City Council - Successor Agency - Housing Authority - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'll now call to order the 05/05/2026 City of Fullerton closed session meeting to order. Madam clerk, please call the roll.

Mayor Jen?

Present.

Mayor Pro Tem Dunlap? Here. Council member Zara?

Here.

Council member Valencia?

Here.

Council member Charles is not yet present.

Alright. Look for public comments. Seeing none of the building

those, I do need to have one procedural matter added. Sir. We received correspondence from a citizen of the community raising potential issues issues of litigation. So, therefore, we'd like to ask ask that you add to the agenda this evening one more matter of a potential litigation item.

So asked. So done. Alright, sir. Anything else? Yeah.

Just pick need a motion to second in this.

I'll I'll make the move I'll move the item.

I'll second.

Very good. Madam Clerk?

Councilmember Charles? Here. Councilmember Valencia?

An aye. This a vote? I'm just it's aye. Sorry. Aye.

I I was interpreted that way. Councilmember Valencia? Aye. Councilmember Zara? Aye. Mayor Pretend Dunlap? Aye. Mayor Jung?

Aye. Alright. Any Zoom participants? Then we'll recess to closed session. Thank you.

Yeah.

Good

evening, everyone. I'll now call to order the Fullerton City Council meeting, for 05/05/2026. Madam clerk, please call the roll.

Mayor Jung?

Present.

Mayor pro tem Dunlap? Here. Council member Charles? Here. Council member Valencia?

Here.

And council member Zara?

Here. Alright. If I can, ask councilwoman Valencia to please give us the invocation this evening.

Yes. Let us take a moment. We are grateful for the privilege of serving the city, every corner of it, and every person in it. We come together today acknowledging that division has entered this room. This is not who we are, and this is not what the city deserves. May we choose hard work over conflict because those who are busy building have no time for tearing down. May our pride pride in this community remind us that we are on the same team, different voices, different views, but one city, one purpose. And may we commit here and now to kindness, not as a suggestion, but as a standard. Disagreement is healthy. Hatred is not.

It weakens us. It shames us, and it stops today. The people of this city are watching. Let us show them what leadership looks like. Thank you.

Alright. If I can ask our city manager to lead us in the pledge of allegiance.

And, ready, in.

Plead our beakons to the flag of The United States Of America

and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all.

Anything to report from closed session this evening, mister attorney?

No report.

Any ex parte communications? I'll look left and right.

Yes. I'm sorry. I had a conversation with the Teamsters K. And the Carpenters.

Very good. We have no presentations this evening. We are for the with respect to the first item on the public hearing, I am gonna move the public comments and the consent calendar to the end of the meeting, and we will move on to the public hearing item.

If I may, just to point order out. Are we pulling items now from the consent?

No, sir. We'll do that.

We'll we'll do that after.

Alright. Let's go ahead and get started with public hearing. Appeal of planning commission denial of major site plan and vesting tentative track map for construction, 32 residential townhomes at 111 West Hermosa Drive. And I will ask our city planner, mister David Lopez, to make this presentation to see you available.

Stuck in the elevator.

Lopez, good to see you in a suit, sir. You're be providing the, presentation this evening? Very well. Thank you.

Good evening, mayor and members of the city council. We'll be doing a joint review of this project.

Would you speak up, please? Sorry.

Sorry. We'll be doing a a joint review of this project, beginning here in a couple minutes.

It's okay. We can keep going.

Alright. Good evening, counsel. Before David gets started, he's our senior planner on this project. Just wanted to provide some overview as to, this project coming before you. This is an appeal this is an appeal request by the applicant based on Planning Commission's decision.

Before we go into that, just wanna provide some background as to why, how the review will be done for today. It is slightly different than our standard appeal process in terms of, the rules and guidelines that we, as a city, would have to follow, and also in terms of for your deliberation and decision for tonight. As a bit of a background, the housing law and the regional housing needs assessment overview, as you know, cities are required to update their housing element every eight years to plan for their share of regional housing needs. The sixth cycle covered 2021 through 2029, and our allocation was 13,209. During this process, we took time to, you know, really determine what those units, where those units should look like and the type of development projects we had because it was a substantial increase from our previous cycle.

It was almost three hundred percent increase. So it took us some time to kind of get there. And in in addition to that, Fullerton along with 16 other cities had challenged the arena numbers because of its significance. But because it was dismissed in court and the directive was that we did need to continue and come up with a plan so that an action plan to deliver on those 13,209 units throughout the city. As part of that effort, the city did bring it to compliance and adopted that in January 2025.

However, during the window of us exploring that and finalizing it, there was an application that was submitted under the Builders Remedy, Act. Next slide, please. Senate Bill three thirty, the Heisman Crisis Act. So what it does is if you submit an application during that period, it freezes and basically freezes the fees and standards that are there in the local laws. There is a five meeting maximum, so no more than five hearings total, including community meetings, which can be held on that project.

You can't impose any moratoriums. We can't say that, you know, we're not exploring these type of projects in the city, etcetera. There is also sort of a clock on the review. So even staff review, we had thirty days to potentially deem it complete, and it's not deeming it complete based on our local FMC requirements. It's based off of the state requirements.

They did submit a 2024 preliminary application through the s p three thirty portal, and that's how, or process. That's where, that's why they apply. That's why they qualify for the Builders Remedy. Next slide, please. The Housing Accountability Act, so it is very specific when, a project does come through this way that cities may only apply objective written standards.

They have to require findings based on documented evidence and you can only deny for specific quantifiable adverse health safety impacts. The government code goes as far as defining what that looks like. It has to be direct. It has to be unavoidable impact based on objective identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date of the application was deemed complete. So on that note, what's been challenging with this project is really looking at it how we word in a standard project, whether that's a zone change or a general plan, is looking at neighborhood character or the aesthetics, looking at the design review, using further traffic impact analyses or sequel analysis, etcetera, in addition to general plan or zoning inconsistencies as a basis for approval or denial.

Next slide, please. So with that, what is the Builders' Remedy? So when we again like I mentioned, when we have that interim period between approval or adoption, that's where an applicant has the ability to submit for a Builders' Remedy project. It qualifies if it's providing greater than or equal 13% affordable units for lower income household, which is Assembly Bill eighteen ninety three. The project was filed under SB three thirty preliminary application provisions.

The project was deemed consistent with the general plan and zoning as a matter of the law. City and, of course, city cannot we've you'll see in the findings that, we were not able to deny it or make any additional corrections or conditions on the project based on zoning inconsistency. And the only grounds for denial again are related to specific adverse health safety impact that cannot be mitigated. With that before we go into the project specifics, we also have Christa here from Jones and Mayer, who can also provide some additional, input as it relates to the Builder's Remedy.

Good evening, council members. The already, we've kind of gone over the builder's remedy, but I'll just kind of, speak about that, to emphasize the points. The main one is the consistency. So the, applicant has the ability to, you know, the project is just deemed consistent so that, essentially, it allows housing to be placed at any location. But the findings are what is what is restricted by state law, and that's something that's coming down from the state that's being imposed on all the cities.

So essentially, it's saying if an application comes in during this period of time, then these findings have to be made. So it's it's something a specific objective policy or requirement to be pointed to. The council has to make findings about that policy being exceeded, and then also conclude that there is an adverse health and safety impact. And so those are the findings that the council is required to make if the if there's any denial of the project. Also important is the timing.

So what we mentioned, previously was the fact that this application came in during the time when the city's housing element had not yet been certified. So the question is not about certification presently. I would like, obviously, the the council knows, but just to emphasize that the city's housing element has been certified, it is currently certified. That's not really the question. It's it's the time period when the application came in.

So this applications, fits these, these state statutory requirements. So those findings have to be made by the council, tonight relating to the project. And then the builders' remedy just imposes additional potential consequences for the city in terms of denial, including certain penalties and and things like that that can come for an invalid project denial. We did have that letter from the Department of Housing and Community Development relating to that. So those are the things that just relate to the builder's remedy.

Thank you, Krista. And with that, if I will hand it over to David Lopez, our senior planner, to go over the project specifics before you tonight.

So before you this evening is a major site plan and a vesting tentative track map for a development of 32 residential townhomes, five of which will be deed restricted for low income households. The property is a r one zone 20. It's a single family, with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet with a parcel size of 1.33 acres. Next slide, please. So before you is the project timeline.

On 04/10/2024, the project applicant seat debentures submitted the SB three thirty preliminary application. As noted before, the city did not have a compliant housing element at the time of submittal of the application. Therefore, the project qualified to utilize Village Remedy pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act. A formal application was made to the city on 08/13/2024. The applications were submitted pursuant to government code section six five nine four one point one and under the housing accountability act government code section six five five eight nine point five as a builder's remedy project.

On 01/16/2025, City Ventures elected to utilize Assembly Bill one eight nine three, which reduced the number of affordable units from 20% to to 13%. On 07/28/2025, the city initiated a community meeting, which was held at the Fullerton Community Center with the residents of the, residents of the area, including staff and the project applicant. On 09/10/2025, the project, was continued at the request of City Ventures. And recently, 02/25/2026, after a public comment and discussion, the planning commission directed staff by a four to one vote to return with resolutions denying the project. On 03/11/2026, after discussion, the planning commission denied the project by a three two vote with the finding that there are safety impacts at the intersection of Hermosa Drive and Harbor Boulevard.

On 03/12/2026, an appeal was filed by Cox, Castle, and Nicholson LLP representing City Ventures. The appeal states that the Planning Commission's denial of the project and the conclusion regarding safety impacts at the intersection of Hermosa Drive and Harvard Boulevard did not provide evidence in the record to support a specific, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable traffic or safety impact based on an objective identified written public health or safety regulations. Next slide, please. The city retained Michael Baker International to conduct an independent environmental analysis. The analysis documents the project's eligibility for the class 32 infill development project categorical exemption under CEQA, including the provisions under biller's remedy.

Next slide, please. Before you use the project aerial, identifying the location located at the Northwest corner of Hermosa Drive and Harbor Boulevard. The subject parcel again is 1.33 acres in size, improved with a single family home. Zoned r one twenty, one family residential, minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, and has a land use designation of low density residential. Next slide, please.

As a condominium project, a homeowners association or HOA will include bylaws and CCNRs, covenants, conditions, and restrictions to be prepared by the developer to address the maintenance of the project site, including requiring homeowners to maintain on-site garages for parking purposes. The project includes four plan types. Vehicle access to the project site is from a singular driveway entrance located at the southwest corner of the project along Hermosa Drive. The project includes a 24 to 26 foot wide on-site drive aisles aligned for two way traffic, including sufficient area for emergency vehicle access. The project includes a total of 11 open spaces, and all 32 units include a standard two car garage or a tandem two car garage.

In total, the project provides 75 on-site parking spaces. In comparison to the state density bonus law, a total of 60 spaces would be required. Now the project before you, exceeds the minimum parking requirements by 25%. Next slide, please. The project also includes an approximate area of 2,100 square feet of common open space located at the northwest corner of the project site to be improved with a built in barbecue, community seating area, and a dog lawn area.

This common open space creates separation between the project site and adjacent single family homes. In total, the common open space within development, totals approximately 11,680 square feet. The entire project site will contain a total of approximately 18,891 square feet of on-site landscaping, and this this is included on both frontages on Hermosa And Harbor Boulevard. Along the westerly property line, a landscape buffer is proposed, to be able to screen the project site from the adjacent single family homes. The project also includes full width sidewalks along Harbor Boulevard and Hermosa Drive.

