' 5th Dist. Residents, Alerted Via Social Networks, Hold First Of Planned Grassroots Meetings To Discuss And Respond To City Hall And Sac'to Desired Increased Density '


5th Dist. Residents, Alerted Via Social Networks, Hold First Of Planned Grassroots Meetings To Discuss And Respond To City Hall And Sac'to Desired Increased Density

LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.
(Sept. 4, 2017, 2:20 p.m.) -- It was so humid that it began to rain, driving over fifty ELB residents from the backyard of a South of Conant neighborhood home into the homeowner's living room, kitchen and dining area.

[Scroll down for further.]

They interrupted their Labor Day holiday weekend to attend a Sunday Sept. 3 grassroots meeting, first mentioned on NextDoor.com only two days earlier, to discuss details of density-inviting Sacramento legislation and city staff proposed land use changes that could affect their neighborhood and neighborhoods beyond.

Organizers discussed SB 35, a pending Sacramento bill that could in many cases let developers build multi-unit rental projects without providing parking at levels required by current LB zoning, without currently required public testimony and environmental impact disclosures of neighborhood impacts, no longer subject to City Hall discretionary approvals.

They also displayed a map, revised by city staff in August [and reported weeks ago by LBREPORT.com here] showing areas proposed for mixed use density (commercial + residential uses) and increased building heights. Dark purple areas on the maps would allow "mixed uses" that combine commercial and residential uses; red areas are purely commercial. Organizers alerted residents to the fact that increased building heights on the maps might end up higher with "density bonuses" allowed under current law and future Sac'to legislation.

Organizers Kimberley Toscas (holding map right in photo), Raman Vasishth (holding map left in photo) and Angela Kimball (partially obscured by map) didn't spend time criticizing elected officials; they conveyed as much information as they could...and let the information speak for itself (including sometimes wonky details that residents seemed eager to learn.)

At the conclusion of the meeting, they urged residents to share what they learned with their neighbors (online and in person) and recommended that they convey their views (by phone and by email) to their City Council and Sac'to representatives. They also indicated that they plan to put their information online (via NextDoor.com) and hold additional neighborhood meetings of the same type.



Ms. Toscas, a teacher in a nearby school district, used her classroom skills to convey the issues from a neighborhood taxpayer perspective. She began by referencing and paraphrasing the views of an experienced community planner who has authored material cautioning communities about potential poor outcomes and harmful consequences of "smart growth" when not smartly applied (Eben Fodor's The Myth of Smart Growth.), and then localized the issues by discussing pending CA legislation (SB 35) and LB city staff's proposed revision of the city's Land Uses.

Ms. Toscas: ...What "smart growth" really does, it's fundamentally a pro-growth planning philosophy...The problem with the "smart growth" planning advocates is they tend to use this catch phrase if "responsible planning" to preemptively sweep critical aspects of the debate about all of this growth under the table, under the rug, and out of public dialogue...Their attitude is they don't really care about us...While [smart growth] is decidedly pro growth, it misleadingly portrays itself as the ultimate growth solution. And it's not.

It is hostile to citizens in the community...and [smart growth advocates] try to de-legitimize our concerns in the sense that they discredit us, they marginalize us, they say that we're extremists or we're NIMBYs not in our backyard, we're radical, we're illegitimate...but in reality what concerns the people in the community bring up, these concerns are already out there in the community itself, in the mainstream. And the majority of people just have too many concerns about too much growth.

So the gospel of "smart growth" is very, very seductive. It fails to recognize that even the smartest growth places a heavy burden on our environment and tears apart the very fabric of our communities..."Smart growth" does exactly the opposite of what it purports to do. An expanding population, the pack 'em and stack 'em style that they're advocating, it requires more land, more food production, more roads, more expensive infrastructure that never gets built, more services, more energy, more water, more natural resources...and ultimately produces significantly more greenhouse gases through traffic gridlock. This is the absolute polar opposite of what "smart growth" promotes...

