About the Fullerton City Council – according to the City of Fullerton website.

The City of Fullerton operates under the council-manager form of local government. The five members of the City Council are elected by the citizens as the legislative, policy-making branch of City government. The City Manager is appointed by the City Council to implement policy and manage day-to-day operations.

Each year the Council selects one of its members to serve as Mayor and one member to serve as Mayor Pro Tem. The Mayor presides over all Council meetings and is the ceremonial head of the City for official functions.

As Fullerton’s elected representatives, the City Council expresses the values of the electorate in keeping pace with community needs and establishing the quality of municipal services. The Council determines service levels and revenue obligations through the adoption of an annual budget, authorizes City contracts and expenditures, establishes City service and operating policies, and adopts such regulatory measures as may be necessary for the mutual protection of the community.

Regular meetings of the City Council are held on the first and third Tuesdays of each month at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at Fullerton City Hall. 

Fullerton Mayor Nicholas Dunlap

representing district 2:

The funny thing about serving up here is sometimes you feel like you’re in a dunk tank. You know, you’re held accountable for these policies that are put forward that you don’t necessarily support or agree with or cosign. And yet, you’ve got dozens or, in some cases, hundreds of angry people who are, you know, addressing you via telephone, e-mail, and/or as was the case tonight, although everybody was pretty civil in person. And I think that’s sort of the beauty of our city and our democracy. At least that I’ve seen throughout public hearings.

And it kind of it reminds me of something. When we went through the process of redistricting a few years ago the guy who was the consultant who ran our public hearings for this process said that, you know, we had more people at each meeting than the city of Anaheim had in every meeting combined. And I think that’s really telling. And that’s part of the strength of our community. But it’s also because Fullerton is a place to be passionate about. First of all, I was frustrated and I think for the people that had followed this discussion, I was frustrated when I first saw the fact that we only needed 13,000 and we were forced to zone for an additional 3 or 4,000 as a buffer.

I pretty much hit the ceiling when I saw 32,000 included as that high number. And I understand that it’s driven by market forces and it’s unlikely that that we will get to that number. But the simple fact that it’s included for me is offensive. It is not something that should have ever seen any kind of report or agenda, what have you?

I’m certain that other council members have their own views. And so I’m going to reserve some of my other thoughts and comments. But my hopes are that we can greatly limit this and bring it back to the bare minimum that we’re forced to zone for. That we can remove State College, that we can remove Raymond, that we can remove Commonwealth and Chapman.

Because I think the important thing, the important thing to note, and I know Mr. Gibbon here has me beat by about 24 years, right? You said you’ve been in Fullerton for 65. I’ve been here 41, 42 next month. But you know I say that because I can remember as a time as a kid when, hey, everybody came to Fullerton and it was where people shopped, it was where people, you know, came to dine. And sure, there’s still those resources here. But the reality is over time, we’ve lost those, right? I get calls multiple times per week from people who are frustrated and tired of going to Brea or Placentia or God forbid, they have to go to La Habra. So I think those are all important things for us to take into account tonight. But my hope is that we’ll be able to get buy-in from fellow council members to bring this back to something that’s a little more realistic and plausible for our community. Because frankly, again, I apologize that this 29 to 32,000. The unit figure even saw the light of day it’s shameful it’s embarrassing and frankly a waste of all of our time.

Fullerton Mayor Protem Fred Jung

representing District 1:

Thank you Mr. Mayor for this opportunity. I want to thank everybody that’s come out here this evening. I think it speaks extraordinarily well of our community that all of us have, all of you have joined us to let us hear your opinions and where you stand in all of this. You know, I think every person that has feelings and a soul can really empathize with that mother who said that affordable housing is difficult for her family and her neighbors. You know, I wonder if she would be kind enough to push back on her state or state-funded affordable housing is north of $1,000,000 per unit. So when we think about what a median house cost here in Fullerton, it’s nearly $1,000,000. And we as taxpayers are on the hook for all of this affordable housing that the state is funding at $1,000,000 in apartment data.

And I wonder what our state representatives would think. When I give them this unique stat in the last several decades, LA County built half a million units. Last time I checked, that didn’t bring a single ounce of rent down, didn’t bring a housing price down. It didn’t conclude their homeless situation, which has now exploded more than ever. There is no single policy, as far as I can tell by any measurable metric, that supports housing affordability. Not one. You have to do a handful of things because in order to combat this crisis, we’ve got to do a lot, and have a lot of tools in our tool belt. But right now the state is just focused on huge high-density housing artificially thinking that it creates affordability. And they do not even pay any attention to the critical infrastructure that this kind of development requires.