Next slide, please. These are the four plant types. Plan one and plan three are shown on the screen. Plan one has an approximate area of 1,189 square feet, improved with two bedrooms, with two and a half bathrooms. Plan three includes a net area of 1,507 square feet and is improved with three bedrooms and two and a half bathrooms.

Next slide, please. This is plan two, which includes an approximate area of 1,391 square feet improved with three bedrooms and three bathrooms. Next slide, please. And this is Plan 4 with approximate net area of 1,656 square feet, improved with three bedrooms with an optional fourth bedroom, with two and a half bathrooms. Next slide, please.

And before you are the architectural elevations. These include stucco walls with a light sandy finish, vinyl windows, decorative metal railings, dark brown stucco balconies, wood corbels, wood patio gates, decorative exterior lighting fixtures, and a brick red concrete roof tile, made to match the surrounding area. The building elevations include architectural projections on all four elevations. And, before you is the Building 3, which is located at the northeast frontage on Harbor Boulevard. Next slide, please.

This is Building 5, one of the interior units. Next slide, please. And this is Building 4 at the corner of Hermosa And Harbor. Next slide, please. And this is Building 2 at the northerly end of the property. Next slide. And, these slides will have our traffic engineer provide some, additional information for you.

Thank you, David. So what you see in front of you here, counsel, is the tap analysis that we prepare when we look at any project coming into the city to see if it's going to require a traffic study analysis. And so in this case, it met the primary screening requirement of being located in a low VMT generating area. And then from there, we go to the secondary screening, and it did not check any of the boxes. Therefore, the project screened out, which is it's an it meets the sequel requirements.

And from oh, next page. Oh, wait. Go back. Sorry. On the second page, we also look up all the traffic information, and this is from the IT trip generation manual. And from this project being 32 units in the morning, it would generate 16 peak hour trips. And this is the peak hours, not all day long. And in the evening, it generates 19 trips. And the existing house generates one trip in the morning and one trip in the evening. So when we combine them, we have our proposed net project trips.

So it'd be fifteen in the morning and 18 because they get credit for the existing. And so this is everything about how we do a analysis on this kind of a project. And now we can go to the next slide. This is the program we use. So this is the VMT, the part of s b seven forty three. We had to see how projects if they would screen out or not. The one in front of you here, this is the project as it is now. So that's how we use it to answer the worksheet. So this project screen dot. And and on the next slide, this is the existing project.

So we compare everything, and then we lay everything out on the sheet. Next. And this is where we get the information from for the trips. So this is the existing no. This is the proposed project. So they do a lot of studies, and it's not just one study, and we're not just getting numbers from everywhere. These are nationally conducted studies. So this is the proposed project, and the next one, and this is the existing project. Again, this is where we get all the numbers that we fill out on the worksheet. And and now I will turn it back over to David. Thank you.

That concludes staff's presentation. We'll be happy to answer any questions at this time.

Mayor and council members, thank you for your time and consideration tonight. I'd also like to recognize and thank the city staff for assignment attention to the matter or to the project. We had proposed or prepared a few slides. I don't if we're able to bring those up, but I can keep going. So Citi Ventures, just to just to introduce us again, who is Citi Ventures? We're a residential for sale developer and homebuilder.

I'm I'm sorry. Just point of order, if I may interrupt. Could we go to the the the slide and put the camera, the full, so that people can see who's speaking. Yes. Thank you.

We had prepared slides. Are we able to find those? If not, none of

They were emailed to us, so I know that they are available.

Do you want

to email Steven right now? I can send the email over. I have it flagged.

We'll keep going. Our focus is on infill redevelopment to help facilitate foresail housing in proximity to existing goods, services, and transit. Our view is that this helps support local businesses, local existing schools, and provides opportunities for homeownership in markets that are otherwise difficult to enter. Many of these projects go to first time homebuyers, young families with two working parents. And as David mentioned, so the project is about 1.3 acres.

Surrounding uses, include commercial office to the South, commercial education to the North, commercial educational to the East across Harbor Boulevard, and residential to the West. We have prepared a few images of what the current conditions look like, but I'll try to do my best to explain what those look like. So the current if you're standing on Harbor looking south, the current, landscaping looks improved with construction fencing. You've got landscaping, and so cars coming down Harbor may find it difficult to see cars that are coming out of Hermosa. And then if you can imagine standing at the intersection going into Hermosa, there's no sidewalk or improved way for pedestrians to travel.

So, really, the pedestrians are walking on a shared road with cars. So those are important important points to highlight, when we come back to that. So furthermore, before I dive into the current project, I wanted to detail a few alternatives how we arrived at the current project. So initially, the early concept of this project was a five story condo flat project with subterranean parking. It's consisted of over 60 units. Building heights reached about 60 feet compared to the proposed 37. And we felt pretty quickly that this didn't fit in with the neighborhood. We thought it was too aggressive and moved on quickly past this option. The next option we studied reduced that scale down to four stories. We did put together, we did we did put together a conceptual plan for that.

And so if we skip to slide five oh, sorry. If we go back to slide four, this will show, kind of the existing conditions. So the top right image is what we were standing on Harbor looking south. The project is on the right hand side. And so if you can imagine driving down harbor, cars that are coming out of Hermosa, difficult. It's hard to see right now. In the bottom left image is going into Hermosa where pedestrians walking that way into the neighborhood. Basically, they share that narrow shoulder, with cars. The picture on the bottom right is on the other end of Hermosa looking to Harbor, and then the top left is looking basically at the project from the intersection. Now next slide, please.

So past the five story, we reduced this to four stories. And this, we did put together a conceptual plan. This showed 43 units. Building heights reached about 45 to 47 feet high. But as you see in the bottom right section, we didn't feel like we could screen, even with mature landscaping, the residents living on the Top Floor views into the neighborhood, to the West.

So, ultimately, we landed on the three story town concept. Next slide, please. And this building form is something that's being put up by all homebuilders across California, including here in California and surrounding cities like La Habra, Brea, Buena Park to name a few. And the images here are shown as a proposed Spanish style, which we believed architecturally blended the most seamlessly into the existing neighborhood. Next slide, please.

So the project here, 32 units. David had mentioned a few of the details, so I'll skip to highlight a few. The affordability, the project will include five units derestricted at the low level income of affordability. The remaining 27 are at market rate. So the low level income level affordability means these are capped at 80% of the area median income.

For reference, for a family of four in Orange County, that's a maximum of approximately a $135,000 per year combined. And so as David mentioned, this parking, all 32 units have two car attached garages. 11 guest parking spaces, the majority of those are lined on the western property line, and there's one space in that southeast corner, tucked in behind those hedges. So our intent with this was to push the buildings closer Harbor Boulevard, creating as much distance to the single family neighborhood as possible. The common area and parking were strategically placed there to set the buildings back from this neighborhood.

This results in about a 50 foot setback along that west property line and about a 30 feet at that northwest corner. Other design features I wanna highlight here. So starting on Harbor Boulevard at the Southeast corner, we will be replacing that ADA ramp up to current code as well as upgrading the ADA push buttons at the entire intersection at all four corners. Additionally, we're installing streetlights along Harbor, streetlights along Hermosa, which will help increase visibility for traffic and pedestrians. And finally, along the entire Harbor Boulevard frontage, we're dedicating an additional five feet past the existing right of way, and those buildings are set back another 10 feet from there.

So all in all, it's about 15 feet from the original image that we showed of the existing conditions. This opens up the visibility so that cars heading south down harbor will see any cars stacking in Hermosa much earlier and provide for more stopping distance than what's currently currently exists. So on the Hermosa frontage, so in reference to that image we looked at in, slide four, with pedestrians sharing the road, this project will be replacing that entire asphalt full width to the opposite curb and gutter to current public work standards. So all the cars using Hermosa will get to enjoy new roads for the project frontage. Additionally, we're installing, back to slide seven, please.

We're installing a seven and a half foot landscape parkway, as a buffer for pedestrians and a four foot sidewalk there. So, again, in this current conditions, pedestrians are forced to share that road. When they improve condition, pedestrians will be off the road to get them out of that, intersection. For outreach, so we sent out two mailers, as David had mentioned, in March and May of last year. First set to about 65 residents in a 300 foot radius, second to 95.

And I wanna highlight some of those feedback that we were able to study and implement. We had heard about the cars, coming out of Formosa and the pedestrian activity. And so with staff and part of the design, this is what is in front of you now. So with the visibility on Harbor and the pedestrians, we were able to address some of those concerns. And one of the other points we heard next slide, please was studying a Harbor Boulevard entrance to limit the traffic and circulation going on to Hermosa.

So we studied this with the design and consultant team, resulting in this plan here. After the study, we believe that Harbor did not provide enough queuing opportunities given the higher speeds on Harbor. And so at a minimum, we would have to provide rooms to stack the cars on-site. And so this resulted in moving the buildings back towards the residents and dropping that 50 foot setback down to about 10 feet. This also drops the guest parking spaces from the 11 proposed to seven.

And then finally, the last point that we heard, the objective point we heard, was regarding massing and screening. Next slide, please. So we reevaluated how we can more effectively buffer or screen the buildings. And as a result, we increased the number of plants, the density of the plantings, and the installation sizes of the trees, when compared to the original application. So in total, we've added approximately 70 trees and hedges, tripling the original count, in addition to upsizing some of the trees, which gives about a five foot height increase to those trees from day one. And so on the left is the original. The right is the enhanced. Hopefully, it's clear from this. You can see the the landscape being much enhanced. If you go to the next slide, this will show, an elevation of what is original versus the enhanced.

And so next slide. This shows the screening from the 3rd Floor with mature landscaping. The person standing on the 3rd Floor, basically, with mature landscaping will have those effectively screened for those neighbors. So finally, so many of these improvements were not required by city staff or state law, but we're voluntarily agreeing to because we believe it will improve the existing conditions, the visibility, and separating the pedestrians of the cars for the community. To wrap up, we believe this is a great opportunity for the city to provide homeownership opportunities, both market rate and deed restricted affordable. We are an intent to comply with all applicable laws and are proposing a building form that we're seeing all over the state in infill coastal markets. Thanks again for your time and consideration. We're happy to answer any questions you have.

Alright. Thank you for that. Let's go ahead and seek public comment, then we'll bring it back to council for questions.

Have two people registered to speak on this item, Rick Otonio and Diane Siegfried. And if anybody else would like to speak, please line up on the wall opposite me, and we will get you to the podium after our two registered speakers. Yeah. Rick, did I get even close to your last name? Alright. Close enough. You're coming up. Come on up. You're first.

Before you start my time, I have brought with me 10 copies of what I submitted as a supplemental material. And just to let everybody know, if, you'd like one of these, I have them. If they would be handed out to the members, that'd be fantastic.

Go ahead and give them.

K.

My name is Rick Oteano, and my wife and

I have lived

just steps away from this intersection for the last twenty six years. I'm very, very, familiar with it, drive past it probably a thousand times since we've moved here. And, my concern oh, and and, also, before I retired, I was a litigation attorney, and I represented public entities, including the county of Orange, number of Fulton school districts. I'm well aware of the, issues that public agencies and, municipalities face in the event of, potential lawsuits. So I attended the planning commission meeting last, that was, last heard, and, via Zoom.

