title
CC:PC - Continued from June 23, 2021: (1) Presentation on and Discussion of the Proposed General Plan Update Land Use Alternatives and Preferred Land Use Map; (2) Planning Commission Recommendation on the Preferred Land Use Map and 2045 Growth Projections; and (3) City Council Direction on the Preferred Land Use Map and 2045 Growth Projections.
body
Meeting Date: June 28, 2021
Contact Person/Dept: Ashley Hefner/CDD/Advance Planning
Phone Number: (310) 253-5744
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Commission Action Required: Yes [] No [X] Date:
Public Notification: (E-Mail) Meetings and Agendas - City Council, Planning Commission, General Plan Advisory Committee; Notify Me - General Plan Update (06/17/2021, 6/24/2021); (Posted) City website (05/24/2021, 6/24/2021); (Published) in Culver City News (06/03/2021)
Department Approval: Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director (06/07/2021)
_____________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends (1) the City Council and Planning Commission review and discuss the proposed General Plan Update (GPU) land use alternatives and Preferred Land Use Map and 2045 growth projections; (2) the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on the Preferred Land Use Map; and ( 3) the City Council provides direction on the Preferred Land Use Map and 2045 growth projections.
BACKGROUND
The General Plan Update (GPU) was initiated in fall 2019 and consists of five main phases of work. Phase I (Existing Conditions) included reviewing existing documents/policies, assessing existing conditions, and publishing a series of existing conditions reports (pictureculvercity.com/resources).
Phase II (Listening and Visioning) included community conversation to understand what the community loves about Culver City and what they would like to see in the future. This listening led to preparing the Vision Statement, Core Values, and Guiding Principles, which guides Phases III and IV of the GPU process (pictureculvercity.com/vision-core-values-and-guiding-principles). A summary of community engagement conducted on the alternatives is in Section 4 of Attachment 1. A summary of overall GPU project engagement and deliverables to date can be found in the June 14, 2021, City Council meeting details.
On June 23, 2021, City Council and Planning Commission held a joint meeting to consider this agenda item. A staff report was provided, but the item was then continued to this special meeting on June 28, 2021, at 3 PM.
DISCUSSION
To move Phase III (Plan Alternatives) forward, a draft Preferred Land Use Map is being presented for discussion and direction. Along with the Map, the GPU team will summarize engagement to date, land use alternatives analysis conducted, growth projections, and proposed land use designations. Recommendation of the Preferred Land Use Map by the Planning Commission and direction by the City Council will allow the project team to move into Phase IV (Policy and Plan Development).
Phase IV includes preparing public review drafts of the policy frameworks, General Plan Elements (including the Housing Element and Housing Sites Inventory), and the Environmental Impact Report, including technical studies. The Vision Statement, Core Values, and Guiding Principles; Housing Element Guiding Principles adopted by City Council; and the feedback received during the alternatives process will guide this work. Documents prepared in this phase will be available for review in 2022.
The GPU team will not cover existing conditions at this meeting; therefore, City Council and Planning Commission Members may want to review background materials on land use in Culver City as linked in Attachment 1, which provides further detail on all of the above, including:
• Section 1: Process: Provides background information on the process.
• Section 2: Draft Preferred Land Use Map, Land Use Designations, and Growth Projections: Describes the proposed Preferred Land Use Map, Land Use Designations, and growth projections.
• Section 3: Land Use Alternatives and Analysis: Reviews the land use alternatives presented in April and May, including technical analysis of the alternatives. It also includes the existing conditions report analysis used to develop the growth projections.
• Section 4: Community Engagement: Summarizes community engagement related to the land use alternatives.
• Section 5: Guide to Key Terms: Provides a list of key terms related to the land use alternatives.
• Section 6: Additional Resources: Provides links to additional resources, including General Plan Advisory Committee meeting materials, community workshop materials, and existing conditions reports.
Draft Preferred Land Use Map
The Preferred Land Use Map (as shown in Attachment 1, Figure 2) distributes new growth across the city, increasing residential opportunities throughout the city while allowing continued nonresidential development, including retail, services, hospitality, and office uses. Opportunity sites accommodate medium to high density mixed-use. Commercial corridors would be allowed a greater mix of uses than present conditions, including standalone residential, at more moderate densities. Low density two family, three family, and multifamily would be consolidated into new incremental infill types. Table 1 in Attachment 1 describes the proposed Land Use Designations in more detail, including allowable uses, densities, and heights.
The Preferred Land Use Map shows the existing low-density single-family areas in gray. The GPU team identified three specific options for these areas during analysis of the alternatives and need direction on which option to study going forward. These options consider community input received at the June 10, 2021, General Plan Advisory Committee meeting, and are the next iteration of what was presented as an attachment to the June 10 GPAC staff report.
Option 1: No Change to Low-Density Single-Family Areas
As shown in Attachment 1, Figure 3, there would be no major change in low-density single-family areas. Detached single unit residential, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (JADUs) would continue to be allowed. These areas will continue to see some change as they allow ADUs and JADUs.