Forget about our streets and roads for a moment, which are fairly poor by any measure, and all of you have driven on that. How are we going to get water to all of these developments? How are we going to get electricity to all of these developments? So it sounds good and feels good to say build more. And then what? So instead of the state funding these kinds of mandates, these unfunded mandates, and ridiculously ambitious things like high-speed rail, I would encourage them to do more with local government. Give us back local control. Let us get those million dollars. For units and allocate them in our community as we feel best, as we see best, rather than waste this kind of money that they’ve been doing through the last few years to make housing affordable. Mr. Mayor, I agree with you this evening. I won’t support anything that gets us past the absolute minimum.

Fullerton City Council member Doctor Shana Charles

representing District 3:

Thank you for the opportunity to address this issue. I am the council member representing the east side, specifically from State College eastward. I live in that area and work at Cal State Fullerton. On the nights when I’m not at the Council, I’m teaching, and I drive that corridor every single day. My kids attend Fullerton College, so I understand the concerns raised by the woman who mentioned traveling between colleges; that’s part of my daily life too. Navigating up and down Chapman is a regular part of my routine, and I can relate to what you’re talking about.

I want to clarify that I joined the Council after the Hub was approved, and I wasn’t involved in that decision. However, I have been in frequent discussions with Public Works about traffic mitigation, and I’ve also consulted with our police departments—both the Fullerton Police Department and the Cal State Fullerton Police Department—regarding traffic management strategies. Addressing traffic issues has been a priority for me during my two years on the Council.

I would like to commend the city staff for the tremendous amount of work they have put into this plan. With my background in planning—I hold a master’s degree in this field—I understand the rationale behind their approach. The staff likely considered that we need to review these plans every nine years. Since we are already halfway through the current cycle and will need to do this again in four years, which is relatively soon in planning terms, they may have aimed to build in some flexibility. This way, for the next cycle, we might not need to make significant changes because we already have provisions in place. I believe their intentions were grounded in a desire to benefit the community, rather than simply expanding Fullerton.

However, I do appreciate the public pushback on this issue, as it has influenced my perspective. I am cautious about giving the state the means to impose additional requirements on us. The comment made by one individual—that if we successfully implement all of this, we won’t receive credit for it and will just face more mandates later—is a very reasonable caution to consider. I understand the need for reasonable caution, and I genuinely appreciate that the staff has put together this plan.

I don’t know if we can go back to the slide, but in the middle of the presentation, there was a great slide that had the two different options with the full available and then the one that was more. Targeted towards trying to meet that 13,000 with a couple of 1000 buffers. If you assume that it’s the full thing, right? Where we would have a 15,000 kind of maximum and a 5000 minimum.

What we’re thinking about is really option one. That would be according to the state, might even be a little bit less than what they’re expecting for us, but we’re going to argue that it’s actually a little bit more with the buffer. And that’s kind of where we’re going to land.

My question for staff is, if we go with this first plan and look at the map, I will go over to the page. It’s on the 562-page document, and it’s page 131. So I don’t know if we can bring that up, but it is the site inventory if that’s what we’re talking about. And, my question for that is, I did see that on Chapman on the West side, it was pretty empty. Somebody mentioned that there was that one Chapman Park development.

But what was left out of that? What wasn’t included there was the Target development that someone mentioned at Placentia and Yorba Linda. And the reason why I’m bringing that up for those of you who don’t know is I hope you all go shop at that Target. It is a wonderful place. Please eat at the Japanese restaurant and the Korean restaurant. There are some great restaurants there too. However, the owner of that property has literally been trying to sell it for many years now.

I sat in the room with all of these folks, along with the buyer and our city staff, two years ago when I first got on Council. Is to find out what was going on because we have a Payless shoe store; by the way, I actually bought my bridal shoes 22 years ago, but it’s been sitting empty for about seven years now, and the building is still there, and it’s you know we have you know that parking lot is difficult at night, to say the least. I have to call our FPD because we have 30 cars coming to do an illegal car show and starting to do drag racing down Placentia Ave. I mean, we want to get that developed, but they have literally been waiting for that to be included in the HIOZ.

I want to clarify that I am one of the residents living within walking distance of the proposed development. I’ve talked to several local homeowners’ associations, as well as condo and apartment owners across the street, and they are excited about the addition of new townhomes and apartments, along with maintaining the Target store and restaurants in the area. That’s the plan.

However, it appears that the block in question is not actually included in what we would approve if we merely accepted the current site plan. I believe we should aim to meet the state’s minimum requirements without exceeding them. As a Star Trek fan who used to appreciate the Borg, I think “let’s not over-comply” is a fitting phrase. We need to ensure that we include parcels where developers are eager to improve the neighborhood, which is unfortunately currently a target for homelessness and illegal activities due to a lack of development. It’s essential that we approach this wisely and ensure those parcels are included so we can move forward effectively.