I'm sorry? Oh, is it on? Oh, there we go. Sorry. So, there was very little discussion about the safety exception. And I know I don't wanna throw code sections around, but I heard them discussed, and I looked everything up. And we haven't really looked at the ins and outs. What I did yesterday was I went and took 25 photographs and made measurements. And there are two things that I realized have not yet been addressed, either by the traffic engineer or at least in any discussions thus far. Number one are the number of, idling commercial vehicles that will be stopped on that street.

I'm thinking about FedEx, UPS, Amazon, DoorDash. If you look in the neighborhood, there are always such vehicles and they're always gonna be stopped on the curb and dropping off, picking up, things like that. The other thing, which not has been has not been addressed, is there is a Fire Station Number 4 directly across Hermosa. And on Hermosa, opposite the driveway that I understand will be the entrance, is a driveway that goes directly into Fire Station Number 4. In front of that driveway is a big painted sign, keep clear.

That is, to my understanding, a, second entrance to the fire station, which no one has addressed. And one of the issues, with respect to a basis to reject this plan is if it impacts safety. And I did a little more digging, and I learned that fire station four, one of its vehicles is a pierced dash pumper. And it's about 32 feet long, 10 or 11 feet high, and about eight and a half feet wide. And that driveway is used by that vehicle when necessary.

And if we don't take into account those issues, if we don't take into account the fact that we have a fire station there, we have drops offs from commercial vehicles, we are creating and making a bigger safety hazard than there already is. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

And Diane Siegfried, and then we'll get to the folks who are lined up.

So good evening, and thank you very much for listening to our concerns. My we are Diana Jim Siegfried. We moved into our home in the Laguna Lake neighborhood just over two years ago, but we've lived in Fullerton for over forty years with our recent home being in the Pinehurst Estates up off Skyline Drive. When we retired, we wanted a one story home, and our first thought was to move into the lovely neighborhood surrounding Laguna Lake. Our home is at 432 West Hermosa, and we're in between the Lakeside And Lakeview Drives and very close to the proposed development.

We're very concerned about the safety and traffic impacts of our of the proposed 32 units. I think some of the information that's been presented here today speaks to maybe an inadequate or maybe light or old, old thinking about the traffic study that's been performed. The neighborhood streets were not designed for high volume. They are narrow and constrained. The sight lines, there's difficult on street parking and maneuverability impacts.

Since we've moved in, we've noticed the traffic is busy at all times of the day. There's commuter traffic from the neighbors, which, of course, has been quantified in that traffic study. There's visitors traffic from those coming to the lake, which hasn't been addressed by any of the discussions so far. There's cut through traffic for people who know they can avoid Imperial Highway and cut through Lakeview to Hermosa or Las Palmas, as well as all the secondary traffic from service providers. And the gentleman who went before me talked about that a bit.

Construction, delivery, landscaping, maintenance. And, where our home is located, there are a lot who attempt to do a u-turn in the middle of that narrow street pretty frequently. As it is now, there are many times where we need to be very careful when we're when we're getting our mail, taking out our trash, or walking to the lake. The soon to open new development at the corner of Euclid And Rosecrans will increase that cut through traffic as their residents get more familiar with the streets. This additional 32 unit townhome development will worsen the situation.

We are not the only seniors that live in this well established neighborhood. The increased traffic will affect our safety and quality of line. It may even make walking to visit a neighbor across the street or next door more perilous and difficult. As the gentleman before me said, another you okay? Yeah.

K. Another key public safety issue is the proposed project entrance of Egress on Hermosa, which will almost be directly from across from the exit for fire fire department number four. The fire trucks normally come out Hermosa Drive and head directly to an emergency. With the increased volume of traffic almost right across the way, there will be more cars to contend with as they start their drive. The traffic created by the new development will definitely delay their ability to respond to emergencies and impact lives, so that directly addresses this safety issue. The planning commission evaluated these issues and decided the project was not appropriate for the site. We ask that you please uphold their determination. Thank you.

Whoever's lined up next.

My name is Bill Redden. I've lived in the four corners of Fullerton over the past forty years. First in the SoCo area before it was called SoCo, then West of Euclid, then by the university, and now a block from Hermosa and Harbor. I and most of us who are pushing back on the proposed condo development, we're not against having housing on the site. We're just against the density.

And so far over the past year, there's it's been kinda just, you know, there's no talk about reducing the density at all. My main concern is with the traffic and the city's contention that only 15 vehicles will exit the development in the morning and 18 in the evening. That's unrealistic. There's 94 bedrooms gonna be available. It's hard to imagine everyone else, whatever that would be, 70 I didn't do the math.

Everyone else stays home, is ordering from DoorDash, is streaming videos, but they're not even leaving the building. So doesn't I don't think the fifteen and eighteen vehicles leaving is adequate. I ride a bike and jog and I jog along Hermosa almost every day. There's no there's gonna I guess they're gonna put in a little sidewalk at least where the development is but other than that there's just the painted white line on the road which doesn't separate me from traffic by too much And as she was saying the exit is on a curve and the city feels that there's enough visibility there but I don't think that takes into account the people going over the speed limit and those that run the stop sign at Hermosa and Santa Maria, they just kinda blow through there and they don't slow down. They actually speed up.

So I will close with some other news. Meryl Streep has a new movie out. You probably haven't been able to avoid it. Her recent quote is, the most difficult thing about filming in Italy is work is walking on stiletto heels on cobblestones. So I'm inviting her to come here for a stroll down Hermosa and compare the experience. Thank you.

Follow that. Okay. Hi. I'm Catherine Talley. I live at 750 Santa Barbara Avenue, which is in the neighborhood around the Laguna Lake area.

I concur with the statements that have already been said, and I'd ask the city council to help us figure out what kind of safety studies need to be performed because the issues before us are factual. They're not made up. We live with them every day. The sidewalk issue is of concern for me because even though we have the sidewalk that they're proposing to instill, which I appreciate, the rest of the entire neighborhood does not have sidewalks. So even though people can walk safely where this project may be developed with the additional cars and the additional through traffic that's going to be created from all this activity, it's still gonna be affecting the pedestrians that are in the neighborhood trying to, just get from point a to point b.

The intersection between Harbor And Hermosa is with the of course, we've already seen pictures, but you're going from a from a five lane for highway area down to two lanes. And there's going to be children because these are homes they're building. Those children are gonna be going across Harbor to get to the Hermosa Elementary School, and you're going to have people making unprotected left turns, people trying to force their way into the Hermosa project where all these children are gonna be at. So I have concerns about the sidewalks for the children, for the pedestrians, for the school system, for everything else that's already been mentioned. We are gonna have cars stacking near the intersection.

Drivers are going to be rushing to make left turns across those lanes to get in, and the vehicles on Hermosa are gonna be forced to stop or queue in the travel lanes. We already have people crossing lanes just to go around cars that are in the neighborhood because as soon as somebody stops in the neighborhood, you have to go around them. So people are crossing center lanes all the time throughout these whole neighborhoods. The streets there are are notoriously poorly maintained. So as a driver in the neighborhood, I'm constantly having to dodge potholes.

I'm constantly dodging, where trees have uprooted parts of the streets. And so now there's gonna be even more traffic that's gonna also deteriorate the roads, but also make it harder for everybody else to navigate as we're trying to navigate all of these issues. So I I'm encouraging the council to help uphold the Planning Commission's statement, but also figure out what's the proper safety evaluations that need to be done before this project could even be proposed because there's a lot going on in the neighborhood. Thank you for your time.

Good evening, mayor and councilman. My name is John Lee. I live on 33, 08 Acre around the Hermosa School. I know all the traffic, all the crazy parents that go to school there that drives their kids. But I'm here in support of this project because this is a modest infill proposal, 32 homes on a 1.3 acres on a five with five low income affordable homes.

And these are for self homes, which matters to us, who lives in Orange County, which we desperately need for entry level for attainable ownership opportunities for young families. I say young families. We have lived in the neighborhood for twenty, twenty six years, so I've seen all the growth in our neighborhood. So, yeah, we need young families and for local people that work locally and for people who want to stay connected to our community who grew up here, and those people have to move out of a community because they cannot afford Fullerton. And the objection raised against this project are familiar, density, three stories, parking, privacy, and traffic.

These concerns can be sincerely felt, but under state law, they are not enough to deny housing. Staff especially specifically explained that because this is a builder's remedy project inconsistency with the zoning, current zoning, or general plan land use destination is not a valid basis for denial. The project also provides for 75 parking spaces, which we heard, 25% more than what is required. The planning commission of order four to one denial of this project, but deny resolution identifies only one reason, safety impacts at Homosa And Harbour. They do not provide the kind of detail evidence based finding required to deny housing under the Housing Accountability Act.

Fulton should not say it support housing in theory and then deny real homes when they come forward. Please grant the appeal and approve the project. Thank you for your attention.

Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Maggie Lee, and I'm here to urge you to grant the appeal and approve the West Hermosa Hermosa project. I live about a half a mile from the project, and I welcome the addition of townhomes to my neighborhood. Fullerton needs this housing. Fullerton needs homes for families, workers, first time buyers, and people who grew up here and want to stay but can't afford to.

This project has been reviewed by staff. Staff recommended approval and found it qualifies as a Builders Remedy project. Staff found no significant environmental impacts and no specific adverse health or safety impacts that would justify denial under the Housing Accountability Act. Neighborhood concerns about density and character are real, but they are not legal grounds for denial. Denying this project exposes the city to legal liability and tells families who want to live in in Fullerton that the door is closed.

Please follow the law, follow your own staff's recommendation, and approve this project. Thank you.

Good evening, council. My name is Jason Phillips. I'm a resident and pastor here in Fullerton, and I just wanna show my support for this project. But it's important that we acknowledge the concerns that our neighbors have about traffic, safety, and the character of the neighborhood. Their concerns matter and deserve to be heard.

However, I want us to dive a little bit deeper into the concerns and conversations and ask, is this about preserving the character of a neighborhood or deciding who gets to belong in it? Because for many in our city, our working families, young adults, even people who grew up here, finding a place in Fullerton that's affordable is becoming harder and harder. And I worry my kids are gonna have to move very far away. And so when that happens, belonging becomes something that is no longer shared, but it's being protected. The character of a community is not just about buildings, density, and zoning.

It's about the people who live there who make up the character of it. So please don't make this about who gets to live there, lives here, and who gets to stay. I'm sure this project isn't perfect. No project is. However, this does create homes, homes that we need for our families and people in our community.

And for those for some, it gives the opportunity to live in an area with amenities they never thought they would have access to. And so I'm asking you to move this forward, to follow staff's advice, to pay attention to the law so that we can have a more inclusive city where people experience belonging. So we can hold both those concerns, the concerns of the neighbors, but also create a space for for future neighbors who may not be able to afford a large lot and a custom home. And so I think the real question before you is not just about density and design. It's really about belonging.

And will Fullerton be a place where belonging expands or it contracts? Thank you.

Good evening, council mayor council members and mayor. My name is Olga Hart, and I reside, on Hermosa Drive, not too far from the project. I respectfully ask that you uphold the planning commission's denial of this project for many reasons. I know we are all speaking about lots of reasons tonight, so you have a big job ahead of you. There are many health and safety issues, that affect this project.

