photo by Jeanette Reece

The draft housing element for the 6th cycle was presented at the City Council on November 19 to a packed house. Consultants who had worked with the city over the past few years were on hand to answer questions. Consultants were Dudek, Rincon, Jones, and Mayer.

The preparation of the housing element is a process that every jurisdiction in California must accomplish every eight years. This lays out a road map for every city to determine what housing is needed for all different economic levels and special needs individuals, which covers the regional housing needs assessment cycle for 2021 through 2029 for the City of Fullerton.

The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) determined by SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments) allocates the number of housing units needed in each city. That number is 13,209 units for Fullerton [partly because Fullerton has built plenty of high-income housing but failed each year its allocation for housing affordable to low-income]. Each housing element that is created is reviewed and certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). While there is no required format for the housing element document, it is required to address the four following subject areas:

1. Ensure Adequate Housing Capacity: Identify and zone sufficient land to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) across all income levels.
2. Increase Housing Supply and Affordability: Remove barriers to housing production and encourage diverse housing types, including affordable units. Address constraints such as zoning, permitting, and infrastructure challenges.
3. Promote Sustainable and Resilient Communities: Integrate housing with access to transit, jobs, and amenities and environmental sustainability goals.
4. Advance Equity and Fair Housing: Address fair housing disparities to promote inclusive communities and expand access to housing opportunities for all.

The methodology for determining the RHNA number of 13,209 units for Fullerton looks at projected city household growth, mature housing needs for rentals and owners, and city replacement needs.

The city began the housing element update process in 2019 and included about 65 different events. Fifteen of those occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic and were conducted via Zoom as per distancing protocols. These events included outreach to the community, surveys, stakeholder workshops, housing advocate meetings, and study sessions, which were conducted to consider the various approaches to accommodate the RHNA.

Initial discussions centered around up-zoning creation and specific plans. Religious sites, use of surplus city sites, and the possible adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance either through committee input, City Council direction, or HCD direction. The strategy the city has adopted is the creation of the Housing Incentive Overlay Zone (HIOZ).

The draft housing element, which is Appendix H of the general plan is broken into the following chapters:

• State law,
• General plan consistency,
• Needs assessment,
• Resources, and
• Constraints

The housing plan appendices contain much of the technical data and evaluate the areas that are required by HCD including:

• Review of past performance,
• Assessment of Fair Housing,
• Housing at risk analysis,
• Development standards review,
• Residential land inventory, and
• Public participation

The HIOZ is a policy tool that was chosen to accommodate the housing needs of Fullerton. It is the new zoning designation that is placed over selected non-residential properties that are either zoned commercial or industrial. The zoning overlay does not change the existing zoning, and any property owner who has a property with the highest designation does not have to make any changes to the property, nor do they have to build any units at all. It is simply a new option applied to these properties to place residential units on these properties should the owner desire to do so.

The Housing Incentive Overlay Zone (HIOZ) is a policy tool that enables residential development on non-residential parcels within the HIOZ. It is deregulatory in nature. [Deregulation is the process of removing or reducing regulations, typically in the economic sphere. It is the repeal of governmental regulation of the economy.]

• HIOZ does not require development.
• HIOZ does not change the underlying land use, whether commercial or industrial; it adds a layer of use.
• HIOZ does require a 10% affordability component.
• Three New Development Standards:

1. Require Mixed-Use for Larger Parcels.
2. Streamlines Standards and reduces Delays
3. Provides necessary capacity to meet HCD figures

In the future, new development standards will be included in the Fullerton Municipal Code and the General Plan, which provide requirements, including setbacks, parking, open space, floor area ratio, and unit affordability requirements. One thing to note is there’s no building height specified in the zone code amendment. However, other standards will limit building height. Additionally, any proposed development on a lot next to the R1 zone will require a 100-foot setback for anything over two stories in height.

During the initial screening of the commercial and industrial properties, a large number of properties were screened out due to various issues, such as being in a wildfire hazard zone or a flood zone, not being close to amenities such as stores, parks, and schools, or other related factors. Sites with a historic designation were also taken out.

From its inception in 2021, the HIOZ concept has gone through several revisions based on community, City Council, and property owner feedback, as well as legal challenges. And the sites have been reduced to 723 parcels.

Additionally, an environmental review of the parcel list was initiated in August of 2023, including a scoping meeting that same year. The analysis conducted for the HIOZ looked at various household yields that the policy might attain in different densities for two different fielding scenarios, which are worst-case and best-case scenarios.

The top graph includes only the 235 HIOZ parcels contained within the housing sites inventory. The expected yield would be about 5,243 units if every site were built at 20 units to the acre. Conversely, if every site were built at 60 units to the acre, it would generate 15,731 units. If you look at the HCD’s methodology, which is a more realistic determination, the yield would be about. 7,217 units.

The bottom bar graph of this scenario depicts the build-out of the complete HIOZ parcel list, which is 723 parcels. Looking at the left side of that bar, if you build it out at 20 units to the acre for each of the sites, it would build out to 9,823 units, whereas if you did a complete build-out with every parcel at 60 units to the acre, you would get 29,168 units. And once again, HCD’s methodology, which is more realistic, is about 16,770 units. Many people are focused on that 25,000 unit number, but that’s for analytical purposes; it’s not realistic; it’s just part of the analysis of the worst-case, best-case scenarios.

As part of the HIOZ, the Community and Economic Development Department created new development standards for the municipal code. Chapter 15.23 sets provisions, including definitions and procedures. A requirement of 10% of the units is restricted to affordable-level individuals or families [that leaves 90% high-end housing, which contributes to the local rents going up], and all parcels that are greater than an acre shall continue to be commercial or industrial use on the ground floor based on the zoning.

There are replacement ordinances via the supplemental procedures as legal language is now included, which would allow alternatives to the affordability requirement.

Part of this whole process had to meet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements and state and local agencies to evaluate and consider environmental impacts during the decision-making process. The housing element document, or Appendix H, was determined to be exempt from Government Code Guidelines Section 15061( b)(3).

The Housing Incentive Overlay Zone (HIOZ) was analyzed under a Program Environmental Impact Report as defined in the CEQA Guidelines. This was available for the mandatory 45-day public review period, which ended on July 15, 2024. [Where? How were people notified?]

The draft EIR statement of fact and overriding considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were reviewed by the Planning Commission on September 11, 2024. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify these documents.

Councilmember Ahmad Zahra said, “In the key findings here, you’re saying some impacts include air quality, but in the document, it says significant and unavoidable.”

City Planner Chris Shaffer responded that [language] would be covered under the statement of overriding considerations and statement of fact so that that document covers that issue.  

Staff recommends approval of the resolutions related to the general plan amendments and the program ER, as well as the ordinance related to the Fullerton Municipal Code updates.