I also found it noteworthy that one of our property owners proactively requested her property to be included in the development plans, and I hope we take that into consideration. When reviewing the proposed ordinance, I encourage everyone to look through the details. The document is 20 pages long, which is quite extensive compared to our usual ordinances, typically less than a page.

The ordinance includes height restrictions of up to 100 feet, as mentioned by a couple of commenters, rather than limiting further development beyond 100 feet from single-family homes. I suggest we could apply these height restrictions more broadly and perhaps allow for specific exceptions that would require Council approval. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to have the Council review any exceptions to the two-to-three-story or 35-foot limits through public hearings.

Establishing these limits seems reasonable to me, and I believe we can move forward with measures that will bring us into compliance with state expectations. It’s important to note that a new state law, starting next year, could result in fines for the city if we remain out of compliance—potentially amounting to tens of thousands of dollars daily. We need to ensure we meet these requirements.

With these provisions, I believe we can reach an agreement and proceed with the development that our city desires.

Fullerton City Councilmember Doctor Ahmad Zahra, representing District 5:

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. There’s a lot to unpack here, so I’d like to share my perspective. I live on Highland Avenue, which is one of the densest areas in town and also has some of the lowest incomes in the city. I have wonderful neighbors, and I appreciate Karime’s comments. I think we sometimes categorize people unfairly.

However, my first instinct is to address the issue at hand, especially having lived on the South Side of Fullerton for 23 years. These neighborhoods are historically significant but have also been neglected.

If you look at the map, you’ll see that most of the proposed developments are located on the South Side, particularly in the southeastern part of Fullerton. These areas face significant parking challenges. In fact, the parking situation was so severe that we had to revise the overnight parking ban and adjust the street sweeping law. Some residents were not in favor of these changes, but they were necessary due to the ongoing parking issues.

Additionally, the South Side has the least amount of open space in the entire city, with only 10% designated for this purpose. This complicates matters further, as the proposed housing units will contribute park dwelling fees, which amount to $21,000 per housing unit. While this means we will gather substantial funds for parks if these developments go through, all the money will go into one fund. Its allocation will be determined by the priorities set by the County Council and staff, as well as the geographical distribution of parks and open space.

Currently, 90% of parks are located on the North Side. This is not a criticism of the North Side; I appreciate our entire city. However, if these are considered impact fees and 80% of the development occurs on the South Side, yet 80% of the impact fees are spent elsewhere, there is a clear unfairness in that distribution.

Right now, we have a parks master plan, which may be outdated, but it lacks a future-focused approach. If we are to address this issue, we need a new park master plan that considers how to include open space in dense areas.

We require a traffic mitigation plan that goes beyond our current strategies and includes overall improvements to transportation. I’ve been advocating for an inner-city shuttle or micro-transit system since I was elected in 2019, and we still haven’t made any progress on this front. If we want to encourage people to live without a car, we need to provide them with the necessary tools and means to do so, and right now, we are not doing that.

I have significant concerns regarding air quality. The current data indicates that the air quality issues we face are substantial and unavoidable, meaning we cannot easily mitigate them. Fullerton, already challenged by air quality due to nearby freeways and high density, has some of the poorest air quality in the region. This disparity is particularly noticeable when compared to the northern part of the city, where there is more green space and open areas. We need to develop a comprehensive plan to address and improve our air quality.

I remember advocating alongside community members for an urban forest plan, which we successfully implemented. We planted 500 trees six years ago in areas most lacking in forestry and greenery. However, we now need to do much more to mitigate the significant air quality issues we face. I would like to see additional plans to address this alongside ongoing housing developments.

This document is focused on future planning, and it cannot be solely about housing. It must also encompass other essential amenities that the city needs to provide, including transportation, parking, traffic management, and air quality. Quality of life is paramount, and we need to consider community benefits to ensure we’re investing in areas that are most affected, preventing the creation of concrete jungles.

I have noticed that some of the new apartment buildings are poorly designed, resembling concrete boxes, which creates uncomfortable living conditions. While I would like to address additional issues, this summarizes my primary concerns.

Regarding special needs seniors and individuals with disabilities or varied abilities, I find that the current policy actions in this housing element are lacking. The City states that it shall continue to encourage private and nonprofit housing developers to incorporate specialized housing in new construction. However, this wording does not require action; it merely offers encouragement. I’m unsure what this means in practical terms, as it does not constitute a concrete policy. I find this somewhat frustrating.

