The Fullerton City Council voted on June 16, 2026, to approve a 32-unit townhome development at 111 W. Hermosa Drive on Monday night, reversing a denial it had issued just six weeks earlier, after the project’s developer agreed to fund an additional traffic study at the Harbor Boulevard–Hermosa Drive intersection.

The project, proposed by City Ventures, calls for a three-story, 32-unit residential townhome development in the city’s Laguna Lake neighborhood. Five of the units — 13% of the total — would be deed-restricted for low-income households. The property is zoned R1-20, and the project was submitted as a “builder’s remedy” development under the state’s Housing Accountability Act, a designation available to developers in cities found out of compliance with state housing-element requirements.

On May 5, 2026, the City Council voted to deny City Ventures’ appeal of a Planning Commission decision rejecting the project, upholding the commission’s denial. The applicant’s attorneys, Cox, Castle and Nicholson, subsequently agreed on May 19 to extend the appeal deadline. On June 1, City Ventures sent the city a letter asking the Council to reconsider its decision, offering to voluntarily fund a traffic impact analysis of the Harbor-Hermosa intersection — examining level of service, queuing, and collision history — to be approved by the city’s Traffic Engineer. That commitment was added as Condition 3 to a draft resolution prepared for Monday’s meeting.

Although the City Attorney advised that the public hearing did not need to be reopened, Mayor Fred Jung chose to reopen it to allow renewed public comment, noting that anyone who had testified at the prior hearing could do so again.

Public Comment

More than a dozen residents and community members addressed the Council, split between opposition and support.

Opponents, including longtime Laguna Lake residents Diane Siegfried and Omar Siddiqui, cited traffic safety, narrow neighborhood streets without sidewalks or lighting, limited visitor parking, and potential interference with emergency vehicle access. Siddiqui, president of the Fullerton Police and Community Foundation, told the Council that 160 residents had signed a petition opposing the project and urged members to uphold their prior denial. Several callers questioned whether the proposed traffic study would even cover the streets residents were most concerned about, and one speaker requested a broader emergency-access study addressing whether fire apparatus could safely maneuver into and out of the site.

Supporters — including residents who said they lived in similarly sized or larger townhome and apartment complexes elsewhere in Fullerton without traffic problems — argued the city could not afford to reject a state-qualifying housing project, citing the area’s housing affordability crisis and the financial risk of litigation. Several speakers also referenced a letter the city received from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) before the May 5 hearing.

According to Council member Charles, who read from the letter during the meeting, HCD stated that under Government Code Section 65585(j), it would monitor the city’s handling of the appeal and could refer violations of state housing law to the California Attorney General’s office. The letter also referenced Assembly Bill 712, effective January 1, 2026, which increases the financial penalties that courts may impose on local governments that deny qualifying housing projects after being formally warned that the denial would violate state law.

Council Discussion and Vote

During Council deliberation, members disagreed over the adequacy of the case for denial. Council member Dr. Shana Charles argued that the Planning Commission’s original 3–2 vote to deny the project was not based on objective health-and-safety or traffic data, that city staff had specifically recommended approval, and that continued denial risked decertification of the city’s Housing Element — which currently shields Fullerton from additional builder’s-remedy actions.

Mayor Pro Tem Nicholas Dunlap, who is also a real estate professional, addressed conflict-of-interest concerns raised during public comment regarding campaign contributions and professional ties to the local real estate industry, noting that the relevant financial disclosures are publicly filed with the City Clerk’s office.

Council Member Jamie Valencia asked for a traffic study, and the City Ventures representative agreed.  

On the original resolution to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial, the motion failed, 3–2, with Council Members Charles, Valencia, and Zahra voting no on the denial — effectively a vote to allow the project to proceed.

The Council then took up an alternative pair of resolutions: one approving the appeal and overturning the Planning Commission’s denial, and approving the major site plan for the 32 townhomes, including the five deed-restricted affordable units, subject to the additional traffic study at Harbor and Hermosa Drive. The resolution was approved 3–2, with Council Members Charles, Valencia, and Zahra voting to clear the way for the project to move forward, subject to the added traffic-study condition.

City Ventures representatives told the Council that the project has been in development for roughly two and a half years and has been modified in response to community feedback, including shifting the building placement, lowering the site elevation, increasing landscaping for screening, and adding a dedicated sidewalk and parkway along Hermosa Drive.