Public Comment

(Microsoft Word Transcription Assisted)

Marion Gibson: The 500-page document seems well-prepared, but I worry it may not reflect what the city wants. I have seen both positive and negative changes in Fullerton over the past 40 years, including many closed businesses and vacant storefronts. During your online presentation, I found it difficult to identify the overlay areas on your maps and understand the color coding. I’m also concerned about mitigation—what it means, how much is needed, and how it will be implemented. Some sections mention severe impacts, so we should carefully assess what those really are. I’m worried that the population increase in Fullerton will change the city’s character. Although affordable housing may include some parking, we must consider how many residents will own cars and the impact on traffic, even near public transportation. Where will all these vehicles park, and how will this affect our already poor road conditions? The recent development in the Kimberly-Clark area has brought in large warehouses, resulting in big rigs traveling along Commonwealth, near schools. Our roads are in bad shape, and the presence of these trucks only worsens the situation. I’m worried that the affordable housing being proposed may not actually be affordable. Additionally, I’m concerned about the type of population it will attract. Increased traffic and worsening street conditions are likely consequences. The population growth outlined in this 500-page plan is alarming, and I’m also worried about the potential loss of jobs.

Maria Rivera: Soy residente de Fullerton. Hace 51 años. Me encanta Fullerton, pero estoy un poco preocupada porque creo que esto se va a hacer cerca de donde vivo. Son apartamentos o condominios. No lo tienes claro. Y también estoy preocupada porque pensé que mi esposo y yo íbamos a vivir muy felices en estos últimos años que nos quedan. Pero ahora no parece que sea así. Y vamos a volver porque no sé qué va a pasar en mi vecindario en Jefferson Ave. Y me gustaría saber qué es lo que realmente quieren hacer. Ustedes quieren construir apartamentos. ¿Saben lo que eso significa? Y tal como mencionó la otra señora, quiero saber cuánto tráfico va a haber. En este momento, ya estamos teniendo problemas debido a los negocios cercanos en Orangethorpe y Euclid. Cuando van a estacionar en nuestra calle, se enojan porque les preguntamos, bueno, ¿qué están haciendo aquí? Y he llamado a la policía de Fullerton. Y dicen, bueno, eso es una calle pública. Pero ya estamos mayores y tenemos miedo de lo que está pasando. Y espero que haya una solución. Porque estamos muy preocupados y no deberíamos estar así.

Translated: Maria Rivera: I’m a resident of Fullerton. 51 years. I love Fullerton, but I’m a bit concerned because I believe this is going to be done near where I live. These are apartments or condominiums. You’re not clear. And I’m also worried because I thought my husband and I were going to live very happily in these last remaining years. But it doesn’t seem like it now. And we will come back because I don’t know what’s going to happen in my neighborhood on Jefferson Ave. And I would like to know what you really want to do. You guys want to build apartments. You know what that means? And just like the other lady mentioned, I want to know how much traffic is going to be. Right now, we’re already having problems because of the businesses nearby in Orangethorpe and Euclid. When they go to park on our street, they get upset because we will ask them, well, what are you guys doing here? And I’ve called the Fullerton police. And they say, well, that’s a public street. But we’re already older, and we’re afraid of what’s going on. And I hope that there’s a solution. Because we are very concerned and we shouldn’t be that way.

Robert Jensen: In 2012, I had the pleasure of interviewing Elaine Redfield, a remarkable community activist and art advocate. During our conversation, I asked her about the departure of Norton Simon from Fullerton. She attributed it to the City Council’s “imagination deficit disorder,” a kinder way of expressing her concerns. I don’t mean to suggest you have that problem, but I urge you to envision the city described in the current plan. While I recognize the pressure to increase housing, many of us are concerned that our children can’t afford to live here. Only a small fraction of this plan focuses on truly affordable housing, which raises questions about its impact. Additionally, the scale of this development seems disproportionate to our city’s needs. Please consider this carefully. I hope that in 15 years, no one will look back and say your council failed to have the vision needed for our community’s future.

Karen Pasco: I’m a senior and a widow struggling because my three kids can’t afford to live in Fullerton. They’re in difficult situations, including my granddaughter. I urge you to increase the percentage for low-income housing beyond the current 10%—our youth need a safe place to live. Additionally, crime is a significant issue. I walk daily because I don’t have a car, and the streets are littered with refuse from homeless individuals. I often feel unsafe when I’m out, and I worry about getting home safely. I understand we’re required to build 13,000 homes, but increasing that number to 33,000 could harm our city. We have serious safety concerns, especially for our youth, and I shouldn’t have to worry about my children’s safety.  Having lived in Fullerton for almost 66 years, I’ve seen the challenges my family faces in finding affordable housing. I agree we should adhere to the 13,000-home mandate and focus on our city’s infrastructure. Please consider the impact of new developments on residents and the surrounding environment. This is our city, and we all deserve to feel safe and secure.

George Stevenson: I have been a residential lender for 40 years, which has given me insight into many homes across various cities. My wife and I chose to move here because of the quality of education and the overall character of the city—we truly believe it’s a gem. In reviewing the properties you’re considering for redevelopment, I focused on the area along Chapman between Raymond and Berkeley. The commercial properties there primarily have access through residential neighborhoods. If high-density housing is built, it will only add traffic through these neighborhoods, which is concerning given the presence of daycares, schools, and colleges in that vicinity. Instead of just identifying problems, I encourage finding solutions. I believe the best alternative for redevelopment is at the intersection of Yorba Linda and Placentia. This area has direct access to the freeway and could accommodate housing while keeping some commercial aspects intact.

Mary Francis Gable: So I just want to say Fullerton is a beautiful community. It’s really built on a very rich history, which many people have worked very hard to preserve. Much of that history is in the neighborhoods along Chapman Ave. and Commonwealth. So zoning high-density housing along these historic streets could easily have a very negative effect on these Grove houses and other houses that have been preserved in our historic neighborhoods. There’s already quite a bit of traffic on Chapman Ave. I am a traveling teacher, so to speak, between two Community College districts, and I’m always on Chapman, and it’s already very, very busy. And this would create far more, not to mention the question of parking and ongoing street maintenance and repair. So I’m just really asking, would you please maintain the livability of these neighborhoods located on Chapman from 57 to Berkeley, which is my neighborhood? This is a welcoming neighborhood with the light balls every Christmas all the kids trick or treating every Halloween and those on Commonwealth, which is the neighborhood of many of my friends. I understand that the state has required 13,000. Two hundred nine additional housing units, but the recommended amount is 32,234, and I’m like, who is recommending this? I mean, who puts that there and says let’s more than double this? I’m not against low-income housing by any means. I have 5 kids, one still at home. She’s almost 30. Don’t tell her I told you. And one lives down the street, and they’re having a rough time of it. So it is not easy. I do have three other children. You know, I’ve represented all these kids and my husband, and they live in these neighborhoods that I’m talking about. Bob Jansen lives in a house that Norton Simon lived in. At least they just found out. But I want to say, you know, just give the state what they mandate. But. Don’t give more than they ask for. And I agree. Why over-comply? We shouldn’t.

