westernmost tract with a population of persons below the poverty level exceeding 10%, there are two mobile home parks located in this tract: Palms Mobile Lodge (20 units) and Grandview Mobilehome Park (24 units).
There is one additional mobile home park in Culver City, Culver City Terrace (117 units), that is not located in a tract with a larger population of persons below the poverty level. Mobile homes tend to serve lower income households.
Currently, the westernmost tract with a population of persons below the poverty level exceeding 10% has a mix of residential zones including R1 (Residential Single Family), R2 (Residential Two Family), RLD (Residential Low Density Multiple), and RMD (Residential Medium Density Multiple). Of the remaining tracts with populations of persons below the poverty level exceeding 10%, the tract along the northern side is largely zoned for RMD, E-30
while the tract on the eastern side is a mix of R1, OS (Open Space), and IG (Industrial General).
Racial/Ethnic Minority Population Trends. According to City staff, the Blair Hills and Fox Hills neighborhoods contain tracts where Black residents comprise the largest non-White group.
Both neighborhoods are located on the eastern side of the City, adjacent to the Los Angeles County/City of Los Angeles neighborhoods of Baldwin Hills and Ladera Heights, both of which also have larger Black populations. From the 1920s to 1940s, Black populations were pushed out of westside cities and into unincorporated county areas such as Ladera Heights/View Park-Windsor Hills, as the unincorporated county did not have racial covenants like cities.
In the tract encompassing the Blair Hills neighborhood, 58.8% of the population is non-White including a Black population of 29.6%. The median household income in this tract is $150,000, the second largest amongst Culver City tracts. Three tracts encompass the Fox Hills neighborhood, each with a Black population of 28%, 23%, and 31%, respectively.
Median incomes for these tracts range from $60,000 to $90,000; $60,000 is the third lowest median income amongst Culver City tracts. The Fox Hills neighborhood is characterized by a larger proportion of condos serving middle class populations than single-family homes. In general, the Black population in Culver City does not experience poverty at a high rate.
Only 2.9% of the Black population citywide is below the poverty level (Table E- 12).
On the western side of the city there is a larger population of Hispanic/Latino residents (Figure E- 17). The Hispanic/Latino population in this area of the city is consistent with adjacent Los Angeles City tracts. This area has the highest concentration of block groups with median incomes below the Statewide average (see Figure E- 20). This neighborhood is characterized by older multi-family developments adjacent to Washington Boulevard, a large, heavily trafficked road, making it less desirable. Nearly 10% of the Hispanic/Latino population in Culver City is below the poverty level, significantly higher than the 6.1% citywide average (Table E- 12). These tracts are bordering the City of Los Angeles and the housing characteristics and demographics in these neighborhoods are more similar to Los Angeles. The City will continue to work toward improving the quality of life conditions in these areas.
Table E- 12 shows poverty status by race, ethnicity, and disability status. Culver City has a significantly smaller population of persons below the poverty level than the County. In the city, 13% of persons of a different race not listed, 9.8% of the Hispanic/Latino population, and 6.8% of the Asian population is below the poverty level compared to only 6.1% of the population citywide.
In general, racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty are far less prevalent in Culver City compared to the County. Concentrations of LMI households (see Figure E- 14) and persons below the poverty level (Figure E- 16) are largely due to the types of housing available in those areas. Through actions outlined in this Housing Element, the City will continue to work toward improving the quality of life conditions in these areas and encourage affordable housing developments citywide.
E-31
Table E- 12: Poverty Status by Race/Ethnicity and Disability Status
Culver City Los Angeles County
Total
Population
% Below
Poverty Level
Total
Population
% Below
Poverty Level
Black/African American 3,360 2.9% 799,551 20.8%
American Indian/Alaska
Native 123 0.0% 71,877 18.1%
Asian 6,369 6.8% 1,449,582 11.1%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander 43 0.0% 27,126 11.5%
Some other race 2,460 13.0% 2,097,544 19.2%
Two or more races 2,653 4.5% 393,536 11.7%
Hispanic/Latino 9,212 9.8% 4,835,446 18.1%
White alone, not Hispanic 17,833 4.6% 2,593,271 9.6% With a disability -- -- 936,003 21.2%
Total 38,868 6.1% 9,928,773 14.9%
-- = Data not available.
Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimate).
E-32
Figure E- 15: R/ECAPS, TCAC Areas of High Segregation and Poverty, and Poverty Status
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD, 2009-2013; 2021 TCAC Opportunity Maps; 2015-2019 ACS), 2021.
E-33
Figure E- 16: Subsidized Housing Projects and Poverty Status by Tract (2021, 2019)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS; 2021 California Housing Partnership (CHPC)), 2022.
E-34
Figure E- 17: Racial/Ethnic Majority Population by Tract (2018)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2018 ESRI data), 2022.
E-35
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) While racially concentrated areas of poverty and segregation (R/ECAPs) have long been the focus of fair housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must also be analyzed to ensure housing is integrated, a key to fair housing choice. A HUD Policy Paper defines racially concentrated areas of affluence as affluent, White communities.
According to this report, Whites are the most racially segregated group in the United States and “in the same way neighborhood disadvantage is associated with concentrated poverty and high concentrations of people of color, conversely, distinct advantages are associated with residence in affluent, White communities.” Based on their research, HCD defines RCAAs as census tracts where 1) 80% or more of the population is white, and 2) the median household income is $125,000 or greater (slightly more than double the national median household income in 2016).
Figure E- 18 shows racial/ethnic predominant populations and Figure E- 19 shows median income by block group for the region. Central Los Angeles County areas comprised of mostly Hispanic majority tracts. The City of Inglewood and the surrounding areas have predominantly African American populations, parts of the San Gabriel Valley have Asian and Hispanic predominant populations, and several jurisdictions in the San Fernando Valley have Hispanic predominant populations. Many of these areas also have lower median incomes. In comparison, the coastal areas, from the South Bay to Malibu, the westside cities, Beverly Hills and the Pacific Palisades neighborhood, and parts of Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena are comprised of tracts with White predominant populations. A majority of block groups in these areas also have median incomes exceeding the 2020 HCD median income of $87,100.
Figure E- 20 shows racial/ethnic minority populations and median incomes by block group in Culver City. Several block groups in the City have median incomes over $125,000. Block groups along the northwestern City boundary have median incomes below $125,000, many below the State average of $87,100. Most tracts in Culver City are White predominant; however, there are no block groups in the City where racial/ethnic minorities make up less than 20% of the population.
The central areas of the City generally have the highest median incomes exceeding $125,000. In most block groups in the central and southern areas of the City, the median income exceeds the Statewide average, while block groups along the northwestern City boundary tend to have lower median incomes below the Statewide average of $87,100.
Several of these block groups also have non-White populations exceeding 60% and higher concentrations of LMI households (see Figure E- 4 and Figure E- 14). According to City staff, the wealthiest areas of the City are mostly occupied by single-family homes. Amenities such as views, privacy, and pools also increase the value of single-family homes. Units of this nature tend to be most common in the Blair Hills and Culver Crest neighborhoods.
The block group with the highest median income encompasses part of the Park West neighborhood. The population in this block group is 44.6% non-White. Culver City High School, Culver City Middle School, Farragut Elementary School, the County Library, and Veterans Memorial Park are highly accessible to this neighborhood. This area is also adjacent to Sony Studios, a major employment center, and the 405 Freeway.