Additionally, regarding tenant protections and support, I would like to highlight that page 37 of the housing element states that the City will continue to provide referral services and information to residents. However, this approach does not adequately address the needs of people living in Section 8 areas or those receiving rental assistance. Many of these housing units are nearing the end of their designated periods (typically around 30 years), after which they may lose their affordable status and revert to market rates. We need a more robust strategy to tackle these pressing issues.

It is concerning that some low-income housing projects are expected to transition to market rates, potentially displacing many residents. Furthermore, it’s important to be aware that low-income housing can increase rents without any limits, as they are not covered under the state rental cap law (AB 1482). For example, at Ventana, there was a time when the rent was raised by 30%, and we had no mechanisms to protect tenants aside from raising public awareness, which led to a retraction of that increase.

We are witnessing instances of individuals purchasing senior residences and mobile home parks, and converting them into all-ages facilities, which displaces seniors without any accountability. This raises the question: where are the protections being discussed? Our seniors lack policies to safeguard their housing, and these concerns are not addressed in the current plans. Notably, many of these units are located within opportunity zones.

Opportunity zones mean that developers receive discounts, tax credits, and incentives, which is an added benefit for them. This information may be buried in the document, but it stands out to me. One of the biggest issues is that only 10% of the housing is designated as affordable. This percentage needs to be increased. Additionally, there is another important component missing: what about middle-income individuals? We have not established any policies to accommodate moderate-income families.

Consider the nurses, teachers, and healthcare workers at St. Jude. Where are they supposed to live? We are not making adequate provisions for them. I believe we need to reevaluate this situation and explore ways to increase the affordable housing designation from the current 10%. When I discussed this with staff, they mentioned that the state’s Housing and Community Development (HCD) department has approved this 10%, suggesting that anything higher might discourage developers. I would like to discuss this further with HCD and potentially add another 10% for moderate-income housing at the very least. I am also open to exploring options for areas and parcels that may be unrealistic for development and possibly removing those from consideration.

There was a gentleman who mentioned some areas that would probably never be developed, even if we included them. I believe we need to clean this up a bit. I have long been an advocate for housing and affordable housing, but I don’t see us meeting our affordable housing needs with the current plan. The numbers don’t add up. According to the state’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment numbers, which mandate 13,209 units, half of those must be affordable, accommodating moderate, low, and extremely low-income households.

However, we are only addressing 10% of the issue, not 50%. Mathematically, that doesn’t add up. If we continue down this path, we risk failing to meet our Regional Housing Needs Assessment numbers, especially for low-income housing. In the last cycle, we did not meet our low-income goals and only addressed a fraction of those needs while exceeding targets for market-rate housing.

This approach is likely to drive up prices because the market-rate housing ultimately sets rental prices in the area. If we build 90% market-rate units, the surrounding apartments will increase in price due to the higher rental comparisons in the area. I experienced this firsthand; my rent went up when new buildings were constructed near where I live.

I acknowledge that we are on a tight deadline, and I apologize for taking a bit longer, but this is a crucial issue for me. I want us to succeed in creating housing that is both appropriate and affordable, meeting our state requirements and community needs. I would like us to revisit this topic to explore how we can potentially incorporate more affordable housing options and remove unrealistic parcels from consideration.

Moreover, we need to start planning not just for housing, but also for all the necessary amenities that must accompany that housing. That is my hope, and I wanted to clearly share my opinion along with some ideas for us to work on. Thank you.

Fullerton City Councilmember Bruce Whitaker, representing District 4:

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Our state mandates are removing local control and essentially preempting decisions that are creating, in my estimation, severe imbalances overall. The purpose of general plans in the past was to facilitate balanced development over time, with a focus on maintaining the quality of living areas.

Unfortunately, our state seems to have adopted a “build it and they will come” philosophy, which raises significant concerns about the large numbers of new residential units being mandated due to the loss of commercial and industrial parcels.

In planning, there are cycles that occur, and we have recently gone through a time when it was considered optimal for people to live near their workplaces and have access to shopping in their neighborhoods. I worry that these new requirements will disrupt this balance, leading to longer commutes for residents.

If you remove a significant number of commercial and industrial parcels in the city and replace them with residential areas, you’re effectively removing jobs. This will lead to an outflow of people who won’t be able to shop in our city, which risks turning it into more of a bedroom community over time. Such changes have implications for the city budget, particularly regarding the ability to fund public safety.

What’s interesting about the state’s current approach is that it requires the construction of new residential units at a time when we have been losing population for the last four years. On average, we’ve seen a decline of just under 1% in population over this period.