Jeff Koskela: I understand that the state mandates us to do these things, and there’s a heavy fine if we don’t. It’s a bitter pill to swallow. Can you have a heavy-handed decision come down like that? But why are we asking the people of this city to take a double dose of this pill? Just doesn’t make sense.
I’m at the age where I’m supposed to walk a lot. I live adjacent to supermarkets and different things that I could go to, and I find myself getting in my vehicle and driving there for fear of my life. I mean, just because it’s a red light at Chapman State College doesn’t mean someone’s going to stop. If somebody’s going to turn left, they got their phone in front of them and that’s what they’re worshipping. They don’t look out the window and I’ve seen many near misses. I don’t want to be one of them.
I have compassion for people who can’t afford housing. It’s expensive. I’ve lived here for a lot of years. It was expensive when I came here. I was biting off a lot of debt when I did that. But I have no illusion that a developer is going to build a structure and rent it at a loss. I mean, let’s get realistic about this. These developers represent investors, and investors don’t put their money into losing money. So, putting 10% affordable, OK, it makes sense.
It’s hard to understand what it’s going to be affordable. We’ll have to take somebody’s word for that, but I’m really concerned about that. With all deference to my relatives who live in New York City, the reason we live in Fullerton is because it’s not New York City and we don’t want to become that. Those of us who have gone on Chapman Ave. trying to get on the freeway and seeing that structure that’s gone in over on Chapman with the promise that their parking is going to be shared with Cal State Fullerton, it’s a lot of wishful thinking and it’s only going to get busier. And we’re going to have structures like that all over the city if this goes through.
The idea that we’re signing a blank check that people, they’re going to develop these things, it’s a buy-rite? You live right next door to it. All of a sudden, you’ve got your single-family home, and the Queen Mary’s next door is not going to be an attractive picture. So I ask you to reconsider it. I understand the city would be fined if they don’t pass something. Let’s do the minimum that’s required. Let’s police it, let’s watch it, and let’s make this work. But let’s not take a double dose of this pill.

Jane Rands: I live in a neighborhood within walking distance of City Hall, which will be significantly impacted by the current plan. However, there is a lot of existing affordable housing in my neighborhood that we would like to preserve, particularly along Commonwealth Avenue. We believe it is essential to be creative with the proposed changes and to request the removal of the Commonwealth Corridor from this plan. Instead, we should focus on areas that have already been well-studied and are included in our general plan, such as locations near the freeway, like the proposal near the 57 and Yorba Linda, closer to Orangethorpe and Harbor. There are many opportunities in those areas. Over the years, many current landowners have expressed interest in developing those locations, and we should prioritize them before potentially impacting our existing historic neighborhoods that currently provide affordable housing. I want to clarify that I am part of the group Friends for a Livable Fullerton. Jane Reifer initially submitted a letter on behalf of our group, and I hope you have had a chance to read it. If not, I would like to emphasize that we are not opposed to affordability. In fact, we have actively expressed our position at every public meeting and hearing, advocating for additional affordability, particularly with the Housing Incentive Overlay Zone. It allows for “by-right” building if developers provide at least 10% affordable units, and we believe it is reasonable to request more. I’ve heard the consultant suggest that asking for more than 10% is unreasonable and that the Housing and Community Development (HCD) department wouldn’t accept it, which I find curious. I would also like to address a few points regarding the public input that was presented by the planning department today. During COVID, the housing champions met several times, but those meetings were closed, and the agendas were not made public. Community members were not allowed to participate, as those involved were selectively chosen. This limited the input from our community and did not meet the requirements for public engagement.

Elizabeth Hansburg: Many of you know me as an advocate for affordable housing, and that remains true. However, I want to clarify that I’m not seeking to over-comply with regulations. Rather, I’m advocating for a sufficient buffer to ensure we do not incur penalties for no net loss. While this concept may be unfamiliar to most people in the room, it is crucial for a small percentage who understand its importance. We need to ensure that our zoning numbers consider the reality that none of these parcels will be developed to their maximum density. For instance, if we zone an area for 60 units per acre, it’s likely to be developed at only 48 or 36 units. Development rarely unfolds as planned; it often involves various conditions and exceptions. Because of this, we must maintain a “slush fund”—a sort of accommodation for when development does not reach the anticipated numbers on paper. That is the essence of my advocacy. I would like to understand the reasoning behind the cap of 60 dwelling units per acre. Additionally, I think it’s important to acknowledge that many of us, as individuals or families, know people who are struggling with housing costs. The current housing crisis in Orange County is largely due to a shortage of available housing, which results in a median income requirement of around $120,000 per year for a family of four to qualify for affordable housing. This situation is unreasonable. This crisis is primarily driven by the housing shortage. If we had built more housing and not succumbed to the “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) mentality that opposes development, we could provide housing options for the next generation. Many of us wouldn’t be able to afford to buy our own homes today at current prices. For context, I am paying the same price for my 30-year fixed mortgage that I settled on 15 years ago. Homeownership is the best form of rent control, and we need to create more opportunities for it. Lastly, to the gentleman who mentioned the intersection of Yorba Linda and Placentia, I want to emphasize that [Senate Bill 330] prohibits local jurisdictions from enacting new laws that would reduce the legal limits on new housing within their areas.

Elsa McCafferty: I am here on behalf of myself and my husband, Greg McCafferty. First and foremost, I want to express my deep love for Fullerton. I graduated from Sonora High School many years ago and later from Cal State Fullerton. I feel like I have been a part of this city my entire life. Now, as a property owner, my husband and I are excited about developing property in this wonderful community. Tonight, we are here to request the addition of our property, located at 415 S Highland Ave, to the [HIOZ] designation. A few months ago, we attended the Planning Commission meeting, where it was suggested that our property could potentially be added at a later date. During that meeting, the consultant for the overlay project outlined the conditions that all properties must meet for inclusion. I’m pleased to say that our property satisfies all of those conditions, except for one. The reason our property does not currently qualify is that it has already been approved and entitled, which does not align with one of the conditions. However, the existing plan we have cannot be executed, which is why we are seeking to have our property added as a backup plan. Thank you for considering our request.

Mark Freeman: I want to express my concerns about the proposed overlay plan. While I understand the city’s pressure from state housing mandates and support adding more housing, there are critical aspects of the plan I’d like to address. Firstly, I believe that if this agenda item is approved as is, it will silence public input on developments in the highest zones. Currently, municipal code 15.76.060 requires a public hearing for projects like major site plans. However, the new language in 15.23.050 categorizes HIOZ projects as minor site plans, allowing the Community Development Director to approve them without public hearings. I urge the City Council to keep the requirement for public hearings, ensuring residents can voice concerns before developments affect our quality of life. Secondly, I find the proposed building standards questionable. For example, limiting heights to 30 feet within 100 feet of single-family homes, while allowing taller structures beyond that, seems arbitrary. Why set this 100-foot boundary? A six-story building just beyond it would not be acceptable to many residents. These standards need careful reconsideration to prioritize community needs over developer convenience. Lastly, I request that the zoning at the southwest corner of State College and Chapman be removed from HIOZ, as it borders single-family homes, including mine. This area is not suitable for hub-style developments that would overshadow residential properties. My wife and I moved to Fullerton four years ago, believing it was the ideal place to raise our three young children. These developments threaten the city’s charm and identity, and I ask you to reconsider the plan as it stands.