E-36
The block group with the smallest non-White population (26.9%) has the 5th highest median income amongst Culver City block groups and neighborhoods the Park West neighborhood. The same amenities described above are accessible to households residing in the block group.
As of July 2022, HCD has released an RCAA map as part of the HCD AFFH Data Viewer.
Consistent with the median income trend shown in Figure E- 20, Figure E- 21 shows that there are two RCAA tracts in Culver City located in the central area of the City. These tracts contain block groups with racial/ethnic minority populations consistent with a majority of the City. Most block groups with racial/ethnic minority populations exceeding 60 percent are not located within RCAA tracts. Similarly, LMI populations for block groups within the RCAA tracts are consistent with populations Citywide. There are a handful of LMI area block groups in the City, none of which are within the RCAA tracts.
The tract containing the Blair Hills neighborhood has not been identified as an RCAA, likely due to the large non-White population (58.8%). However, the block group with the largest White population is also not located in an RCAA. The Culver Crest and Park West neighborhoods are located in an RCAA.
According to the HCD AFFH Data Viewer, there are eight subsidized housing projects in the City. While subsidized housing projects are generally distributed throughout Culver City, there is only one within an RCAA tract. There are also three mobile home parks in the City:
Culver City Terrace (117 units), Grandview Mobilehome Park (24 units), and Palms Mobile Lodge (20 units). Lower income households are more likely to reside in mobile homes than higher income households. There are no mobile home parks located within either of the RCAA tracts.
Tracts 7026 and 7027 have been identified as RCAAs. As presented in Figure E- 22, a majority of households residing in these tracts are owner-occupied households. A larger proportion of housing units in these tracts are also single-family homes compared to other tracts in the City (Figure E- 23). Single-family homes are typically more affordable to higher income households. This is consistent with zoning patterns in the City. The RCAA tracts are largely zoned R1 (Residential Single Family), whereas other areas of Culver City tend to have a larger mix of residential zoning designations (R2 (Residential Two Family), R3 (Residential Three Family), RLD (Residential Low Density Multiple), RMD (Residential Medium Density Multiple), and RHD (Residential High Density Multiple).
Sites Inventory. Table E- 13 shows the distribution of RHNA units by median income by block group. There are 628 RHNA units (5.4%) located in block groups where the median income is less than $60,000. Over half of all units are in block groups with median incomes exceeding the State average but below $125,000. The City’s RHNA strategy does not disproportionately place lower income units in block groups with lower median incomes.
Approximately 26% of above moderate income units and 37% of moderate income units are in block groups with median incomes below the Statewide average compared to only 24% of very low income units and 18% of low income units.
E-37
Table E- 13: Distribution of RHNA Units by Median Income Median Income
(Block Group)
Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
All RHNA Units
$44,000-$60,000 90 98 255 185 628
$60,000-$87,100 203 169 888 1,276 2,536
$87,100-$125,000 684 1,083 1,296 3,105 6,168
>$125,000 266 176 654 1,143 2,239
Total 1,243 1,526 3,093 5,709 11,571
Median Income
(Block Group)
Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
All RHNA Units
$44,000-$60,000 7.2% 6.4% 8.2% 3.2% 5.4%
$60,000-$87,100 16.3% 11.1% 28.7% 22.4% 21.9%
$87,100-$125,000 55.0% 71.0% 41.9% 54.4% 53.3%
>$125,000 21.4% 11.5% 21.1% 20.0% 19.4%
Total 1,243 1,526 3,093 5,709 11,571
E-38
Figure E- 18: Predominant Racial/Ethnic Populations
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2021.
E-39
Figure E- 19: Regional Median Income by Block Group
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2021.
E-40
Figure E- 20: Racial/Ethnic Minority Populations and Median Income by Block Group
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2021.
E-41
Figure E- 21: RCAAs by Tract (2019)
E-42
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2022.
Figure E- 22: Owner-Occupied Households by Tract (2019)
Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
Figure E- 23: One-Unit Structures (Single-Family Homes) (2019)
Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
Access to Opportunities
HUD developed an index for assessing fair housing by informing communities about disparities in access to opportunity based on race/ethnicity and poverty status. Table E- 15 shows index scores for the following opportunity indicator indices (values range from 0 to 100):
E-43
• Low Poverty Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the score, the less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood.
• School Proficiency Index: The school proficiency index uses school-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high-performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing elementary schools. The higher the score, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood.
• Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the score, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood.
• Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region (i.e. the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA)). The higher the trips transit index, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit.
• Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.
• Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood.
• Environmental Health Index: The environmental health index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. The higher the value, the better environmental quality of a neighborhood.
To assist in this analysis, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) convened in the California Fair Housing Task Force (Task Force) to “provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD).” The Task force has created Opportunity Maps to identify resources levels across the state “to accompany new policies aimed at increasing access to high opportunity areas for families with children in housing financed with 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs)”. These E-44
opportunity maps are made from composite scores of three different domains made up of a set of indicators. Based on these domain scores, tracts are categorized as Highest Resource, High Resource, Moderate Resource, Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing), Low Resource, or areas of High Segregation and Poverty. Table E- 14 shows the full list of indicators.
Table E- 14: Domains and Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic
Poverty
Adult education
Employment
Job proximity
Median home value
Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution Indicators and values Education
Math proficiency
Reading proficiency
High School graduation rates
Student poverty rates
Poverty and Racial
Segregation
Poverty: tracts with at least 30% of population under federal poverty line
Racial Segregation: Tracts with location quotient higher than
1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or all people of color in comparison to the County
Source: CA Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020.
Regional Trend. HUD provides AFFH data for jurisdictions receiving their own CDBG funds.
Because Culver City is part of the Los Angeles County CDBG Program (Urban County), there is no HUD AFFH data for Culver City alone.
In the Los Angeles Urban County, Hispanic residents are most likely to be impacted by poverty, low labor market participation, and poor environmental quality. Black residents experience the lowest school proficiency and have the least access to employment opportunities. White residents scored the highest in low poverty, labor market participation, jobs proximity, and environmental health and Asian/Pacific Islander residents scored the highest in school proficiency. Hispanic residents are most likely to use public transit and Black residents have the lowest transportation costs.
Compared to the County, Urban County residents, regardless of race or ethnicity, were less likely to be exposed to poverty and have higher school proficiency. Residents countywide are more likely to use public transit and have lower transportation costs compared to Urban County residents. Environmental health is better in the Urban County for White, Black, and Native American residents, but worse for Hispanic and Asian residents.
E-45
Table E- 15: HUD Opportunity Indicators
Low
Poverty
School
Prof.
Labor
Market Transit
Low
Trans.
Cost
Jobs
Prox.
Envi.
