City Council - Successor Agency - Housing Authority
January 7, 2025

1313 Foothill Boulevard Suite 2 | La Canada Flintridge, CA 91011 | 310 395 2580 | www.columbuspacific.com We appreciate your consideration of the Burlington Parcel for inclusion in the HIOZ zoning. Depending on the final regulations that are passed, we believe that having the flexibility to provide housing in this area would benefit the community and help the City of Fullerton meet its regional housing needs. We look forward to doing our part to continually help make Fullerton a more accessible and profitable city.

Sincerely,
RICHARD A. MARGOLIS
[email protected]
P 310 395 2580 ext. 233 C 310 508 7888
___________________________________
23632 Calabasas Road | Suite 107
Calabasas, CA 91302

CP COLUMBUS PACIFIC
From: Kayla Asato <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 5:08 PM
To: Eric Levitt <[email protected]>; Daisy Perez <[email protected]>; Kim Chaudhry <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: Shana Charles <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL]Kayla Asato - OCEJ Housing Element Notes and Comments Hello Fullerton City Manager's Office,
I'm not sure who I'm supposed to email regarding my thoughts and comments on the Fullerton Housing Element, so I thought that I'd just email everyone in the City Manager's Office. I can't find the consultant's email so I'm hoping that it's okay to just email all of you.

I've gotten fairly far in the Housing Element document, but not all the way through, so hopefully you're okay with some of my comments and thoughts on the matter.

Included in this document, I provide my thoughts on building new housing (up until section 4.1) and on strategies for tackling homelessness (still combing through section 4.4 unfortunately) from an Environmental Justice lens. I think that the Housing Element is phenomenal, but there are some questions and thoughts that I have regarding safety and environmental health since those seem to be excluded from the conversation (in my opinion) Kayla Asato
she/they pronouns
OCEJ Political Organizer
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: BE CAREFUL WITH THIS MESSAGE
This email came from outside City of Fullerton. Do not open attachments, click on links, or respond unless you expected this message and recognize the email address.

Housing
● Building housing
○ Helping developers
■ (1.4f) host annual workshop with developers to provide education about technical assistance and incentives for larger and smaller rental units with a goal of supporting development for 50 large (3-4 bedroom) units and 100 studio/1-bedroom units
● Sounds good to me tbh
■ (1.7c) directs the city to issue a competitive Notice of Funding Availability to identify a non-profit affordable housing developer to partner with on new developments in the city and support entitlement of at least 400 subsidized units to affordable to extremely-low, very low, and low-income households
● Problem: why include “affordable” in that 400? Why not just 400 low-, very low-, and extremely low-income households with a separate number for “affordable” just to ensure that we have separate goals for this
○ (4.2.1.1) Housing Production
■ (4.2.1.1a) HIOZ zoning updates allow for property owners to develop more housing and allow for 3647 very low-income, 2115 low-income, and 4341 moderate-income units. The zoning update will take place by December 29, 2024
● Problem: are there health and safety standards for HIOZ housing? Assuming that I’m understanding Government Code section 65583.2(h) correctly, it sounds like there are some basic plumbing and utility provisions and if it’s under the jurisdiction of a property manager, it should probably be good for human habitation in terms of pipes and mold. It would probably be good to confirm that by adding something about that into the action though.
■ (4.2.1.1b) The city will develop a procedure to track unit count and income/affordability assumed on parcels included in the site inventory to see if it matches up with the RHNA needs. (4.2.1.1c) The city will also check with the individual sites and make a site map public to private or non-profit developers. The goal would be to talk with developers once every six months to ensure sufficient capacity for the development of 3198 very low, 1989 low, 2271 moderate, and 5751 above moderate ● Sounds good to me
● Problem: If this is for RHNA, why aren’t there any goals for extremely low-income housing if we’re trying to track
development?
■ (4.2.1.1d) Would amend the zoning code to require by-right approval for housing developments that include AT LEAST 20% affordable to lower-income households by December 31, 2024.
● It sounds like it would require increasing the housing stock for approved projects. And I’m SO SO SO FINE with that if I’m understanding it correctly
○ Reviewing and updating the development review process (4.2.1.2) ■ Expedite and improve the review process to streamline things and make it faster. This would also monitor average processing times for new housing projects and permit processes to make sure that things move smoothly ● Problem with 4.2.1.2e Streamline the CEQA review process by utilizing exemptions or tiering, particularly for infill development, consistent with State Law: CEQA review processes have been mandated by state law and urged municipalities to look at environmental factors currently impacting the parcel in question AND the impacts that construction would have on it. However, cities across OC have been primarily focusing on the second part and more or less ignoring the first part.
○ Solution: keep everything included there AND include
specific parts of the CEQA review process that would
urge the city to research the land that they’re
developing on AND ensure that that part isn’t exempt.

We want to ensure that any infill development is on healthy land so that people don’t get sick when we are building more housing. ESPECIALLY because it’s infill
development. This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t build in areas currently toxic. Just that we need to make it public and start remediation before we develop there
● Everything else looks good though
○ Facilitating infill development (4.2.1.3)
■ Maximize the density potential of limited land by promoting residential densities that allow for dense housing AND put it near high-quality public transit stops (1.3a), monitor land and outreach to homeowners’ and neighborhood associations where there is mostly single-family residential areas AND could be areas of denser housing (1.3b), review development standards to determine effectiveness and update where appropriate (1.3c), provide technical assistance to applicants that want to develop on their land AND prioritizing applicants that support low- and moderate-income housing (1.3d), evaluate commercial parking standards to ensure that it accommodates for housing needs (1.3e), conduct outreach to religious institutions and provide technical assistance to interested parties to develop affordable housing on religious grounds (1.3f)
● Sounds good to me
● Problem: just make sure that there are CEQA evaluations of the land where the infill is gonna be built. And if there are serious concerns, ask that there be a plan in place AND DIRECT CITY