David Freiberg: I have been a resident of Fullerton for over 25 years and own property on Amrige, just a few blocks from the former Chevrolet development on Commonwealth. My experience with that project revealed limited community input, and our concerns were not adequately addressed. Though we secured some minor changes, such as reducing units to meet parking requirements, parking on our street has worsened, and we couldn’t participate early on due to our location within the notification zone. It’s vital that the public has opportunities to voice concerns at various stages of development plans. I support increasing housing in Fullerton, especially advocating for a higher percentage of affordable housing—more than the current 10%. I believe developments should reflect the character of Fullerton. For instance, the attractive three-story row house-style project south of the train tracks on Euclid aligns better with our community than the current Amplify development on Commonwealth, which has increased traffic and lacks aesthetic appeal.

JJ Ashley: The reason I moved the Fullerton is because, you know, paid twice as much as I thought fair for my house was that, you know, it’s a nice community with. Family values and reasonable congestion compared to other places and this new congestion infusion is ridiculous. I mean if you have 93,000 people without a car, they have to walk the streets if you have. All these units you’re talking about one or two cars per unit. Uh, currently it takes 3 or 4 stoplight changes to get through many of the intersections in Fullerton. And I’m speaking from a lot of different directions. And of course, we have no office street parking in many places. The idea that you can keep up with congestion avoidance or reduction, it’s not possible at all. There’s no way. You can have twice as many cars or additional cars of this magnitude without destroying the ability to maneuver around Fullerton. Even getting on the freeway or getting off the freeway is taking two or three lights now. So, you know, I understand that the board is only representing their own. The little sliver of Fullerton in the way they’ve adjusted these proposed developments that the developers have. Potentially made deals to where all the units will be in other areas of Fullerton. Not affect some of the board members. And I’ve always thought that when you have to spend 10 times as much to get elected as what you’re going to get paid there’s something a little fishy there. My effort in the future, because evidently these types of things are already predestined to go the way that they’re going to end up is to focus on the money and where it went, how some of these people got elected, and how they could spend 10 times as much as they’re getting paid to develop. Obnoxious projects like this. There’s no way that the city can handle this much new congestion. Doesn’t even make sense.

Mark: I’m a 45-year resident of Fullerton and my family and I live in the block just South of State College Blvd. bounded by Nutwood and Chapman, so this overlay area would definitely affect us. We moved to Fullerton because of the quiet residential nature of this city, and I think the people behind me would feel the same way. I would hate to look out in my front yard and see these high rises as it is now out of our kitchen window. We used to be able to see the mountains and then Cal State Fullerton has not been a very good neighbor. We now look at a parking structure and so we don’t want to be surrounded by high rises. Traffic is is people have already said is already overloaded in these streets, not Wood State College, Chapman, Commonwealth. And there’s just there’s sometimes you just can’t get out of your neighborhood and we don’t need to have more traffic. Also, the residents as well as the students of Cal State Fullerton depend on the. Businesses that are in that area right now, if those are all replaced by housing, we’re going to have to go farther away to get the services that we need. We depend on these. A lot of people have moved out of high occupancy residences or areas to areas like Fullerton used to be and and studies have shown that when you pack people together, things happen, crime, all kinds of different issues happen. Somebody earlier said we’re not New York. OK. And that’s true. People want to live in residential areas, not in high occupancy areas. And So what I’ve been saying is we don’t want to create tomorrow’s tenements today. And so I would urge that, yes, we do need the extra housing, but let’s look at the area we’re doing it in. We’re already highly impacted. By numbers of people and traffic, there has got to be other areas that we can place these that would work out well.

Jay Williams: I lived and worked and played in the city for 24 years. Founder of OC United and also an organization that we call the Fullerton Housing Alliance and I just wanted to say that I was also a part of the original committee that was working on the. Housing elements four years ago. And my reminder tonight is that I think it’s time that we passed this. Yes, it’s there are challenges and there are problems and I think it will take accountability and it’ll take the wise leadership of your staff team to do what’s right for our city. But it is the right thing to do. We need to pass this, and we need to move forward wisely. And, and, and you have a great team that’s ready to employ that. So I’m here in support of that tonight.

Matt Leslie: At some point, we need to do something about housing. It’s not this. I’m not against housing. I’m not against high-density housing in the right place. I’m not against well-designed high-density housing in the right place, and I’m certainly not against well-designed high-density housing in the right place. With a required commitment to mass transportation. It’s a, it’s a key integral part of developing a larger population. And that’s what we’re planning for. I’m hearing all about putting people in high-density housing. I’m not hearing how they’re going to get around. It’s, it’s difficult now. I’m sure you all know you’ve been stuck in traffic. Around here, and without real meaningful changes to our mass transit system, and additions to it, people aren’t going to get to be able to go where they going to go. This is serving developers, this plan. We have people who need housing just passing a huge up-zoning plan. That allows people to speculate on land and to make a lot of money off building really awful-looking high-density housing that is not going to serve the public in general. And it’s and there’s no reason that we as a city should give up our agency in demanding something back for this huge gift of upzoning that we’re handing people. So I’d like you to please remove the Chapman. Commonwealth corridors, unless we want to see them become the Chapman and Commonwealth Canyons. We’ve seen what’s built there and it’s not pretty. I don’t understand why we can’t require some measure of architectural integrity if we are going to allow this sort of up-zoning. I think we absolutely need to preserve some measure of local control. To allow residents to evaluate and comment on individual projects. This, this idea, you just kind of sign up and get to build something giant and people don’t even know it. That’s, I don’t know how residents of the city are expected to abide by that. I’d like to see multifamily housing that’s existing removed from the plan. But it’s already, it’s already there as affordable housing. I’d like to see affordable housing requirements increase to at least 15% if we’re going to allow this many new residents we need to require that they are within a range of affordability that is meaningful to most people. Just building more houses doesn’t mean that it’s affordable. One of the analogies I like to make is that building more yacht does not bring down the price of row boats. So finally I think that we have existing needs in the city, fire, police, emergency services, all sorts of things and parks. And I don’t see that being studied and I don’t see that we have a realistic understanding of the impacts on these crucial services that such an overreach like this with a 250% buffer would have in our city.