I began serving on this council in 2010. At that time, the population of Fullerton, according to the census, was 135,161. Now, 14 years later, our estimated population is around 130,911, which shows that we’ve only gained a little over 2,000 residents during that period. Despite this, the state insists that we need to create a substantial number of new residential units.

The issue with their approach is based on the assumption that newly constructed units can be affordable. With significant increases in property prices, construction materials, and labor costs, nearly all new housing stock being introduced to our city is out of reach for many people.

Some speakers discussed the importance of existing housing stocks that are fundamentally affordable and should be preserved, especially in a push to create more density. Unfortunately, this rush to develop new market-rate housing often results in the elimination of affordable units, which are then replaced by much higher-priced options.

Moreover, certain inclusionary policies that require 10% or more of development to be affordable can create unintended consequences. When the requirement for affordability increases, it can drive up the market price of all other units and necessitate internal subsidies. This leads builders to hesitate or even abandon projects because higher inclusionary requirements can render them unviable. As a result, the units they create may become less saleable or even unsaleable.

Thus, housing affordability remains a persistent challenge. The question arises: where will the funding come from, especially if these projects are burdened by excessive requirements? There were also discussions about how city infrastructure could be financed by these new developments.

Of course, this drives the market rates higher as well. Any attempt to find free tax revenue gets built into housing prices, affecting everyone across different income levels—those who cannot afford much, the middle class, and those who can afford more. As policies raise the entire market, the outlook changes for all classes. We see rents and property values increasing at all levels.

This situation works to some extent for certain governments because property taxes constitute a significant revenue source for most local governments. Therefore, the incentives are in place to continue driving market rates higher. Unfortunately, our ability to subsidize our way out of this situation is non-existent. Overall, this seems unrealistic to me.

While I understand that the state is trying to take away local control, we are still the elected body. If we disapprove of state policies, it is our responsibility to express that dissatisfaction. We may need to slow down these initiatives, even if it results in fines or revenue issues. As the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem recently mentioned, the cost of infrastructure required to keep pace with this rapid new construction will likely exceed any potential fines.

I believe we need to reconsider this in several ways, primarily by cooling the fervor of these policies. Even if we were to build anywhere near the number of units proposed, let’s consider the population increase. From the year 2000 to 2024, our city had a population increase of 11,908 over 24 years. In contrast, with this plan, we are expected to increase the population by 30,000 to 40,000 in just 8 years. This represents a dramatic acceleration in growth in a much shorter time frame, which will inevitably bring along various issues, including traffic congestion and a decline in livability.

I believe we must insist that the state allows local communities to make their own decisions rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all approach. I hope this message resonates: we are not the ones initiating these changes; we can only nod in agreement or reflect the community’s dissatisfaction back. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Dunlap:

I would like to summarize some key points that have been brought up during our discussions. We’ve heard from all the council members, and there’s been a range of specific input. One common suggestion is to limit the number of stories allowed by right. We’ve also discussed removing areas such as State College, Raymond Chapman, and Commonwealth, along with addressing various environmental concerns that relate more to general planning rather than the specific high laws we’re considering.

Moving forward, I believe it’s important for us to find a way to address these issues effectively. Whether we agree with it or not, we are required to zone with at least a minimum buffer. This is the direction we need to head in. I believe it would have been more productive for everyone if we had focused on these priorities from the beginning and had them on the agenda tonight. However, we are here now, and we can still work towards these goals. I think it’s crucial that we try to move forward quickly.

Charles:

I appreciate your framing of that, Mr. Mayor, and I also appreciate Councilmember Whittaker’s comments. I wanted to emphasize that, regarding the addition of 30,000 units, the idea is not necessarily that all of these units will be built. Rather, we are zoning to ensure that the state remains compliant. However, we’re not aiming for that high of a number.

I think it’s important to consider the affordability issue. I appreciate what the council members have said about taking into account moderate-income levels, which are crucial here in Orange County. For context, low income is classified as a family of four earning $120,000 a year, while individuals with PhD.s working at Cal State Fullerton may earn just $50,000 annually. It’s concerning that they have to go on strike while the university president earns half a million dollars a year and lives comfortably in a nice house downtown.

Focusing on the working class is essential, and I’d like to address another point related to the ordinance. I believe we could emphasize or even make mandatory what Councilmember Whittaker was discussing regarding the advocates for the disabled community. The ordinance already states that ground-floor units must have direct street access, which is critical for emergency situations. However, we could strengthen this requirement; instead of saying “if,” we could mandate that a certain number of ground-floor units must have direct street access.

I think that would be a positive step, going above and beyond what the ADA requires, which often doesn’t fully meet the daily needs of people with disabilities. I wanted to highlight these important details. We are moving toward a future where we will review this further, and if anyone is open to proposing a motion on this tonight, I would be in favor of it.