Health
Urban County (including Culver City)
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 70.12 72.18 68.22 76.66 67.60 55.10 22.89 Black, Non-Hispanic 46.29 41.09 42.82 84.10 73.91 41.10 14.44 Hispanic 40.70 43.31 34.05 84.98 73.75 44.48 11.98
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-Hispanic 68.38 72.86 66.73 82.22 68.98 51.22 13.86 Native American,
Non-Hispanic 54.75 55.06 48.03 77.80 69.62 45.65 20.02
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 61.23 66.91 61.96 79.48 71.45 55.51 20.59 Black, Non-Hispanic 29.03 29.31 27.29 85.47 76.25 30.59 12.84 Hispanic 28.75 35.77 26.10 87.23 76.67 41.99 10.38
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-Hispanic 61.63 70.67 62.58 83.88 72.41 51.16 13.30 Native American,
Non-Hispanic 41.92 47.90 41.36 84.81 73.95 51.00 12.82
Los Angeles County
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 65.19 68.03 67.43 77.63 73.13 54.59 21.35 Black, Non-Hispanic 36.07 33.82 35.34 87.25 79.02 40.72 11.92 Hispanic 35.53 39.72 35.73 86.48 77.78 43.70 12.36
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-Hispanic 55.03 61.94 57.64 85.13 75.98 51.11 13.13 Native American,
Non-Hispanic 48.40 50.70 48.58 81.04 75.36 45.88 17.68
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 53.66 60.62 59.62 83.19 78.51 56.98 18.46 Black, Non-Hispanic 24.12 28.03 26.41 88.34 81.07 36.90 11.74 Hispanic 25.05 33.70 29.50 89.09 80.94 44.63 10.63
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-Hispanic 45.45 57.59 51.41 88.58 80.61 52.88 11.05 Native American,
Non-Hispanic 33.63 39.10 36.05 84.43 78.22 47.65 16.22
Source: HUD AFFH Data, 2020.
Figure E- 24 shows the TCAC Opportunity Map for the region. High and highest resource areas are concentrated in the eastern County areas, from Beverly Hills to Calabasas, coastal areas, from the South Bay cities to Malibu, north San Gabriel Valley, and around Burbank. The central County areas are comprised of mostly low resource areas and areas of high segregation and poverty.
Local Trend. Opportunity Map scores for Culver City census tracts are presented in Table E- 16 and Figure E- 25. Nearly all tracts in the city are highest or high resource. In total, there E-46
are six highest resource tracts, three high resource tracts, and one moderate resource tract in Culver City. Tracts in the central and eastern areas of the City are categorized as highest and high resource. One tract in the western corner on the City is considered moderate resource. There are no tracts in the City that are categorized as areas of high segregation and poverty. The moderate resource tract also contains block groups with higher concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities and LMI households (see Table E- 11and Figure E- 14). The individual scores for the domains described above (economic, environment, and education) are further detailed in the following sections.
Table E- 16: TCAC Opportunity Map Scores by Census Tract Tract
Economic
Domain
Score
Environmental
Domain Score
Education
Domain
Score
Composite
Score Final Category
6037702400 0.899 0.099 0.804 0.444 Highest Resource
6037702501 0.977 0.341 0.873 0.814 Highest Resource
6037702502 0.933 0.267 0.891 0.705 Highest Resource
6037702600 0.93 0.165 0.911 0.703 Highest Resource
6037702700 0.945 0.33 0.727 0.528 Highest Resource
6037702801 0.814 0.496 0.767 0.422 High Resource
6037702802 0.892 0.21 0.552 0.215 High Resource
6037702803 0.751 0.184 0.438 -0.032 Moderate Resource
6037703001 0.913 0.139 0.561 0.232 High Resource
Source: CA Fair Housing Task Force, HCD/TCAC Opportunity Maps, 2021.
Sites Inventory. Figure E- 24 also includes the sites used to meet Culver City’s 2021-2029 RHNA and Table E- 17 shows how those sites are distributed by TCAC opportunity score. As discussed previously, there is only one tract categorized as moderate resource in the City.
Less than 6% of all RHNA units, including 1.9% of very low income units, 1.0% of low income units, 7.9% of moderate income units, and 6.5% of above moderate income units, are located in the moderate resource tract. Very low RHNA sites are evenly split between High and Highest Resource areas, although 2/3 of the low income units are in high resource tracts, compared to 1/3 in Highest Resource areas. For moderate and above moderate income units, the majority are in Highest Resource areas (54.8%and 50.3%, respectively).
However, the discrepancies between very low income and moderate/above moderate income units are not particularly pronounced.
E-47
Table E- 17: Distribution of RHNA Units by TCAC Opportunity Score TCAC Opportunity
Area (Tract)
Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate
Income
Above Moderate
Income
All RHNA
Units
Highest Resource 574 477 1,634 3,131 5,816
High Resource 645 1,034 1,214 2,209 5,102
Moderate Resource 24 15 245 369 653
Total 1,243 1,526 3,093 5,709 11,571
TCAC Opportunity
Area (Tract)
Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate
Income
Above Moderate
Income
All RHNA
Units
Highest Resource 46.2% 31.3% 52.8% 54.8% 50.3%
High Resource 51.9% 67.8% 39.2% 38.7% 44.1%
Moderate Resource 1.9% 1.0% 7.9% 6.5% 5.6%
Total 1,243 1,526 3,093 5,709 11,571
Note: The RHNA sites in this analysis include 1,246 Incremental Infill parcels that met the objective criteria for site selection.
E-48
Figure E- 24: Regional TCAC Opportunity Areas (Final Category)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2021 HCD/TCAC Opportunity Map), 2021.
E-49
Figure E- 25: TCAC Opportunity Areas (Final Category) and Sites Inventory
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2021 HCD/TCAC Opportunity Map), 2021.
E-50
Economic
As described previously, the Fair Housing Task Force calculates economic scores based on poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home values. Refer to Table E- 14 for the complete list of TCAC Opportunity Map domains and indicators.
Regional Trend. Figure E- 26 shows TCAC economic scores by tract regionally. Culver City and the neighboring jurisdictions of Santa Monica and Beverly Hills are all comprised of tracts with economic scores in the highest quartile. Central Los Angeles County areas tend to have lower economic scores compared to coastal areas, northern San Gabriel Valley areas, and eastern San Fernando Valley areas. Areas surrounding Long Beach and most of the San Fernando Valley also have lower economic scores.
Local Trend. According to the 2021 Task Force maps presented in Figure E- 27, all of Culver City received economic scores in the highest quartile. Culver City scored similar to jurisdictions to the west and north, but higher than Los Angeles County areas to the east.
Education
As described above, the Fair Housing Task Force determines education scores based on math and reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates.
Refer to Table E- 14 for the complete list of Opportunity Map domains and indicators.
Regional Trend. Regionally, education and economic scores follow a similar trend (Figure E- 28). Coastal cities, from the South Bay to Malibu, and areas around Burbank and Arcadia generally have the highest education scores in the County. The central County areas have a high concentration of tracts scoring in the lowest quartile for education.
Local Trend. As shown in Figure E- 29, the tract in the western corner of the city received a lower education score than the rest of the city. The central, southern, and northeastern areas of the city received education scores of 0.50 and above. As described above, the tract on the western side of Culver City with a lower education score is also categorized as a moderate resource area (see Figure E- 25).
E-51
Figure E- 26: Regional TCAC Economic Scores
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2021 HCD/TCAC Opportunity Map), 2021.
E-52
Figure E- 27: TCAC Economic Scores
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2021 HCD/TCAC Opportunity Map), 2021.
E-53
Figure E- 28: Regional TCAC Education Scores
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2021 HCD/TCAC Opportunity Map), 2021.
E-54
Figure E- 29: TCAC Education Scores
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2021 HCD/TCAC Opportunity Map), 2021.
E-55
Environmental
Environmental health scores are determined by the Fair Housing Task Force based on CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution indicators and values. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) compiles these scores to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviroScreen also takes into consideration socioeconomic factors.