Myron Tumahjahn: I represent a nonprofit organization, Map Socal, with over 1300 members. My nonprofit represents the commercial real estate industry in Orange and Los Angeles counties. Many members are professionals. Industrial, office, retail, and mixed-use real estate include owners, investors, brokers, architects, engineers, general contractors, finance professionals, and other service providers involved in the commercial real estate industry. We have concerns over the City’s proposed housing incentive overlay zone (HIOZ) and potentially impacted industrial parcels. Several local members are long-term institutional stakeholders in the City of Fullerton. These companies are closely engaged in providing substantial community benefits at no cost to taxpayers. Such benefits include upgrading streets, sidewalks, and other community infrastructure, funding local schools and parks, and boosting the city’s property and sales tax revenues. The stewards of Sustainable Development are members who significantly contribute to the socioeconomic advancement of communities across Orange County. Our members demonstrate their ongoing commitment to decarbonization and renewable energy by constructing Leed-certified buildings, installing solar panels on warehouses, and investing in zero-emission vehicles for on-site operations. Deploying cool pavement technologies and using environmentally friendly building materials. We understand the state’s housing element requirements and appreciate our communication with the city’s Community and Economic Development Director, Sunayana Thomas, who has alleviated some of my organization’s concerns over potential unintended consequences, especially for industrial property owners emanating from the HIOZ. Proponents of good neighbor policies, which aim to balance the interests of the city, its residents, and the business community at large, we encourage the City Council to be mindful of the city’s industrial stakeholders should the HIOZ program be adopted and go into effect, just as our members would not develop an industrial facility in or adjacent to a residential zone. The city should be careful not to allow the development of any sensitive receptors, including multifamily residential units, adjacent to existing industrial zones and uses. Such actions would suggest poor land use policy and create unnecessary problems between residents and industrial property owners where none exist today. We look forward to continuing our communication. With the city’s Community and Economic Development Department with respect to the HIOZ and potentially affected industrial parcels. And I’ve submitted my statement for the record to the City Clerk.

Stephanie: I thought it would be important to speak. Although we are compassionate for those who need homes, I thought that it would be important to shed some light on the back end of what goes on as a business owner. I have a business. With my fiancee right here, it’s called Sweet Stop. So kind of what we do is throughout the year we raise funds for the community. We do farmer’s markets for the cities, we do festivals for schools such as Fern Dr. St. Juliana, and St. Mary’s. The Raymond Elementary, and Troy High School, we do their senior trips and their 8th-grade trips. We raised so much funds. We’re talking about thousands. Although it does benefit myself and my family to stay in business and not just demolish it for those high rises or for those homes. For the people that are in need as well, it does benefit the schools. That’s kind of what happens on the back end. We raise these funds for the kids, for churches, and so forth. And that’s what keeps the city of Fullerton running. And that’s just us that I can think of. Our business ourselves. I know our neighboring businesses too. We do a lot for the community. So it’s not just as easy as demolish and build. It’s also getting rid of all that we do for the schools churches and so forth. I think it goes beyond that. What I’ve heard so far is concerning such as the traffic and the population of the Fullerton residents, but that’s on our end as well. I’m shedding light on that as a business owner, and how that affects the community as well. It will affect the schools. My business alone raised thousands for the kids. We are well known. We are a small business, but we are very well known for doing a lot for the schools and the kids and churches and stuff like that. It would be hard for us to start again. Therefore, it would impact those schools and everyone that we help.

Todd Harrison: Since there were no calls for comments on the senior committee, I’m slipping in my thank you for all the at-large appointments now. Now on the topic. Rather than one more heartfelt repeat of what so many have well said. Tonight I’m going to pick on something missing, though I suspect Maureen may touch on this too. What do I not see in these massive stacks of information? Anything about accommodations for the increasing needs for housing, the disabled, and the senior population. That’s me. Nothing about ground level. Or close to entrances, disabled senior low-income units. Nothing about aging in place or design for livability. Overall we are seeing more people crowding into smaller places with more and more housing being multi-generational whether intended for that use or not. Grandma can’t afford it. Live in a place of her own and the kids can’t afford an apartment even if they work two jobs. The senior committee is going to be taking this up, but meeting only four times a year. Anything we do takes a long time to City Council is a bit more nimble, though that’s not often said of the City Council. No one wants to drive up housing costs with more mandated expenses for developers and builders. But simple, mostly cost-neutral changes can be made for the design phase of new construction that make what is needed possible. Nor massive building code changes. No extra cost materials we need to promote, and perhaps even at the city level. Mandate and awareness of these concepts. A house, condo, or apartment you don’t have to expect to move out of. Seems something worth promoting as a selling point, does it not? Designed for aging should be part of every building unit created. The old movement to a smaller place where the kids grow up model is broken by multigenerational living that is pushed by the housing shortage. Bear this in mind when you talk to the developers appearing right here to push for approval of their projects. State for pushing this down to the local level.

Maureen Milton: Independent advocate for the handicapped, disabled, mobility challenged, and little people. First of all, the housing that is going to be built. I’m just so afraid that we are going to have nothing but 10 or. Project Housing and I feel that all these developers have been reincarnated from the Cold War era in Germany. There is no warmth, no love in the designs, no comfort, no beauty. It’s just box, box, box. This is what we need. And the parking. We’ve got to work on underground parking. Yes, it costs money, but everything on the face of the earth, including the air that many people have to breathe, costs money. You put that into the building after it’s done, but there is no room. And to take 5. One of the developers took 5 parking spaces or five homes on the ground floor that would be available for the developmentally challenged. They took them away to put parking spaces. Parking has to go underground. There’s no other way. They have it in other cities, and why not here? But we do need, we do need love. We do need beauty. We don’t need to have concrete jungles. People are gonna say, oh, don’t go to Germany, come look at the development in the city of Fullerton if we’re going to have multi, multi, multi-stories. So please keep it reasonable, keep the city lovely. And by the way, a little bit about Norton. Simon uh, and it was, it wasn’t all Fullerton, his board of directors, when he wanted them to come out to Fullerton, they said absolutely not. Our building, building, the Norton Simon building is still here, used by Cal State Fullerton. I worked there for 8 1/2 years and loved it. And please keep our developments charming and lovely. We have been a lovely city for many, many years so keep it that way. Don’t make it ugly. I really appreciate it and make sure that you make room for the lesser of us there are a lot of us aged and everything like that so it makes. A lot of differences when a place is lovely, accessible, and livable.

Greg LeMond: I’m just going to ask questions that you guys are going to have to figure out. I’ve seen changes in this town. What happens in 2029 if nobody chooses to build any of these properties? You have to give the people the information so they can make decisions and understand stuff. School impact. Talk to the elementary school and the high school. Do we know what the impact is going to be? I mean, the elementary school is about 11,500, somewhere around there, maybe 12,000. But you’re adding all these units. What’s that going to do? What’s the impact on the schools? Very important to me. The commercial space that has been built. The units with commercial spaces are down below. Let’s take right across from Chapman. Nothing’s taken over. The end unit opened up as a. Sandwich shop at Jimmy John’s. It’s been 5 or 6 places. People don’t wanna park in parking structures to use this commercial space. Look at the coffee shop on Lemon and Commonwealth that’s been 5 or 6 things before the coffee shop made it. And you’re talking about mixed-use on this. I asked David to have Chris call me on Wednesday but have not heard from him.

