Culture Wars in Fullerton? Preservation As A Dodge? Legal Confusion Ensues…

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.