We are here to work together with you, as our council to share our knowledge of safety issues that we see because we reside and utilize the intersection of Harbor and Hermosa, not only once in a while or daily, but several times a day. In order to make our city better, we work together, letting you know what's safe and unsafe at our schools, parks, and streets, like requesting over and over the neighborhood just south of Hermosa and Harbor, the La Entrada area, that needed a sit a signal. Our city has grown, and those homes take a risk each time they exit their streets onto Harbor, especially during high volume traffic times. Thank you for approving the signal to keep them safe. We are asked to share what we see and help make things better.

And by doing that, that's why we are here now sharing what we see. Adding 32 units on a corner that was designed for two is too many. Adding an estimate of 96 individuals, 96 plus cars coming and going onto a narrow street with limited parking and maneuverability, increasing overflow onto a street that offers no parking, impacting the local business parking lot next door, the fire department's back engine return entrance, and nearby residential streets. 96 plus individuals walking a narrow blind curved street if they choose to walk their neighborhood. Sanitation, I don't even know if that was brought up.

I'm sure there's a plan because you always work with one. But bins or carts, where would the large trash truck pick up the bin safely? Are we, having them back up? Are we having them pull it out? It's a blind curve, and so just curious as to what those sanitation approval items have were done.

Not to recommend other not to to also state other vehicles that come and go on that same corner. The fire truck having to back up, the trash truck having to back up. There's lots of issues right at the entrance or the driveway of where this project will will be. At this point, we do not know either the impact of the large project. Thank goodness, more housing, which is great.

We want housing. However, it's a large project on Rosecrans and Euclid, and the traffic flow we see, we don't know yet because of its, capacity isn't full yet. They will use Hermosa Drive like many others to cut across to Harbor or attend Hermosa Elementary School. That complex has an option of going to any school in Fullerton, which is a great benefit of Fullerton. But Hermosa Elementary, Laguna Road Elementary, and Parks are all closed schools where parents will use the Hermosa Drive area. I just ask you to please consider the safety issues on this project.

Evening counsel, Elijah Manicero. A lot of what you've heard tonight is just not relevant to the decision that you're going to have to make. Concerns about height, traffic, parking, none of that is relevant to, a builder's remedy project. What's relevant is that there is a health or safety standard health or safety risk that is, one, caused by the development, and, two, not able to be mitigated. I read through mister Oteano and mister Siddiqui's supplemental materials that were submitted, and no evidence of a health or safety risk that can't be mitigated or that is caused by the development was provided.

So, there's no reason to deny this. If you do deny this, the court's gonna, make the court's gonna approve it anyway. So it's not really a question about whether you're pro housing or anti housing. It's actually a question of your fiscal responsibility. Know, Builders' Remedy projects, they are a result of not having a housing element that was certified, and this council kept delaying over and over and over again our housing element.

So this is largely your fault for us having this project in front of us. So regardless of how people feel about the density or about the design or about anything like that, It's just not relevant to the decision that you guys have to make tonight. Lastly, a lot of people my age, they ask about how come my parents and my grandparents only paid a $100,000 for their house, and then I look at houses and they're a million dollars. Was because of people like this in this room who come to, oppose housing projects. It's very frustrating for people like me who just need a place to live.

And rents continue to rise and housing costs continue to go up because we don't allow developers to build. So, yes, please approve this project not because of housing, because you shouldn't put this on the taxpayer to just make a vote that's gonna be overturned by a court anyway. There's no health or safety risks. The intersection, it's not caused by the development. If the intersection is dangerous right now, it can't be caused by the development because the development hasn't even happened yet.

So all of these issues that are being talked about about current safety issues are not caused by the by the development. And we have departments like public works and, like our traffic, team who can handle those issues. This has nothing to do with the development. So, please approve this project and, use our tax dollars wisely. Thank you.

It looks like our last speaker in chambers, unless anybody else lines up now. And I do see nope. No hands in Zoom.

Hi. My name is Luis Salazar, and, I've been in the Hermosa neighborhood for approximately three years. I live on 425 West Hermosa. I'm a young family there with my wife and my three children. So I I'm a builder. That's what I do. I'm so I'm pro construction. There's projects that I work on with municipalities or also locally, whether it's residential, commercial, industrial, whether it's on the highway with Caltrans. However, in this specific project, I mean, I I I live there, and I would like to see development. However, it does impact families nearby.

It does it's not conducive to I mean, there are studies that I'm not sure how much how thorough we've done investigation on certain projects. I mean, we have we do have my biggest concern is and I've been caught on Hermosa with the emergency truck, which we have a fire truck there on Hermosa, and we've been stuck there. I mean, they go down the street every day, and they can go out there three, four times a day. And not just them, but it's also the ambulance, a lot of emergency services, and it does bottleneck there on just two lanes. So it's an east and west street, and sometimes it can back up.

So it does it does concern me for a builder specifically looking at the project soberly and saying, you know, of course, I would like to even bid on projects like this, but it on a safety it is a safety concern. And that if you're going down Hermosa and all of us here, we I mean, you guys all work here in the city of Bullerton, so you guys have commuted down that street. Hermosa is a is a pretty pretty fast traveling, street there, but if you're if you get caught there on Hermosa And Harbor, and you're trying to make a right turn there, and there is often there, there's a sanitation truck parked there, you you you're stuck there. And for a builder that has experience building, I mean, I have bins. I have I mean, I have diggers.

I have excavators. I have a lot of large equipment coming in and out of there. In a four or five lane highway, I do I do back people up. That's just naturally. That's what I do.

But and a two lane, I think that's that just amplifies the situation. So I think that that that does need to be taken into consideration given the fact that, I mean, there this is this is not and I'm pro building, but it just doesn't make sense there on that specific corner. I'm happy to continue to build and look for another location, but it's not about providing housing for young families because we're in America where we work hard and we do what we can do and and we get opportunities and we purchase properties. And I'm a testimony of that and that that's possible. But it does need to be done properly. Thank you.

City council, my name is Andrew Reyes. I am a Fullerton resident in District 2, and I'm here to express my support for this, project. I think, all parts of the city need to do their part to build more housing. This project's considered missing middle housing, so the builder could have elected to build up, you know, high rise as they mentioned. They scaled it back. This is a 32 unit condo. When you compare that to the hub on Chapman, that added 420 units. The Rosecrans development's gonna add a 113 units. So this is 32 units, of, you know, partially affordable housing increases our housing stock. I think the entire city needs to do their part.

In addition, we have been hearing on and on about the city's financial state. We cannot afford to deny this project. Other cities have been sued and have lost and incurred millions of dollars in fines for not complying with state law. In addition, want to mention that Planning Commission did not find any safety issues. They claimed they were safety issues, but they did not present anything that is quantifiable. So lastly, I just wanna say, denying this is anti business, it's anti housing, and it's fiscally irresponsible. Thank you.

Hello. Good evening.

Is it Michael you? I don't have a dog in a fight. Housing is housing. What I have been seeking in Fullerton for five years is fiscal responsibility. And it's your first time here.

I've presented data to the diocese on how much money a small auto mall would bring into the city. I've also been advocating for over four years for sidewalks on the South side of the city of Fullerton. So, Michael Yu, I'd like to invite you to consider looking at 1819 Hundred West Page Avenue. This is where students walk in the street to Orangethorpe Elementary School. And it's a part of the city that there's a street there that's long and there's no stop signs, and so traffic can be many times at 40 to 50 miles an hour.

You wouldn't get anything out of building the sidewalks there except maybe you're saving some students' lives so they don't have to walk in the street where speeding cars go by. Go titans. Go hornets. Go lancers. Go cougars. God bless you all.

Good evening, mister mayor, city council members. My name is Curtis Gamble, activist for the homeless, the veterans, the Cal State Fullerton students, the LCA bus drivers, the seniors, and and our low income neighbors. My recommend recommendation is yes on this. Please support these residential townhomes at 111 West Harmosa Drive. I think that many of you know I work with the homeless community, and we have opened up 15 emergency shelters throughout Orange County in the last eight years.

And the only way that we can continue to get people off the streets is that we move people out of these shelters into homes. If you deny all the homes and the projects, then they're gonna continue to be stuck in the shelters. And we did such an outstanding job on opening these, and it wasn't easy. You know, opening these also. Residents were against them.

Council member were against them, you know, for whatever reason, but then they came together and and made it happen. Only way we're gonna get out of homelessness is that we build and open up projects. We're gonna have some tougher projects than this one, choices. And these choices, this choice right here, it is a difficult one. I heard what the people saying how unsafe it may be or or inconvenient, but we're have to make even more choices because we have to have for our housing element, I think, what, we have to have 8,000 units or something like that.

And that's gonna be it's gonna get tough, really tough. This is probably one of the easiest choices to make as far as saying yes. So I'm just encouraging you guys to say yes because us homeless people, we want to get off the streets. And it's just not the homeless. It's the people who are staying with their families. They want to move into a project. The one we just opened down the street on Commonwealth in Brookhurst, Point Common, 65 units. Everybody just moved in. They're so happy. Beautiful project. And we can do the same thing with this project. So, again, I just wanna thank you guys and encourage you to vote yes on this. Thank you.

Alright. Seeing no further comments, let's go to Zoom.

We have one caller in Zoom. Elizabeth, you should be able to unmute.

Good evening, members of the city council. My name is Elizabeth Hansberg. You probably know me as Fullerton resident, former, Fullerton planning commissioner, and I also run the advocacy organization, People for Housing, Orange County. Wanna lend support to this project and reiterate many of the fine points that have been made earlier. We need this project for people who've grown up in Fullerton and want to stay.

We need this project because housing exists on a continuum. And while this project does not directly address the needs of homeless residents, housing filtration is real, and we are providing an opportunity for people to move up, which then frees housing units at the lower end of the income spectrum. And so the need to continuously be adding homes to the inventory of Fullerton and Orange County is pressing and real. And in addition, as you've heard, and I know you've been notified by mail that if the city does deny this project, it will bring a world of hurt in terms of lawsuits. And we are not in a position to be able to fight those lawsuits the way that Huntington Beach has.

And so from the three, Yimbi activists, law firms that will you know, would love nothing more than to sue us if we deny this project and the, attorney general's office who will definitely come after us if we deny this project, I wanna encourage you, as many of the other speakers have, to do the fiscally responsible thing and move this project forward. Thank you.

No more speakers.

Alright. Thank you. I'll give an opportunity to the appellant if, he wishes to respond to any of the public comments.

Thank you for the comments and the feedback. I just wanna reiterate a few of the points that I heard about the the traffic and the safety. So I heard speeding, cut throughs, people running stop signs, potholes. I just wanna point out that these discussions and concerns about the current safety at the intersection, by nature, those are existing conditions. The project itself is not creating these discussed safety issues.

If we're creating additional impacts based on written objective standards, then, of course, we would need to and be willingly comply and mitigate. But I will say qualitatively, all the improvements we're making, for example, the sidewalks in Hermosa, increasing the visibility for vehicular traffic, the streetlights, ADA signaling should all help with perceived safety. But objectively, based on the VMT analysis and the trips analysis, there's minimal additional impact that the project is creating. And I want to clarify on the trips. So this project created two eighty five additional trips over the course of a day.