...This really benefits developers...[SB 35] is going to put density on steroids...It is called the "Planning and Zoning Affordable Housing Streamlined Approval Process." The word "streamline" should [alert your radar.] It is a local zoning game changer...The state is doing this top-down legislative effort to push higher density into our neighborhoods...SB 35 eliminates local control over zoning. It's been approved by the Senate. [State Senators] Ricardo Lara voted for it, and so did Janet Nguyen...However [Assemblyman] Patrick O'Donnell has not come out with a position on SB 35 [and] he is up for re-election and you can contact him...

...We have a quote...from [City of LB Planning Bureau Manager] Linda Tatum...that developers can use the current and future state density laws to exceed the density maximum of local zoning allowed under a city's general plan...

...The quest for higher density in Long Beach will coordinate with a bevy of Sacramento laws favoring these super-sized high density complexes. It will put an end to [LB] parking requirements...Currently right now when they build one of these multi-unit complexes, they have to have two parking spaces per unit. [Under SB 35] it goes down to 1.5 or even 1.0 [parking spaces] per unit. These top down policies are really going to hurt us if we move forward with this [city staff proposed Land Use change] "placetype" map approval.

[The City] is taking a neutral position SB 35 as I'm speaking right now. So I reiterate: SB 35 will take away local control on density issues and increase density in our neighborhoods...

...It is the responsibility of our City leadership to implement the city's general plan and advocate on behalf of constituents to protect and preserve our quality of life in our neighborhoods. If they don't that, and if we don't force them to do that, we're going to have problems.


Mr. Vasishth distributed written materials he prepared based on city staff's proposed map and Land Use text. It listed 5th district locations where city staff has proposed increased density (from the Los Altos Gateway (Bellflower/Spring) to Old Lakewood Village.

Ms. Toscas noted that "people in Wrigley have been fighting this I think for a long time. And they have a lot of art deco buildings that have been lost to high density. They're very, very upset about it so they've been very actively involved in pursuing less density, less pulling down of those architecturally significant buildings and changing the fabric of their neighborhoods. And I think in one of the Planning [Commission] meetings they were so upset about it that they decided to push more density over here. [audience displeasure] Let's not let that divide and conquer us, because ultimately the whole city needs to be united against this."



Asked about joining with Belmont Heights residents whose neighborhoods lost craftsman-style single family homes to Council-enabled "crackerbox apartment" density in the 1980s, Ms. Toscas said the recently-revived Council of Neighborhood Organizations (CONO) under Robert Fox has done a good job of educating neighborhood groups about that history. She added that city staff current proposals now go beyond "crackerbox" apartments and invite high-rise-type rental units. "That's what we risk all across Long Beach," Ms. Toscas said.

Ms. Kimball said the proposed density increases would further strain LB's already-thin police and fire levels, less-open libraries, local water and electricity infrastructure and schools. "We're just really encouraging you to really reach out to your neighbors and talk to your neighbors and get them involved. If you can talk to two or three neighbors and keep spreading this exponentially, that's how you build support."


Residents thanked the meeting organizers for their work, and the organizers said they plan to put the materials online using NextDoor.com with additional neighborhood meetings to be announced.

Following push-back against city staff's August-proposed maps, city officials have scheduled four "community meetings" of their own starting in late September and extending into October. At those meetings, city staff will hear "public input" and possibly revise the proposed density maps before bringing them to LB's Planning Commission. The Planning Commission (a non-elected, Mayor-chosen/Council approved body) can then send its non-binding recommendations on the increased density maps to LB's elected City Council, which will ultimately decide on density/height changes in the city's Land Use Element.


blog comments powered by Disqus

Recommend LBREPORT.com to your Facebook friends:

Follow LBReport.com with:




Return To Front Page

Contact us: mail@LBReport.com

Adoptable pet of the week:

Carter Wood Floors
Hardwood Floor Specialists
Call (562) 422-2800 or (714) 836-7050

Copyright © 2017 LBReport.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use/Legal policy, click here. Privacy Policy, click here