Dunlap:

I think it’s important to point out that while we often hear discussions about city building more, the reality is that the city itself doesn’t actually construct buildings. Instead, it sets zoning regulations. This is crucial to understand, especially when we talk about how developers can create more affordable housing. Ultimately, it comes down to the cost of the land, and most of it is privately owned.

There are some parcels that are surplus land owned by the city, and we need to approach those on a case-by-case basis in accordance with state law. Typically, we prioritize affordable housing for these parcels. However, when it comes to private property, if someone approaches a property owner to buy it, they have to navigate market forces and current pricing. They will always seek to maximize their return on investment. As someone noted earlier, it’s not rocket science; it’s simply Real Estate Investment 101.

This brings us to the 10% figure. While we can discuss how to build more and impose mandates, the fact is that doing so may restrict or limit development due to market conditions, particularly with today’s land values.

Returning to the discussion, we heard comments from Council Member Charles regarding direct street access. I want to find the best way to address this with staff so we can tackle the various issues we need to decide on tonight. This includes approving a policy with changes or exploring other options. Thank you.

City Manager Eric Levitt:

I’ve heard several key points regarding this topic, and while there may be more, here are the four main ones:

1. Ground floor access for physically challenged individuals
2. Height restrictions
3. Remove the Chapman and Commonwealth from the HIOZ
4. Aaffordability.

It might be helpful to have the consultanting firms provide comments on each of these issues, detailing what can and cannot be done. This could clarify the situation further.

Dunlap:

We’ve all heard from the dozens of speakers, and we’ve heard councilmember comments, so I’d like to see how we can create a policy. I don’t want to hear why we can or can’t do something. I want to figure out how we get that into a policy that we can actually approve.

Levitt:

Well, if those are the four questions and you don’t want to discuss them tonight we’ll have to bring it back on December 6th. So, so it’d be one or the other. So what do we want to do?

Dunlap:

No, no, I’m saying, what I’m saying is, I want to figure out how we can like to walk and chew gum and like actually get it done so that people, so we don’t have to bring in dozens, you know, so dozens of people don’t have to come back. I mean, because we have to be here every other Tuesday, but there’s a lot of folks that have better things to do.

Levitt:

And I would like to try to address those four issues tonight and I thought the best way would be for the consultants to address each of those issues of what you could or couldn’t do to get those issues resolved.

City Attorney Richard Jones:

The dynamics are, as you’re all aware, simply put we’re trying to match the council’s needs with the community’s needs versus HCD and what you want to accomplish. It is hopeful that the experts can show you a pathway to accomplish this.

Dunlap:

I could not have said it better myself. Thank you. So, should we have them here?

Sunayana Thomas Director of Community and Economic Development for the City of Fullerton:

So we’ll go down the list. Gorev, can you talk about max density? I do want to bring out in terms of the Commonwealth corridor, the Orangethorpe corridor, Raymond, and others that are all in the existing general plan, that does identify them as focus areas, and in the objectives currently, they do say to encourage new housing opportunities West of Harbor Blvd. and for the Chapman corridor increased housing density. These focus areas do exist in our existing general plan, and these are the objectives that were approved as part of the 2020 plan.

Dunlap:

So basically, we could make no change to that?

Thomas:

For those sites, the Chapman Corridor and the Commonwealth Corridor, within the site’s inventory, if those were to be removed, that’s about 1015 hundred units that would have to be removed and replaced. I think just to point out is our existing general plan does call out for residential mixed-use development within these corridors.

Dunlap:

So, it would be more if its implementing what our existing general plan calls for, right, but without the HIOZ?

Thomas:

We’re using the HIOZ as a tool to accomplish the housing element.

Dunlap:

So you, you would be using the development standards of the HIOZ right? That’s what I’m saying. That’s the concern. I mean, we can, you know, technically we could keep it as is without having to go to the HIOZ and up zone everything. I mean, it would still be, you know, at least partially compliant in that sense because, you know, there isn’t like a site specific plan. You know zoning option if you will.

Jung:

Mr. Mayor, if I may, can I ask what if we did the alternative option? And adopt the HIOZ is limited to the parcels that are currently in the housing inventory sites and adjust the general plan and municipal code so what would that be from a unit perspective what does that take the number down to? Do we have a guestimate?

Jones:

That’s a working solution.

Levitt:

Now we have a guesstimate. So if you if you bring up the dwelling units back up, that is the higher. So they’re going to put that up on the screen. The mayor, mayor Pro Tem and City Council members. So when you look at the top screen where it shows the 5243 units to the 15,000 with the HCD methodology of 11,000, that’s what that would do.