And in the AM, that was 15 for the AM hours, 15 new trips, and in the PM, 18 new trips. To put that in context, relatable terms, that means one additional car every four minutes. Even if we assume that all those go to harbor, I don't know the life cycle times of the intersection, but it's less than one car per cycle signal. And I just wanna make those points clear. And I heard a couple other points that I'm sure us and staff can, respond to, but, the parking along or the commercial loading along Hermosa, there are conditions in place for us to have those or to to prohibit that parking.

There's no overnight parking either. Sanitation waste management, has reviewed the plan. There's individual pickups as they drive into it, so there won't be waste management trucks parked on Hermosa to block the traffic there. Are a few others, but I think that's that's all for now.

Alright. Thank you for that. Well, I can get the traffic engineer back up. Alright. Good evening, sir. There is a popular elementary school down the street within walking distance of this proposed development. Notorious Fullerton schools are having significant queue lines during drop off and pick up. Did the traffic study address either the pick up or drop off times at that school? If not, why not?

There was no traffic study required, so nothing was studied.

Okay. So we didn't take into account what that could be?

We did not.

Okay. Same with was there any traffic analysis done regarding Hermosa Drive? Because the entrance is on Hermosa. It's not on Harbor. I I realized that there was some sort of one that was done on Harbor. Was there one done on Hermosa?

A study regarding the driveway?

No, sir. Traffic numbers.

So the project did not generate enough traffic to trigger a traffic study.

K.

How did we come to that conclusion? Was that the applicant cited how many cars would be is that how we got to the equal sign of of the it didn't generate enough traffic to warrant a study?

No. When the applicant, submit their project, we wait for them to tell us about the whole project. When they finalize it, we then perform a transportation assessment policies and procedure, the TAP, and we take all that information into account. And if it meets the requirements where a traffic study would be required, then we would do it. This project did not meet the number of trips required to trigger a traffic study.

I see. So we came to that number, which is a pretty, defined metric based on trips. Correct? Correct. Okay. Because the residents, speakers cited the development on Euclid and Rosecrans, but that has two ingress, Egresses. They have one on the Rosecrans side and one on the Euclid side. This only has the exclusive one, the Hermosa side. Right? There is no harbor?

This is only an entrance on Hermosa.

And then in the analysis of all of this was a fire station impact to our station studied at all? Was it accounted for?

That would not be a part

of the traffic No. Wasn't done either. Okay. And then do we study in traditional, I suppose, traffic analysis, if one were to have been done on this project, do we study the, delivery trucks, Amazon, UPS, FedEx, that that that idle on the road?

If a traffic study would be required, we would include that information. But because we know that's a could be an issue, we put that as a condition so that it would not be an issue. They would not be permitted to park along Hermosa. Okay. And it will be signed so they cannot.

Alright. Very good. Any other questions from our council?

I have a quick question.

Go ahead.

I'd like to follow-up on the the fire engine because that is, the thing I was concerned about. And I am looking at the the picture provided. Thank you. And it corresponds with my memory. I will say I live on the East Side, so I do not go on Hermosa. I go from the East Side Of Fullerton to Cal State Fullerton. That's the extent of my commute, except coming here to council, honestly. But so I did go up to Hermosa and look at it, and I looked at the street, and I did notice the the fire station. So I'd like to hear if the fire chief has any opinions or or statements about, the safety issue about the fire trucks going in and out.

Sure. No, and we appreciate the residents keeping access and for emergency services at the forefront of any project or any development. And getting the getting that input, we did review the the access points to our fire station, both access to and responding from. I worked there for many years responding on the fire engine both out of the rear and to the front onto Harbor. We do have multiple ways that we can exit and we can enter onto that particular fire station.

Our primary way that we respond is out the front to the west onto Harbor. We do have a traffic control signal that is there that provides the most the safest way for us to exit and response and the quickest way for us to respond. Either to go north, south, east, or west, east back down towards or west back down towards Hermosa. So there are multiple ways that we can get out if there happens to be an issue with either responding or returning back to the station. So we do look at we did look at that that point on Hermosa there across from where the development is.

As we look at at all development that comes across our desk, we work with the the planning division at the beginning of the project before it's fully submitted and then through the course of the course of that plan. And that's through our plans examiner and then of course our fire marshal signs off on that. And the the width and the access point for our fire engines does meet the California fire code for that both for us to respond to an emergency and then also to make access to our station. Secondarily, it also provides us to make access to the development itself for emergency response including access for our ladder truck as well. So, yeah, we look at it from a couple different vantage points.

One is can we can we meet our primary metric which is our response times. That's how you hold us accountable for doing our job is maintaining response times. So is that able to be well withheld with whatever the project is, this particular one, the answer is yes. Are we able to respond quickly to the new development and maneuver around to make either rescues, fire attack, medical emergencies, that is all evaluated and put against the California Fire Code and the answer to that is yes. So we do take that very seriously just as our residents have and I greatly appreciate them looking at that But we take it equally as seriously and overlay that with California fire code, our type of fire engines that we we do deploy on, and the quickness that we can access just not the proposed project, but also the current, residents that are in the surrounding area.

Thank you for the very detailed response. But just to summarize, in your your department did do an assessment of this project and it did not meet a public health or safety threat?

Correct.

Okay. Thank you. Because that's that's an important point. And then someone also brought up the point about, sanitation trucks, which we're in the midst of, looking at our new waste proposal. But, I mean, let's just say, you know, Republic Services because that's our contractor right now. If the director of public works could please speak to you know, if that is an impact that we need to look at or if we have looked at that.

We've already looked at it. So part of the preliminary review process, the team, we have a solid waste and recycling specialist on our team that that does join the preliminary review for developments, and they were able to provide comments as part of that process from the waste disposal standpoint. So, yes, it's been looked at.

Okay. And and trucks are able to get in and out of this and and should not cause too much problems on Hermosa? Correct. Okay. Those are my clarification questions. Are we moving on to comments at this point? Or

No. I think I'll I'll

let my fellow colleagues have some questions. I'll do my comments later.

Alright. Very good. Councilor Mazar, thank you.

Sure. Would you like to go first? Thank you.

I wanted to talk a little bit I'll just ask a couple

of questions on the density. Could you just clarify the level of density for this particular project? Is it low density? Is it moderate? This is a question for staff.

Is the question referring to the five units that are gonna be set aside for affordable unit?

No. No. No. It's just the overall classification density classification of this particular project. What is it? Is it

It could be similar to a medium density type development.

So this is medium, not low density. This is a medium density.

It could be similar to a medium density type project.

What does that mean similar to?

In evaluating the project, the city of Fullerton has a low density designation, medium density, and high density, And medium density would be appropriate for this type of development, close to what's being proposed.

Got it. Okay. And then also on the the timeline of this, it seems like this started this project started two years ago. Why did it, take so long?

Staff worked with the project applicant, in revising, adjusting adjusting the project site plan. Also included environmental review, the categorical exemption report required timing. There are specialists that visited the site. There's a noise analysis that was also conducted. So the timing involved working with the applicant as well as the city's consultant.

So was this and is this a normal timeline or is there any any delays for any purpose?

This would be a general time frame when a project includes environmental review.

K. And then I do wanna ask about it was mentioned pedestrian safety and also bike lanes. Could you could someone speak on on that a little bit? Thank you.

Are you referring to Hermosa? Yes. So there are no bike lanes on Hermosa. They are edge line striping. Harbor continuing past Hermosa does have bike lanes, but there's nothing on Hermosa. And regarding pedestrian safety, there's no documented cases about pedestrians being injured. There's no trend

there's all all of it will have sidewalks and or walkability. Correct?

It's it's walkable. Yeah.

Okay.

And the we will be upgrading the developer will be upgrading, so it'll have the APS system as well as safety lighting at the intersection, which will enhance visibility.

I I have a one thank you. I have one last question on the planning decision planning Commission decision. It was a three two. Was there any particular quantifiable or objective evidence that the Planning Commission or the three on the planning commission may base their decision upon?

No. So

there was no no standards or objectives. So this this this was purely a matter of opinion as opposed to objective standards?

No. Objective information was provided to the recommendation. Okay.

That is all the questions I have. Thank you.

Alright. Now I did wanna clarify. I believe the Planning Commission ruling was four one, right, not three two?

The final decision was three to two.

Oh, whether Correct.

Yes. That's correct. Okay.

Councilwoman Valencia.

Thank you.

Anything to add?

I have

a quick question for the developer. I see in the beginning plans, you had a 20% low income for the state requirement, and now the new plans are decreased to the 13%. Can you go into why you changed that, and, what's the reasoning for it?

Yeah. So when the project kicked off, I could say the market was in a different place. So as interest rates continue to rise, they didn't come back down. These were levers we needed to use in order to maintain the project feasibility to make sure it could get built. And so decreasing that affordability from the 20% down to 13% ensured that the project could continue.

Alright. Any other questions for staff or the appellant? Okay. Very well. I'll go and close the public hearing. Thank the appellant for, his time. Do we have anyone who wanna kick us off discussion wise? Councilman, go ahead.

Thank you very much. I I appreciate everyone coming out and speaking. I think opinions matter. We all have different opinions about housing. We all have different opinions about what safety looks like or what safety feels like.

And I certainly live in a dense area where I've seen, you know, what parking issues are, and I've lived through them. My I live in a very I think in the densest part of Fullerton and in a in an apartment. I I'm a I'm a renter. And my my street has several, I I don't know, several thousand residents. And so and I we've seen developments happen where some of these concerns have been raised.

But then over the over the time in the course of the life of the project, people have adapted and and the issues and the the concerns that were raised during the development process were in fact found to be not true or they had been mitigated. So I find that in the end I think we have to look at this in a very objective matter and all our opinions, while valid, all come down to a very technical thing, which is the state laws. And in this case, we are deciding on a very specific thing, which is an appeal, an appeal to a Planning Commission decision. And the only question that needs to be asked is whether that Planning Commission decision was based on any objective facts. And the question is clearly no.

And therefore, I think based on these facts, that planning commission decision should be overturned. And so that would be my decision tonight is to, overrule that decision and let this, and accept the appeal.

Alright. Thank you. Council member?

Sure. Or would council member Valencia prefer to go? Okay. I'm happy to do that. So I am very cognizant of state law, and and that to me is the real issue. And I know we do have a deficit situation. I know that litigation can cost millions of dollars, and I think staff made it pretty clear. What's sticking in my mind is the slide that had a green box and a red box, what we can and what we can't. And then what we can't is laid out in state law. And, unfortunately, what we heard were things that we are not allowed to take into account in this situation.

We have a 13,000 RINA number, and the law says and I I'm not one to buck state law now. I I don't know whether or not everyone is gonna agree with me on that statement. But for me, the state law says we are not allowed to take into account whether or not it's dense or whether I approve the project. And, honestly, if it had been a five story, whatever unit, 60 unit, larger one, these these same criteria would apply. So I I appreciate that, the developer did think about and try to work with the community as much as possible, took into account the community meeting.

I appreciate that Hermosa And Harbor is going to be safer. I would love a stoplight there as well. I understand that that might not be popular either, but I do think we need more more ability to just oh, there is a stoplight there. Great. I apologize then. Thinking about Euclid and the other one then. I'm fantastic. So I if there's a stoplight there, I'd love to see it. Actually, let's let's make it know, you're making the ADA more accessible. I was thinking it was just a crosswalk because we hadn't mentioned a stoplight.