Christy Sims: The area we are discussing is already impacted by the high population of Cal State Fullerton students living in the area, as well as even more students who are driving to and from the campus. My understanding is that the proposed overlay would make it possible for these properties to be built out at height as high-density housing according to the interest of the property owner, owners or developers they sell to. My concern is that all of these properties would fall under the guidelines of the overlay, which will allow not only for high density but also for probably very little parking and architecture. And other elements that would not be friendly to the residents of Fullerton. Also, we can look at the questionable environmental impact that these properties would have if they were fully developed. And as was corrected tonight, it seems that the environmental impact would be significant. So I ask that you not include as many properties in this overlay that are currently included because the area just will not sustain them. We’ve heard about the transportation. The stores and all the things that just could not be sustained if even a portion of these properties were built out as this overlay indicates. So please downsize and make it more realistic for the area.

Randy Smith: I’ve been a resident here for almost 25 years and I live in the area just South of Chapman, across from the large complex going up right now by the freeway. I agree that this is a very challenging proposition that you have before you with state mandates and the like, and housing is a necessary item. I agree that low-income housing can be accomplished. I’m a small developer myself and I’m working on a couple of projects in the city currently. The thing that I have trouble with is, for example, with regards to a few years ago now, when I came to this podium to speak, Cal State Fullerton had given to the city about $500,000 approximately per parking structure for traffic mitigation. When I came up to ask the question with regards to what are you doing with a million and a half dollars, the answer was, well, we’re adjusting the timing on the traffic lights. I’m sorry, but that doesn’t work. It hasn’t worked. Again, I’ve been here for about 25 years right now and I see the traffic on a daily basis stacked up. From the freeway to Commonwealth where it curves around to Chapman, as well as even going further back so that that intersection there is constantly a jam up and people actually just getting stuck in the middle of the intersection. So I have only one request. For the challenge ahead of you and that is traffic mitigation along Chapman Ave.

Sean Payton: I’m really glad to see there’s a lot of people that showed up, especially the people that showed up about the Chapman corridor overlay. And why it’s a bad idea. I won’t repeat their arguments. They were good arguments. You already heard them. I want to bring up two other points. The first is the whole idea of going above and beyond the state mandates. All you’re doing is creating more mandates in the future if we add 32 units and those 32  get built. Maybe they won’t, but if they do get built we don’t get an attaboy from the state. Our mandates for construction are based on the existing population. If we have 30,000 people then we now have to add 3000 additional units for the next overlay 15 years from now. So going above and beyond is just going to create headaches for the children of all the people who are sitting here right now. So don’t do it. The other thing I wanted to talk about is affordability and I really want to just kind of hit on that the lack of housing in this state is a problem. But the biggest issue is the cost of construction. At the cost of the land, the cost of construction. I’ve got an estimate here. To build an apartment building in Southern California, with 50 units, you’re going to need to come up with $245,000 per unit. For a 700-square-foot unit, that’s $2,600 a month in rent. Just to cover the cost of the building, not to cover the cost of the lien, not to cover the cost of entitlements, not to cover the costs of acquisition, just the building. So the idea that over-building and adding these 10s and 20s of thousands of people in this city is going to make Fullerton more affordable, it’s simply not.

Albert Hansberger: A place I’d like to go, which was actually on the housing Element document, the large 537-page piece that was published and is being asked to be approved tonight. This is actually an item that was written by someone outside it’s the Housing Action Coalition. Friends would be page 286 and above, a couple of pages below that, above that, probably about 30 pages actually in total, but they raise numerous issues regarding the current plan which they find procedural fault with, particularly regarding parcels included in HIOZ, which are not suitable and available, nor have realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment. Many government codes are noted in support of their positions and questions. Numerous of these issues raised have legal implications for the plan as written. Considering the thorough and well-documented e-mail submitted, I’m hopeful that the issues raised are being reviewed and addressed as appropriate. In regards to parcel suitability for the HIOZ conclusion from their document page 2, the City must show realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment by making formal findings that the existing use does not impede residential development. The city must analyze the evidence, existing leases, market demand for existing uses, and anything else that would indicate whether existing uses will continue, which is a government code. I decided to test a potential parcel which is 176 which is the Chipotle Shopping Center on State College and Chapman and see if accepted to be directly behind my home. So a little personal interest there. To see if it would meet the legal guidelines as outlined in other words, suitable and available. I called the property management company and confirmed the center is 100% occupied. 10 businesses with long-term leases. The first to expire is not until mid-2026. They’re pleased with the properties’ performance. From the information I gathered, this parcel does not appear to have realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment for this and for many other reasons. I’m asking you that this parcel be removed from the HIOZ.

Brian Hansberger: I’m here just to briefly speak on a zoning request. The area around Cal State Fullerton already has and has planned to have more of the highest density in the high rises after downtown. The orange areas, particularly the area West and South of Cal State Fullerton, are almost exclusively R1 and large neighborhoods. I’m asking that the new R5 zoning is not allowed West of State College in order to preserve the integrity of the R1 areas. There are a number of multifamily units completed in the last few years, some currently under construction. And the HIZ rezoning will allow more. And the HOZ proposal, two of the closest shopping centers at the State College and Chapman where Starbucks and CVS are anchors, are potentially rezoning to R5 targets. As a residential unit growth continues. We need to preserve our existing centers to provide for all residents. Needs including food and prescriptions etcetera. I also hope that in that area we won’t be looking at high-rise units that are in very traffic-intensive properties, streets near single-family homes.

Carime: I’m a longtime resident and I’m here because every time I hear people when they talk about affordable living and affordable housing. And I’m gonna say this because when I went to a meeting, when you guys brought that developer to make those buildings up on Commonwealth, I heard people saying what kind of people are going to live there and I’m here representing those people. I have three kids. I am the kind of person that needs affordable housing. You need to think about your residents, the residents that come and advocate and make changes in their community. These kinds of people need those kinds of apartments, not luxurious apartments not sky-high. How much of that is going to be affordable and what’s affordable to you is not affordable to me or for my neighbors. So please people, when you guys talk about affordable housing, think about the people that’s your neighbor. You guys are talking about the Fullerton is that welcome and loving community. Do you guys think about people who need affordable housing? Because that’s not being a Fullertonian and I’ve been here for 35 years and I have three kids and I teach them to be kind and to be thankful and thoughtful about other people and their situations and not judge. I cannot afford a house, the $5,000 mortgage or more. So please people when you say affordable it means people like me, like my friends, we are volunteer groups that go clean apartments, that go clean parks, we did distributions during COVID, we were there for everyone. So before you guys say what kind of people? Think about me.