STAFF TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE BY HIRING ON AN

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE STAFFER
○ Support the development of a variety of housing types (4.2.1.4) ■ This includes ADUs, light-touch density housing, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and missing middle households. Evaluate the city website to ensure compliance with new transparency requirements (1.4a); create a page on the city website with map-based inventory that identifies vacant/nonvacant housing development sites including multi-family residential and mixed-use sites (1.4b); maintain a current inventory of major residential and housing developments on the city website, and promoting new housing developments through social media platforms (1.4c); develop a web-based Housing development toolkit that outlines a step-by-step process for residential development (1.4d); reduce minimum unit sizes and update the zoning code to do so and include housing co-operatives, single-room occupancy, dormitories, tiny homes, and collective home ownership models in the city (1.4e); encourage development of smaller rental and larger rental units in residential and mixed-use developments within the 12 focus areas (1.4f); review the general plan to do those things too (1.4g); prepare a market feasibility report on all of these (1.4h); remove single-family residences as permitted use in the multi-family zones to make sure that if something is multi-family that it stays multi-family (1.4i); reduce parking minimums and garage requirements while preparing parking feasibility studies to assess requirements in consultation with housing developers (1.4j); amend the zoning code to permit manufactured housing (1.4k); encourage developers to build multi-family homeownership by providing flexible development standards (1.4l); partner with CSUF and Fullerton College to develop a plan for off-campus housing (1.4m)
● Everything sounds fine except for parking requirements being waived since parking is already a big issue across Fullerton and developers don’t care about the parking requirement issue ○ Community Outreach Strategy for Housing (4.2.1.5)
■ The city housing game plan will be extensive, have a one-stop shop online portal with speaker series, demographic categories and maps, community participation opportunities, and links to development and housing resources, print media, mailers, speakers’ bureaus, social media, and other ways unique to the City of Fullerton (everything would be multilingual to account for language barriers)
● Is there a list for which languages the city will reach out in? I assume that this will be Spanish and Korean, but will there be any other languages? Like Tagalog and Arabic?
■ The city will collaborate with service providers, nonprofits, employment-related organizations, teachers, associations, and other agencies to advertise the Housing Game Plan (1.5a); implement a citywide policy to provide services to people with limited English proficiency, particularly Spanish speakers, and analyzed demographic compositions of communities to see if any other languages should be accommodated (1.5b); review city’s outreach methods annually with resident feedback surveys and discussions with community organizations (1.5c)
● Honestly looks good to me. I really like the “analyze demographic compositions of communities to see if any other languages should be accommodated” part although I’m wondering if Arabic will be included in that because they still may count as white on the census by the time of these outreach efforts
○ ADUs (4.2.1.6)
■ City ADU ordinance was last updated in 2022 to incorporate urban lot splits. Monitor ADU distribution to ensure that it is done throughout the city through targeted outreach and if goals are unmet by January 2027, the city will implement ¼ actions (1.6a); develop a virtual 15-minute ADU permit meeting for applicants to streamline the process (1.6b); assist and educate homeowners by posting pre-approved ADU standards on the city website by January 2025 for English and Spanish (1.6c); monitor updates to state ADU law and ensure zoning compliance (1.6d); promote the development of ADUs in high-resource in northern Fullerton (1.6e) ● Looks great to me
○ Support the production of regulated and affordable housing for all income levels (4.2.1.7)
■ The City is committed to maintaining, developing, and monitoring affordable housing and will prioritize low and very-low-income households for development and seek funding opportunities and partnerships from state, federal, and county funds to write down the cost of land for the development of affordable housing. The City will also provide greater permit streamlining, fee reductions, and other possible measures and incentives to support affordable housing development
● Problem: why exclude extremely low-income households? ■ The City will review a potential Congregational Overlay Zone to allow churches and other faith institutions to build permanent supportive housing and/or deed-restricted affordable housing (1.7a); actively promote sites available for affordable housing to anyone that wants to build, including incentives to CHDOs, but still monitoring them to ensure they actually build (1.7b); acquire funds from local, state, and federal grant opportunities to support the development of affordable housing for special needs and supportive service projects and also partner with the OC Housing Finance Trust (1.7c); pursue development via a competitive Request for Proposals in compliance to recent updates to the Surplus Land Act (1.7d); adopt written policies and procedures for the City of Fullerton Utility Services Department that grants priority to proposed developments pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.7 (1.7e) ● Looks great to me. This is just saying that they will support looking for money and pursuing development and written policies ● Problem: will there be CEQA investigations for the actual housing? I know that it would be mentioned in other sections, but I think it would be great to reiterate here too
● Improving existing housing
○ (3.1a) explore financial incentives for property owners for environmentally friendly building improvements such as solar panels, water efficiency upgrades, induction cooking, outdoor water conservation AND priority given to units that are affordable, lower, and moderate-income households
■ Sounds good to me tbh
○ (3.1b) directs the city to create infrastructure project priority checklists to support infrastructure for public transit and active transportation such as walking/biking and prioritizing low- and moderate-resource areas
■ Sounds good to me tbh I just feel like we should have checklists for everything when it comes to building affordable housing (including low-extremely low) AND shelter oversight and permanent supportive housing
○ Where they are looking at improving housing conditions ● Environmental factors
● How much housing
○ Intended housing
■ Housing for whom?
● (2.3) housing for people overpaying (paying over 30% of income to rent/mortgage), housing resulting form overcrowding, housing resulting from population growth, housing from converting existing housing
● (2.3) housing for elderly people, large households, persons with disabilities, female-headed households, homeless persons, farm workers, people in need of emergency shelter, and students City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Cameo Ln
Table 2-2 Estimated Substandard Housing Units by Area -Fullerton Tract
Location Housing
Units
Low to
Area [West Boundary |East Boundary North Boundary 1 South Boundary Mod %

18.011 Pritchard/Airport
NW Area
Dale St Gilbert St/
Magnolia Ave
Railroad/
Artesia Ave
Commonwealth
Ave/
Valencia Dr
658 75%

18.012 Southwest Valencia
Franklin
Dale St Magnolia Ave Valencia Dr Fullerton Creek 399 79%

18.024 Iris Court City Limits Gilbert St Orangethorpe
Ave
Roberta Ave 220 95%

18.025 Peckham/Roberta Gilbert St/
Peckham St
City Limits Orangethorpe
Ave
City Limits 589 85%
111.023 Woodcrest/Baker Euclid St Richman Ave Orangethorpe Ave
City Limits 542 77%
116.011 Truslow/Rosslynn Highland Ave Harbor Blvd Truslow Ave Rosslynn Ave 315 77% 116.012 Rosslyn/
Orangethorpe
Highland Ave Harbor Blvd Rosslynn Ave Orangethorpe
Ave
550 91%
116.014 Woodcrest Richman Ave Highland Ave Baker Ave City Limits 352 81% 116.015 Palm Gardens Tract Richman Ave Highland Ave Orangethorpe Ave
Baker Ave 258 100%
116.016 Valencia/Richman Richman Ave Highland Ave Truslow Orangethorpe Ave
476 83%
116.022 Maple/Truslow/
Patterson
Harbor Blvd Railroad (OCTA) Walnut
Ave/Railroad
City Limits 76 65%
117.115 GEMs Placentia Ave Sapphire Rd/ Topaz Ln Cameo Ln Alley 415 95% ○ Projected needs based on population
● What kind of housing?
Homelessness (Policy action 4.4)
● How much housing?
○ Problem: Includes the emergency shelter at Bridges (200 beds) and things could absolutely be substantially better there. So we REALLY NEED the oversight stuff ■ Is Bridges counted as Anaheim or Fullerton?
■ Is Anaheim counting Bridges in their numbers for open beds? Is Fullerton? We should probably remove Bridges since it mostly services Anaheim. In the FULLERTON housing element, we shouldn’t be counting it if we’re sending people over to Anaheim
○ Emergency shelters include places that have a maximum of 50 beds ■ Problem: Why 50 beds maximum? Is that a du/ac thing?
■ Problem: what are the requirements for safety for the unhoused people?
● Nothing is saying that the emergency shelter/multi-service center needs to have decent drinking water, accessible drinking water throughout the duration of the shelter being open, mold-free walls and pipes, and just generally fit for human habitation (maybe aside from the density requirements)
● Are there any requirements for the staff and how they treat members of the unhoused community?
○ Is basing the numbers off of the 2022 Point in Time Count ■ Problem: that was after the RV ordinance removed a lot of people who would otherwise be in Fullerton. Is that something that we’re okay with? ■ Problem: the Point in Time Counts are always inaccurate and often undercount people ESPECIALLY when we consider shelters and people moving from place to place. I get that we don’t have a better metric though. Maybe we should add a bit of a buffer to add numbers to the Point in Time Count???
● Problem: PIT count will never be accurate considering it's usually paid to one nonprofit to conduct. For example, City Net is compensated by the county/COC over 500k. It's conducted over what a 1 to 2 day period during the middle of winter. It will always be skewed. They should go off the survey that schools give to parents and students which demonstrates the numbers are exceptionally higher for families/students.

Low barrier navigation centers. In 2019 the State Legislature adopted AB 101establishing requirements related to local regulation of low barrier navigation centers, which are defined as "Housing first, lowbarrier, service-enriched shelters focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing." Low barrier means best practices to reduce barriers to entry, and may include, but is not limited to:
(1) The presence of partners if it is not a population-specific site, such as for survivors of domestic violence or sexual assault, women, or youth
(2) Accommodation of residents' pets
(3) The storage of possessions
(4) Privacy, such as partitions around beds in a dormitory setting or in larger rooms containing more than two beds, or private rooms"
Low barrier navigation centers meeting specified standards must be allowed by-right in areas zoned for mixed use and in nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses. Policy Action 4.4 includes a component to process a Zoning Code amendment to establish regulations for low barrier navigation centers consistent with current law.

H-3-16 Appendix H: Housing Element
● What kind of housing?
○ (4.4a) Pursue federal, state, and regional funds for homeless service providers that operate temporary, permanent, and emergency shelters in the city that assist persons experiencing homelessness and at risk of becoming homeless and directs the city to assist at least 272 people
■ Problem: what are the standards and environmental factors taken into account for these temporary, permanent, and emergency shelters? ● Currently in North County, many of the homeless shelters have mold, toxic substances in the water, horrible staff, and more. What are the requirements gonna be for treating people with dignity? ● The Continuum of Care (COC) does not use the VI-SPDAT and the TAY triage assessment anymore to determine the vulnerability of each unhoused individual, which is used throughout SoCal.