These factors include educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment. Refer to Table E- 14 for the complete list of Opportunity Map domains and indicators.
Regional Trend. Figure E- 30 shows TCAC environmental scores by tract regionally. There are more tracts in the County that scored in the lowest quartile for environmental scores compared to economic and education scores. Areas around Inglewood, Malibu, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Altadena, and Long Beach have the highest concentration of tracts with environmental scores in the highest quartile.
Local Trend. Figure E- 31 shows that tracts in the northeastern, southern, and western corners of Culver City received environmental scores in the lowest quartile. All tracts in Culver City scored below 0.50, indicating less positive environmental outcomes. These areas also have higher concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities. As described above, the tract in the western corner of the City also received lower education scores and is considered a moderate resource area (see Figure E- 25 and Figure E- 29). Despite the low environmental scores citywide, most tracts in Culver City are categorized as high and highest resource.
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores are shown in Figure E- 32. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 is the OEHHA’s most updated California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool used to identify communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution.
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores are based on percentiles; lower percentile scores mean better environmental conditions. Most tracts scored in the 50th percentile or higher. One tract in the northeastern area of the city scored between the 31st and 40th percentile. The western tract scored in the highest percentile in the city (between the 71st and 80th percentile). As discussed previously, this tract also has a lower education score and is considered a moderate resource area (see Figure E- 25 and Figure E- 29).
Sites Inventory. Figure E- 32 also shows the sites inventory used to meet the City’s 2021-2029 RHNA. Sites are generally distributed throughout the city. As presented in Table E- 18, about 55% of RHNA units are in tracts that scored in the 61st to 70th CalEnviroScreen 4.0 percentile.
Overall, more moderate and above moderate income sites are located in lower CalEnviroScreen scores than lower income units. Therefore, there is not a disproportionate concentration of lower income units in areas with potential environmental hazards.
E-56
Table E- 18: Distribution of RHNA Units by CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score CalEnviroScree
n 4.0 Percentile
(Tract)
Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
All RHNA Units
31-40% 0 0 269 358 627
41-50% 226 136 314 446 112
51-60% 435 449 576 1,374 2,834
61-70% 558 926 1,689 3,162 6,335
71-80% 24 15 245 369 653
Total 1,243 1,526 3,093 5,709 11,571
CalEnviroScree
n 4.0 Percentile
(Tract)
Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
All RHNA Units
31-40% 0.0% 0.0% 8.7% 6.3% 5.4%
41-50% 18.2% 8.9% 10.2% 7.8% 1.0%
51-60% 35.0% 29.4% 18.6% 24.1% 24.5%
61-70% 44.9% 60.7% 54.6% 55.4% 54.7%
71-80% 1.9% 1.0% 7.9% 6.5% 5.6%
Total 1,243 1,526 3,093 5,709 11,571
Note: The RHNA sites in this analysis include 1,246 Incremental Infill parcels that met the objective criteria for site selection.
E-57
Figure E- 30: Regional TCAC Environmental Scores
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2021 HCD/TCAC Opportunity Map), 2021.
E-58
Figure E- 31: TCAC Environmental Scores
E-59
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2021 HCD/TCAC Opportunity Map), 2021.
Figure E- 32: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores and RHNA Sites
E-60
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2021), 2021.
Transportation
HUD’s Job Proximity Index, shown in Table E- 15 previously, can be used to show transportation need geographically. The Job’s Proximity Index calculates how accessible a given residential neighborhood is based on its distance to all job locations within a Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSA). It applies more weight to larger employment centers. Block groups with lower jobs proximity indices are located further from employment opportunities and have a higher need for transportation. Availability of efficient, affordable transportation can be used to measure fair housing and access to opportunities. SCAG developed a mapping tool for High Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) as part of the Connect SoCal 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).
SCAG defines HQTAs as areas within one-half mile from a major transit stop and a high- quality transit corridor. This section also utilizes All Transit metrics to identify transportation opportunities in Los Angeles County and Culver City.
Regional Trend. All Transit explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service.5 Culver City’s All Transit Performance score of 8.8 is higher than the surrounding jurisdictions of Beverly Hills (8.2), Hawthorne (7.3), Inglewood (7.7), Santa Monica (8.8), West Hollywood (8.7), the City of Los Angeles (7.7), and the County (6.8). The County’s score of 6.8 indicates a moderate combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible that enable a moderate number of people to take transit to work. Countywide, 6.7% or commuters use transit.
As shown in Figure E- 33, block groups around Santa Monica/Beverly Hills, Glendale/Burbank, Torrance, downtown Los Angeles, and coastal areas around El Segundo have the highest jobs proximity index scores indicating there are accessible employment opportunities in those areas. Central County areas, from Inglewood to Bellflower, southern South Bay cities, and parts of San Fernando Valley have the lowest jobs proximity index scores. Most of the central County areas and San Fernando Valley are considered HQTAs.
Local Trend. The City’s All Transit score of 8.8 illustrates an “excellent” combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible that enable a moderate number of people to take transit to work. Culver City has a lower proportion of households with commuters that use transit (3.4%) than the County (6.7%).
HUD’s Job Proximity Index, described previously, can be used to show transportation need geographically. Block groups with lower jobs proximity indices are located further from employment opportunities and have a higher need for transportation. As shown in Figure E- 34, employment opportunities are very accessible for most block groups in the City. Block groups in the northeastern, central, and southern sections of the City are located closest to employment opportunities. Employment opportunities are slightly less accessible in the western corner of the City. This area also received lower education and environmental scores and is considered a moderate resource area (see Figure E- 25, Figure E- 29, and Figure E- 31). Almost all of Culver City is considered an HQTA.
5AllTransit. 2019 Metrics: AllTransit Performance Score. https://alltransit.cnt.org/. Accessed July 2021.
E-61
E-62
Figure E- 33: Regional Jobs Proximity Indices and HQTAS
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD, 2014-2017), 2021; SCAG 2045 HQTAs, 2021.
E-63
Figure E- 34: Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD, 2014-2017), 2021.
E-64
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Housing problems in Culver City were calculated using HUD’s 2020 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data based on the 2013-2017 ACS. Table E- 19 breaks down households by race and ethnicity and presence of housing problems for Culver City and Los Angeles County households. The following conditions are considered housing problems:
• Substandard Housing (incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities) • Overcrowding (more than 1 person per room)
• Cost burden (housing costs greater than 30%)
In Culver City, 35.6% of owner-occupied households and 49.1% of renter-occupied households have one or more housing problem. The City has a lower proportion of households with a housing problem compared to the County, where 38.9% of owner- occupied households and 62.3% of renter-occupied households experience a housing problem. In Culver City, Hispanic renter-occupied households and Black owner-occupied households have the most housing problems. Approximately 59% of Black owner-occupied households and 65% of Hispanic renter-occupied households experience a housing problem.
Among different household types, senior renter-households and large renter-households have the highest incidence of housing problems, compared to other household types.
Senior renter-households in particular, are impacted by cost burden.
Table E- 19: Housing Problems by Race/Ethnicity and Household Type With Housing
Problem White Black Asian Am.
Indian
Pac.