Jane Reifer: I hope you’ve received the e-mail that I sent today. I am Jane Reifer with Friends for Livable Fullerton. You see us here often when there are affordable housing issues coming up. We believe in affordable housing. We’re often advocating even if the rest of the community is not, but we do not feel that this high on this program is the proper program to bring in the right kind of affordable housing. Because it’s based on giving blank checks to developers in different spots of town to build essentially whatever they would like to build as long as it meets this very wide envelope that you’re proving tonight, This project so wildly exceeds. It’s actually mind-boggling even to me, and I’ve been studying it for a while. It so wildly exceeds anything you’ve ever seen before and even what you may think that you’re passing. It wildly exceeds our general plan build-out. It wildly exceeds the focus areas built out. It even exceeds its own RHNA requirements by 17,000 units, which is lower than it’s been. And did you know tonight that you’re also voting too? Increase the multifamily housing zoning code. Did you know that was part of your packet? There’s no red line. You can’t compare documents that are not available to you and it wasn’t available to the Planning Commission. They complained about it but passed it three to two. Also, there’s a density bonus associated with this, so people do provide additional affordable housing. It can go up to. About 35% more housing units, I understand. So what you’re approving tonight is more than you’re expecting. And the environmental work is unbelievable. The water supply was based on only the arena numbers, not the additional numbers. So it’s completely defective. The fire report, I have it here, it’s it says that it won’t be able to keep up with what the new new. Demands will be the same with the Police Department, they need new buildings and so forth. The ER just waved it on just said ohh it’s OK no problem with public services. It’s just it’s just incorrect. The reason why there’s nothing about traffic is because it’s your purview to enforce the general plan which has so many different things like. The corridors, traffic, historic resources, and so forth. It’s not in an ER. I feel the same way you do, Mayor. I’m sorry. It’s no, no, it’s it’s just it’s mind-boggling. It’s mind-numbing how much there is. I’d be happy to serve as a resource because I have come through this and seen the studies that aren’t there, the studies that are inaccurate. I just. And the commingling of the two different maps that just I don’t even I don’t see how you can pass the ER tonight. It’s just completely defective. And most of us think there’s noise got added by the way, as this is an overriding consideration that you can just give it a free pass. It’s nowhere in the ER – nowhere does it say noise is a significant adverse effect. But tonight you’re going to vote to pass that. I just, I just don’t know what to say, but I can serve as a resource if you would like additional information.

Andrew Lenahan: I have a great speech prepared tonight about our sham election in District 4. Well for that for another time. I agree with everything that’s been said here. Tonight I’m going to ask of you something that Nancy Reagan taught me when I was a young boy in the 80s, and that’s just to say no. Just say no. Just say no. Do the bare minimum. Do what you gotta do. I get it, you gotta do something but do the bare minimum. There’s a lot of people here in this room. Everybody in this room, we live here already. You know, we get, you gotta build housing, you gotta get more people into the city. You need the revenue I get, you know, I get like everybody else. Here’s something to think about when you do what you do and you hire your builders, This is kind of outside of the box. Who’s to say we can’t tap these builders to fix a mile or two a street? Can we do that, Mister Attorney? Is that something that’s possible to be done? I mean, why not? We got miles and miles and miles of St. falling apart around us. We’ve got infrastructure that is not going to be able to maintain what you’re talking about doing here tonight. My street lights, you all know were off for seven months. Seven months. They only came back on because I was a pest. It’s unacceptable and you’re going to bring in how many people? 304050. That’s the same. That’s insane. You all know what’s insane, right? I mean. That’s ludicrous, that’s crazy, trying to get whoever you tap to build these buildings to help us do some infrastructure repair. Our sewers are falling apart, we’ve got sinkholes, plumbing is terrible. Water comes out and we tap orange. That’s what I got.

Julie Rayborn: I was very overwhelmed with the 500 pages, and then another thing would come in with 300 pages and on and on and on. The maps kept changing. There’s this map, there’s that map. You can’t read it. I mean, I had to finally like get a magnifying glass to look at some of this. So I thought I’d look at the addresses. I couldn’t read that either. I literally had to take my phone and enlarge it so I could read the addresses that were in the HIOZ. What I wanted to do was disaggregate some data. Where are these being built I couldn’t tell from the map. Some of the parcels are so tiny, so foolishly sitting on the couch for hours. I went through 743 parcels by their address and looked at their zip codes. This is what I found and I’m sorry I don’t have this for you tonight. I had plumbers at my house all day today. I did not get a chance to print these out for you but if you’d like them I can e-mail it to you. I went by zip code. 92831 has in the housing element HIOZ map an additional 209 parcels. Zip code 92832 has an additional 309 parcels, 92833 has an additional 169 parcels and 92835 has 3556.
This is extremely unbalanced when you look at the density that is there already. And these zip codes, HIOZ ZIP code 92832, the density is a little over 9000 people per square mile. It’s only not even 3 miles. OK. So it’s three times as much density as some of the others, but they’re also going to get the highest amount. So I’m really concerned if you’re going to be taking some parcels out, I would like you to look at 92832 and look at where those parcels are and what it’s going to do, especially to the Commonwealth Corridor. Many of the parcels are already existing multifamily properties. On the 600 block of West Commonwealth, there are 9 bungalow courts that are at affordable rates, so I shouldn’t say low-income because I don’t particularly know, but I do know someone that lives in there and they keep it very affordable. So those people would be displaced. I’m just very concerned that the numbers that there’s one zip code, in particular, has the lowest density plus the lowest amount of spaces going in their HIOZ. So I just have a concern that it’s inequitable and if people want affordable housing, they should be able to live in all corridors, all areas.

Zee:  I don’t know if the audience here tonight knows that when this overlay started the state cities had the opportunity to file documents and have the numbers greatly reduced. I think Anaheim was one of those cities. But if you could maybe inform us, you did inform me one night about we didn’t have staff and we missed the deadline, but some areas don’t have to come up with all this housing. My thought was we have some sort of legal representation to take on the state and turn the clock back. You guys are not housebuilders. I find it interesting that you’re told that you have to put this housing, but then I got to looking at this paper was started in 1978 – the Fullerton Observer  – does a great job of informing where our candidates get donations to run for office and I looked at a couple of the council members who were running for re-election, one with nearly 1/4 of a million in donations and another one with over $60,000 in donations. And I’m beginning to give it a little thought to the idea of who are all these people giving money to and look at that list. And I’m wondering if those are developers, why would people from out of state be donating to the re-election of a City Council member here in Fullerton? I can’t answer the question, but it sure raises my eyebrow to think about what direction this building may go in and who may be leaning in with their donations to have a foot in the door if the city is actually planning to build. Seeking some sort of referendum like Anaheim or some of the other cities got where they are only going to be required by the state to build less than 5,000 homes. I think it’s a good argument to say we didn’t have staff because of the COVID and our intention wasn’t to miss this, but it was our intention was to file that. Who would like to be considered like other local cities here in Orange County that are not required to build 13,900 places?