But thank you for clarifying. I absolutely stand corrected. The point is it's not necessarily where I live or don't live or what the density is or isn't. It's just that state law is saying we are not allowed to take anything into account but a quantifiable public health. And I do think that, the concerns that were raised were answered by our city staff, that the fire department looked at whether or not that fire station would be affected, which is not something that I knew before this.

And and I appreciate the information from our fire chief, who's a nationally recognized fire chief and is a leader, among departments in this country. And so I I value his opinion. I mean, me, not opinion, his analysis of that. And our our director of public works saying that the other issue was looked at in terms of sanitation and in terms of the traffic studies that were done. This is these are the facts before us.

There's there's nothing that has been provided that gives me a quantifiable reason to deny the project that the plan to uphold what the Planning Commission did, and therefore, I would also be in favor of, approving the appeal and, overturning the Planning Commission decision. I apologize. My mic is off, and I I look forward to hearing what my colleagues think about this.

Right. Any other comments before we seek motions, go about in delivery? Alright. Go ahead.

You know, in a world where people believe in local control, I'd be able to express my concerns. But, you know, I think the reality with what we've heard tonight and what we've heard in the weeks since our last planning commission meeting regarding this item is that we can't well, that's okay. They can turn the volume up. Yeah. The reality is since our last planning commission meeting where we discussed this matter, you know, we we've been told what we can and can't do.

You know, we've been we've been threatened with no less than five lawsuits from different parties on both sides of the matter, people that are, you know, the the proponents of the project and also opponents of the project. And I think, you know, what's interesting is that, you know, for a lot of the folks in here, I mean, I've I've been up to your neighborhood and met you in your driveways, and, you know, we met at the community center and the same with the developer. I mean, I wanna say, you know, between each group of people probably put took no less than five or six meetings with each party trying to kinda work together to try to kind and find some kind of solution, you know, to to help, you know, figure the situation out because you got a lot of people on on both sides of the issue that are unhappy. But I think what's interesting is as we got these letters, right, from Oakland and San Francisco and Sacramento and some of these other agencies, what I realized is that nobody from Fullerton actually expressed concerns over the lack of safety. It was people from outside of of Fullerton that had expressed concerns and stating that these concerns for safety were, you know, overstated or exaggerated.

And what's what's important to note here, it's not so much that this project is going to create new issues, gonna exacerbate issues that are already in place. For example, you know, I looked at the math, and I I will say, not not gonna beat up on staff here because I don't wanna take away from the, you know, the time that we have to discuss this. The reality is I was I was not thrilled with the staff report. You know, not just the the report that was put forward by the the housing team, but also some of the the traffic and public works reports as well, I think failed to really account for a lot of the concerns. Just by simple, you know, simple research, you go to the Fullerton PD's website, you can see that in the past year alone, there's actually been nine car accidents between La Entrada and Los Riendas.

Actually, three of those were at the Harbor And Hermosa intersection. So when people talk about a concern for safety, you know, nine car accidents in this particular area and I I will say I'm somebody who travels the stretch of of the road about 40 to 50 times a week taking my kids to and from different, you know, different programs that they have and also for for, you know, business that I have as well. And so we know the traffic patterns, and we know what it's like. And so for someone to sit outside of Fullerton and make these classifications having never been here and not understanding the nuances, yeah, I I think that's that that certainly gives me pause and gives me, know, I think I think more of an impetus to really wanna weigh in here and try to make sure that we are advocating for the safety of the community because these are proven documented issues. Why they were not brought up by you know, in the staff report, why they were not brought up by the planning commission, I really can't speak to that.

I can only go based off of my own kind of understanding of these issues. Another issue, and I know it's been alluded to, including by the applicant, is the fact that if you're on Hermosa and you are looking West at Harb or e excuse me, looking east at Harbor, it's a blind turn. And they talked a little bit of, I think, about moving some of the, you know, moving some of the setback off of the, off of the road so to maybe improve visibility. But the visibility there, I think, is a big issue. And I I will say, I think that and, I'm no I'm no traffic expert here, but what I what I wanna say is that I believe that the lack of visibility, the speed, and the lighting at that particular intersection are part of what caused some of these safety concerns, at least that I have.

So then that's so that's the second point. Right? If you're on Hermosa sort of looking east and then about to turn south on the harbor, the next one is if you are turning onto and I think this is another big concern. And, actually, I was out there this weekend. I think what what gets lost for a lot of us, you know, is that this is also equestrian neighborhood.

And so it's pretty common for folks on on horseback to be kind of riding to and from and and across the street. And so it occurred to me that one of the interesting, you know, and and, you know, situation we're gonna now have to deal with is that you're gonna have folks turning that are heading south well, really north or south on Harbor turning onto Hermosa, and there will be folks turning immediately into the complex and then have situation where there's queuing potentially backing up and causing other issues for pedestrian or requestoring activity as well. And so, certainly, if the project were to move forward, I definitely think they should look at doing something additional on the Hermosa side to maybe extend onto the property line to perhaps, you know, allow folks to pull off like, if they're pulling off of Harbor, essentially to pull over so that traffic can continue, and it doesn't cause, like, a bottleneck or any queuing that would that would, you know, that would come back to Harbor. So I think those are really the three or four concerns that I have. And considering our choices are really approve the project, get sued, don't approve the project, get sued, can't make any determination as to you know, really, we and we can't even we can't even account for additional considerations that need to be made because the decision has to be made by May 11.

I'm given no choice but to uphold the Planning Commission's decision and reject the project, and I'll make that motion.

Alright. Did you have something to add? Yeah. Go ahead.

Sorry. Real quick. I know that we can also, based on this decision I have concerns, safety concerns. There's a lot of things that based on how the builder remedy is going through, the development doesn't have to follow the CEQA guidelines, city ordinance for the electric lines going underground, and the traffic safety, as you can hear, wasn't really conducted. The water and sewer infrastructure is old in that area, and I worry about the water infrastructure going into those city pipes on harbor.

So I just have a lot of safety concerns with it. So I would actually put a motion in to modify the plans and see about having those guidelines put in place, such as underground, power, the infrastructure for sewer and water, and the SECA guidelines.

Okay. I think it's important to understand historical context in all of this. That neighborhood is ranch homes. They are they were not meant for, nor designed for, or even planned for the amount of traffic that exists now on Harbor Hermosa. You know, a review that the state mandates within thirty days challenges not only our staff, but everybody associated with it.

It puts unreasonable pressures down that I I believe more thorough information back to us would have been certainly helpful for this deliberative body. You know? So I I am always cautious of decisions that we make without really anal anal analysis done. And in this particular case, a traffic study was not warranted, did not meet meet the metrics, and so one wasn't performed. But that is the ultimate result of everybody that has to not only purchase that development or unit in thereof or everybody around it that'll live there now and in perpetuity.

And I'm always very mindful of the fact thirty days put so much pressure on all of us. I I'd be very remiss if I just didn't shake my head at the at the notion of this timetable. It's just ridiculously unreasonable for a neighborhood that's existed for over a hundred years. And I I I find that this is not a council that denies housing of any kind. Every project, housing related that's come before this council has been approved in the end.

That is not what Fullerton has dealt with. I I think this this neighborhood and and the challenges that certainly traffic represents is very concerning to me. That said, there are there is a motion on the table from

the We signed motions. We had missus Valencia's motion and then mister Dunlap's motion.

I thought councilman Zara made a motion. No.

I I did not make a motion yet, but I but I I don't think there were seconds to either of those motions. But I I would like, if I may, just say a follow-up to some of the arguments that were made by my colleagues. We have to be objective in this analysis. Being worried about something, being concerned about something is not objective. That is a subjective view.

This council is not providing any evidence to back up their claims or the council members that are making those claims. We are now going down the same path as the Planning Commission, where the Planning Commission based their opinions not on fact but on feelings and worries and concerns. If there are concerns that are being able to, that my colleagues can bring forward some data to back that up, then we certainly could debate those and look at those. Being worried about being sued is not a cause. It is not a reason to bring into this.

And the accidents that were cited or the number of accidents were cited is just purely a number without knowing the exact cause of those accidents. We don't know. They could be just fender benders that had nothing to do with with the the the makeup and the design of the those streets. Furthermore, those happened prior to this development even being approved. So those cannot be used as factors.

This is all now just subjective opinions by members of this council. The studies, as being said on the traffic, were not warranted. They were not warranted for a reason. And that was an objective reason based on the analysis and the data that was generated. And then the issue that these are opinions made somehow by outside agencies.

I've read those letters too that came. Those letters were citing our own city planning and city department studies. They were not their opinions. They were citing our opinions. So to say that this these opinions were for somehow somebody in Sacramento not knowing our community, I think our staff know our community very well.

And so this is to me a very technical question. It is not about feelings. It is not about concerns. It is not about anything that we worry about other than a fact that is this objective, is the Planning Commission's, was the Planning Commission's decision based on objective standards and facts? And the answer was very clear, it was no.

So that is the only question in front of us. To deny or to uphold based on that particular fact. And right now we were not presented with anything that is objective. We were presented with opinions, not backed by data, not backed by officials, official studies. So I urge the council to not go down the same path as our Planning Commission did.

So for that I will make a motion, since there wasn't a second to either of those motions, I'll make a motion to deny or overturn the Planning Commission's decision and approve the appeal.

Alright. Go ahead.

Sorry. I'm gonna get get a few clarifying comments in there.

I I Excuse me. I was talking about councilmember Valencia's Alright.

Can I propose a real quick?

Sure. I've just I've been waiting so patiently down here since councilmember Valencia spoke. I just wanted to point that out.

Okay. So just just to address a few of those things. I mean, the reality is, I think what we heard earlier and, you know, clearly, these are facts. With these reports and the studies, it's it's garbage in, garbage out. And, frankly, that's what I think a lot of these decisions were made off of. I was not pleased with the staff report. I think these staff staff reports yielded, you know, sort of those opinions. And, frankly, talking about data, I mean, I could give you the dates if you want. I I was able to get that in my analysis. These are facts. Dates, facts, data points that were taken into account taken into consideration. Sure. I will. So you've got

The public.

Absolutely. I've got it. Yeah. I'll read it in for you. That'll make you feel good. So you got at Harbor And Los Riendas, 11/22/2025, 02/25/2026. Harbor And Hermosa, August 17 seventeenth twenty twenty five, 12/10/2025, 03/17/2026. Harbor La Entrada, 04/13/2026, 05/30/2025. So those are just again, those are just seven

Were they caused by the prod production by the by this development?

So listen.

It Was it caused by the development? You you cited three ad you cited three

caused by the development. Because this is the objective standard.

It has

to do with the

not with what happened prior. No. That's you're absolutely right. Yeah. That's you're absolutely right. And the point is these are not the result of that project. This project would exacerbate those issues, and that's the point.

And was there a study to to prove that? Do you have the data to prove that

this is going to exacerbate this? Again, because garbage in, garbage out, we didn't get good data. We didn't get the data that we needed, and that's that's the whole point. So I've kind of expressed to you my logic and where I am at based on the data that I was provided. So I I'm prepared to vote. I'm prepared to make my same motion again. You know, that's that's where I'm at.

