Residents submitted a petition on May 6, 2025, to stop the construction of condominiums off Harbor Boulevard and Hermosa Drive. Many neighbors opposed the project, arguing it would disrupt their quality of life in an area dominated by single-family homes. But the City Council had no power to block it.
Why?
Because this development was approved under the Builder’s Remedy, a state law that kicks in when cities like Fullerton fail to follow California’s housing requirements.
For decades, California’s population has grown while homebuilding has fallen far short. Since 1970, the population has doubled, but housing production has lagged by more than half.
The result is painfully clear: skyrocketing rents, worsening homelessness, and even less money for basic services like roads and parks. Local officials have long had near-total control over land use, but too often that power has been wielded to block new housing.
To fix this, the state created “housing element cycles,” which require every city to plan and permit a fair share of housing. Fullerton is in the middle of one of these cycles now. But because cities dragged their feet for decades, lawmakers added teeth: the Builder’s Remedy.
In plain terms, this law says that if a city breaks state housing rules, developers can override local zoning and build housing anyway. That’s exactly what happened with the condos on Harbor and Hermosa.
If residents truly care about local control, compliance with state housing law should be their top priority. Without it, Sacramento will decide where housing gets built, not Fullerton.
And unlike states in the federal system, cities in California have no inherent rights. Local power only exists because the state allows it, and the state has every legal authority to take it away.
Unfortunately, Fullerton is already repeating its mistakes. According to the city’s 2024 progress report, we’re nowhere close to meeting our housing targets.
So far, Fullerton has permitted just 3.8% of its required Very-Low Income units, 5.9% of Low Income, 3.4% of Moderate Income, and 6.8% of Above Moderate Income. We are more than a third of the way through this housing cycle, yet far behind pace. That means more Builder’s Remedy projects will bypass City Hall in the years ahead.
Unless Fullerton takes action now, such as rezoning around the train station, near the university, and in other logical areas, we’ll continue to face rising rents, worsening homelessness, and the complete loss of local authority. The choice is simple: either we plan for housing ourselves, or the state and developers will do it for us.
Share this:
Discover more from Fullerton Observer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Community Voices, Local Government, Local News
Fullerton was sued years ago and lost and was forced to build the SRO affordable apartments on Commonwealth because the city kept ignoring the quota for building housing in the low-income category. Hope that does not have to happen again
A hard pill to swallow is that the inclusivity of housing as a human right and inclusivity of low-income designated housing does not mean default inclusivity in higher demand, premium markets, including portions of Fullerton.
Ed Question: Could you elaborate on what you are saying here? Are you saying that there is no affordable housing built in the wealthy sections of town?
Sure! I’m not weighing in on whether this location is the right one; my point is that when a city is out of compliance with state housing law, it loses control over those choices. If Fullerton doesn’t meet its state housing goals, more Builder’s Remedy projects will move forward with very limited city authority. Put simply: if the location and type of housing matter to you, the best way to preserve city influence is by complying with state mandates.
I don’t think you are quite correct in your response. Builder’s Remedy is not available to a developer as a result of a city not meeting housing goals. It can be used if the required Housing Element of a city’s General Plan has not been approved by the state, as a result of the city not submitting that plan on time or submitting a plan that inadequately accommodates new housing.
To the best of my knowledge, Builder’s Remedy is not simply available because a city has not met its state approved new housing goals as specified in its Housing Element. I don’t think Fullerton has ever met its housing goals in the Low or Very Low income levels. If Builder’s Remedy was somehow automatically available to developers for this reason alone none of their projects would even have to be considered by the Planning Commission.
It’s not automatically available just because a city misses housing goals; it becomes available when the housing element is decertified, which can happen if the city fails to meet its commitments. Builder’s Remedy was weaker in past cycles, but that’s no longer the case.
Even with Builder’s Remedy, projects still go through Planning Commission and Council, but their authority is limited: they can only reject if there are measurable, objective health or safety concerns.