What are they using now to determine the eligibility of whose most at risk and vulnerable for housing?
■ Problem: will these permanent shelters be Permanent Supportive Housing?
● The shelters need more transparency about how long each individual is staying there. There should be a visible timeline that shows goals. For example, each person should be matched with a voucher in less than 90 days (like LAHSA).
■ Problem: why only 272 people if you’re also taking into account people AT RISK OF BECOMING homeless?
● The Point in Time Count looked at around 272 unhoused people in 2022 and those counts are super inaccurate. It could be better to assist at least 300 people currently experiencing
homelessness, with intentions to service more if the Point in Time Count numbers are wrong
○ (4.4b) directs the city to annually assess and report the capacity to accommodate individuals experiencing homelessness including existing shelter beds, new shelter beds, identify if those shelter beds are available on a year-round or seasonal basis, average number of shelter beds that are used on a monthly basis, and number of those exiting shelter to permanent housing ■ Problem: how will you assess if someone is exiting shelter to permanent housing? A lot of the problem with the shelter system is that the staff is corrupt, negligent, and incompetent with providing wrap-around services. ■ Problem: if we are using existing shelter beds, then we are going to be including some negative and punitve environmental factors, so we are gonna need to examine some of those and the environmental justice conditions in some of those shelters
■ Suggestion: we need long-term studies on what the unhoused community needs. We need a city Committee or Task Force dedicated to gathering input from the unhoused community regarding environmental factors, availability of resources, intake and PSH programs, treatment by staff, navigating the HMIS system, and the long-term psychological/health impacts of being in the shelter system vs getting PSH
● What is the long-term impact of individuals staying in shelters for years? People often get dropped out of the HMIS and have to start all over again.
● People are often matched with the Rapid Rehousing Program which is a short term program for people that can transition into regular housing. Most people who stay long-term in shelters need PSH but are misinformed and take RRH. Then they end up
unhoused again
○ (4.4c) Partner with the Illumination Foundation to incentivize property owners/managers with available units to rent to formerly homeless individuals and families
■ Problem: Illumination Foundation is pretty notorious for its awful treatment of unhoused people. I think they’re the primary subject of the lawsuit by the ACLU but I could be wrong (yes they are one of the defendents) ● So who will be overseeing the transitions of the available units to rent to formerly homeless individuals and families?
● Also, what does it mean by “formerly homeless” does this just mean that people would now be housed through this renting program? Kayla just wants to make sure.
● Why the Illumination Foundation?
○ (4.4f) Directs the city to provide financial support to organizations that provide transitional housing for emancipated transitioned-age foster youth who are homeless or at immediate risk of becoming homeless
■ Problem: will we be doing oversight of these organizations too? Who will be doing the oversight?
■ Use TAY TRIAGE assessment for eligibility
■ Could we create a city commission to oversee the shelters and organizations in terms of fiscal oversight AND processes to house people?
○ (4.4g) City zoning code would have to change to comply with recent state law including allowing supportive housing with up to 50 units and low barrier navigation centers by-right in zones where multi-family and mixed-uses are permitted
■ Sounds good to me tbh
○ (3.1) Supportive housing = no limit on length of stay, occupied by target population, provides significant level of onsite or offsite services that assist the resident in retaining the housing, improving health status (including HIV/AIDS and substance abuse), maximizing ability to live, and work in the community ■ Problem: uses “his or her” and it could just be more gender-inclusive imo ■ Problem: are there any limits on who can enter? Like is there a drug requirement? A “you can’t be housed with your life partner” requirement? A “no pets allowed” requirement?
● What’s the process?
● Environmental factors?
○ Problem: No explicit considerations are paid to this. The Fire Department (that the city is contracting out for) is responsible for safety inspections. No additional or specified requirements for what constitutes “toxic and hazardous wastes” OR even any mention of general living conditions about “hazardous mold” or “contaminated drinking and usable water” or general EIR reports (that would HOPEFULLY look at what the status of this unit is in the first place). ■
Homebuyer Assistance
● What units?
○ (2.3a) make funds available to community-based organizations to acquire and rehabilitate abandoned or otherwise lost units and sell them to very low and low-income first-time homebuyers with the objective of assisting 10 very low and low income households
■ Problem: what are the standards gonna be for the “rehabilitation” and which units would classify for this?
■ Problem: what would “assisting” mean?
○ (4.4b) city expands funding for information and referral services that direct families and individuals to financial resources for housing rental or purchase ■ Sounds good to me tbh
○ (4.7a) partner with the county and community orgs and advocates to increase participation in homeownership workshops and assistance programs ■ Sounds good to me tbh
● What sort of assistance?
● Who is overseeing the assistance?
Public Outreach (Appendix D)
● What was the process?
● How many meetings?

CITY OF FULLERTON
To: Chris Schaefer, Planning Manager Fullerton
(714) 738-6884
[email protected]
From: Curtis Gamble, Activist/Veteran (714) 854-4561 [email protected] Subject: Revised Draft Housing Element 2021-2029
Dear Mr. Schaefer,
Please, include the following information in the Fullerton Revised Draft Housing Element 2024.

Rapid Rehousing units are an alternative to emergency shelters for the Homeless the Veterans, the CSUF Students, the OCTA Bus Drivers, the Seniors and the Low-Income Community.

Thank you,
Curtis Gamble, Activist Homeless/Veterans
Please read the following:

PROPOSAL..... December 21, 2016

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Legal Aid Society of Orange County Curtis Gamble v. City of Fullerton, et al., No.30-2015-00824970-CU-TCIC (the "Gamble Action").

2. The City agrees that it will commit the minimum sum of $1 Million to increase the number of Extremely Low Income and Rapid Rehousing units in the City.

Extremely Low Income units are units that are affordable to, and occupied by, persons whose income is at or below 30% ofthe area median income as defined in Health and Safety Code sections 50053(b) and 50106.

Rapid Rehousing units are an alternative to emergency shelter. and are occupied at no rent or subsidized rent for a limited time to allow a household to collect sufficient funds for move-in deposits and moving costs.

The sum shall be expended or committed to be expended by September 30, 2019 only as follows:
a. City shall use this funding to assist with the creation of a combination of at least twenty (20) units of Rapid Rehousing and Extremely Low Income units, which shall include at least ten (10) Extremely Low Income units.

These units shall be secured by an Affordable Housing Agreement and affordability covenants committing the units for Rapid Rehousing and Extremely Low Income occupancy, as applicable, for a term of at least thirty (30) years.

Both the Affordable Housing Agreement and the affordability covenants shall be duly recorded with the office of the Orange County Recorder.

The mix of the Rapid Rehousing and additional Extremely Low Income units beyond ten (10) units shall be determined in the Affordable Housing Agreement.

City shall work with operators of regional emergency shelters to facilitate placement of shelter clients into the Rapid Rehousing units.

The terms of the Affordable Housing Agreement shall be in accord herewith b. If, (l) at least twenty (20) housing units are not created or contractually committed to be created as described in 2.a. above by December 31 , 2017; or (2) any balance of the $1,000,000.00 funding remains to be committed or expended for the purposes as described in 2.a. above, said remainder or balance shall be applied to assist in the creation of Extremely Low Income units in the City intended to be occupied by two or less persons.

Any such units shall be secured by similar recorded affordability covenants for a term of not less than thirty (30) years as described in 2.a. above.
c. The Court will retain jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, to enforce this section of the Settling Parties' Agreement until the earlier of December 31, 2019 or such time as the $ 1M fund is fully committed to be expended as described in (a) or (b) above with appropriate affordability covenants secured by contract and recordation.

3. The City will pay via check to Legal Aid Society of Orange County in trust for each Plaintiff, the sum of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) each to Plaintiffs Curtis Gamble and James Mayfield, solely for the purpose of assisting the Plaintiffs to secure permanent housing, within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date.

The Settling Parties explicitly acknowledge and agree that the City has no legal duty to provide housing for Plaintiffs or to assist Plaintiffs with housing placement, and that the Plaintiffs have no legal duty to obtain the City's direction or approval in seeking to secure permanent housing.

Attorneys' Fees and Costs.

Within 30 days of the Effective Date, the City agrees to pay via check to Legal Aid Society of Orange County and Western Center on Law and Poverty} the amount of $475,000 as full satisfaction for Plaintiffs' claims for attorneys' fees and costs in the Actions, except only as othenvise reserved in this Agreement
The sum shall be expended or committed to be expended by September 30, 2019 only as follows:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VXAqYmoP5g2zxfLwasiaWobo5mI2fsbx/view?usp=drivesdk December 21, 2016

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
From: Bac Tran <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 1:56 PM
To: Sunayana Thomas <[email protected]>; Chris Schaefer <[email protected]>; Eric Levitt <[email protected]> Cc: Bac Tran <[email protected]>; Kim Tran <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL]Request for the 4.0 acres of land to be considered in the Fullerton Housing Element
Hello Chris, Eric and Sunayana,
We have owned the following 4.0 acres of land in Fullerton. We hereby request for these pieces of land to be considered in the Fullerton Housing Element to satisfy part of the SCAG affordable housing requirements.