Jung:

So we, we, we would cap out with that particular alternative. Data less than 16,000 units, right, Less than 16 at the top end and 11,000 at the end. It gives us our our buffer that everybody’s speaking about that meets your statement.

Levitt:

It does meet the state requirements, that is correct.

Charles:

Does that include the target development? I know I’m kind of harping on that one part, but it is hugely important. And possibly a source of a large number of units as well that we could swap out some other units that folks don’t want to include.

Thomas:

At the intersection of Chapman and Commonwealth, this development doesn’t count towards our existing Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). That is an important point. Although it is not reflected on the inventory map due to an existing application, we will make the necessary adjustments. If the project takes time or if another developer steps in to facilitate its completion, it is essential for that project to be included in the sites inventory. This inclusion would ensure that the development is protected under the development standards. Additionally, the new developer would not need to go through the Planning Commission and City Council approvals again.

Dunlap:

You know, the one thing I will say just because you asked, I mean, the problem with that other option is that we can’t remove Chapman State College, Commonwealth, some of the other problematic. I mean, I, I feel like there needs to be some kind of a hybrid concept there. Maybe staff can kind of educate us on that, but you know.

Gaurav Shrivastava a planner with Dudek:

I’m assisting with HIOZ, and I’ve outlined the four topics you requested input on, starting with the simpler ones.

First, regarding ground floor units that require street access, I believe it’s straightforward to add language that enhances compliance beyond what the ADA mandates. This seems like an easy fix.

Next, there was some discussion about height restrictions. Currently, there is a 30 or 40-foot height limit within 100 feet of existing R1 properties, depending on the grade differential between the parcels. I want to highlight this, as it may lead to questions from the Housing and Community Development (HCD) department. We have reviewed the standards, and they have accepted the 100-foot buffer with the understanding that there is no height limit for the remaining area. If we decide to impose a height limit, I will need to coordinate with Lily and HCD to determine what that limit should be.

Dunlap:

Let me ask you this: the height limit was specifically for by-right developments. Isn’t there potential for a certain number of stories to be allowed by right? Beyond that limit, there would need to be a general public hearing so we can hear from the community about any additional height requests. We’re not outright saying no; we are saying that additional height cannot be granted by right. If they want to request more height, a hearing will be necessary. I believe this was one of the concerns we heard about tonight.

Lily Rudolph with Rincon Consultants:

We have prepared the housing element and have been working closely with HCD staff to ensure their approval of the development standards outlined in the HIOZ. At this point, we are uncertain if HCD will consider the proposed changes as a constraint. They provided preliminary approval for the development standards in their current form, but we have not yet received formal sign-off from HCD. We still need to submit the revised housing element to HCD for their review and approval. Therefore, we don’t have a definitive answer at this time.

Dunlap:

OK. So that’s a possibility. It’s not No, it’s not Yes.

Levitt:

I recommend that if the council is strongly focused on height limits, you should include that in the proposal. Since we are still in December, and considering our funding deadlines approaching at the end of January or February, we can argue this point with HCD and see if we can be successful. If we are not successful, we can simply remove that one element later. However, if you don’t want to take that risk, you can choose not to include it. Ultimately, this is a decision for the council to make.

Dunlap:
I think that is perfectly reasonable.
Charles:

I think that makes a lot of sense and it addresses what the community is asking for with that.

Shrivastava with Dudek:

There was also discussion regarding traffic at the intersection of Commonwealth Raymond and State College, specifically about the possibility of reconsidering or swapping those parcels. I can say for certain that we cannot address this tonight; it would not be feasible to reassess and shift these thousands of units on the spot. This is something we would need to analyze further and bring back to you later.

Dunlap:

Can we do that December 6th?

Shrivastava with Dudek:

The reason I’m concerned is anything that will require a shift in the existing sites inventory has to be run by HCD before we bring it back for adoption. And I don’t know if that gives us enough time.

Dunlap:

I believe that if I’m in HCD, I see Fullerton as someone who has made an effort to collaborate with them. Fullerton had already done considerable work before getting involved and is trying to cooperate to the best of their ability. However, they also need to be a bit flexible. I think we should try to address this issue. I was hoping we could resolve it tonight, but if not, let’s plan to bring it back in December.

Levitt:

Another option is if you give some flexibility as far as where you would want us to try to move it we might be able to do that. I’ll look to the attorney.

Dunlap:

I want to share my thoughts on this matter. Someone mentioned that it would make more sense to locate the project near the train depot or areas with transit access, closer to freeways. This approach would avoid disrupting many small businesses and long-established retail users who may be displaced by the project, especially if it’s situated in the center of the city. Instead, placing it on the outskirts near the freeways could help reduce congestion. Those are my thoughts on the matter. If we could provide some general direction, I believe this would be a good consideration.

