Fullerton commission directs staff to draft denial of 32‑unit Harbor/Hermosa townhome project amid safety, traffic concerns

The Fullerton Planning Commission on Feb. 25 directed staff to prepare a resolution denying a 32‑unit townhome condominium project at the northwest corner of Harbor Boulevard and Hermosa Drive after commissioners said they remained unconvinced that nearby traffic and safety issues had been resolved.

Senior Planner Lopez and planning staff had recommended approval of the proposal from City Ventures for the 1.33‑acre site (project PRJ2024‑0009 / ZON2024‑0097 / SEB2024‑0004), describing a three‑story development of 32 townhomes, including five units to be deed‑restricted for low‑income households. Staff said the application was submitted under SB 330 and invoked provisions of the Housing Accountability Act and related state law; staff also cited the project’s CEQA Class 32 infill exemption. The developer proposed 75 on‑site parking spaces, about 2,100 square feet of common open space and roughly 18,891 square feet of landscaping, and offered frontage improvements, a new ADA ramp and added street lighting.

The hearing drew more than a dozen public commenters. Neighbors repeatedly raised safety and circulation concerns for Hermosa Drive — a narrow, two‑lane roadway used by pedestrians, bicyclists and equestrians — and warned of parking spillover into residential streets. ‘‘This project is a wrong project in the wrong location,’’ Jose Ulloa, who said he has lived in the area for more than 40 years, told commissioners. Neighbor Laurie Stoops described the proposal as ‘‘a manipulation of the Affordable Housing Act’’ and said the intersection of Harbor and Hermosa is already dangerous. Several residents recounted collisions near the intersection and described a 166‑signature petition requesting a reduced scale.

Supporters urged commissioners to approve the project, framing it as necessary housing and a source of homeownership opportunities. ‘‘We need to build housing,’’ Elijah Manasero, a Fullerton resident, said, warning that denying the project without provable health or safety findings would expose the city to litigation. Elizabeth Hansberg, who spoke in support, said the city must ‘‘affirmatively further fair housing’’ and cautioned that opposing housing can entrench geographic inequity.

Commissioners focused substantial discussion on traffic analyses and collision history. City traffic engineer Michael Plotnick told the commission the project’s trip‑generation estimate using the ITE manual would add about 15 AM peak‑hour trips and 18 PM peak‑hour trips compared with the existing single‑family use; he said a five‑year collision review showed 13 reported collisions at the Harbor/Hermosa area, with no fatalities recorded in the reported data. Plotnick also described current and planned signal‑timing and signal projects on Harbor Boulevard.

Several commissioners said those numbers did not fully address their concerns about sight distance at the proposed driveway, the narrowness and pavement condition of Hermosa, and cumulative impacts from nearby developments. Commissioner Wayne said he remained ‘‘really troubled’’ by being told statutory housing laws constrained his discretion but said he believed the project placed an objective adverse condition on neighboring streets and infrastructure and would not support it. Other commissioners expressed frustration about limited options under the Housing Accountability Act but likewise said they were not prepared to approve the project as currently conditioned.

Following deliberations the commission chair moved to direct staff to bring back a resolution denying the project based on specific safety findings related to the Harbor/Hermosa intersection and street conditions; the motion carried on a roll call vote of 4–1 (Commissioner Tudor — yes; Commissioner Wayne — yes; Commissioner Fleener — no; Vice Chair Dino — yes; Chair Valadez — yes).

The vote does not itself constitute a final, appeal‑proof denial. City staff said the action directs them to prepare formal findings and a resolution of denial for the commission’s next consideration; the developer and its counsel cautioned that denial lacking objective, written health‑or‑safety findings could expose the city to mandatory attorney fees and litigation under state housing laws. The applicant’s counsel, Morgan Gallagher of Cox Castle & Nicholson, told commissioners the record did not contain objective health or safety standards violated by the project and warned a denial could violate state law.

Next steps: staff will draft the denial resolution and return it to the Planning Commission for formal action at a future meeting. The developer may appeal to the City Council and pursue administrative or legal remedies if the denial is upheld. The commission also noted several conditions and mitigation options discussed during the hearing — including replacing the Hermosa frontage, additional screening, on‑site signage, and potential traffic signal or protected turn studies — that staff can consider in drafting findings and conditions.

Project and procedural details recorded at the hearing: the application was filed as an SB 330 preliminary application on April 10, 2024; the applicant later elected to revise its affordable unit percentage under AB 1893; staff cited Government Code sections and the Housing Accountability Act in the staff report; the hearing record includes letters both in opposition and in support and a legal response from Cox Castle & Nicholson on the applicant’s behalf.

The Planning Commission adjourned after staff announced future agenda items including an open space element draft and an environmental justice element update; the commission’s next meeting will include the drafted resolution of denial.