The residents home before changes.

A Fullerton homeowner’s legal battle over front-yard landscaping and parking rules demonstrates why city ordinances must include provisions for reasonable accommodations for residents facing hardships. His struggle underscores the broader failure of rigid codes to address accessibility, housing, and mobility challenges in diverse, high-density neighborhoods. This case is a call for municipalities to ensure their regulations can adapt to legitimate individual needs, especially for senior citizens, people with disabilities, and those experiencing unexpected life changes.

“This is the house that I purchased to die in, I want to live here for the rest of my life. I need to be comfortable doing it. As I continue to age and my mobility decreases, my guess is that I will eventually need a handicap ramp to navigate my front entryway,” said the resident.

The dispute began after the resident, a 63-year-old nurse and senior citizen who has worked days and nights to buy his home, undertook front lawn re-landscaping and expanded his driveway for parking to accommodate his limited mobility and leave accessible parking for the two Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (Jr. ADU) that he built in the back of his house. The modifications included cementing portions of the yard for additional parking. Street parking is scarce, and many neighbors in the crowded cul-de-sac park on their lawns.

Bumper to bumper parked cars line the streets.

However, city officials refused to sign off on his second Jr. ADU permit, citing municipal codes that prohibit paving over front-yard landscaping for parking, except in approved driveways. In August 2024, the Planning Manager reiterated that city code requires substantial green space in front yards and that the new cemented area must be removed for final approval. Rigid enforcement like this demonstrates the urgent need for ordinances to allow exceptions or variances when residents face hardships such as limited mobility or inadequate accessible parking. Without reasonable accommodations, city codes can inadvertently harm those they are meant to protect, undermining both community welfare and individual dignity.

The chain link fence impeded easy access to his home.

The resident expressed frustration with conflicting and confusing parking ordinances and the city’s lack of timely response to his requests for reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Despite petitioning for ADA modifications due to declining mobility, and requesting a handicap curb in 2019, he was told his property did not qualify because of existing onsite parking—a technicality that ignored the practical barriers he faced. Such rigid interpretation is precisely why cities must build clear, accessible pathways into their codes for requesting and receiving reasonable accommodations.

The response from Traffic Engineer Tim Brevoort was that “After initial review of the property, it does not meet our requirements for handicap only parking. This is due to the availability of onsite parking, which is the shortest distance to the front door. Additionally, the front porch and driveway do not meet ADA requirements, depending on the disability.”

The onsite parking in question was a narrow strip of concrete with a wall on one side and a railing on the other, leading to the back of the house, where his permitted Jr. ADU was, and to his second Jr. ADU, which was awaiting final approval. To accommodate his mobility challenges, he removed the railing between his house and the driveway, still allowing access to the Jr. ADUs. It was a solution that made sense and did not take up already precious street parking.

The resident found a parking solution that also made it easier to get in his home.

“I wanted to be part of the solution to the housing crisis, but the city is making unreasonable restrictions,” the homeowner said. His plan provided a practical solution for both himself and his tenants, easing street parking congestion and improving accessibility without detracting from the neighborhood. When city codes refuse to recognize or adapt to such positive outcomes, everyone loses. Reasonable accommodations—be they exceptions, amendments, or variances—are not only a legal necessity under disability law, but a moral imperative for any city that values inclusivity, innovation, and community.

Compounding the issue, the homeowner received outdated property covenants from 1947 containing discriminatory language. Although these were successfully removed from the HOA’s covenants in August 2024 with help from Council Member Ahmad Zahra and Housing Manager Daniel Valdez, the homeowner now faces new restrictions and has limited his rental options, resulting in lost rental income.

Community & Economic Development Director Sunayana Thomas, emailed him with a list of suggestions in October 2024.

Parking Options:
Regarding parking, your original plans were approved under State guidelines, which prevent us from requiring additional parking for ADUs. While I understand this may not be ideal, here are some parking alternatives to consider:

1.    Tandem Parking: You could have tandem parking on-site and use additional spaces on the west side of the street, which is already exempt.
2.    Street (Block) Exemption: If parking is a shared challenge with neighbors, you may consider applying for a block exemption, as your neighbors might be willing to sign in support. (Linked below and attached)
3.    Early Morning Parking Permit (Pilot Program until December 2025): This program allows you to apply for an Early Morning Parking Permit for $50, valid until the end of 2025. Permits are issued in accordance with the program’s eligibility criteria. Details are attached and available here: This program allows you to apply for an Early Morning Parking Permit for $50, valid until the end of 2025. Permits are issued in accordance with the program’s eligibility criteria. Details are attached and available here: Early Morning Parking Program.

