City Council meeting January 7, 2025

Council member Jamie Valencia assured the council and attendees, “I have reviewed and am familiar with all the materials previously submitted and the prior hearings held on this matter. I’m fully prepared to participate and vote today.”

Director of Community Economic Development, Sunayana Thomas, presented the ongoing initiatives surrounding the housing element. “We are collaborating with our Planning Manager, Chris Schaefer, along with our consultants and legal counsel,” she explained. This discussion is a continuation of efforts started in December, following prior approvals of the housing incentive overlay zone.

Fullerton’s housing element is designed around four key objectives: ensuring adequate housing capacity to meet Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements, increasing housing supply and affordability, promoting sustainable and resilient communities, and advancing equity and fair housing.

The Planning Division is responsible for updating Fullerton’s Housing Element, a crucial part of the city’s general plan that requires revisions every eight years. The Southern California Association of Governments has allocated Fullerton a target of 13,206 housing units, roughly translating to 209 units per year.

Since 2019, extensive community engagement has been conducted to gather public feedback. Based on insights from Council meetings held on November 19th, December 3rd, and December 10th, several updates have been made to the housing element, including an increase in affordability requirements to 10-20% and adjustments to the housing site inventory.

Guidelines established by the council at the public hearing resulted in the affordability requirement rising from 10% to 20% for all high US projects catering to moderate to acute low-income residents. The updates reflect discussions in previous Council meetings and lead to important conclusions on housing strategies. Notably, any projects exceeding height limits, requesting reductions in affordability requirements, or seeking alternate methods to comply with housing needs will require Planning Commission approval.

The housing element outlines key chapters that include compliance with state law, analysis of demographics, assessment of resources and constraints, and a housing plan featuring policies aimed at meeting RHNA goals.

Currently, Fullerton has identified 205 parcels projected to yield 10,288 new housing units, taking into account existing credits of about 2,921 units. While this projection leaves a modest buffer of 111 units, it aligns with the city’s directive to meet the comprehensive goal of 13,209 units across varying income levels.

The city has established 18 policy actions, encompassing 106 subtasks required for implementation during this cycle, with annual reporting obligations to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

The housing element is subject to an environmental review that is exempt under the Government Code, streamlining its adoption process.

Tonight, the City Council is set to approve and adopt the 6th Cycle Housing Element, directing staff to submit the document to HCD for final approval. Should it be adopted, the housing element will be submitted this week, with HCD expected to review the document within the next 60 days, providing either a compliance letter or a corrections letter.

Public comments

Jane Reifer: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this item, which has gone through several variations. I appreciate you listening to the public. We have been trying desperately to have some of these issues addressed at meeting after meeting over the years. We attended almost all of them, but we felt unheard of. You listened to us, and we want to express our gratitude for everyone’s efforts in making this a better solution.
I would like to address the ordinance height table mentioned in item #2 of our letter. If you did not receive it, I can pass out extra copies. The height table currently does not include preservation zones, garden zones, and similar areas. We would like this to be revised. We believe it was simply an oversight, as it’s common for ordinances to omit designations like “P” for preservation. For example, if there is an R1, there should also be an R1P, and similarly for R2 and R2P.
We are pleased with the results so far, but I must say that this process has felt scattershot and haphazard. In item #9, we would appreciate confirmation that the city’s own traffic general plan, which is separate from the IR, along with the city’s historic corridors rules and historic preservation rules, will be adhered to. These critical elements have been overlooked repeatedly in various projects. We do not want this to be disregarded in any way. These rules are still the law of the city and must include considerations for historic buildings, such as the post office on Chapman Ave. and the bowling alley, both of which should remain part of this project. Mitigations should be made for the potential loss of these historic resources.
Additionally, I noticed a letter included in the appendix with several inaccuracies. There were actually two letters, and they mentioned the corridors that have had major bus lines removed. I have passed out the bus schedule to illustrate that the service frequency ranges from 20 minutes to 65 minutes on these lines, which is far from the required 15-minute frequency.
Unfortunately, the documentation contains numerous errors. Thank you again for your hard work and for bringing our community together.

A resident mentioned, “As the director indicated, the document outlines 106 policy actions, each of which will incur associated costs. The housing element includes several studies, workshops, and specialized studies, as well as educational materials and toolkit kits. There will also be more zoning amendments, meetings, and financial partnerships with developers and nonprofits focused on affordable housing. If this is approved tonight, it will commit the city to significant expenses—potentially thousands, if not millions of dollars. All of these actions are expected to be accomplished within the next five years.”

Curtis Gamble noted, “While reviewing the housing element, I realized that the section regarding homelessness is not fully up to date. For instance, the municipal code for emergency shelters includes language that hasn’t been revised since 2015. It needs to be updated to reflect the latest state and federal housing laws.
For example, Anaheim has 10 pages dedicated to municipal codes regarding homelessness, whereas Fullerton has three. This means we are missing about seven pages of relevant state laws, federal laws, and city ordinances. It is critical to revisit and update this information.
Additionally, the section on emergency shelters and recuperative care in the Anaheim municipal code references our local facility, where I reside. The operators and residents need clear guidelines to understand how the facility should operate. Updating these codes to be more in line with Anaheim’s would be beneficial.”

Council member Nicholas Dunlap expressed, “You know, I only have one question and would like clarification from staff. It seems that much of this was done quickly, and I want to confirm whether the historic and preservation zones are included. If they are not included, I believe we should add them to the plan, particularly, you know, along Chapman and Commonwealth, where there are several historic properties.”

Director Sunayana Thomas responded, “Yes, the historic resources and requirements are included. The review that Jane mentioned will still occur during the plan check. We will ensure that everything remains consistent with the general plan, particularly if there are new historic properties that fall within the 50-year timeframe or longer. As for the scenic corridors that she raised, the general plan does mention them, but it does not yet have established guidelines. That is something we will need to develop as well.”

Passed unanimously.