Potential advantages include:
• Limiting change to accessory units in existing single-family neighborhoods.
Potential disadvantages include:
• When homes are redeveloped, new homes will likely be larger and more expensive;
• Fewer opportunities for homeownership;
• Less efficient use of land results in higher greenhouse gas emissions;
• Large portions of the city are “off limits” for growth and redevelopment, concentrating development onto a limited number of sites, which tends to generate conflict;
• Concentrates more affordable, often rental, residential units along corridors with higher rates of traffic and air quality impacts; and
• Maintaining structural barriers to equitable opportunities to housing stability, economic mobility for some socio-economic and demographic groups.
Option 2: All Low-Density Single-Family Areas Allow Incremental Infill 1
As shown in Attachment 1, Figure 4, low-density single-family areas would evolve with Incremental Infill 1. Detached or attached single unit residential, ADUs, JADUs, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes would be allowed. This would allow up to 4 units on a lot, requiring the 4th unit to be affordable.
Potential advantages include:
• Applying the policy consistently across all single-family parcels;
• Increasing the opportunity for more varied housing types that provide relatively smaller, less expensive, and more energy-efficient units;
• Providing more choice to individual homeowners to convert their homes to different housing types;
• Expanding residential choices can help to ensure a more inclusive and diverse neighborhood;
• Creating new opportunities for homeownership and wealth building; and
• If coupled with lower parking requirements, reduces development costs which reduces cost to residents.
Potential disadvantages include:
• Changing development standards (e.g., lot coverage and setbacks) may have an impact on neighborhood character; and
• Does not account for lot characteristics (e.g., parcel size and lot dimensions) to determine if the site is adequate to support different housing types.
Option 3: Hybrid Approach to Low-Density Single-Family Areas
As shown in Attachment 1, Figure 5, this hybrid option uses parcel size and geometry to ensure the lots are better suited to accommodate additional infill development. Lots in low-density single-family areas less than 4,950 square feet would remain the same. Lots in low-density single-family areas equal to and greater than 4,950 would be allowed to evolve with Incremental Infill 1. Using 4,950 square feet as a threshold is intended to capture lots just under 5,000 square feet where this level of density remains appropriate. Detached single unit residential, ADUs, and JADUs would continue to be allowed. Detached or attached single unit residential, ADUs, JADUs, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes would be allowed. This would allow up to 4 units on a lot, requiring the 4th unit to be affordable.
Potential advantages include:
• Same as Option 2; and
• Establishing a minimum lot size ensures sites are large enough to accommodate reasonably sized units.
Potential disadvantages include:
• Same as Option 2;
• Creating some “winners and losers” by not allowing Incremental Infill 1 on all single-family parcels; and
• More difficult for City staff to administer on parcels close to the threshold in size, especially where there may be discrepancies or outdated information.
Proposed Growth Projections
Growth projections refer to the predicted amount of development that will likely occur in a specified period (2045). Projected growth is determined by many factors including, land availability for development, market demand for new development, regional economic trends, government regulations, and the potential for new development on any given parcel.
When preparing a General Plan, the horizon year growth projections are lower than full buildout. The full buildout assumes every parcel is developed with the maximum amount allowed under the General Plan. The actual development is typically much less than the theoretical limit of development. Therefore, a more realistic scenario was developed for Culver City based on projected demand for housing and jobs as part of the Socio-Economic Profile and Market Analysis (linked in Attachment 1) and parcel characteristics. The Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan will analyze 2045 growth projections and not full buildout. The 2045 growth projections for the preferred alternative are in Table 2 of Attachment 1, and include 11,500 new residential units and 23,000 new jobs by 2045, including office, research & development, arts, entertainment, retail, and services.
Planning Commission recommendation and City Council direction is needed to:
1. Study the designations as shown in Attachment 1, Figure 2 for the Preferred Land Use Map.
2. Study Option 1, 2, or 3 in the low-density single-family areas as shown in Attachment 1, Figures 3, 4, and 5 for the Preferred Land Use Map.
3. Study the 2045 growth projections with 11,500 new residential units and 23,000 new jobs.
This direction serves only to initiate the specific study of land use change in Culver City and does not commit the City to any future land use decisions at this time. It merely establishes the parameters of the study for the General Plan preparation and environmental review.
NEXT STEPS
Once a determination has been made by City Council on the Preferred Land Use Map and growth projections, work will begin on the General Plan document, related technical studies, and environmental review. It is anticipated that a Public Review Draft General Plan and Environmental Impact Report will be available for review in the summer of 2022.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2021-06-28_ATT_June 23, 2021, Summary Memo
2. 2021-06-28_ATT_Precedent Development Typology Visuals
3. General Plan Update Presentation from 2021-06-23
MOTIONS
That the City Council and Planning Commission:
Discuss the proposed General Plan Update (GPU) land use alternatives and Preferred Land Use Map.
That the Planning Commission:
Make a recommendation on the Preferred Land Use Map and 2045 growth projections.
That the City Council:
Provide direction on the Preferred Land Use Map and growth projections.