At the Fullerton City Council meeting on May 5, a contentious debate emerged over a proposed residential development at 111 W. Hermosa Dr. This discussion highlighted significant divisions among council members and showcased a chaotic decision-making process. The main issue was whether to uphold or overturn the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the project, which was being reviewed under California’s Builder’s Remedy provisions.

The Fullerton Planning Commission voted 4-1 to deny a proposal for a 32-unit, three-story condominium project on the vacant lot. Commissioners Tutor, Dino, Valadez, and Wehn voted against the project, while Commissioner Fleenor was in favor of it.

The proposed development was submitted under California’s Builder’s Remedy housing law, which sets limits on when cities can refuse housing proposals.

Assembly Bill (AB) 1893, which started on January 1, 2025, changed the Builder’s Remedy rules in important ways. This new law made it necessary for new Builder’s Remedy projects to follow certain site restrictions, density limits, and local standards that are clear and objective. At the same time, it made some of the rules about affordable housing a bit easier. Supporters of the bill argued that these changes provide better protection for developers against typical objections they might face.

The discussions extended beyond typical zoning issues to encompass a range of concerns, including environmental impact, traffic safety, water infrastructure, and legal ramifications of potential lawsuits. Mayor Fred Jung, Mayor pro tem Nick Dunlap, and Council member Jamie Valencia raised alarms about traffic hazards along Hermosa Drive, referencing current congestion, accident rates, and the area’s proximity to schools and equestrian facilities. Despite their concerns, city staff clarified that state law did not require a formal traffic study because the project did not generate enough traffic to trigger one.

Valencia, however, maintained that the lack of a comprehensive traffic study indicated an incomplete evaluation. She insisted that further studies on traffic, water capacity, and infrastructure should have been mandated before approval was granted.

City staff reassured the council that sewer and water systems had been previously assessed, with simulations indicating no downstream capacity issues. They explained that a water demand study would be conducted later in the development process as a condition of final approval.

A crucial point of discussion was the project’s qualification for a CEQA Class 32 exemption under state law. Staff reiterated that environmental reviews had been conducted within the scope of this exemption, constraining the city’s ability to impose further environmental analysis requirements.

Nonetheless, Valencia expressed a desire to impose additional local conditions, such as mandatory undergrounding of utilities for the entire area and extended study requirements. Despite staff and the developer’s insistence that many of these issues had been addressed or legally waived under state provisions, a contentious debate ensued over the necessity of undergrounding existing overhead utilities.

While city standards typically required undergrounding, the developer contended that such requirements could threaten project viability due to increased costs and complications in coordinating with neighboring properties and utility providers. They also assured the council that the project will underground all utilities on the property.

Throughout the meeting, council members engaged in a confusing exchange of motions, amendments, and second motions, creating uncertainty regarding the items being voted on. Proposals to overturn the Planning Commission’s decision and approve the project were met with counter motions to deny it outright or to approve it with modified conditions. Votes were divided, with Valencia abstaining and opposing approval due to perceived inadequacies in the modifications.

The council repeatedly grappled with a central question: should the council prioritize objective findings rooted in state housing law, or were broader safety and infrastructure concerns justifiable grounds for imposing additional local restrictions?

As the meeting concluded, no consensus was reached. Instead, council members departed with competing interpretations of the balance of authority between state housing mandates and local governance, leaving the development’s future uncertain. The next city council meeting will be on May 19, when a resolution will be on the agenda.