Search Results for: yimby

Part IV of an essay sent in to FFFF.

EVERYTHING’S GOING UP

But applying preservation layers also will not get rid of badly written partisan bills, set time back, or get rid of high rises. In Los Angeles County alone, if 70% is zoned R-1, this leaves 30% for a combination of single-family houses, townhouses, condos and apartments that encompasses everything from market rate to affordable and Section 8 housing. If the city of Fullerton has a housing element of over 13,000, developments on lands not zoned R 1 will be closely spaced together and many will go vertical. It is a complete shift of how people will live going forward, but ironically, also doesn’t guarantee that they will be able to afford it if wages and jobs stagnate, or if younger generations continue to saddle themselves with staggering debt before they even enter the workforce.

The California Dream of single-family home ownership was born during a time when the population was lower, and land was available. Wages and opportunities went up, there was a plentiful supply of houses, and developers worked with lenders which helped keep the housing supply affordable. But much of this has changed. While the elders of the local preservation movement were able to work, live and retire in the city, it’s been different for the generations following them. People live further away from work in the search for cheaper and new housing. But this has enormous costs: Multi-hour commutes each day, a separation of child and parent as one goes to school in one city, and the parent works (often hours away) in another. Many families and individuals are spending over 50% of their earnings on housing, fuel, utilities, and healthcare. There is not that much left over. In addition, there are the environmental costs -entire swaths of land taken up by single family homes puts stress on the local environment and wildlife. Then there is the problem of water and not enough of it, as developments have been built onto arid lands. R 1 zoning, as we once knew it, is gone.

This next part has already been covered in depth with great insight by commenter Fran J in this blog a few weeks ago. If haven’t searched for her comments -do. They deserve to be taken seriously.

CHARTER CITIES: SEEKING AUTONOMY

If the judges ruling on SB 9 is upheld on appeal it could have an impact on 121 charter cities including plaintiffs Redondo Beach, Torrance, Whittier and Del Mar, and San Diego, San Francisco and Los Angeles. (A charter city has ultimate authority over its municipal affairs and works within a framework of California laws). Fullerton has entered a study phase on becoming a charter city. Fullerton city officials point out the states’ overreaching capacity to run roughshod over municipal zoning (SB 330) and order 13,206 units to be built over 5 years, with no provisions to pay for the expansion of municipal services or first responder coverage, or look how a higher density will impact health, air quality, water availability, and wildlife.

An explosion in growth from the raised Housing Element will be paid by either adding or raising fees, making cuts in programs, or raising taxes. Contrarians (YIMBYs) cite concern for abuse, and cities shirking their role to provide new housing. However, becoming a Charter City could help the city with SB 9 and SB 330. Whether or not Fullerton becomes a Charter City, NIMBYs will continue to fight to preserve even mundane neighborhoods, parks, and buildings. Adding a layer will impact the planning and permitting process, and risks ushering in a cadre of taste arbiters who will be too happy to have a glimmer of official status.

In the question of Skyline Park, this is a tiresome war that has been waged for almost 40 years, pitting neighbors against one another. What’s new is SB 9 and the undoing of R 1 zoning. Rather than grimacing and going along with the notion of establishing a permanent layer of bureaucracy, we used this as a chance to understand the housing crises, the shift in beliefs around urban planning, and the new laws that have been crafted. We also thought it was fair to compile our own experiences and observations of the players, behind this local push. Namely, Fullerton Heritage.

Part III of an essay sent in to FFFF.

THE WHITE PAPER
CAUGHT IN A CULTURE WAR of HISTORIC PRESERVATION

PART III

 In the last article, we covered the introduction of SB 9, which was the YIMBY’s way of taking a hatchet to single family zoning by making it legal not only to build ADUs, but also to subdivide lots and build up to four units per 2400 sq ft lot (now divided into 50/50 or 40/60). Crafted by 7 authors and co-authors, SB 9 had the support from a mix of housing groups and organizations like AARP, big money builders, cities, planners, advocates, urban planners, developers, and companies such as Facebook. The CA YIMBY claimed that it is illegal to build middle income housing in 70% of Los Angeles County because of R-1 zoning. The YIMBY movement adheres to the belief expressed in a paper, “It’s Time To End Single Family Housing,” by Manville, Monkkonen and Lens that R-1 zoning is built on racist and classist assumptions as well as exclusion. The authors call for an outright abolition of R 1 zoning, which is the basis of the YIMBYs view of the future, and it has influenced every bill passed. However, the authors state that ending R-1 zoning will not guarantee the end of segregation, exclusion or housing affordability. In other words, you can do all of this -SB 330, SB 9, but still have dickheads. Because getting rid of assholery is a totally different challenge (which extends to both sides of the aisle). But for the YIMBY movement, passing a bill is where they decided to start.