Over crowded parking.

Coordinating and organizing tandem parking with tenants goes beyond unreasonable. The reality on this cul-de-sac—where multi-family, multi-generational living is the norm—is that parking is at a crisis point. Neighbors park wherever possible: on lawns, several streets away, and even double-parking. Blanket city restrictions ignore these lived realities and miss opportunities to support residents creating practical, accessible solutions. Incorporating reasonable accommodation clauses into ordinances would give cities the flexibility to address individual hardships compassionately, without sacrificing overall community standards or fairness.

In a new email from Director Thomas on November 1, 2024:

Landscaping Requirements: 15. 17.050 H The front yard area of the lot shall be maintained with a combination of planting, turf and hardscape areas such that the total area of non-pervious surfaces shall be 40% or less of the total front yard area. The city approved the ADU and the removal of most of my backyard green space.

Dry scape of front yard

“I insisted the city send someone out to measure the area, since according to my calculations, my current cemented area was only at 37%,” said the homeowner.”

On November 12, 2024, Director Thomas wrote:

Your case planner, Andrew, came out to your property last week for a site inspection. His notes are as follows, which confirms you are not in compliance with the landscaping requirements per the code:

Beyond the original driveway (approximately 10 feet in width), the expanded concrete area in the front yard measures approximately 18 feet wide by 22 feet in depth (between sidewalk and planter) or 396 sq. ft.  Counting the driveway area (10 x 22) and expanded concrete area, the non-pervious hardscape area in the front yard is approximately 616 sq. ft.  The total front yard area is 60 feet wide x 22 feet in depth, or 1,320 sq. ft.  The maximum non-pervious area is limited to 40 percent of the front yard, or in this case, 528 sq. ft.  The expanded concrete area accommodates parking that does not lead to a parking space located outside the front yard setback (FMC 15.17.080.E.2). The appearance of newer concrete indicates that the driveway approach was also expanded.  

As a reminder, the Planning final inspection included a correction to submit an owner-occupant deed restriction for the JADU (FMC 15.17.100.C.3), and you will be able to rent out your ADU under a TCO [Temporary Certificate of Occupancy]. At this time, the previously provided alternatives are the best we can suggest, as this is not an exception we can review/approve administratively. 

On November 13, 2024, Andrew sent an email:

The primary issue is that the expanded concrete area (beyond the width of the original driveway) allows vehicle parking within the front yard setback (as shown in the attached site photo).  Per FMC 15.17.080.E.2, below, this does not meet development standards.  Another issue is that the amount of hardscape or non-pervious area (concrete) exceeds 40 percent of the front yard area.  This does not meet FMC Section 15.17.050.H.1, below.  

Per my site measurements in the email below, reducing the concrete area by 88 square feet, or 4 feet wide by 22 feet, would still leave an expanded concrete area of 14 feet.  This area would still be able to accommodate a vehicle parked beyond the original driveway, within the front yard setback.  The expanded concrete area may not accommodate the intended goal of additional on-site parking in the front yard area.  An expanded concrete area in the front yard may accommodate a pathway, but not a vehicle parking area.   

For reference, attached is the first email provided (to the contractor) for the initial Planning final inspection for the JADU.  The email identifies the issue of the expanded concrete area for parking and the need to submit a deed restriction for JADU.     

FMC Section 15.17.080.E.2 – Parking Standards: Parking is permitted in a front yard setback on a driveway leading to a parking space that is located outside of the front yard setback area. Parking is not permitted in any front yard setback area that is not an approved driveway.

FMC Section 15.17.050.H.1 – Landscape Requirements: The front yard area of the lot shall be maintained with a combination of planting, turf and hardscape areas such that the total area of non-pervious surfaces shall be 40% or less of the total front yard area. While these standards aim for environmental sustainability, they should also allow for case-by-case flexibility—especially when a resident’s proposal addresses accessibility, reduces street congestion, and enhances neighborhood well-being.

This case illustrates why city ordinances must include clear, accessible provisions for reasonable accommodations. Extraordinary circumstances—such as disability, age, or other hardships—should compel cities to provide amendments, exceptions, or variances to ensure residents are not unfairly penalized. In this situation, the homeowner’s efforts to provide accessible parking, maintain a visually appealing landscape, and comply with housing needs have been met with rigid restrictions, resulting in unnecessary loss of income and hardship. Reasonable accommodations are not only a legal right under the ADA, but also a practical solution for balancing community standards with residents’ real needs. By adopting processes for requesting and granting exceptions, cities can create fairer, more compassionate communities for all.