1. 3.0 Acres, 921 Laguna Road, Fullerton CA 92835
APN: 292-251-17, 292-251-18, 292-251-19, 292-251-20, 292-241-10

2. 1.0 Acre, 931 Laguna Road, Fullerton CA 92835
APN: 292-241-09
Thank you so much for your consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,
Bac Tran
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: BE CAREFUL WITH THIS MESSAGE
This email came from outside City of Fullerton. Do not open attachments, click on links, or respond unless you expected this message and recognize the email address. 2 303 W. Commonwealth Ave.

Fullerton, CA 92832
www.cityoffullerton.com

From: Judith A.Kaluzny <j >
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2024 6:15 PM
To: David Lopez <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL]FW: comment on revised draft housing element

Judith A. Kaluzny
Fullerton, California 92832
714

From: Judith A.Kaluzny [mailto:j ]
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2024 5:30 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: comment on revised draft housing element
The key thing is recreational space in a city that has high density. As Daniel Burnham said, father of the Chicago plan, every person should live within walking distance of a park. I’ve spent time in Chicago and in Berlin, a high density city, and in Berlin there are many small parks, small playgrounds.

If a crowded city does not have the relief of some nature, people will not be mentally healthy. Like rats crowded in a cage go crazy. We’ll have higher crime and violence rates.

We do want healthy citizens, yes?
jak
Judith A. Kaluzny
Fullerton, California 92832
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: BE CAREFUL WITH THIS MESSAGE
This email came from outside City of Fullerton. Do not open attachments, click on links, or respond unless you expected this message o ooo©o
J A N E R E I F E R ⬧ ⬧
July 1, 2024
Chris Schaefer, AICP, Planning Manager
City of Fullerton Community and Economic Development
303 W. Commonwealth Ave.

Fullerton, CA 92832-1775
Re: Fullerton Revised 2021-2029 Housing Element
Dear Mr. Schaefer,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the revised draft 2021-2029 Housing Element.

Provide Affordability AND Preserve Unique Environments
Fullerton has a unique feel and characteristics that should be preserved WHILE addressing affordable housing needs. Many older European, African and Central and South American cities restrict new construction to new districts, preventing insensitive structures in the historic and semirural areas. Some of the unique attributes are: historic landmarks / districts, historic-age or -eligible resources, Preserve America status, the original townsite, semi-rural areas, vernal as well as yearround creeks and riparian areas, and existing neighborhoods with a mix of cultures and incomes.

Prevent Speculation & Displacement/Incentivize Lower Levels of Housing Affordability The intensity of streamlining will open the city up for speculative housing investors which will accelerate housing costs, so there should be more proposals preserving existing affordable housing and prioritizing incentivizing the lower levels of affordability rather than then the above-moderate levels which continue to pressure prices upward.

When the City has an opportunity to require inclusionary housing or build nonprofit-led higher volumes of majority affordable housing on municipally–owned land, it has often chosen to ignore the option. The Amerige Court project should focus on 100% affordability – not 10% (while retaining historic buildings on Malden and Amerige: Monzon garage/rare cast stone; Mission Press/ historic freezer-locker; corner former auto dealer; She-She Hair Design/Fullerton notable Shim Masukawa. These are not currently designated but are eligible, as documented in my comments on that previous project.)
Opportunities to build affordable high-density development projects for the areas designated in the General Plan have been squandered and poorly coordinated. Rather than building tens of thousands of units, the Housing Element should prioritize non-profit projects that provide a higher percentage of affordable units or we’ll end up streamlining “too many” above-market units and not enough lower levels of affordability. We should have programs to allow mobile home park residents to buy out their park, resources devoted to new car / camping facilities, SROs and rehabbing older buildings rather than only building new. There don’t seem to be any policies for assisting renters being displaced as there were with former Redevelopment Agency projects. A new policy to reverse the loss of at-risk housing should be created.

Prevent Significant Changes to City’s Ambience and Significant Impacts on the Environment by Focusing on Truly Affordable Housing, Not Incentivizing Market Rate The City should focus on non-profit assisted affordable housing. Market rate homes don’t need subsidy as they will be built regardless, independently meeting the City’s RHNA requirements.

Address Exceeding GP Buildout and Reduce Significant and Unavoidable Effects Where can the review that determined that the Housing Element is internally consistent be accessed? Also, what are the anticipated proposed General Plan amendments? Group Homes
The City could devise a new, lower CUP fee structure for large group homes rather than removing the CUP requirement.

Density Bonus Clarification
Do the potential housing unit numbers account for units added by density bonus? If so, what percentage of total units will be at affordable levels? Public Participation
The public was never noticed about Housing Champion meetings in their initial phase so that group did not get the benefit of public comment at the initial stages. Even if not legally required, it is important to mail notices to residents throughout the city who live in or own property next to new proposed HIOZ zoning. Also, there should be notification of even proposed by-right development activities so the public can provide relevant information. (See paragraph below that lists missed designated historic resources.)
Fullerton Needs More Focus on Integrating Public and Active Transportation Bus, rail, biking, and walking should be considered an essential part of general civic infrastructure.

Asking new developments to pay impact fees to cover the cost of the new demand they induce is an accepted, routine practice for roads, schools, libraries, parks, and parking structures. Transit needs to be a part of the impacts we consider when planning, both for long-term service implementation and short-term construction detours. As part of this standard inclusion, construction projects should discuss their potential impacts on the above transportation modes, both during construction and at the completed project. The fees should include the extra money it costs to provide and to communicate detours to the users of the above modes. The Fair Share Policy is a good start.

Fullerton Needs to Do a Better Job of Preserving Natural Areas, Historic Structures and Historic Corridors
Fullerton is a Preserve America city, and prides itself on its historic homes, businesses, and neighborhoods, but it’s stunning to learn how few protections these historic resources have. The vast majority of historic-age and designation-eligible properties in the city could be torn down at any time with a simple demolition permit; this has happened over and over again.

Unfortunately, the majority of historic structures in Fullerton are not designated as such. Worse, the City’s database often does not acknowledge even designated historic structures. Fullerton has missed several of these recently: Bastanchury Creek Greenbelt, which was a designated future city park and a part of pre-history, Euclid Creek at the Pines project, 142 and 144 N. Yale Ave (did not acknowledge preservation zone status), removal of Mariola Apartments character-defining features, ironwork attached and a mural painted on the historic Amerige Block with absolutely no acknowledgment of the building as a historic resource, Pathways of Hope project at 508-514 W.

Amerige resulting in demolition of historic-age structures adjacent to designated cultural resources (luckily recently preserved), inadequate CEQA analysis of Fox Block cultural resources impact in the infill exemption, and the Amerige Court project’s several designation-eligible buildings on Malden and Amerige.

Also missing is a discussion about viewsheds and adjacent historic properties and districts within an APE. Maps should note historic-age structures so policies can be explored. For example, along Commonwealth and Chapman near the historic downtown neighborhoods, and Harbor Blvd between the downtown and Valencia Mesa Dr. This would also preserve a type of non-official “scenic” corridor / historic vista that currently exists de facto.

Fullerton Needs to Do a Better Job of Preserving Scenic Corridors The city historically ignores its designated scenic corridors and rural streets in most project analyses. Recent examples are the Harbor Complete Streets Project, Hillcrest Park renovations, the Bastanchury Creek Greenbelt development, and the Pines at Sunrise Village. Trees that are part of scenic corridors are routinely removed without assessment.

Themes in Community Input
I’d like to see acknowledgement of the widely held concern about retaining Fullerton’s unique features rather than converting so much of the built environment to architecture that’s indistinguishable from other cities. Not all cities need to shift to citywide high-density; some built areas should be a retreat from that, while still addressing housing affordability.

Thank you for your time and attention to these issues,
Sincerely,
Jane Reifer
THOMAS B. MAYHEW CHARLES J. HIGLEY
September 12, 2024
Via E-Mail
Chris Schaefer
Planning Manager
Community and Economic Development Department
City of Fullerton
303 W. Commonwealth Ave.

Fullerton, California 92832
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: Draft Housing Element Update for City of Fullerton (June 2024 Draft) Comments of Housing Action Coalition
Dear Mr. Schaefer:

On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition,1 we write to comment on the draft 2021-2029 Housing Element for the City of Fullerton. The draft Housing Element does not meet the City’s obligation to plan and provide for affordable housing. Absent substantial revisions before adoption, it may be found to be in violation of state law.

