Game of Zones 3: The New Normal: Zoning by Exception

An honest discussion of Los Angeles zoning vs population capacity in 2017 has to start with the new normal…'zoning by exception'.

These graphs are making the election season social media rounds [and not coincidentally to light up LA’s single family neighborhoods as well as theWestside]. See links for source material.

Any commercial, parking or industrial parcels in the City are candidates for flipping to ultra high density residential or mixed use these days and there are overlapping density bonuses plus reduced parking to increase the number of units built...particularly near transit.

This all means the graphs are outdated and we’re going to need a helluva lot more field space.
Where will these children play?

The Game of Zones in the City of Angels: Winter is Here

Time to focus on what will surely happen post Election Day, March 7, 2017.

First, if we want more field space planned into our communities, we must fight for it:

Understand that the people and organizations pushing mega densities--coupled with significantly reduced public participation in planning decisions AND ‘trickle down’ affordable housing theories-- across the United States are clearly NOT friends of youth sports. 

Real, playable, team sports field space for families would appear to be outside of their place-making, dense walkable city universe (Where are all those proposals to purchase and transform ‘parking craters’ into sports fields, anyway?).

The JJJ “Build Better LA” initiative which passed last November will be implemented to the max to speed housing production. 

It bears repeating early and often: this JJJ density will come completely without recreation infrastructure to accommodate accelerated growth unless youth sports organizations unite and stand up to be counted.

In fact, JJJ does not address any future infrastructure needs or support.  

A search of the text of JJJ reveals that the word ‘infrastructure’ is not mentioned anywhere. 

Sports fields? Oh, yeah, they’ll likely be an afterthought conveniently located on the perimeter of the 450 square miles of high rises some envision for Los Angeles. Have fun spending hours on several modes of transit to get your kids there in time for a game. 

BTW, if you’re thinking, well, the schools will have fields, guess again. 

Although LAUSD has goals for school density defined as ‘ratio of students to available acreages’, LAUSD is no longer required to provide said field space as the Rodriguez consent decree was lifted in 2006. The good people of Mar Vista have fought off several LAUSD attempts to build over school fields which presently experience significant demand for team sports 

Second, what we must do now:

Get online and demand playable field spaces be written into the update of the Los Angeles General Plan Framework as a core public value. You can find the survey here. If it has been taken down, write Planning directly. Find LADCP information here.

Then, write your councilmember and their planning deputy. Find Council office information here 

After that, organize. Other groups are inorganization mode already, and they are not paying attention to field space. 

Get on the email notification list for general plan and community plan updates, and go to EVERY hearing with the same message. 

Get all your families to go. 

Get on public record. 

Get your children involved because engagement for this is beyond important for them.

Get on social media. Why? Because these days your government pays closer attention to social media opinion via Facebook and Twitter than it does to local organizations. If the choice is between doing what 20,000 people want on Twitter, or doing what a local neighborhood wants…you get the idea.

Third, if we want to keep the right to have real influence in the planning decisions shaping our communities, we will have to stop these legislative ‘end runs’ to Sacramento which cut off local planning, mask future infrastructure needs, and deny our rights to the initiative process.

Sacramento has already morphed granny flats up to 1200 sq ft, and a ratio up to 50% of the size of the primary unit.  Occupancy cannot be limited. Practical result? Lots of people along with their individual vehicles can occupy an ADU that large. NO owner occupancy required. BTW, if within ½ mile of transit, NO parking required.

It would be one thing if these additional units were counted as density and their impacts on infrastructure could be rationally and fairly assessed in California. However, under Government Code Section 65852.2(a)(2)  ADUs cannot be counted. They are effectively invisible for planning purposes. The presumption under current state law is, they have no impact. That means they don’t show in assessments for police, fire, water, power, sewerage, schools…or recreation facilities.

So, there you have it: already a potential doubling—maybe even tripling--of population density with zero infrastructure accountability. 

NOTE: In Seattle, Washington, the similar, not so subtle effort to eliminate single family zones entirely through ‘pen stroke planning’ conversion to triplex zones has run afoul of environmental laws. Impacts were not adequately or accurately assessed. 

Furthermore, Assembly Bill 943 authored by Democratic Assembly Members Santiago and Burke will increase the passage threshold from a simple majority to a two-thirds supermajority for passage of any local ballot measure “that would curb, delay, or deter growth or development within a city, the ordinance shall be enacted only if it is approved by at least two-thirds of the votes cast on it at the election”.

So, it’s the ‘Game of Zones’ in the City of Angels and winter is already here.

Where will your children play?