Isldr. Hispanic Other All
Culver City
Owner-Occupied 32.2% 59.2% 31.9% 0.0% -- 43.9% 30.0% 35.6% Renter-Occupied 42.1% 50.0% 46.3% -- -- 64.5% 34.2% 49.1% Los Angeles County
Owner-Occupied 32.1% 41.5% 38.3% 39.7% 39.7% 48.2% 36.5% 38.9% Renter-Occupied 52.6% 63.7% 56.3% 56.4% 55.5% 71.1% 55.7% 62.3% Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2020.
E-65
Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on 2014-2018 ACS), 2021.
Cost Burden
Households are considered cost burdened if they pay 30% or more of their gross income in housing costs, and severely cost burdened if they pay 50% or more of their gross income in housing costs.
Regional Trend. Cost burden by tenure for Los Angeles County based on HUD CHAS data is shown in Table E- 20. Approximately 45.4% of Los Angeles County households are cost burdened, including 35% of owner-occupied households and 54.2% of renter-occupied households. Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic renter households have the highest rate of cost burden of 59.6% and 58.3%, respectively. Non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Pacific Islander owner households have the lowest rate of cost burden of 31.1% and 33.3%, respectively. Cost burden is more common amongst renter households than owner households regardless of race or ethnicity.
Elderly Small
Related
Large
Related All Total Elderly Small
Related
Large
Related All Total Total
1 & 2 (2 to 4) (5 or
more) Other Renters 1 & 2 (2 to 4) (5 or
more) Other Owners Households
member Households member Households
households households
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (L)
1. Household Income <=50% MFI 765 395 20 775 1,955 825 260 0 195 1,300 3,255
2. Household Income <=30% MFI 530 220 20 390 1,160 410 140 0 135 685 1,845
3. % with any housing problems 385 200 20 315 920 335 120 0 60 515 1,435
4. % Cost Burden >30% 385 195 20 300 900 340 120 0 60 520 1,420
5. % Cost Burden >50% 335 195 20 300 850 300 120 0 60 480 1,330
6. Household Income >30% to <=50% MFI 235 175 0 385 795 415 120 0 60 615 1,410
7. % with any housing problems 210 175 0 385 770 170 80 4 60 314 1,084
8. % Cost Burden >30% 210 155 0 385 750 170 120 0 65 355 1,105
9. % Cost Burden >50% 135 70 0 385 590 40 120 0 55 215 805
10. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 90 455 90 335 970 470 320 70 105 970 1,940
11. % with any housing problems 40 350 90 310 790 205 255 70 65 595 1,385
12.% Cost Burden >30% 40 355 70 310 775 200 255 35 65 555 1,330
13. % Cost Burden >50% 40 60 0 130 230 105 135 35 0 275 505
14. Household Income >80% MFI 185 2,130 125 1,970 4,410 1,940 3,525 280 835 6,580 10,990
15. % with any housing problems 140 520 100 455 1,215 435 945 95 310 1,785 3,000
16.% Cost Burden >30% 115 295 0 395 805 430 905 45 310 1,690 2,495
17. % Cost Burden >50% 15 30 0 10 55 120 200 20 100 440 495
18. Total Households 1,040 2,980 235 3,080 7,555 3,235 4,105 350 1,135 8,945 16,500
19. % with any housing problems 775 1,245 210 1,465 3,695 1,145 1,400 169 495 3,209 6,904
20. % Cost Burden >30 750 1,000 90 1,390 3,230 1,140 1,400 80 500 3,120 6,350
21. % Cost Burden >50 525 355 20 825 1,725 565 575 55 215 1,410 3,135 Household by Type, Income, & Housing
Problem
E-66
Table E- 20: Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity - Los Angeles County Race/Ethnicity Cost Burden
(>30%)
Severe Cost Burden
(>50%)
Total
Households
Owner-Occupied
White, non-Hispanic 31.1% 14.8% 648,620
Black, non-Hispanic 40.0% 19.6% 104,895
Asian, non-Hispanic 34.4% 15.8% 255,890
Amer. Ind, non-Hispanic 36.9% 16.3% 3,215
Pacific Isldr., non-Hispanic 33.3% 14.8% 2,165
Hispanic 39.5% 17.8% 470,670
Other 34.9% 17.2% 26,905
Renter-Occupied
White, non-Hispanic 49.4% 27.5% 541,545
Black, non-Hispanic 59.6% 34.8% 206,950
Asian, non-Hispanic 47.6% 25.5% 226,765
Amer. Ind, non-Hispanic 48.8% 26.8% 4,420
Pacific Isldr., non-Hispanic 47.9% 22.5% 4,355
Hispanic 58.3% 30.5% 755,590
Other 50.9% 27.5% 43,210
Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2020.
Local Trend. As presented in Table E- 20, Black owner households and Hispanic renter households in Culver City have the highest rate of cost burden in the City (58.5% and 58.2%, respectively). Cost burden amongst owner-households is lower than renter-households for all racial/ethnic groups other than Black households. None of the 15 American Indian owner-occupied households are cost burdened. White owner households, Asian owner households, and “other” renter households are the least cost burdened racial/ethnic groups. Overall, 37.6% of households in Culver City are cost burdened, including 33.4% of owner-occupied households and 42.5% of renter-occupied households. Cost burden is less common in Culver City than throughout the County.
Figure E- 35 compares cost burdened owner households using the 2010-2014 and 2015- 2019 ACS. The proportion of cost burdened homeowners has decreased since the 2010- 2014 ACS, specifically in tracts along the northwest City boundary. Only 20-40% of owners in these tracts experience cost burden, compared to 40-60% throughout the rest of the City.
Cost burden trends for renter-occupied households is shown in Figure E- 36. Since the 2010- 2014 ACS, the proportion of cost burdened renters has fluctuated throughout the City. Two tracts in the western corner of the City saw the proportion of cost burdened renters increase from 40-60% to 60-80%. These tracts also have higher concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities and LMI households and one is categorized as moderate resource (see Figure E- 2, Figure E- 14, and Figure E- 25). However, several tracts in the central and southern areas of the City saw a decrease in cost burdened renters.
E-67
Table E- 21: Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity - Culver City Race/Ethnicity Cost Burden
(>30%)
Severe Cost Burden
(>50%)
Total
Households
Owner-Occupied
White, non-Hispanic 31.3% 15.2% 5,605
Black, non-Hispanic 58.5% 21.8% 735
Asian, non-Hispanic 26.7% 10.7% 1,350
Amer. Ind, non-Hispanic 0.0% 0.0% 15
Hispanic 36.4% 8.1% 990
Other 33.3% 13.3% 150
Renter-Occupied
White, non-Hispanic 36.8% 19.5% 3,410
Black, non-Hispanic 42.6% 28.7% 680
Asian, non-Hispanic 34.4% 12.4% 1,295
Hispanic 58.2% 31.5% 2,045
Other 30.9% 3.6% 275
Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2020.
Sites Inventory. Figure E- 35 and Figure E- 36 also show the sites inventory used to meet the City’s 2021-2029 RHNA. All RHNA units are in tracts where 20% to 60% of owners overpay for housing. Areas of 40-60% owners with cost burden are generally where lower density, single-family homes are located. It is not uncommon that higher income households spend more than 30% of their income on homes. Generally, that is not an affordability issue.
A larger proportion of lower income units are in tracts where 40-60% of owners are cost burdened compared to moderate and above moderate income units. Slightly more than half of low, moderate, and above moderate income units are in tracts where more than 40% of owners are cost burdened compared to 75% of very low income units. Future ownership housing opportunities in Culver City are likely to be multi-family townhomes and condominiums. Expanding ownership housing along transportation and commercial corridors is a key strategy for providing workforce housing and entry level homeownership in the community.