Jung:

HCD did sue us. What does this impact for our settlement if we bring this back early December or even later December.

Levitt:

Early December is part of the settlement agreement; delays into late January create more difficulties.

Lily Rudolph with Rincon Consultants:

We analyzed the impact of removing all sites in the Chapman and Commonwealth corridors and found that we would not meet our Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals. We can identify specific sites prioritized by the City Council for removal, but it’s crucial that we still achieve our RHNA even as we consider these changes.

Dunlap:

I believe our focus should be on the broader context of neighborhoods rather than specific sites. While we’ve made progress in retail, we need to recognize that changes could significantly impact our city’s tax revenue.

If small businesses are displaced or relocate, this will increase competition for limited retail space and drive up rental costs. This situation is complex, and although we are currently addressing housing, we must consider various factors to make informed decisions.

Charles:

It seemed to me that much of the opposition to even having a site put in a place like Chapman and Raymond or you know, that area of Chapman closer to State College was the height problem that people didn’t want a 5-story, 6-story, another hub being put in there. Now that we have already capped that we’ve brought it back down to being lower, being two stories. And remember again, these aren’t necessarily going to get built. We’re just saying it’s a potential, but that would kind of alleviate that issue

Jung:

I think they’re also concerned about traffic congestion, quality of life, parking, and all kinds of things as well.

Thomas:

If I can address this quickly, in the inventory majority of the corridor is Commonwealth, Chapman, and Raymond if you were to remove them, they would go beyond the site analysis that we’re doing and it would take a longer time than one week to analyze it. If that entire corridor is removed then we would have to do a much more thorough analysis. If there were specific parcels or specific areas, we could remove, it’s easier for us to swap those out. Without those corridors, you’re leaning toward the industrial sites. I believe that HCD will find other constraints that would make it unsolvable for us to use those as RHNA units for at least 1500 units. So those are challenges that we’re perceiving with that exercise. If we did have to go for it, we’d have to do a full new analysis on additional parcels that we could include within the parameter.

Rincon Consultant:

We did a, a quick analysis today and removed all the sites along Chapman and along Commonwealth and we’re showing a deficit of about 1500 units that we would need to make up.

Jung:

Could you clarify for the public? Is that number based on the alternative minus the corridors?

Dunlap:

No, sorry. It’s actually based on our required minimum and then the buffer that we were required to maintain as part of this compliance with HCD.

Rincon:

We would have a deficit of 1500 units. I don’t have that exact number. It’s based on the requirement and then getting credit for the plan of approved units, credit for the ADUs, and then adding in all sites, which would be about 8600 units. That’s not including the buffer.

Dunlap:

I think what we need to look at, because we could focus on a number and we can focus on the comments and the feedback that we’ve gotten tonight and in other meetings and we can figure out a path forward. But, you know, if we’re bouncing back and forth between plans and ideas and concepts and this is this, this is that. We need to focus on the minimum that’s required, which I mean it’s look we have, we haven’t voted on it, but it sounds, sounds to be unanimous that we’re going to be able to bring that down to like the 13,000 figure plus the minimal buffer. So I think from there we look at removing Raymond, we look at removing State College, Chapman and Commonwealth and then we look at the impact of that and I think that’s where we’re in a position to go back with some of the other comments that we’ve made to go to HCD and say, hey, what do you think about this and can you work with us on this?

Jung:

December 3rd, next meeting, can we bring this back with more of the surgical precision in terms of what we’re looking at numbers wise and then give us a few options before we presented to HCD.

Levitt:

Because of all the components they have to analyze I can’t guarantee it, but we can see if we can do that.

Jones:

We can always go to a special meeting.

Dunlap:

I’m fine with that.

Zahra:

Yes. So I do agree that maybe taking a look at these surgically, I think we can’t at this point take out blocks. So that is going to require some time. I also want to consider some of the areas that are impacted by traffic and see those parcels by selecting these parcels surgically. Maybe look at some of the factors that people are concerned about or that may have an impact on surrounding neighborhoods. So, you know, removing one parcel here, 1 parcel there could maybe minimize the traffic impact. Maybe those are the ones that could be looked at. The other one I would like to ask is about the affordability options if there could be an ask to add maybe another percentage for moderates in there if we’re going to go back to HCD and challenge them, then maybe that’s something we could include in there as well.

Jones:

I would close the public hearing and make a motion to continue this to a date and time certain.

This item is continued to December 3^rd, 2024 at 5:30 at City Hall.