Below, we identify three significant issues to be addressed as Fullerton continues to work on formulating a valid Housing Element. First, Fullerton has included a number of sites that do not have a realistic likelihood of becoming housing during the next eight years, as required to meet its share of the regional need. Second, Fullerton’s capacity estimates fail to take into account the realistic capacity because they do not adjust for the probability of nonresidential development. Third, Fullerton’s approach of keeping higher density sites away from residential areas through height limits – and therefore siting most of the housing counted towards the lower income categories of the RHNA in industrial parks and lower resourced areas of the city – is also in violation of the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing (“AFFH”). 1 The Housing Action Coalition is a nonprofit that advocates for building more homes at all levels of affordability to alleviate California’s housing shortage, displacement, and affordability crisis.

FARELLA
BRAUN+ MARTELllp
Russ Building •235 Montgomery Street •San Francisco, CA 94104 •T 415.954.4400 •F 415.954.4480 SAN FRANCISCO ST. HELENA www.fbm.com
Housing Element
September 12, 2024

A. The Draft Site Inventory Includes Sites That Are Not “Suitable And Available” Because They Do Not Have A “Realistic And Demonstrated Potential” For Redevelopment During The Planning Period To Meet The Need For Housing.

One of the most concrete aspects of any housing element is the inventory of land “suitable and available” for residential development to meet the city’s regional housing need by income level. Government Code § 65583(a)(3); HCD Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook at p. 1 (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf). The list is a specific means of evaluating whether the City has adequately planned for development of housing for all income levels.

Where nonvacant sites are listed on the sites inventory, there must be a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment” during the next eight years. Government Code § 65583(a)(3). To address past abuses – including where cities list unrealistic sites in order to avoid required rezoning – the California Legislature created a high standard for listing sites that are currently being used for something other than housing. Where nonvacant sites are used to address over 50% of the need for affordable housing for those with lower incomes, the City must show the realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment by making formal findings that the existing use does not impede residential development “based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued” during the planning period. Government Code § 65583.2(g)(2) (final sentence). The City must analyze the evidence: existing leases, market demand for the existing uses, and anything else that would indicate whether existing uses will continue.

Government Code § 65583.2(g)(1).

HCD has given guidance on what this requirement means in its June 2020 technical guidance “Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook.” At page 27, it explains:

The housing element should describe the findings and include a description of the substantial evidence they are based on.

In general, substantial evidence includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. An example of substantial evidence would be a nonvacant site with a grocery store and with a building lease expiring in a year, and evidence that the store has entered into a lease to relocate to another site subsequent to the lease expiring.

Examples of substantial evidence that an existing use will likely be discontinued in the current planning period include, but are not limited to:
- The lease for the existing use expires early within the planning period, - The building is dilapidated, and the structure is likely to be removed, or a demolition permit has been issued for the existing uses, Za FARELLA
Braun +Martelllp
Housing Element
September 12, 2024

- There is a development agreement that exists to develop the site within the planning period,
- The entity operating the existing use has agreed to move to another location early enough within the planning period to allow residential development within the planning period.
- The property owner provides a letter stating its intention to develop the property with residences during the planning period.

If multiple sites make up a common existing use and the same factors affect each of the sites, the same findings can be used for each of the sites (e.g., an abandoned shopping mall with sites under common ownership that will not be restored to commercial use located in an area where there is recent residential development).

The “substantial evidence” would indicate the existing use will not impede further residential development or that the existing use will be discontinued during the planning period. In this type of situation, use of the same findings for each of the multiple sites would be appropriate.

However, the same finding for multiple sites in a specific area may not be appropriate if their characteristics widely vary. For example, nonvacant sites with differing existing uses and lacking in common ownership, whether contiguous or located in the same general area, may not rely on a generalized analysis. While the sites may be located in an area with common economic issues, individual owners may not wish to sell their property or redevelop their site with residential uses. In addition, each site’s existing use, e.g., grocery store, retail shop, parking lot, and offices, may have lease agreements of different lengths of time or the owner may not wish to relocate or redevelop the site with a more intensive residential use. In this type of situation, use of the same findings for the multiple sites would not be appropriate.

As explained below, the current draft prepared by Fullerton identifies a number of nonvacant sites that are not realistic, suitable and available for redevelopment. The City relies heavily on the speculative and unlikely assumption that well-established, successful existing uses will cease during the sixth cycle – which now has only five years left – in favor of affordable housing.

1. 512 N. State College: Chapman Avenue Shopping Center (APN 338-101-12)
This 8.02 acre site is described as a “small retail strip” in the site inventory, but that’s not exactly right. In fact, the Chapman Avenue Shopping Center is a busy and successful shopping center at a major intersection near the university, and contains a number of prominent chains, including an Office Depot, a Smart & Final Extra! grocery store, a Panera Bread sandwich shop, a Philz Coffee, a Pieology pizza restaurant, a ShareTea boba place, a Dollar Tree discount store, Zb FARELLA
BRAUN + MARTELllp
Housing Element
September 12, 2024

an ice cream shop, a skateboard shop, and a Japanese quick-serve restaurant, and some other businesses.

Source: Google StreetView, May 2024 photo; State College side Source: Google StreetView, May 2024 photo; E. Chapman side Fullerton lacks evidence that these existing uses are all likely to discontinue during the sixth cycle. The existing uses are presumed to be an obstacle to meeting the RHNA need.

2. 104, 136, 172 N. Raymond: Grocery Outlet and other businesses (APN 033-212-11, -12, -15, -16)
The shopping center at 104-172 N. Raymond has a Grocery Outlet grocery store, a Planet Fitness gym, and an AutoZone auto-related retail shop. It also contains a popular restaurant (“Polly’s Pies,” part of a regional chain), and a Goodwill store. A pediatric dentist occupies a standalone building in one corner of the lot; a check cashing service the other far corner. The entire center had a major renovation in 2018, when Grocery Outlet (2018) and Planet Fitness (2019) moved in.2 The Housing Element provides no basis for concluding that these existing 2 The building department records show the 18,000+ square feet of plumbing, re-roofing, electrical, and sprinkler work done as the tenant improvements for Grocery Outlet in 2018.

Google StreetView shows the before and after, with January 2019 being the first “after” date for photos, a major upgrade after an earlier grocery store shut down.

Za FARELLA
Braun +Martelllp
Housing Element
September 12, 2024

uses are all likely to discontinue during the planning period so that housing could be built to meet the need before 2029.

3. 1930 N. Placentia: Albertson’s and other businesses
(APN 339-161-02, -01)
Source: Google Maps, photo dated January 2020
This 10.88 acre shopping center site is anchored by an Albertson’s/Sav-On (photo above), and has several other businesses, including my favorite barbecue restaurant in Fullerton (Brian’s Sports Bar and “Big B’s” BBQ). The BBQ place has been there since 1986; the sports bar for longer. This site should not be listed for two major reasons.

First, there is no sign that Brian’s and Big B’s are going to shut down or move, much less the Albertson’s grocery store/Sav-on Pharmacy. Fullerton lacks evidence that the existing uses are likely to discontinue, and so they are deemed to preclude residential development. (This also includes the new bakery business on the small corner parcel at 1974 N. Placentia, APN 339-161- 01, for 0.74 acres).

Second, under Government Code section 65583.2(c)(2), a site larger than 10 acres is presumed not to be suitable for lower income housing, absent an evidentiary showing that Fullerton’s draft does not attempt to make.

4. 904, 914, and 926 W. Orangethorpe: Food 4 Less and other businesses (APNs 073-310-04, -12, -22, and -23)
At 904, 914, and 926 W. Orangethorpe is a shopping center anchored by a Food4Less supermarket. In the northwest corner, there is an O’Reilly auto parts, a Subway sandwich shop, a laundromat, and a dentist’s office; in the southeast corner is a Chinese restaurant, a pizza/sports bar, a beauty supply, a nail salon, and another dentist. On the eastern edge is another bar.

Za FARELLA
Braun +Martelllp
Housing Element
September 12, 2024

Fullerton lacks evidence that all of these existing uses are likely to discontinue before the end of the sixth cycle, just five years from now. Indeed, there is evidence that they are likely to continue beyond that. While HCD’s site inventory guidebook instructs that a lease ending “early in the planning period” with plans by the retailer to relocate would constitute “substantial evidence,” here the current Food4Less lease is publicly reported to run until 2027,3 and Fullerton
lacks information about whether there are plans to renew.