IN LIEU OF COWS, APPLY PRESERVATION

Because this is politics, there are loopholes, places where SB 9 does not apply: Farms, hazardous waste sites, high fire risk zones, ecological conservation areas, and historic preservation zones. Short of adding cattle or flooding city lots, NIMBYs stepped up to blanket entire neighborhoods as “historic preservation zones” in response to SB 9. Much of it by neighborhood groups or nonprofit organizations like Fullerton Heritage, who have moved aggressively to include downtown adjacent areas.

However, YIMBYs believe that this is an abuse by impassioned locals to ʻweaponize preservation.ʻ They claim NIMBYs donʻt want to preserve as much as they want to keep state-mandated multi-family as well as affordable housing out under the guise of “homey” and “charming.”

But SB 9 is used by NIMBYʻs to get people to side with adding Preservation layers, as happened at a community meeting in Fullerton, requested by Fullerton Heritage and facilitated by City Planning for the purposes of finding out about this top-down proposal. All anyone had to do to gain support was say the word, “four-plex” without being informed of the nuances of SB 9, along with the many restrictions that make the implementation of this bruiser bill both costly and difficult.

PUSHBACK: AB 2580

To help cities ensure that their Housing Element is met, YIMBYs countered this rush to create new preservation zones or move land into land trusts. AB 2580 was passed to monitor them:
“(N) A list of all historic designations listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic places by the city or county in the past year, including an assessment of how those designations affect the ability of the city or county to meet its housing needs.” –Text of Assembly Bill 2580
            The reality is that by declaring entire districts ‘historic’ regardless of whether or not the neighborhoods were built to express one or a few historically significant styles, puts more pressure on adjacent neighborhoods to fill a city’s Housing Element (the required number of state-mandated housing units). Neither style, nor era-based uniformity is required. One such neighborhood, Skyline Park, is an attractive mix of single family homes built over a 100 year period, from Spanish revival, mock colonial, and to houses that reflect a broad scope of styles. To NIMBYs, the loophole exists to highlight and preserve architectural examples for a particular era but keep a districtʻs relationship between buildings and grounds intact. They also seek to prevent, what in their eyes are behemoths or buildings or features not to their taste from being built. What teeth does AB 2580 have if a city runs afoul? It remains to be seen.
AB 2580 was approved by Quirk-Silva and Newman, with solid support from both parties.

BANG BANG: AND THEN A JUDGE CHIMED IN

To the YIMBYs dismay, SB 9 was declared unconstitutional by a Los Angeles judge in 2024. While SB 9 made way for increased housing, it had no provisions for affordable housing as required by the state constitution. The judge ruled in favor of the 5 cities who sued the state: Redondo Beach, Carson, Torrance, Whittier and Del Mar, who no longer must abide by the rules of SB 9.  For now, SB 9 is still in force and could be amended to reflect the same wording in the California constitution. But it has led Fullerton to consider morphing into something different.

Part 2 of an essay sent in to FFFF.

Caught in a culture war
When self determination and neighborhood
trust are at stake

The End of Single Family Housing Zoning
Shortly after the Eaton Fires, I saw posts on forums where people anticipated rebuilding, “anything but single family housing.” Even though R 1 zoning has been the California dream, it has been phased out, first with the introduction of Accessory Dwelling Units in 2016, then later, Jr-ADUs. ADUs offer a quick way to add housing and gain property taxes, potentially doubling a neighborhood population. However, the utility infrastructure stays the same, while a greater demand is foisted onto first responders. Cities are left to assume the expenses and resource demands of more people. R1 zoning is deemed by the YIMBYs as wasteful and selfish, and limits availability of housing choices. NIMBYs point to a harmonious life of space, predictability and security. But the YIMBY’s weren’t done dismantling R1 zoning, so they introduced a new tactic: SB 9.