Table E- 22: Distribution of RHNA Units by Percent of Cost Burdened Owners Overpaying
Owners (Tract)
Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
All RHNA Units
20-40% 314 700 1,511 2,790 5,315
40-60% 929 826 1,582 2,919 6,256
Total 1,243 1,526 3,093 5,709 11,571
Overpaying
Owners (Tract)
Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
All RHNA Units
20-40% 25.3% 45.9% 48.9% 48.9% 45.9%
40-60% 74.7% 54.1% 51.1% 51.1% 54.1%
Total 1,243 1,526 3,093 5,709 11,571
E-68
Approximately half of the units used to meet the RHNA are in tracts where 40-60% of renters overpay for housing. There are more lower income units in tracts where less than 40% of renter overpay compared to moderate and above moderate income units. It is logical that cost-burdened renters would be concentrated in areas with multi-family housing.
Introducing additional housing in these areas, with the City’s inclusionary housing program, would expand the housing supply and therefore ease the pressure for price escalation to some degree.
Table E- 23: Distribution of RHNA Units by Percent of Cost Burdened Renters Overpaying
Renters (Tract)
Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
All RHNA Units
20-40% 395 393 560 948 2,296
40-60% 574 477 1,576 3,113 5,740
60-80% 274 656 957 1,648 3,535
Total 1,243 1,526 3,093 5,709 11,571
Overpaying
Renters (Tract)
Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
All RHNA Units
20-40% 31.8% 25.8% 18.1% 16.6% 19.8%
40-60% 46.2% 31.3% 51.0% 54.5% 49.6%
60-80% 22.0% 43.0% 30.9% 28.9% 30.6%
Total 1,243 1,526 3,093 5,709 11,571
E-69
Figure E- 35: (A) Overpayment by Homeowners (2010-2014)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2010-2014 and 2015-2019 ACS), 2021.
E-70
Figure E- 30: (B) Overpayment by Homeowners (2015-2019)
E-71
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2010-2014 and 2015-2019 ACS), 2021.
Figure E- 36: (A) Overpayment by Renters (2010-2014)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2010-2014 and 2015-2019 ACS), 2021.
E-72
Figure E- 31: Overpayment by Renters (2015-2019)
E-73
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2010-2014 and 2015-2019 ACS), 2021.
Overcrowding
A household is considered overcrowded if there is more than one person per room and severely overcrowded is there is more than 1.5 persons per room. HUD CHAS data based on the 2013-2017 ACS is used to show overcrowding in Culver City and Los Angeles County.
Regional Trend. As shown in Table E- 24, approximately 5.7% of owner-occupied households and 16.7% of renter-occupied households throughout the County are overcrowded. Severe overcrowded is also an issue in the County, especially amongst renter households. Approximately 1.5% of owner households and 7.6% of renter households are severely overcrowded.
Figure E- 37 shows concentrations of overcrowded households by tract regionally.
Overcrowded households are most concentrated in the central County areas, including the City of Los Angeles, South Gate, and Compton, and in parts of the San Fernando Valley.
Local Trend. Table E- 24, below, shows that 2.7% of owner-occupied households and 8.7% of renter-occupied households in Culver City are overcrowded. Overcrowding is less common in Culver City than the County. Only 0.8% of owner households and 3.8% of renter households in Culver City are severely overcrowded.
Figure E- 38 shows the concentration of overcrowded and severely overcrowded households in Culver City by census tract. Overcrowded households account for less than
8.2% (statewide average) of households in most tracts. Between 8.3 and 12% of households are overcrowded in two tracts in the western corner of the City. As discussed previously, these tracts also have a higher concentration of cost burdened renters, racial/ethnic minorities, and LMI households (see Figure E- 2, Figure E- 14, and Figure E- 36). One of the tracts with a higher concentration of overcrowded households is also a moderate resource area (see Figure E- 25). There are no tracts in Culver City with a concentration of severely overcrowded households exceeding 5%.
Table E- 24: Overcrowding by Tenure
Overcrowded
(>1 person per room)
Severely Overcrowded
(>1.5 person per room) Total Households
Households Percent Households Percent
Culver City
Owner-Occupied 240 2.7% 70 0.8% 8,840
Renter-Occupied 670 8.7% 295 3.8% 7,705
Los Angeles County
Owner-Occupied 85,870 5.7% 23,025 1.5% 1,512,365
Renter-Occupied 298,460 16.7% 134,745 7.6% 1,782,835
Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2020.
E-74
Figure E- 37: Regional Concentration of Overcrowded Households
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2020 HUD CHAS data), 2021.
E-75
Figure E- 38: (A) Overcrowded Households by Census Tract
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2020 HUD CHAS data), 2021
E-76
Figure E- 33: (B) Severely Overcrowded Households by Census Tract
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2020 HUD CHAS data), 2021
E-77
Substandard Housing
Incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities and housing stock age can be used to measure substandard housing conditions. Incomplete facilities are estimated using 2020 HUD CHAS data, and housing age is based on the 2015-2019 ACS.
Regional Trend. Less than one percent of owner-occupied households and 2.8% of renter- occupied households in Los Angeles County lack complete plumbing or kitchen facilities (Table E- 25). Overall, only 1.7% of households in the County lack complete facilities.
Housing age can also be used as an indicator for substandard housing and rehabilitation needs. In general, residential structures over 30 years of age require minor repairs and modernization improvements, while units over 50 years of age are likely to require major rehabilitation such as roofing, plumbing, and electrical system repairs. In the County, 86% of the housing stock was built prior to 1990, including 60.5% built prior to 1970 (Table E- 26).
Local Trend. In Culver City, 0.7% of owner-occupied households and 4.4% percent of renter- occupied households lack complete plumbing or kitchen facilities, a larger proportion than the County. Overall, 2.4% of Culver City households lack complete facilities.
According to the 2015-2019 ACS, approximately 92.4% of the housing stock in Culver City was built prior to 1990 and may be susceptible to deterioration compared to 85.9% Countywide (Table E- 26). Tracts 7026, 7027, and 7028.02, located along the western city boundary, have the highest concentration of housing units built more than 50 years ago.
Tracts 7028.01 and 7028.03, also located in the western corner of the city, have the highest concentration of new housing units built in 1990 or later. The median year built for housing units by tract is show in Figure E- 39.
Table E- 25: Incomplete Plumbing or Kitchen Facilities
Lacking Complete Kitchen or Plumbing
Facilities Total Households
Households Percent
Culver City
Owner-Occupied 60 0.7% 8,840
Renter-Occupied 339 4.4% 7,705
Los Angeles County
Owner-Occupied 6,850 0.5% 1,512,365
Renter-Occupied 50,030 2.8% 1,782,835
Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2020.