5. 1250 E. Chapman: Walgreen’s
(APN 033-211-03)
As City records show,4 the Walgreens pharmacy and store was custom-built for Walgreens in 2006. These kinds of projects require long-term leases to repay the owner for the 3 https://property.compstak.com/914-West-Orangethorpe-Avenue-Fullerton/p/50309 (showing lease from 2006-2027 for Food 4 Less).
4 See, e.g., Building Department permit numbers ZON03-0078 (December 2003: request to demolish existing restaurant and market to construct drive-through pharmacy); PRJ04-00674 (July 2004: commercial building permit to create Walgreens); Za FARELLA
Braun +Martelllp
Housing Element
September 12, 2024

cost of having built the building just for the tenant. Only eighteen years later, it’s very unlikely that anyone plans to have Walgreens move out so that the building can be demolished to build housing; as the City’s own analysis concludes, the useful life of a retail building is considerably longer. Without evidence that the existing use is likely to discontinue, this site should be removed from the inventory.

6. 2501 E. Chapman: “University Office Park”
(APN 338-101-13)
The building named “University Office Park” at 2501 E. Chapman was renovated in 2018 and subdivided in a condominium conversion.5 It now consists of 34 separate parcels, with Assessor Parcel Numbers 933-44-401 through 933-44-434.

Photo source: Google StreetView, May 2024
The building is occupied by a large number of professionals: doctors, lawyers, and real estate agents, many of whom now own their office separately from the other owners of the building.

The City does not attempt to show that the individual owners of condominium units have a joint plan to demolish the office building and replace it with housing in the next five years. Without evidence that the existing uses are likely to discontinue during the planning period, the existing uses are presumed to preclude this property from meeting the need for housing. 5 See, e.g., https://www.rodeore.com/commercial/crm/1021338316/2501-e-chapmanavenue-106-fullerton-ca-92831 (“University Office Park is a 2-story office building built in 1986 and recently renovated in 2018 when it was entitled for office condominium conversion.”).

Za FARELLA
Braun +Martelllp
Housing Element
September 12, 2024

7. 4101 and 4201 Bonita: Wine Country Gift Baskets
(APNs 296-202-02 and -04)
Located in a district characterized by large warehouses – the FedEx distribution center is next door – 4201 Bonita and 4101 Bonita fit right in. These two warehouses, sitting on 4.46 and

3.11 acres respectively, are both used by the same business: Houdini, Inc., dba Wine Country Gift Baskets. The company has been here since 1984. Fullerton lacks evidence that the existing use of these two warehouses is likely to discontinue during the next five years.

8. 4111 N. Palm: C&L Refrigeration
(APN 296-203-13)
The large industrial building at 4111 N Palm, on 4.25 acres, is the California headquarters of the privately held and family operated business C&L Refrigeration. The business makes industrial-sized cooling systems (for example, the refrigerated section of grocery stores), and so needs a large industrial space to do its work. The property is majority-owned by an entity named “CL Investments, LLC” (with Ronald Cassell, one of the founders of C&L Refrigeration signing documents for it6): in other words, the family running the business also owns the property, making it less likely that the property owner will change the existing use.

Fullerton lacks evidence that C&L Refrigeration is likely to discontinue use of this site during the next five years.

9. 4141 N. Palm: Adams Rite Aerospace
(APN 296-203-12)
The industrial building at 4141 N Palm is the headquarters of Adams Rite Aerospace.

The company, founded in 1896, makes over 4500 parts for the aviation industry, such as the faucets used for airplane bathrooms, and the latches for their doors. They continue to announce new contracts with major US airlines, and show no signs of going out of business. They recently agreed to a 70% rent increase, and renewed their lease for an additional 75 months (6 years, three months), running well into 2028 at the earliest.7 This is not a case where the lease is expiring early in the planning period and the tenant plans to move out; it’s a case where the lease was renewed early in the planning period and runs almost to the end of it. Fullerton lacks substantial 6 See Exh. 1 (recorded document in 2019, borrowing against rental income, signed by Ron Cassell); and https://www.clrefrigeration.com/company-history (“C&L is founded by Ronald and Jean Cassell”).
7 https://hefnervernickteam.com/4141-n-palm-st-fullerton/ (April 18, 2022 press release:
“The Hefner Vernick Team represented the Lessor, Link Logistics Real Estate, in securing a 75- month lease renewal for the 100,000 sq. ft. manufacturing facility with Adams Rite Aerospace, Inc.”). The press release also notes that the rent increase is effective “14 months in advance of the natural lease expiration,” which may mean that the 75 month term didn’t start until mid2023, which would put the lease expiration into mid-to-late 2029.

Za FARELLA
Braun +Martelllp
Housing Element
September 12, 2024

evidence that Adams Rite Aerospace is likely to discontinue using its headquarters during the next five years.

10. 1500 E. Walnut
(APN 033-221-08)
The site inventory incorrectly asserts that a warehouse at 1500 E. Walnut was built in 1971. There was in fact a warehouse built in 1971 (visible on Google StreetView as recently as January 2021), but the old one was torn down in late 2021, and a new one constructed in 2022- 2024.8 This is a photo of 1500 E. Walnut as it is today; it has a recently built, brand new warehouse:

Source: Google StreetView, November 2023
8 The demolition permit was finalized by the City of Fullerton Building Department on October 6, 2021. See Permit # DEMOC-2021-0002
(https://easydev.cityoffullerton.com/energov_prod/selfservice#/permit/c9725d01-7757-427fb8e4-b5143f2ca44b). More recently, the warehouse racks for the new warehouse are being installed, as of June 2024. See Permit # BLDC-2024-0074 (https://easydev.cityoffullerton.com/energov_prod/selfservice#/permit/2f377362-c627-4a78- 96ab-bd683bb84c4b). Loopnet indicates that the warehouse was constructed in 2022:
https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/1500-E-Walnut-Ave-Fullerton-CA/25751733/ Za FARELLA
Braun +Martelllp
Housing Element
September 12, 2024

Indeed, the property has already been leased, as of November 2023, to electric vehicle manufacturer Mullen Automotive, which plans to use the “state of the art” facility to manufacture EV batteries, and move operations there from a facility in Monrovia.9 This newly constructed building and new use has three implications for the Housing Element:

1. Fullerton should validate, or perhaps update, its site inventory information. The Fullerton Building Department had the accurate information; it’s unclear whether the mistake here comes from using a site inventory that was drafted early in the process and hasn’t been updated to current conditions, or whether there was some inaccurate source of information used.

2. The site is not likely to redevelop in the next four-and-a-half years, because people don’t usually tear down brand new warehouses, or abandon brand-new manufacturing facilities.

3. This is an example of the fact that there remains demand for uses other than residential for the sites on the inventory, and Fullerton should adjust its capacity numbers to take into account the probability of nonresidential development. See section B below.

11. 2030, 2116, 2200, and 2340 E. Walnut : Walnut Business Center (APNs 269-141-01, -02, -03, and 269-151-09)
The sites listed as 2030 E. Walnut, 2116 E. Walnut, 2200 E. Walnut, and 2340 E. Walnut are operated as a single massive industrial park known as the Walnut Business Center. (It also uses the street addresses 315-340 S. Hale, the small entrance road from Walnut). The industrial park consists of large industrial buildings backing up to the active railroad tracks separating the site from Valencia Road to the rear.

The existing uses are industrial, and ongoing. An air conditioning contractor, in business since 1969 and employee-owned, fronts onto Walnut at 2100 E. Walnut (on parcel 269-141-02, labeled 2116 E. Walnut on the site inventory).10 Further back, in the much larger buildings on the larger parcel APN 269-151-09, are (1) Cove West, a metal wire parts manufacturing facility;11 (2) Cybertech Lighting, a 40+ year old company which makes a range of lighting products from compact fluorescent bulbs and LED bulbs to the “exit” signs seen in commercial 9 See https://news.mullenusa.com/mullen-expands-us-battery-operations-moves-to-solidstate-polymer-pack-testing-as-ev-business-scales. 10 See https://aac-ams.com/about-anderson-air-conditioning/ (describing history of Anderson Air Conditioning L.P., located at this address). 11 See https://covewestusa.com/. The home page has a video of a metal-wire bending machine that is fun to watch. “Custom wire products” manufactured in the facility for a range of applications from irrigation to airplanes are shown here: https://covewestusa.com/customproducts/.

Za FARELLA
Braun +Martelllp
Housing Element
September 12, 2024

buildings, and which moved into this facility in 201812; and a radiator manufacturer named OSC Automotive.

The next big parcel over, APN 269-141-03, with a street address of 2200 E. Walnut, is a Nordstrom Design Center in one building, a household appliance wholesaler in another (JB International), a screen printing supply store, and a company that sells highly technical sampling equipment for various chemicals (e.g., bioaerosols, particulates, gases and vapors).

