Compromising Standards for Affordability Is No Bargain

Communities throughout California are grappling with complex land-use decisions. Last month, more than 60 of them showed up on ballots across the state.

Loud and passionate voices push from both ends of the spectrum:

“Save and preserve open space at any cost,” shouts one faction, as pristine farmland continues to vanish forever.

“Affordability for your families,” demands the other, at a time of skyrocketing housing costs.

Simi Valley is not exempt from this debate. As a City Council member responsible for making many of these decisions, I can assure you that they are not made lightly. The votes of council members and planning commissioners will have permanent effects on our city and dramatically change our quality of life. The magnitude of this responsibility is profound.

But in the heated discussion about preserving open space and affordability of homes, it appears as though we’ve lost our sense of quality and standards. I’m talking about those standards without which open space is inconsequential and affordability makes no sense. It is as if those in power feel that once a land-use decision is made and homes are scheduled to be built, we no longer need to place a priority on quality.

It seems that we’ve forgotten why we set minimum standards in the first place.

A clear example is side yard setbacks--the amount of space we require home builders to leave between new houses. Although city codes specify how close is too close, we have allowed variances in these codes to be the rule and not the exception.

As a result, many residents have lost their sense of privacy. Kitchen windows should not be so close that we can converse with our neighbors as we wash the dinner dishes. Yet some houses in Simi Valley have only five feet between their windows and the property line.

*

I believe that sentiment to preserve open space in Simi Valley is strong and well-founded. But that feeling is being undermined by families who wonder if cramming houses so close together that they can jump from rooftop to rooftop is a viable means of achieving that goal. They would argue that we are sacrificing our famililies’ living space on the altar of preserving open space.

These new “row houses” diminish our sense of privacy and community. Ultimately, they will hurt housing values and the quality of life we deserve and have come to expect.

I am aware of the need to provide quality homes at an affordable price for families just starting out. I grew up in Simi Valley and can attest to the difficult challenges young families face in trying to stay in the community in which they were raised. My wife and I were fortunate enough to find a home and raise our family in the neighborhood where I grew up. Sadly, far too many others cannot.

But we cannot and must not compromise our living standards to achieve affordability.

I believe there is a better way.

In fact, it is the main reason I decided to get involved in city government. It’s why Councilman Glen Becerra and I asked for creation of a City Council Residential Design Guidelines Committee, and it’s why we’ve developed a plan that balances the importance of preserving open space with maintaining housing affordability. Most importantly it demands that minimum sideyard setback standards be met, lest we lose sight of our goals.

*

Affordability cannot come at the expense of poor planning and variances that have no meaning. Neither can our zeal for open space push us to stack homes and families on top of one another. The Residential Design Guidelines Committee plan demonstrates that we can achieve higher ground by seeking the middle road.

We must balance the serenity of our surroundings with common-sense measures and higher standards to ensure that the quality of our homes matches the quality of our environment, thereby enhancing the quality of our lives.