I I would like to jump in and discuss council member Valencia's points, because she mentioned three things in the modification that I I just wanna dive into if we possibly can.

What?

So the the first one that and correct me because I know there's a lot going on, so I'm happy to talk to you. This is a conversation. The I I just want the CEQA thing caught my attention first. There were two other things I definitely wanna get to. But if the attorney or or or I believe CEQA is is explicitly forbidden in this case because of the the Belders Remedy project. Is that correct?

It's not forbidden. There was an initial CEQA analysis that was already completed. Okay. Jessica's here from Michael Baker, who can address the review that went into the CEQA analysis to determine that it was an exemption under state law.

So a CEQA exemption was okay. So that but so you're asking is you would like it to not be an exemption then because they already did a CEQA analysis, it showed it's exempt. So how would it be another analysis? Or there were two other things you mentioned. You mentioned the underground electric, if and and that might be something they're already thinking about. Is that something that's included in the project or could be included in the project?

The underground utility was a waiver that they requested under the density bonus law.

In other words, we're not doing the underground Correct. Specifically?

Correct. Our local requirements are that, undergrounding utilities is a requirement of new construction projects, and there is a, exemption process through the council if that is explored. But under density bonus law, they are able to enact, not needing to underground utilities as part of the waiver. If they were to meet the affordability requirements, the unit requirements, etcetera, that is an option for the developer,

and that is

what they exercise for this project.

Okay. So speaking then to the developer, is that something that would be completely off the table from your end, or is that something that you could potentially include in the project?

So similar to the, initial conversation about project feasibility

Mhmm.

State density law allows, one or more concessions, and we had elected to use this concession because the cost of the undergrounding and if I remember correctly, these power lines all feed neighbors, and so we'd eventually have to underground them and get access to neighbor properties to connect those back to their panels. And so because of that, we thought that we analyze that to be a, a high cost and take the project out of our control. So we use a concession to make sure the project can continue forward.

Okay. I see. So it's the existing overground electricity that you would have to put underground, but it's already existing. Correct.

So the existing underground. Yeah. So our project would place all of the new service underground. It's the existing poles that are on the North property line that's, that run from Hermosa into the neighborhood that the Fullerton code requires undergrounding that we use a concession to to remove the requirement.

But for your property, the new building would be the new electricity grid would be underground?

Correct. All all of our services are underground.

Okay. So that's good to know. And what was the third thing? I apologize. Okay. So could could and that has been brought up. Can we talk about the infrastructure for water and sewage and and what's that how that is Yeah. Being addressed? Staffing.

Yeah. So part of the conditions approval included two things. But prior to prior to the conditions being written, the applicant was requested to submit an analysis for Sewer specifically, and their desktop desktop analysis showed that there there was no new downstream capacity deficiencies. So then we then took that desktop analysis, sent it to our consultant to run ARMA hydraulic model for sewer, and that came back with a conclusion that there's not anticipated that there's not anticipated to cause a any new capacity deficiencies within the city's downstream eight inch or 10 inch gravity mains. So from a sewer standpoint, that's already been looked at, and we're good.

From a water standpoint, part of the conditions of approval is for the the applicant to submit a water demand study once they get a little further into their design, and it's based off fixture counts to determine what type of demand their their project is gonna ultimately draw. Right now, there's other conditions for them to tie into water mains, but once we get that water demand study, they would be responsible for any upgrades to our system to to basically serve their development.

Okay. And did you wanna add something?

Yes, please.

Can I I'd like to respond to your question, if you don't mind? The class 32 exemption fully complies with CEQUA just like any other project that it that qualifies for the class 32 exemption, meaning that there's not environmental impacts in certain issue areas. The class 32 exemption would be available to those projects just like it was here. So it is in full compliance with CEQA, and CEQA is fully evaluated as part of the project.

Okay. And that that makes sense to me. So you don't know this, but I'm a professor. And I have to put in for institutional review board of my projects and the difference between human subjects research exempt if you're looking at a survey versus you know, the exemption still qualifies. Exactly. That's meets the requirements.

Yes. Thank you.

Okay. So what I'm hearing is that they've they've met Sequel already. They're doing underground at least for their project, and the water study is coming up. So, I think they've met those criteria, it sounds like, to me. So I will second, council member Zara's motion just to overturn the planning commission's decision and to approve this project. Because I because the modifications don't seem to be needed. It seems to me they're they are included.

Okay. We have a motion on the table. Madam Clerk, let's call room.

Council member Charles?

Aye.

Councilmember Valencia?

For the Ahmad's motion to go ahead Yes. To approve it. To overturn planning commissions. I would like to modify. I don't know how to go through this process because I feel that the modifications should uphold and really be looked at in further detail, such as traffic studies, the water study, and make sure we're not gonna have hang ups later within our city. I I brings great concern to me. We've gotten a lot of situations financially lately, and if city has to keep paying more and more for these projects, I'm really concerned.

K. If I may, council member, can I just we we are all concerned about finances? And I think the any lawsuits denying this project tonight, the lawsuits are going to be will have an immense financial impact on us. But more so, we know that also there's a time constraint. We have a time constraint until the eleventh, which does not give any time for this project to go with any modifications and I believe, I don't believe there are any modifications to be made that haven't already been looked at and done. So it would be just an exercise in futility.

If I could ask what the I believe I heard two points about the intersection and side triangles and a modification for water demand study that were already being done. Were there what modifications?

And and I'm happy to modify my motion if we can find those modifications. If they are simple enough to do tonight, then we can include them in part of the motion.

Sure. I really feel like a traffic study needs to be completed, and I really feel like a water study needs to be completed. And I really feel like that there's a lot of things that still need to be completed before we agree with this project. I don't wanna get in over our head like we've done with a lot of projects before I came on council to get now get stuck and fix stand aids further and further. So I would just like some modifications done so this is done correctly. Staff, as you keep saying, everybody keeps hearing we're not getting full complete reports. We're not able to make the best decisions. And you're saying there's emotions involved. There were no emotions involved, and I don't know how you're thinking that based on what I'm stating tonight. I really feel that these objections should be looked at.

We but they weren't the the study was not warranted? The the

Not yet. Because it hasn't been built. So it needs to be looked at before it is built.

It it met the exemption requirements. So it the traffic study was done, and it was found to be exempt because it didn't reach the threshold of meeting the fuller study.

Was

no the traffic assessment, the TAPP, the form that was showing ask then about this?

Could we ask about what a traffic study would would mean if we can get our traffic engineer?

And if it could be done by Monday?

And can if it's been explained

It doesn't need to be done by Monday. I'll clarify for you, council member.

Well, let's have this city end by city traffic engineer because this is a public hearing, and everything is said is going on the record.

And I think at this point, we also have to rescind my vote since we kind of interrupted voting to to keep going with this? And I'm not quite sure where this is gonna land. We should probably just vote again completely wherever we land. Yeah.

A traffic study does not need to be done because we have requirements that trips have to be made to do a traffic study. If we did a traffic study, we would find out the same thing that it's not going to impact the streets as much as everybody is saying it's going to. So we're gonna find nothing from the study if we conducted one.

And a traffic study is not modification. That's just an additional, study. What is there any modifications to the project itself that you think that could help some of the issues that you you you are worried about?

I would like everything to be underground utilities, and I'd like a water study done. I don't know how we can do that because I worry about now Harbor. I don't know when Harbor's mainline was repaired last, and will it pop open, and we're now we're gonna have an infrastructure situation that we have to fix and repair on Harbor. I just I don't know. The those questions I would like answered and those modifications I would like included.

But they've already gotten the exemption by state law. So, again, the project is called it has met all the the the standard

Bear water study is being the water study

is being done. Hold on.

We are doing the water study.

Please.

So if you would like, councilwoman, modifications, make the motion to make whatever modifications that you have. If the project developer is amenable to those, I'm I'm certain they would say. So if you want to make a motion or tell the developer, we can hear right now on the record what what they find is acceptable to their bottom line.

Would you make those modifications for the underground? We already gave up 20% to 13% low income to help offset your costs. The other cost you're asking to offset is now the underground wires and electrical use.

The it's it's less so we actually it's been about two years since we looked at the cost of undergrounding. It's more about the fact that the those connections go to existing homeowners. And so if we underground those poles, we then have to chase onto neighbor properties, that power line going to their electrical service panel, for example, which places us in a position where if a neighbor doesn't allow us access to their to project, this entire project gets, stalled or terminated. And so using the concession under the state density bonus, this ensures the project is feasible and the units and the affordable units actually get built. So we would be using the state density bonus and what's allowed under state law to to remove the underground requirement.

Okay. I have a question for our city staff. Does this open the door for future developments now they can not have to put the power lines underground?

Are you asking whether it sets a precedence?

Mhmm.

We do have projects that, even through our requirement for the FMC, they request a waiver. We do have a local process without enacting the density bonus law, and we do have projects that we have provided that waiver for projects, industrial, commercial, and for residential.

Okay. But so would you be willing to go through that process that the, staff member spoke of regarding that exemption rather than

I'm not understanding what the process is to request the waiver? To request a waiver.

The request is through the density bonus law, you have a waiver option for undergrounding utilities. Through our local FMC, there's also a process that goes through staff review, for financial infus you know, feasibility around underground and utilities. We would review that between public works and CD. And if it warrants taking it to back to council, we would do that at at that time.

You'd you'd have to withdraw your waiver and agree to the concession modification.

Yeah. If it were again, if it were just on our frontage, potentially, but the fact that it triggers multiple neighbors that we have to get permission for, I think it would eventual effectively derail this project.

But, again, your is the project that you're building, all of your electricity is underground. It's not like you're installing new above ground poles. Our our existing Yours is gonna be underground. You're just not correcting what's already there.

Correct.

Our new service is all underground. Communication cables, power lines, they all go underground directly to the units and come to their panels, and so there's no new power lines or new poles we're putting in place.

Okay. That that, I clearly understand where you're coming from. That that didn't answer my concern about going through the process. We issue waivers on our end. There's a process to go through. Perhaps one of the reasons one of the metrics for that is the fact that the project itself would be terminated if had to get neighbor 100% neighbor buy in. Is that or I I mean, I don't wanna determine the process for for you, but has that been done in the city where we've had projects derailed by neighbors basically not allowing power lines to be undergrounded? I I mean, that scenario, has that occurred before?

No. By the community members or the comments? No. There we have had projects that have gone through the waiver request for underground utilities for various categories or types of land uses. Whether the city has granted them, yes, we have granted them. There is an appeal process as part of that. If it's appealed, it goes to council. But I I need to pull up that FMC just to make sure. But, yes, there is a local process. They do have the ability to do that if the developer wishes to do the local route and not take up the waiver through the density bonus law.

Well, then what I'll do is if if it's alright with the councilwoman, I will make a substitute motion that it is approved based on condition of going through that process with our city. I think that then that answers the councilwoman's concern, I think. I don't know.

Can I just to clarify one thing on this on this process? The I think what the the applicant is saying is that now we are putting him at the mercy of the approval of a resident that may say no, and that would derail the project. So this seems to be more putting a burden on the project that could potentially derail it, and I think this is an unreasonable ask.

I I would perhaps agree with you if I didn't understand the process was of that nature, but I I don't believe that's what the director of economic development was saying.