Without evidence that the existing uses are likely to discontinue during the planning period, the existing uses are presumed to preclude this property from meeting the need for housing.

12. 360 S. Acacia: Bimbo Bakeries – Sara Lee USA; Good Water Warehouse (APN 269-131-01)
There are two buildings on APN 269-131-01. One is occupied by Bimbo Bakeries – Sara Lee USA, which supplies various bread and bakery products to local supermarkets; the other is used by Good Water Warehouse, Inc., which sells water softeners, reverse osmosis systems, filters, and other components. The latter was founded by Jim Good, its president, in 1989, and is the headquarters of the company, which has operations in the U.S. and Canada. It appears that Good Water Warehouse has occupied the building continuously since 1989, when a large number of tenant improvements were done.

Without evidence that the existing uses are likely to discontinue during the planning period, the existing uses are presumed to preclude this property from meeting the need for housing.

13. 2251 N. Harbor, 141, 220 and 270 Laguna, 141 and 301 W. Bastanchury:

Medical offices comprising/surrounding The Providence St. Jude Medical Center
(APNs 292-071-04, -08, and -16 (220, 270 Laguna and 301 W. Bastanchury); (APNs 292-072-01 and -07 (2251 N. Harbor, 141 W. Bastanchury) The Providence St. Jude Medical Center, located at the intersection of Bastanchury and N. Harbor, comprises a sprawling hospital and medical office complex. A big hospital like this is often surrounded by medical practices co-located in the neighborhood, and this one is no different. The sites on the inventory that immediately surround the Providence St. Jude Medical Center contain a mix of medical uses that are either part of the Medical Center itself (such as its urgent care, or other doctor’s offices) or from medical professionals that benefit from being close by to other medical care.
12 See http://www.cybertechlighting.com/about-us/
Za FARELLA
Braun +Martelllp
Housing Element
September 12, 2024

 The inventory site at 2251 N. Harbor is near the top of the map above, with St. Jude Heritage Medical Group “Urgent Care” at that address.
 The parcel labeled as 141 Laguna on assessor’s records has the street address 101 Laguna (on the map, it’s immediately below the building marked “St. Jude Medical Plaza – Fullerton); this property has a two story building with a sign indicating St. Jude Heritage Medical Center on the outside of the building.
 220 Laguna Road has four buildings named “Sunny Hills Medical Dental Building”; it is labeled “Potter Orthodontics” on the Google map image above.  270 Laguna Road has a three story building with several opthamology practices, including one associated with the Providence St. Jude website.

Farella
BRAUN+ MARTELllp
St Jude Heritage
Medical Group
QLaguna Rd
Elementary School
Potter Orthodontics O
Q St. Jude Heritage
Medical Group...
z
Housing Element
September 12, 2024

 301 W. Bastanchury is located on the left hand side of the map (but not labeled because it doesn’t have St. Jude in its name); it is a sprawling three story medical office building filled with medical practices that looks like this:

Photo Source: Google StreetView, August 2022
 Closer to the hospital, 141 W. Bastanchury has a Wells Fargo branch, a standalone opthamologist building, and a multi-tenant two story building of small offices, including a chiropractor, several dentists, and an endodontics practice. Next door to that, at 105 W.

Bastanchury, almost directly across the intersection from the hospital complex, is a pharmacy.

St. Jude Medical Center is not likely to discontinue use of its own buildings, and the doctors and other medical professionals that surround the hospital are likewise unlikely to discontinue their current uses. The City lacks substantial evidence that the existing uses of these sites are likely to discontinue during the next five years.

14. 2810 E. Imperial Highway: Wendy’s, 7-11, and a dry cleaner (APN 337-082-13)
The 2.07 acre site listed as 2810 E. Imperial Highway contains two buildings: a standalone restaurant building which has contained a Wendy’s fast food restaurant since 1986, and a 7-11 in a strip-mall style building facing Associated Road. Absent evidence that Wendy’s or 7-11 are planning to close or move in the next five years, the existing uses are presumed to impede residential re-development.

Za FARELLA
Braun +Martelllp
Housing Element
September 12, 2024

15. 910 S. Euclid: the Subaru/Ford dealership parking lot (APN 073-263-54)
The parking lot at 910 S. Euclid might look at first glance like a good place to build housing: there is no building to demolish or other improvements. But on second look, there’s something interesting about this parking lot: all of the cars in this photo from Google Street view, taken in May 2024, are 2024 model year Subarus.

Source: Google StreetView, May 2024
It’s no coincidence. In fact, there’s a Subaru dealership two doors down. 910 S. Euclid is where the Ocean Subaru car dealership parks its inventory. Without evidence that the Subaru dealership is likely to stop using the parking lot during the sixth cycle,13 Fullerton should not claim that it meets the need for housing.

16. 1751 Hughes: Raytheon
(APN 280-012-10)
This site was once part of Hughes Aircraft, but is now a portion of a major office campus for Southern California’s second largest defense contractor Raytheon, which has occupied the site for decades. Attached in the Appendix as Exhibit 2 is a news article dated September 11, 2023 from the Orange County Business Journal about the site.

The Raytheon campus in Fullerton consists of two parcels: APN 280-012-10 and 280- 012-09 (which surrounds it on three-and-a-half sides). The two parcels were conveyed together to a developer that may be interested in residential or office use in the long-term, but which in the medium term is constrained by Raytheon’s long-term lease. According to the Orange County Business Journal article last year, sources indicate that Raytheon will stay until 2042. (See Exh. 2). We did a title search and located a memorandum of lease (a short form description of terms filed with the County Recorder) and have attached it as Exhibit 3): it has four 5-year extension options. Based on Raytheon’s continued occupancy, it has exercised the first of these, so the lease now runs until a minimum of March 31, 2027; if it exercises all of the options Raytheon can stay, just as the article reports, until March 31, 2042. This is not a situation as provided for in the HCD site inventory guidebook, where “[t]he lease for the existing use expires early within the planning period”; it is instead one where the existing use, including an analysis of the lease, 13 A second row of cars in the photo are all Fords; the Fullerton Ford dealership is less than a mile away.

Za FARELLA
Braun +Martelllp
Housing Element
September 12, 2024

show that the existing use is likely to continue, and precludes residential development to meet the 2021-2029 housing need.

B. The Draft Housing Element Does Not Adequately Consider The Probability Of Non-Residential Uses, And Thus Overstates The Capacity Of The Site Inventory To Meet The RHNA.

Fullerton’s primary approach to rezoning to meet the RHNA is the Housing Incentive Opportunity Zone (“HIOZ”), an overlay on existing commercial and industrial zones. Because this approach allows owners to choose between residential and non-residential development, the city is required to assess the probability of non-residential development, and to adjust its capacity numbers to take the non-residential zoning into account. See Government Code § 65583.2(c).

As the HCD site inventory guidebook explains:

Realistic development capacity for nonresidential, nonvacant, or overlay zoned sites
The capacity calculation must be adjusted to reflect the realistic potential for residential development capacity on the sites in the inventory. Specifically, when the site has the potential to be developed with nonresidential uses, requires redevelopment, or has an overlay zone allowing the underlying zoning to be utilized for residential units, these capacity limits must be reflected in the housing element.
. . . For example, if past production trends indicate that two out of three similar sites were developed for residential use, and one out of three similar sites was developed for commercial use, an initial estimate of the proportion of new development which is expected to be residential would be two-thirds, i.e., 0.67.

HCD Site Inventory Guidebook (May 2020) at pp. 19-20.

Unlike many other Housing Elements certified by HCD, Fullerton’s does not address the realistic capacity by providing information about the likelihood of nonresidential development of the sites on the inventory. In doing so, Fullerton should note that many of the industrial sites on the inventory are similar to ones that have recently been redeveloped for industrial uses: for example, a warehouse building being torn down to erect a new more modern warehouse building (see, e.g., 1501 E. Walnut, above).

