Culver City residents have reacted in mixed ways to a new affordable housing project that was discussed at a November 30 Hybrid Community Meeting.
As reported by The Argonaut, the meeting was held at “11976 Culver Boulevard to discuss the proposed project described as a new 100% affordable, 141-unit multifamily residential building (89 units in Culver City, 52 in Los Angeles), with a maximum of eight stores and 85 feet in height. It would have one level of subterranean parking. The announcement for the meeting also stated the applicant is ‘seeking a density bonus with incentives and site plan review.’”
The site will apparently be located at 1314 Culver Boulevard, “encompassing the southwest corner of Culver and Sawtelle boulevards, stretching along Culver and running just short of the corner of Corinth and Culver”.
Niccolai Golshan of HMN Corporation is the listed architect, though residents told The Argonaut that he didn’t attend the meeting.
“We were not notified about the so-called community meeting,” local retiree Joan Sargent told the reporter. “I am angry and upset about that fact. I am not against change per se. I am against change that hurts people and disregards the wellness of people affected by the change. This project is out of proportion to the type of neighborhood.”
Sargent is unhappy about the fact that the proposal would include only 10 parking spaces for the 143 units.
“That is ridiculous. Ours is a neighborhood of one-story homes and the new building will attract heavy traffic, so the tenants will have to park on our street and neighboring streets,” Sargent said.
“Our street does not have a sidewalk nor adequate lighting. The intersection of Culver and Sawtelle with the nearby on-ramp to the 405 South will be even more dangerous due to additional traffic from this building. Therefore, it’ll be dangerous, congested, noisy and polluted. The neighborhood cannot accommodate such a large amount of additional traffic.”
“They don’t care about the neighborhood or the effect on the lives of us who live in the immediate area,” Sargent continued. “It’s out of proportion and nonsensical. I could support a three- to four-story building with enough parking spaces for all tenants. However, the developers should abide by the requirements and codes and take residents’ needs and concerns into consideration, and treat those concerns with the respect they deserve. Instead, these developers, whoever they are, didn’t even notify nearby residents. That is a bad start. I’ve not been told who the developers are, nor given their information. They’re keeping it secret, dishonest and being sneaky.”
The issues that the residents are objecting to include the aesthetics, and the actual alleged affordability.
“‘Affordable’ these units are not,” said retired teacher Jane Grafton. “At $3,000 per unit, that’s a mortgage payment. Anyone who can afford that per month will likely have a car.”
“Eight stories is too high and nothing in Culver City is higher than four stories than the Culver Hotel,” Grafton added. “This is totally out of scale and context with the surrounding neighborhood. We are happy to work with the developers on a more compatible development that fits the neighborhood, is financially viable, and provides for appropriate parking to align with the number of units proposed.”
Meanwhile, Jeff Schwartz applauds the efforts to aid the housing crisis.
““Culver City has added jobs far more quickly than it has built housing, which has driven up the cost of housing here and in nearby communities and forced workers to make long commutes, burning fossil fuels and spending stressful unpaid hours in traffic,” Schwartz told The Argonaut. “The shortage of housing in Culver City is the legacy of a century of redlining, restrictive covenants, and exclusionary zoning. To right these historic wrongs, enhance the quality of life for working people, and slow climate change, Culver City must comply with the state mandate to affirmatively further fair housing by adding housing at all price points in all parts of the city. Failure to do so will subject the city to penalties including the builder’s remedy.”