E-78
Table E- 26: Housing Stock Age
Tract/Jurisdiction 1969 or Earlier
(50+ Years)
1970-1989
(30-50 Years)
1990 or Later
(<30 Years) Total Units
7024 68.3% 22.0% 9.7% 2,056
7025.01 63.7% 31.7% 4.7% 2,214
7025.02 18.3% 77.8% 3.9% 2,170
7026 86.4% 9.5% 4.1% 2,369
7027 86.2% 6.1% 7.8% 1,322
7028.01 65.0% 21.0% 13.9% 2,259
7028.02 94.1% 3.6% 2.3% 912
7028.03 64.1% 23.4% 12.4% 1,229
7030.01 47.8% 44.0% 8.2% 3,307
Culver City 62.6% 29.8% 7.6% 17,703
Los Angeles County 60.5% 25.4% 14.1% 3,542,800
Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
Figure E- 39: Median Year Structure Built by Census Tract
Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
E-79
Displacement Risk
HCD defines sensitive communities as “communities [that] currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased development or drastic shifts in housing cost.” The following characteristics define a vulnerable community:
• The share of very low income residents is above 20%; and • The tract meets two of the following criteria:
o Share of renters is above 40%,
o Share of people of color is above 50%,
o Share of very low-income households (50% AMI or below) that are severely rent burdened households is above the county median,
o They or areas in close proximity have been experiencing displacement pressures (percent change in rent above County median for rent increases), or o Difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in county (rent gap).
Regional Trend. Figure E- 40 shows sensitive communities at risk of displacement in the region. Vulnerable communities are most concentrated in the central County areas around the City of Los Angeles, Inglewood, South Gate, and Compton, East Los Angeles, and parts of the San Gabriel Valley and San Fernando Valley. There are fewer vulnerable communities in coastal areas and between Calabasas, Malibu, and Beverly Hills.
Local Trend. HCD has identified two vulnerable communities with populations that may be vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment or drastic shifts in housing cost in Culver City. These vulnerable communities are located on the western side of the City (Figure E- 41). These tracts also have higher concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities, LMI households, and cost burdened renters (see Figure E- 2, Figure E- 13, and Figure E- 36). These tracts also received lower jobs proximity index scores than the rest of the City (see Figure E- 34). The tract in the far western corner is considered a moderate resource area (see Figure E- 25).
E-80
Figure E- 40: Regional Communities at Risk of Displacement
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2020 Urban Displacement Project), 2021.
E-81
Figure E- 41: Sensitive Communities at Risk of Displacement
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2020 Urban Displacement Project), 2021.
E-82
Homelessness
Regional Trend. The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) estimates there were 66,436 persons experiencing homelessness in the Los Angeles County, according to the 2020 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Point-in-Time (PIT) Count. Figure E- 42 shows the Los Angeles County homeless populations from 2015 to 2020. Approximately 72% of the homeless population is unsheltered and 28% is sheltered. The homeless population has increased nearly 50% since 2015, and 12.7% since 2019. As of January 2020, the total Los Angeles County population has increased by only 0.5% since 2015 and decreased by 0.1% since 2019 according to Department of Finance (DOF) estimates.
Figure E- 43 shows the density of homeless population density in persons per square mile by community. The central Los Angeles County jurisdictions have the highest density of persons experiencing homelessness. In general, the number of persons experiencing homelessness decreases towards the Los Angeles County boundaries. Jurisdictions with high concentrations of homelessness outside of the central County areas include Venice, unincorporated West Los Angeles, and North Hollywood.
Figure E- 42: Los Angeles County Homeless Population PIT Count Trend (2015-2020)
Source: Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), 2015-2020 LA County/LA Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Counts.
E-83
Figure E- 43: Los Angeles County Homeless Count Density (2020)
Source: Los Angeles County Homelessness & Housing Map (based on 2020 LAHSA Homeless PIT Count), 2021.
Table E- 27 shows the homeless populations in 2019 and 2020 by population type, gender, and health/disability. Approximately 19.3% of the homeless population belongs to a family with one or more child, 38.4% are chronically homeless, and 22.3% have a serious mental illness. Since 2019, the population of homeless family members (+45.7%), persons experiencing chronic homelessness (+54.2%), persons fleeing domestic violence (+40%), non-binary/gender non-conforming persons (+325.5), and persons with a substance use disorder (+104%) have increased the most drastically. The population of transgender persons and persons with HIV/AIDS experiencing homelessness have decreased by 81.4% and 4.7%, respectively.
E-84
Table E- 27: Homeless Population Demographics (2019-2020)
2019 2020 Percent
Change Persons Percent Persons Percent
Total 58,936 100.0 66,436 100.0 12.7
Individuals 50,071 85.0 53,619 80.7 7.1
Transitional Aged Youth (18-24) 3,635 6.2 4,278 6.4 17.7 Unaccompanied Minors (under 18) 66 0.1 74 0.1 12.1
Family Members* 8,799 14.9 12,817 19.3 45.7
Veterans 3,878 6.6 3,902 5.9 0.6
People Experiencing Chronic
Homelessness 16,528 28.0 25,490 38.4 54.2
Fleeing Domestic/Intimate Partner
Violence 3,111 5.3 4,356 6.6 40.0
Gender
Male 39,348 66.8 44,259 66.6 12.5
Female 18,331 31.1 21,129 31.8 15.3
Non-Binary/Gender Non-
Conforming 200 0.3 851 1.3 325.5
Transgender 1,057 1.8 197 0.3 -81.4
Health and Disability**
Substance Use Disorder 7,836 13.3 15,983 24.1 104.0
HIV/AIDS 1,306 2.2 1,245 1.9 -4.7
Serious Mental Illness 13,670 23.2 14,790 22.3 8.2
Percent of Total County Population -- 0.6 -- 0.7 --
*Members of families with at least one child under 18.
** Indicators are not mutually exclusive.
Source: Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), 2019-2020 LA County/LA Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Counts.
The following data refers to the Los Angeles Continuum of Care (CoC) region, covering all Los Angeles County jurisdictions except for the cities of Long Beach, Pasadena, and Glendale. Special needs groups are considered elderly or disabled (including developmental disabilities), female-headed households, large families, farmworkers, and people experiencing homelessness.
Approximately 19.5% of the homeless population are members of families with one or more child under the age of 18, 9.9% are elderly persons aged 62 and older, 17% have a physical disability, and 8.3% have a developmental disability. Only 32% of homeless persons with a developmental disability, 17.3% with a physical disability, and 21.5% of homeless seniors are sheltered. Over 75% of family members are sheltered (Table E- 28).
E-85
Table E- 28: Homeless Populations and Special Needs Groups Special Needs Group Sheltered Unsheltered Total
Developmental Disability 32.1% 67.9% 5,292
Physical Disability 17.3% 82.7% 10,833
Family Members 76.3% 23.7% 12,416
62+ 21.5% 78.5% 6,290
Source: LAHSA, 2020 LA CoC Homeless Counts; 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates) Figure E- 44 shows the homeless population by race and ethnicity. The Hispanic/Latino, Black/African American, and White populations make up the largest proportions of the homeless population. The Black/African American population is the most overrepresented in the Los Angeles CoC region. Approximately 33.8% of homeless persons are Black or African American, compared to only 7.8% of the population countywide. The American Indian and Alaska Native population is also overrepresented, making up only 0.2% of the County population, but 1.1% of the homeless population.
Figure E- 44: Los Angeles CoC Homeless Population by Race/Ethnicity
E-86
Race/Ethnicity Homeless Population Percent of Total
Population Persons Percent
American Indian/
Alaska Native 686 1.1 0.2
Asian 774 1.2 14.4
Black/African American 21,509 33.8 7.8
Hispanic/Latino 23,005 36.1 48.5
Native Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander 205 0.3 0.2
White 16,208 25.4 26.2
Multi-Racial/Other 1,319 2.1 2.6
Source: LAHSA, 2020 LA CoC Homeless Counts; 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates) Figure E- 45 shows the distribution of homeless persons in the Los Angeles CoC region by age. Adults aged 25 to 54 make up most of the homeless population, followed by adults aged 55 to 61, and children under 18. Children account for 11.8% of the homeless population and seniors (age 62+) account for 9.9% of the population.