Maria Manriquez: I’ve been living here for City Fullerton for 32 years and I have seen that before. When I moved into the city, it used to be a more peaceful city where it was we could walk with our pets. At night, but now the light posts are not working well. And also in the alleys, you’ll see a lot of homeless people. So I know that we’re talking about all this building, this new development. And my question is what kind of security will we have in that building and what type of people are going to live there? There’s a lot of traffic as somebody mentioned by the 57 freeway on Chapman and State College. And as most of you know, at 3 or 4 pm, it takes about 25 minutes to get through that area. So there’s a lot of traffic. And somebody mentioned that we wouldn’t want Fullerton to look like New York. Well, it’s starting to look like in Los Angeles. Also, there’s a business called Mister Barbecue, and you’ll see that on Saturdays and Sundays, you won’t find any place to be able to park. It’s very congested, and I believe that we shouldn’t have this development for our city.

ZOOM callers

Resident: We have lived here for 14 years since ‘83. We found it by accident. We were living in Torrance and we were looking for our first house and I remember seeing trees on the left to the north. And I go, what’s that? And it was Fullerton and we loved it. We’ve been here ever since. It was a tree city. Then it’s not anymore, but. I understand about affordable housing and that we should put some units in, but I didn’t even know about this until a friend told me and I realized it was 13,000 I don’t know if the Planning Commission or who exactly raised it to 30,000 or more. I think it’s preposterous to put that many people here. We’re bleeding. I ride a bicycle. Every day, the streets are like cobblestones. The police are understaffed, the fire, you know the truth, the libraries hurting. I’m totally against it, you know, a little bit. But I told my wife, I said, my God if I don’t think Beverly Hills or Pales Verdes if they had to put X amount of units. Would triple that amount. Instead of just doing what is required and I don’t know why you think 90,000 more people potentially can fit into this town and we can, you know, have the infrastructure work properly. So that’s all I got to say.

Scott: as a long-time resident who lived inside different apartment projects in Fullerton and single-family homes I want to make sure you received my two-page communication this evening. There are four quick points. Basically, if you accommodate the 32,000 housing units, I guess now it’s 29,000. You will not be able to reduce this number in the future. The HIOZ parcels you approve tonight will be in perpetuity and can never be changed. And this is confirmed by staff. Secondly, at a maximum building height of three stories, if it’s going to be by-right, there’s no city I’m aware of that is zoning code allowing unlimited building types is by-right without a public hearing the city survey in the Staff report back in 2021 when they started this process there were 4 cities. They had a rise of two-story, three stories, and four-story building height limits. They have an unlimited height limit absolutely we’re planning practice #3 all the parcels along Commonwealth and Chapman should be removed. Too much of a broad brush HIOZ that’s on your property running arterial because there really hasn’t been a long-time study of the effects of HIOZ development on a variety of commercial and housing along these arterials. It should be removed. And then lastly, there are a couple of additions to the HIOZ code I’d recommend. Cities use them. They would comply with the general plans. Uh, public outreach. And lastly, the reason there was a chart presented by staff tonight is that they D methodology and analysis. Worst case scenario. The reality is baseless analysis could happen in both politics and the build-out of 32,000 units if the head method is far less than Sigma. And maybe the higher zoning language needs an overhaul so HP can realize more units. Something’s off here and I don’t know. And then what about the non-VR impact graphics in the corridors and historic structures? Lastly if the housing? Have been going on in 2019 you’d think we’d be seeing a plan tonight. That stellar button that tonight though. However, when staff is still making last-minute changes been Planning Commission recently held two public hearings about the plan and approved it. Something that’s broken about this planning process we need to start fresh. Again get this right, even if it says that the penalty, the long-term effects, and this drawing in perpetuity is poor planning.

Ian Barker: I live in South Fullerton actually in that 92832 zip code that was mentioned earlier so thank you to the to the woman who brought that up I want to thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. I am in my 30s and I think it’s unfortunate that people my age, friends of mine with good jobs so in another place –  would be purchasing their first home often can not only not afford a home, but can’t even imagine a time when they might be able to. Our school districts are shrinking. Our young people are moving to faraway places where they’re building housing. In the next census, California will likely lose additional political representation because of our lack of housing. I have a four-year-old daughter and a four-month-old.  And when they grow into adults, I’d like them to be able to afford a home in the place they grew up. Our entire region has a housing shortage. Fullerton cannot remain preserved in amber. In order to be a thriving city that welcomes new businesses and new neighbors and is positioned for the future, we need to give property owners the chance to provide additional housing. Tonight, I’ve heard the term “over-comply” and instructions to do the minimum required and respectfully, I think this is an opportunity for us, not a problem. The more freedom we grant our residents to develop their own property as they see fit, the better. Now, at the Democratic National Convention, Barack Obama said in his speech that if we want to make it easier for more young people to buy a home, we need to build. We need to clear away some of the outdated laws and regulations that make it harder to build homes for working people in this country. I strongly urge the council tonight to adopt the higher zoning plan and allow our city to provide much-needed housing without adding additional requirements or limitations, both because we need to do to satisfy state requirements and allow for the parcels that. Inevitably will not Max out their density, but also because of the right thing to do for our children.

Larry: I wanted to say I agree completely with the last speaker, but I don’t – I do agree with the speaker prior to him. We are in fact setting ourselves up for just pain and suffering in the future when you put three times virtually the amount that the state is demanding, which is already unreasonably high, you are just begging for a higher mandate going forward. So I would agree with every one of the points he made. I just want to go ahead and hit hard that do not over-comply. And the second thing I’d like to remind you, as a former planning commissioner, is all of this parking that we assume isn’t needed because we’re going to have multi-purpose buildings where everyone will just go downstairs and get their coffee and their groceries is a pipe dream. It never materializes. All of those units around town are mostly vacant. And the one thing I would say is you’ve got to put some very strong parking requirements in there because as one gentleman mentioned before, when you don’t, it all flows onto the streets around it and I’m in an area that’s not likely to be backed by a bunch of high-density housing, but nonetheless, I feel for the people that are along Commonwealth and along Chapman Ave. and I feel the pressures of getting to the freeway just like everyone else does. So I would ask this council to reject the recommendations of the staff to send them back to the drawing board and tell us to bring back a plan that has enough parcels identified for the 13,000 RHNA number and nothing more than that. And let’s put in some of those other standards that kind of caps the height of some of these buildings because honestly that building on Chapman and the 57 freeway is a monstrosity we don’t want to see that built all along Commonwealth and certainly along Chapman from here to the Buena Park City border. So again, thank you for the time to let us speak, but I would encourage you to send this back to the staff. This is not ready for prime time.