When has a housing element been decertified for missing housing goals?
Relying to myself here. I did find out that the city of Portia Valley had its Housing Element decertified last year. Yorba Linda put its Housing Plan up for a vote last year, warning the public that if the plan was rejected by the voters Builder’s Remedy could be used by developers (the plan was approved by voters).
On the contrary, the more affluent parts of Fullerton should not be exempted from pulling their weight in addressing the housing availability and affordability crisis. These lower-density areas contribute far less in commercial activity and sales taxes, as well as property taxes due to their homeowners’ dependence on Prop 13 subsidies, while also draining far more city resources for utility and road maintenance due to their sprawl, as opposed to the denser areas in the southern half of town. It’s time north Fullerton steps up to do its part in addressing our society’s housing problems. Being a homeowner in a wealthy part of town does not entitle one to determine who is and is not worthy of joining the neighborhood.
I am not sure why building condos tends to beget an unsubstantiated fear of lower-income people and/or criminals. There are so many flaws with this argument: affordable housing still entails a fairly high income for Southern California. Being relatively lower-income than your neighbors also does not mean being a criminal or having some moral flaw. And young professionals starting new families, who are more likely to purchase this type of condo, naturally haven’t accumulated the same type of asset wealth as their older counterparts, yet are no less desirable as neighbors.
Really, the only transparent argument against building these units is that existing homeowners, who enjoyed much lower purchase prices and wildly subsidized property taxes, aim to pull the ladder up behind them.
The Builder’s Remedy project you cite located on Hermosa (and two additional recent projects in Fullerton) were legally allowed because Fullerton was late in submitting its Housing Plan to the state, not because the city had not met its Regional Housing Needs Assessment numbers.
Builder’s Remedy is, essentially, a threat by the state held over cities to encourage timely submission of required Housing Plans. Fullerton’s was late this year in part because the city’s planning department inexplicably decided to combine two different RHNA cycle numbers in order to get out ahead of the game for the next required plan, untimely proposing the addition of more than 32,000 additional housing units in Fullerton. The council had to wrangle it down to 13k or so, but I believe the plan was already late at that point, allowing developers to get a few projects in under the Builder’s Remedy law.
I believe laws governing Builders Remedy were tightened just this year to require closer compliance to local zoning ordinances. But, yes, if a developer gets a project in with Builder’s Remedy, the neighbors are screwed, and Sacramento is always trying to force more construction on municipalities on behalf of developer interests.
“In plain terms, this law says that if a city breaks state housing rules, developers can override local zoning and build housing anyway.” Breaks state housing rules how? What broken rules allow for Builder’s Remedy to apply?
Elect clowns, live in a circus
Some correction or clarification is needed for this article. Builder’s Remedy is available for use by developers in cities that do not have approved and compliant General Plan Housing Elements, not cities that don’t meet their housing goals set forth by the state. I think a little deeper research is needed for this item.
The housing element is the city’s commitment to the state on how it will meet housing goals. If that commitment isn’t implemented in good faith, for example if the city falls too far behind, HCD can decertify the housing element. That loss of certification is what triggers Builder’s Remedy.
From the article above: “So far, Fullerton has permitted just 3.8% of its required Very-Low Income units, 5.9% of Low Income, 3.4% of Moderate Income, and 6.8% of Above Moderate Income. We are more than a third of the way through this housing cycle, yet far behind pace. That means more Builder’s Remedy projects will bypass City Hall in the years ahead.”
I don’t know where you are getting this information. As far as I know Builder’s Remedy cannot be used simply because a municipality has not met its housing goals. It can be used if a city doesn’t have a state approved Housing Element. If it could be used because a city was behind on housing goals, exactly when does it become an option for a developer?
Please take down this article or issue corrections. And ask your journalist to do more research in the future. This is not the way Builder’s Remedy works and is misleading to the public.
Could you clarify what your contention is with the description of Builder’s Remedy?