Approximately 6.6% of the homeless population is transitional aged youths between the ages of 18 and 24.
Figure E- 45: Los Angeles CoC Homeless Population by Age
E-87
Age Homeless Population Percent of Total
Population Persons Percent
Under 18 7,491 11.8 22.0
18-24 4,181 6.6 9.7
25-54 37,138 58.3 43.2
55-61 8,606 13.5 8.7
62+ 6,290 9.9 16.4
Source: LAHSA, 2020 LA CoC Homeless Counts; 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
Local Trend. Figure E- 46 shows the homeless population trend in Culver City from 2016 to 2020. As of 2020, there are 215 persons experiencing homelessness in Culver City. Of the 215 persons counted in Culver City during the 2020 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count, 77% were unsheltered and 23% were sheltered. All sheltered persons in Culver City were in emergency shelters. Of the unsheltered population, 37.3% were on the street, 16.9% were in vans, 14.5% were in cars, 14.5% were in RVs/campers, 9% were in makeshift shelters, and 7.8% were in tents. The population of persons experiencing homelessness in Culver City has increased 66.7% since 2016 but decreased 8.9% since 2019.
Figure E- 46: Culver City Homeless Population PIT Count Trend (2016-2020)
Source: LAHSA, 2020 Greater Los Angeles City/Community Homelessness Reports Service Planning Area 5.
A summary of the homeless population in Culver City, provided by LAHSA, is shown in Figure E- 47. As discussed previously, unsheltered persons make up more than 75% of the Culver City homeless population. The tract in the western and southern corners of the City had the largest homeless populations based on the 2020 PIT Count. Homeless counts by tract are shown in Table E- 29. Tract 7028.03, the western corner of the city,
E-88
has the largest homeless population. This tract contains all the sheltered persons counted in Culver City as well as the Upward Bound House emergency shelter.
According to the 2021 LAHSA Housing Inventory Count, Upward Bound House has a total of 50 beds, 44 of which were occupied in January 2021. Approximately 17.8% of the 2020 homeless population was counted in tract 7030.01 and 13.9% was counted in tract 7026, both located in southern Culver City.
Figure E- 47: Culver City Homeless Population Summary
Note: Because of the interactive nature of the [LAHSA homeless count] dashboard and exclusion of some categories, LAHSA does not recommend citing this dashboard as the official count. Estimates shown in Figure E-41 are from the 2020 Greater Los Angeles City/Community Homelessness Reports rather than the dashboard.
Source: LAHSA 2020 Homeless Count by Community/City.
E-89
Table E- 29: Homeless Count Data by Census Tract
Census Tract Community Name Unsheltered Sheltered Total Percent of Total
702400 Culver City 24 0 24 10.9
702501 Culver City 2 0 2 0.9
702502 Culver City/Baldwin
Hills/Crenshaw 13 0 13 5.9
702600 Culver City 30 0 30 13.9
702700 Culver City 9 0 9 4.1
702801 Culver City 16 0 16 7.3
702802 Culver City 16 0 16 7.2
702803 Culver City 20 49 69 32.0
703001 Culver City/ Ladera
Heights 39 0 39 17.8
Total 168 49 217 100.0
Note: LAHSA does not recommend aggregating census tract-level data to calculate numbers for other geographic levels. Due to rounding, census tract-level data may not add up to the total for Los Angeles City Council District, Supervisorial District, Service Planning Area, or the Los Angeles CoC.
Source: LAHSA 2020 Homeless Count Data by Census Tract.
The Los Angeles County Coordinated Entry System (LA County CES) assesses individuals to match them with available housing resources and programs. From July to December 2020, 275 individuals in Culver City were assessed through CES, including 14 youths, 55 families, 39 veterans, and 49 persons aged 62 or older. Culver City is a part of Service Planning Area (SPA) 5, serving West Los Angeles communities including Beverly Hills, Brentwood, Culver City, Malibu, Pacific Palisades, Playa del Rey, Santa Monica, and Venice. Culver City and SPA 5 CES assessments and services are presented in Table E- 30.
Table E- 30: CES Assessments by Type and Services
Culver City SPA 5 City Percent of
SPA 5
CES Assessments
Total Persons 341 2,791 12.2
Individuals 275 2,267 12.1
Youth 14 173 8.1
Families 55 370 14.9
Veterans 39 531 7.3
Persons Aged 62+ 49 461 10.6
Types of Services Provided to Those Assessed
Interim Housing 124 993 12.5
Rapid Re-Housing 76 699 10.9
Street Outreach (Contacts) 184 1,232 14.9
Street Outreach (Engagements) 109 431 25.3
Other (Non-Permanent) 74 807 9.2
Placed into Permanent Housing* 54 458 11.8
*Includes persons that have moved into permanent housing during the report period (through either rapid re-housing, permanent supportive housing, or other permanent destinations).
E-90
Note: For households with more than one person (including families), the assessment of the head of household is applied to all members.
Source: LAHSA Homelessness Statistics by City (July 1, 2020 – December 31, 2020), March 2021.
Historical Trends and Other Relevant Factors
The 1896 Supreme Court ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson upheld the constitutionality of “separate but equal,” ushering in the Jim Crow Era of racial segregation and disenfranchisement. This sentiment spread beyond the South, where African Americans and other minority groups were expelled from predominantly White communities, by adopting policies forbidding them from residing or even being within town borders after dark, known as ‘sundown towns.’ Contrary to the widespread misconception that these existed only in the deep south, sundown towns were prominent throughout the Country More than 100 towns in California, several of which were in Los Angeles County, were considered to be ‘sundown towns.’ Housing practices continued to promote segregation, including the Wilson Administration’s 1917 “Own-Your-Own-Home” campaign which promoted single-family ownership exclusively for White residents.6 Culver City was incorporated in 1917 by Harry Culver, who would eventually become the president of the Los Angeles Realty Board. Before Culver City’s annexation, racially restricted development was established, specifically by the Guy M. Rush Company in Culver City’s Brooklyn West tract where advertisement tactics were “restricted to Caucasian race.”7
The Advisory Committee on Zoning was formed in 1921 under Herbert Hoover, Secretary of State under President Warren G. Harding’s. Under this committee, the first model zoning ordinance was created, encouraging exclusionary zoning.6
The Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC), formed in 1933 under the New Deal Program, established the County’s first red-lining maps. Redlining maps established under the National Housing Act of 1934 ranked neighborhoods from A-rated (green), indicating the community “represented the best investment for homeowners” to D-rated (red), indicating the least desirable neighborhoods, where minority communities typically lived.8 As shown in Figure E- 48 and Figure E- 49, a majority of Culver City neighborhoods were D- rated, or “declining.” Two neighborhoods in the center of the city were B-rated and considered “still desirable” and two neighborhoods were D-rated and considered “hazardous.” Historical redlining practices shape segregation patterns in Culver City today. As presented above in Figure E- 4, a majority of the block groups in Culver City have racial/ethnic minority populations between 41 and 60%.