The Problematical SB 9

To add more firepower to the ridding of R 1 zoning, YIMBYs backed SB 9 in 2021 to allow lot “splitting” but only in R 1 neighborhoods. Lots must be a minimum of 2400sq ft. They can be divided 60/40 or 50/50 with up to two units on each new lot that meet the setback and height requirements. According to the City of Fullerton, the structures may not be more than 800 sq. ft. For lot splits, one unit must be owner occupied for three years. For two unit projects, all units can be rented. Housing that has been occupied by a tenant for the last 3 years, may not be torn down. The reality is 2-4 units are not going to make a fast enough difference in reaching 13,206 units. Since no requirements in the bill specify affordable housing, there are no public funds available for these projects. Because of the high per-unit cost of building and a lower ROI, in the first two years only 75 lot splits were approved across California, as opposed the approval of 8800 ADUs. Confusing? Attempting just to describe it is fodder for mistakes. But ideological wars are both heated and have many twists and turns. This is an attempt to solve a housing shortage with a culture war pushing it from behind.

In Lieu Of Cows, Create A New Preservation Zone
Because this is politics, there are loopholes, places where SB 9 does not apply: Farms, hazardous waste sites, high fire risk zones, ecological conservation areas, and historic preservation zones. Short of adding cattle or flooding city lots, NIMBYs stepped up to blanket entire neighborhoods as “historic preservation zones.”
 YIMBYs believe that this is an abuse by impassioned locals to “weaponize preservation.” They claim NIMBYs don’t want to preserve as much as they want to keep state-mandated multi-family and affordable housing out under the guise of “homey” and “charming.”

But SB 9 can intentionally be used to get people to side with Preservation zoning, as happened at a community meeting held for the purposes of finding out about this proposal. All anyone had to do was say the word, “Fourplex” without understanding nuances of the bill, along with the many restrictions that make the implementation of this both costly and difficult.

FFFF was sent a well-written and thought provoking essay regarding the issue of historic preservation, zoning used to defy Sacramento mandates, and of course freedom of expression. Apparently somebody is making a another attempt to establish a historic district in one of Fullerton’s older neighbor hoods.

This piece is pretty lengthy so I’m presenting it in installments.

Caught in a culture war;
When self determination and neighborhood
trust are at stake

The question of whether or not to approve a historic preservation layer over a neighborhood isn’t one that is new. This is the third fight, which in the past has included protests with pink lawn flamingos. Hells bells and all out, I didn’t mind wading into new waters to gain an understanding of this current push to put several neighborhoods under preservation layers, and how three new laws are shaping our city and its neighborhoods.

NIMBYs and YIMBYs

This is a culture war is between NIMBYs and YIMBYs (Not in My Backyard and Yes in My Backyard). Both are adept at crafting legislation that echo their ideologies. The struggle is between those don’t want any changes in their neighborhoods, and those who insist that the California Dream needs to evolve and that zoning needs to be changed in order to accommodate the needs of cities today. The foot soldiers for this war are embodied by the California Senate and the Assembly. Most of us wouldn’t self-identify as either a NIMBY or a YIMBY, but prefer the term neighbors. Culture wars start with a problem: Californiaʻs population of 39.4 million has resulted in a housing shortage. There aren’t enough places to rent, and the median price for housing in Orange County alone, is well beyond the reach of many. In Sacramento, new laws have been created, the bulk of them are partisan bills introduced and passed in the Newsom era. To make way for building, these new laws override existing municipal zoning combining egalitarian ideals with capitalism.

Re-zoning On Steroids: SB 330

The result of one side of the culture wars is marked by the emergence of high rise apartments, not only in Fullerton, but everywhere. These developments help cities meet a state-assigned number of new units to fulfill its Housing Element (Fullertonʻs HE has been set to 13,206). The law, SB 330, super charges the approval process and prevents cities from adopting new zoning laws that could serve as a barrier to development. Laws like SB 330 are part of the ʻBuilders Remedy,ʻ which applies to a section of the California code for cities who have yet to meet their quota. Present zoning regulations are moot, and developments for housing are planned. These projects get help from Federal economic stimulus plans intended to revitalize cities because they include affordable housing. Programs that provide funding and tax breaks to build new housing are applied for by developers, while cities get development fees and increased tax revenues. Since land is scarce, former commercial, freeway and railroad adjacent lands and urban infill are being developed. With a lower per-unit cost, and a higher ROI, high rises and new subdivisions that cover city blocks are being built for buyers, renters, and includes affordable and low income housing. Thereʻs a lot riding on this. The state is trying to create housing for all, help people avoid homelessness, fuel the economy with the creation of jobs, renew cities, and keep employers in California by producing affordable housing. Housing, jobs, and renewing cities are ways of affirming humanity.