The City of Fullerton was officially listed as opposing SB 79 in April 2025, a state housing bill aimed at increasing development near transit. But records show the City Council never voted on the bill, raising serious questions about how the city’s official positions are being determined and who is authorized to speak on behalf of residents.

SB 79 is intended to streamline the approval process for certain housing developments. Supporters argue it will help address California’s ongoing housing shortage, while critics frame it as a threat to local control over land use.

I began looking into the issue after seeing Fullerton listed in the official Senate committee analysis as one of several cities in opposition. I emailed my council member, who confirmed that no vote had taken place. To verify this, I reviewed every City Council agenda and set of minutes from the time SB 79 was introduced to the date the opposition was recorded. There was no record of any vote or discussion authorizing the city’s position. I then requested the source of the opposition and was provided a letter from Fullerton Mayor Jung, submitted on official city letterhead.

When these findings were presented to the mayor and city manager, they responded that this process was consistent with city procedures. According to the city manager, the authority to take positions on legislation is delegated to staff and external lobbyists, primarily Townsend Public Affairs, through Fullerton’s annual legislative platform. He cited general references to “local control” within that document as justification for opposing SB 79 and suggested that it would be impractical for the City Council to vote on every individual bill.

This raises a broader concern about the limits of that delegation. While it contains language in favor of local control, it also includes statements that would suggest support for SB 79, such as:
• “Support housing measures that promote the development and enhancement of safe and affordable housing and accessible housing within the City for all economic segments of the population, while still retaining local control.”
• “Support measures and reforms which streamline the CEQA process for the development of housing and mixed-use infill projects that support transit.”
• “Support funding for… transit-oriented development.”

Despite these provisions, the city was listed in the official Senate analysis as opposing SB 79. The legislative platform is broad and open-ended, so almost any position can be justified. In effect, this allows the city manager and Townsend Public Affairs to decide what Fullerton supports or opposes in Sacramento, regardless of whether the City Council or residents were ever informed.

At no point was this decision reviewed or voted on by the elected City Council, as confirmed by a formal public records request. Yet in Sacramento, that letter was interpreted as an official city position. This creates a disconnect between legislative records and the actual decisions, or lack thereof, made by elected representatives.

The concern here isn’t just about one bill. It’s about a process that allows staff and consultants to speak for the city without public oversight or council input. While it’s understandable that cities cannot feasibly vote on every bill, there is a difference between administrative delegation and political representation. When an official city position is being communicated to state legislators, the public deserves a transparent process and elected oversight.

This is not an accusation of bad faith. It’s a procedural issue—one that has real implications for how local governments are represented at the state level. Fullerton’s residents elect a City Council to make these decisions. That principle should be preserved, even in the details of intergovernmental advocacy.