No. I think that is

what she was saying that it was staffed or that would grant the waiver No. Based on

Yes. This would it if this was approved through that condition, it would go through plan check. They have the ability to request the waiver and staff both both departments would review it for various components. One is utility, and then our office looks at the client use and the feasibility of the project. It is an administrative process. We would go through that. There is an appeal process that would bring it to counsel if need be. What is here today is that because of the nature of the type of appeal under the Housing Accountability Act, that modification, is necessary to have the developer accept that process because it is a waiver under the density bonus law. Or how they wish to proceed on that, will need to be set in in record.

So we are they already have a waiver from state law, the same state law that's requiring us to essentially approve this because we have not found any public health. And what we're telling them is that in order to get our approval, they have to give up what they already have, the waiver, and try to get our city to give them what they already have.

Well, the city's That doesn't

seem to make sense.

Given that given that waiver before. I don't I don't know that it's something that hard to quantify. Is it?

It's it seems like a delay by another tactic, and just thinking about the I

I wouldn't box for the red box. If they want their project approved, perhaps that's a concession they make. I don't know. I'm not the developer.

I think if they want their project approved, they should get it tonight or I think they will have some some court issues to deal some court orders that they can get it through.

I I mean, I think we're this this is legal. Are you giving legal advice?

No. I just I'm just saying sound like there's already been several letters that are in the public records that are saying that they we would be sued if this is denied tonight. So, again, we're we're just this is a deny a a this is just bureaucracy. You're telling them to go through a process, a little process.

That is gone through by many developers, Our our community and economic development

director sets But the result is going to be the same.

So then the result is the

same. Possibly see this

But at least delay. The process has been checked off.

Green and the red box, that would be really helpful. I mean, I'm serious. If we could get that slide up about the green and the red box, because that is really all I'm thinking about right now is what is allowed and what is not allowed under state law. And I I'd like to see that green box again. And I don't have it in front of me because we don't have the slides. I I I looked forward in the supplemental, and I couldn't find it. Thank you. Okay. So this is what we're allowed to do. This is what we're not allowed to do.

Alright. So obviously, we are not denying for quantifiable adverse health and safety impacts. I understand the public felt that was there, but we couldn't quantify that. I don't necessarily see any findings based on documented evidence, because we're asking them to have the city grant them something the state already did. Objective written standards. Has this ever happened before that we had a Builders Remedy Project give up the state granted rights and then have to

go through had a Builders Remedy Project before. Well This is it.

Don't think we've had one that was denied and we had to appeal, but we've had other projects.

We we've never had one.

We have not

had Literally need only one. We

haven't had a builder's remedy

Not get to this end

of this study. Correct.

We've had a lot proposed. They've fallen apart for various reasons. Don't tell me we've never had one before. We had many the public didn't know about. This is the only one that got to this point. Okay. So there hasn't been any we don't have any objective evidence that this happened before is what I'm saying. I believe the applicant would like to say something here.

Thank you. I just want to add something into the record that might be helpful. And CalHDF pointed this out in their letter, but the locking out of Flintridge case was on exactly this issue, a a builder's remedy project that was denied by a city without any substantial evidence of written objective public health and safety standards that were violated. And the city was hit with a $14,000,000 bond.

No one is denying excuse me. No. We understand the case law. The city attorney advised us on it in closed session, but no one's denied the project yet. What we're trying to do is make it get to a yes. I'd like your cooperation to try and get to that rather than Threads. Threads from our own counsel. Unbelievable, but apparently. So if we can, I I I encourage you to work with us to get to the yes part? That's what we're trying to do here. No one's saying no, at least not yet.

Understood. I yes. I thought that might be helpful information

back then. To the rest of the council. We're trying to get to a yes. I'd encourage you to help us get there.

Well, maybe you should actually listen to those of us that are probably the vote that you need to get to a yes because I'm feeling like councilmember Dunlap is a sure no. So you're gonna need one of us.

I don't I don't know that that's the case.

For the past, I could probably be doing it. Objective. It's not the theme of the night.

Objective. Well, you know, I really think and I'm I'm gonna put this on the record. I think that this is not a reasonable process to ask them to do. It's not reasonable to I it would be reasonable to ask them to do a water study, and I'm glad that that's being included. It would be reasonable to ask them to have their own electricity underground, which they are already doing. It is not reasonable to ask them to give up legal protections from state law so that they could possibly roll the dice and possibly, if our if our staff is reading between the lines, that you are telling them that they absolutely must grant this waiver, but they could possibly get one in the future that they don't know whether or not they could. That is not reasonable.

That's all subjective.

Well, let's the the process the process of the process of the waiver, what's been the usual time frame for that?

The process for the waiver varies. Usually, it's closer to the end of the plan check process. We tried to get it in sooner than later, especially in the last four years. They are required to give us cost estimates working with SCE to understand with our local team what the utility requirements are as it relates to their projects, and then overall to see whether, that would make a significant impact of making the project feasible or not.

What's what's the time frame?

A month, two months, or months?

What's the variance?

As much as I'd love to answer that, I think SE's return times are a huge quali factor of that. But our review times, yeah, probably a couple weeks.

K.

And and how much staff time would that take too? How many hours of staff time do we think? And how many staff members?

I think it's tough to estimate. I would say probably two from each of our shops that would be reviewing that. Okay.

Alright. Can can I just say, the the the issue is and for folks who are applauding this process, as you heard, the goal is to get to a yes. So this process is just changing the the state waiver for undergrounding to a city waiver for undergrounding. You're you're not changing anything in this project with this process. Nothing will change.

No. Nothing is going to change. The only thing that will happen is that we're creating an unreasonable obstacle and delay for this particular project. This is unreasonable. The waivers, all the standards have been met.

And so nothing is going to change. Right? Nothing is going to change except for that waiver which is going to put him at risk. So if everybody's applauding, thinking that this is going to be derailing the project, then that is also something that needs to be put on the record if this council is trying to do that. So whether through the state waiver

that he's already derail the project?

Whether the whether

How has that derail the project? Because Nothing's been decided yet. How do you know? You're making a decision based on what this was. About objective things. Let me let me finish.

I didn't interrupt anyone.

Let me

just finish.

Let me finish. That

Let me finish.

Commission had made a decision Let

me finish.

And that we needed objective facts to overturn that decision. And and the notion excuse me. And the notion of all of this right now is we're trying to get to the yes, and you keep putting obstacles in the way Yep. By saying hold on a second. By saying Putting obstacles. Clearly that this would be denied in the process somewhere when that doesn't seem to be my inclination at all. It's just part of our local process.

What is the point of having someone get the exemption from undergrounding certain parts?

He didn't get the exemption.

If under a stat. Hey. Let me finish. Please, let me finish. Let me finish. I listened to you, and I listened to you interrupt me. But let me finish my trail of thought. What's the point of having this project get the waiver for not undergrounding every single thing from the state and then do the same exact thing, getting through a bureaucratic process to get the same exact waiver for not undergrounding everything locally. What's the what's the difference between this? The project's going to be the same, the units are going be the same, the density is going to be the same, the traffic lining is going to be the same.

We're just saying let's delay this project by creating a bureaucratic process by taking the same thing he already has and trying to do this locally. That's it. It it doesn't make sense, and it's an unreasonable ask. And Well, it's

an unreasonable ask to you. And, thankfully, you're not the project developer nor the property owner. So it's an unreasonable ask to you, but I haven't heard that it was unreasonable from the developer yet. Well

Yep. They said that multiple times, actually. They have said that

That's not what he said. He didn't say anything of that said.

He

said that it would derail if the neighbors if we had asked for undergrounding electric

fires. This, and she's nodding. So if you'd like to come back up and say it clearly so that mayor can understand it, that would be fine, but the rest of us understood it. Yes. And we can vote on the substitute motion if you like.

Let's vote it. In fact

to do that.

It's not necessary. Let's go ahead and vote. Vote the substitute motion.

But because the public hearing, it is necessary to hear the applicant. I'm sorry.

Say that clearly.

Lee, it's not. It's not. It's not.

Excuse me.

Excuse me.

We need to have if you

Excuse me.

Thing she needs to say for the

public not how the public hearing works. The public hearing, the applicant had plenty of time to address and answer all questions.

Two seconds ago, were willing to let speaker motion. So let's speak.

We'll go and vote it.

Two seconds ago, won't delete your speaker. And we were voting already on a motion.

We'll vote it.

Member Valencia completely derailed the the voting. So we're ready to vote.

Let let's vote on the original.

You're all the building is gonna be built. Right?

Let let's You you're not the vote process.

They're just tricking you. Honestly honestly, they're tricking you because they just want your votes later on. And they want a concession for feels good. But honestly, the process is the same. We're just adding another bureaucratic layer for this gentleman and his project. It's going to be the same. You're all being fooled by this process.

Well, I'm I'm sure they appreciate the lecture. Madam clerk? Before Let's go ahead. Before we hold on.

To

clarify, mayor, this is a second or a substitute motion to council member Valencia's motion to approve the project on the condition of going through the city process for undergrounding

utility It was actually Mayor Zheng's substitute motion that council member Valencia seconded. He's the one who made the substitute motion. Yes.

That they would

be required to object to this vote. That's you need the applicant's consent, the applicant has not consented.

Well, that's interesting. Applicant's consent? City attorney, I I have something I haven't heard before. Could you please speak to that?

It's inconsistent with state law in addition.

It's it's somewhat preliminary in terms of your com comments. With respect to the motion on the floor, as I understand the motion, the motion would be to approve the project subject to going through the process of the city process regarding the undergrounding of potential waiver. That does not waive your right to assert your position with respect to the builder's remedy. But the process would go forward if you do not assert it. If you still insert your exemption, then it's not gonna it's not gonna proceed.

Well, you actually told them I heard you say earlier that to get to to do the city process, they have to give up their state waiver.

That's what I'm saying. What I'm but And so they're not

agreeing Based on the motion based on the motion on the floor regarding are

they allowed to not agree to that?

Based on the motion on the floor, does the motion to approve subject to going through the city's process for underground utility? As they go through that process, if the applicant does not waive their exemption, it'll be for naught. But if they waive their exemption, then they might get the exemption. So it's it's a timing issue, but you can't necessarily demand they waive

their There's also a a repause in the builder's remedy that said something about five meetings are are the most allowed. I think we've we're at the fifth meeting tonight.

Five public hearings, and this is the third public hearings. We have two more public

This is only the third. Okay. But that's that's at including community meetings.

The complication here is is the fact that they they ultimately hold the Trump card, and that as long as they don't waive don't waive their exemption, whatever you do regarding trying to modify the agreement this evening, they still could assert the position of the waiver.

So then we'd be acting in bad faith then if we're trying to add requirements on them that they're

they're No. You're not you're not acting in bad faith, but you're posing a condition that they have the right then to approve or not approve.

So then how do they so if we make our approval conditional upon them agreeing to the process

Not conditional.

Modified. User. That is that is completely approved based on modified. So it's approved, and then they get to decide to do it or not? It's approved regardless?

As long as they assert the decision with respect to the exemption, they can assert that exemption. As long as they assert that exemption, there's no bill no ability to underground this project. Having said that, the motion of the floor is to request staff to go through the process, but, ultimately, it's gonna be for naught if they don't approve the exemption waiver.