The city planning department’s online list of current major development projects shows a number of nonresidential re-developments of properties similar to the ones on the inventory, including (1) a new industrial warehouse building at 1901 Via Burton, (2) demolition of a hotel to erect an industrial building and office at 1500 S. Raymond, (3) the “tilt-up speculative warehouse” proposed at 801 S. Acacia (a block away from sites on the inventory), (4) demolition of industrial buildings at 301 S. Acacia to create a truck yard (adjacent to sites on the inventory), and (5) the massive Goodman Logistics project at 2001 E. Orangethorpe, approved by the City Za FARELLA
Braun +Martelllp
Housing Element
September 12, 2024

Council in November 2020, which will replace existing industrial uses with a four building, 65 acre logistics campus.14
Meanwhile, the limited discussion in section B.2.7 of non-residential development in commercial zones – specifically, listing five residential/mixed-use projects since 1991 in the C-3 zone – has an important omission. The “Fox Block” project in the downtown (the “Fox Block” is bounded by Harbor, Ellis, Pomona, and Chapman) will demolish several small retail buildings and parking lots to build new retail/restaurant uses and a multi-story parking structure. This project is in the C-3 zoning designation The City Council chose to develop city land (which comprises a portion of the project) with nonresidential uses even though residential is a permitted use in the C-3 zone, and even though there was public comment in favor of considering a residential use. This significant nonresidential project within the C-3 zone, as with the industrial zone projects listed in the prior paragraph, shows that there is continued demand for nonresidential uses in Fullerton, even for sites where the zoning designation permits both residential and non-residential uses.

In order to properly assess the realistic capacity of the HIOZ sites, Fullerton therefore should determine the probability that re-development of HIOZ sites could be non-residential instead of residential. The current draft does not do this. See Housing Element draft June 2024 at B.2.7 (discussing ratio of residential to retail in mixed-use projects, but not likelihood of nonresidential development).

C. The Draft Housing Element Does Not Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.

A six lane highway (State Highway 90, known as the Imperial Highway) separates single-family houses from an industrial park in the far northern portion of Fullerton. Measured from the intersection of the Imperial Highway and North Palm Street (where the site inventory suggests high density housing could be built), the industrial zone stretches over a mile north to Euclid in La Habra, and over a mile south to Brea Creek in Brea.

Source: Google Maps
14 See https://www.cityoffullerton.com/government/departments/community-and-economicdevelopment/planning-zoning/development-activity Za FARELLA
Braun +Martelllp
Housing Element
September 12, 2024

Not a single Fullerton resident lives north of the Imperial Highway. But under Fullerton’s Housing Element proposed site inventory, hundreds of the lower income units to meet the RHNA would be built in this industrial park. As described in section A, this is unrealistic to expect during the sixth cycle: the companies that use this industrial zone, like Wine Country Gift Baskets, Adams Rite Aerospace, and C&L Refrigeration, aren’t likely to discontinue using the large warehouse and industrial buildings where they are headquartered.

And as described in section B, the Housing Element fails to adjust for the probability that even if the sites here were redeveloped, they could be redeveloped for another industrial use. Indeed, no one has proposed or built high density residential in this part of Fullerton, or any residential housing at all.

But there is yet another legal problem with the heavy reliance on these sites in the Housing Element: proposing to put the lower income housing in an industrial park does not affirmatively further fair housing. If the sites are built as projected, Fullerton would have succeeded in creating a neighborhood consisting entirely of lower income housing, separated from the rest of Fullerton by a six lane highway, and given the lack of any through street connecting it to the city’s street grid (because of the drainage canal and east-west ridge a few hundred yards to the south), one that can’t even reach the rest of Fullerton without first leaving the city. The “neighborhood” is low resource, see Housing Element June 2024 Draft at H-E-95, but it might be more accurate to say that as a neighborhood of Fullerton it lacks any residential resources at all. While the HCD site inventory guidebook instructs that a city should consider the availability of services in siting lower income units, here the inventory proposes a significant number of lower income units in an industrial zone isolated from literally every other part of the city. Instead of decreasing patterns of segregation, this plan would create an entirely new lower income neighborhood.

Meanwhile, Fullerton proposes to retain a zoning code that keeps affordable apartments away from the high and highest resource single-family residential neighborhoods. As HCD has commented and the draft acknowledges, Fullerton’s special height limits near single-family zones constrain production of multi-family housing and can render it infeasible. Because singlefamily zones are closely correlated with high resources, this law has the direct effect of limiting lower income housing (even under the Mullen law of 30 units/acre), including in particular in a Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence (the high resource, mostly white, Byerrum Park neighborhood, which has only a few small sites on the inventory). Fullerton’s own consultant has concluded that the densities that are realistic for properties near the single-family zones (22 du/ac) are unlikely to be built. In its memorandum proposing the HIOZ program, Dudek reiterated its past recommendation that 45 du/ac is a “minimum density to achieve affordability,” and that it “may limit the affordability yield under the HIOZ program.”15 Yet, in the Housing Element, the City proposes to continue maintaining its height limits near residential, constraining realistic yields to 20 du/ac (for most parcels on the inventory) and 35 du/ac (for many others).

See, e.g., Draft Housing Element June 2024 at H-3-6 (“Development Standards”); id. at H-3-8, 15 Available here: https://fullertonobserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/HIOZ-InitialStudy_Public-.pdf. Quotes are from page 4 of the April 2023 Dudek memo, at p. 96 of the pdf.

Za FARELLA
Braun +Martelllp
Housing Element
September 12, 2024

Table 3-3 (height limits under HIOZ are one story within 50 feet of R-1 property, and 2 stories if within 100 feet); H-3-25 (explaining that this rule leads to density assumptions for the site inventory of 20 du/ac for sites within 100 feet [sic] of R-1, and 35 du/ac for sites less than one acre within 100 feet of R-1). Fullerton should consider changing this law, at least for properties in the HIOZ, to allow more housing affordable to those with lower incomes to be built in more parts of the city.
* * *
Based on the analysis above, Fullerton’s draft Housing Element does not comply with state law, because it proposes to meet more than 50% of the need for affordable housing with sites that are not vacant, and does so without substantial evidence that many of the sites are likely to be redeveloped. Second, the capacity analysis fails to account for the ongoing demand for non-residential uses. Finally, the Housing Element appears to violate the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.

Given the substantial need for suitable, available, and realistic housing sites zoned to meet Fullerton’s share of the regional need, we suggest that additional sites will need to be identified and potentially rezoned to ensure compliance with state housing law, and that Fullerton should reconsider its constraints that limit affordable apartment construction near single-family zones. Such changes could avoid the possibility that the Housing Element will be invalidated in the event that HCD or a court agrees with the arguments above.

Respectfully submitted,
Thomas B. Mayhew
Charles J. Higley
36615\17040988.1
Za FARELLA
Braun +Martelllp
4111 N Palm St, Fullerton, CA 92835-1025
APN: 296-203-13 Orange County Data as of: 08/28/2024
Owner Information
Location Information
Last Transfer / Conveyance - Current Owner
Last Market Sale
Prior Sale Information
Property Characteristics
Site Information
Tax Information
Property Detail Report
Owner Name: CL Investments LLC
Vesting:

Mailing Address: 4111 N Palm St, Fullerton, CA 92835-1025 Occupancy: Owner Occupied Legal Description: P Bk 56 Pg 28 Par 12 County: Orange, CA APN: 296-203-13 Alternate APN: Census Tract / Block: 001404 / 1034 Munic / Twnshp: Twnshp-Rng-Sec: Legal Lot / Block:

Subdivision: Tract #: Legal Book / Page: 56 / 28
Neighborhood: School District: Fullerton Joint Union High School District Elementary School: Sierra Vista Eleme... Middle School: Washington Middle... High School: Sonora High School Latitude: 33.91905 Longitude: -117.92517
Transfer / Rec Date: 01/15/2019 / 01/18/2019 Price: Transfer Doc #: 2019.17998 Buyer Name: CL Investments LLC /
Mparent Investments LLC Seller Name: Cassell JR Ronald J Deed Type: Quit Claim Deed Sale / Rec Date: Sale Price / Type: Deed Type:

Multi / Split Sale: Price / Sq. Ft.: New Construction:
1st Mtg Amt / Type: 1st Mtg Rate / Type: 1st Mtg Doc #: N/A 2nd Mtg Amt / Type: 2nd Mtg Rate / Type: Sale Doc #: N/A Seller Name:

Lender: Title Company:

Sale / Rec Date: Sale Price / Type: Prior Deed Type:
1st Mtg Amt / Type: 1st Mtg Rate / Type: Prior Sale Doc #: N/A Prior Lender:

Gross Living Area: Total Rooms: 0 Year Built / Eff:

Living Area: Bedrooms: Stories:

Total Adj. Area: Baths (F / H): Parking Type:

Above Grade: Pool: Garage #:

Basement Area: Fireplace: Garage Area:

Style: Cooling: Porch Type:

Foundation: Heating: Patio Type:

Quality: Exterior Wall: Roof Type:

Condition: Construction Type: Roof Material:

Land Use: Industrial (NEC) Lot Area: 185,061 Sq. Ft. Zoning:

State Use: Lot Width / Depth: # of Buildings: 1
County Use: 4 - Industrial Usable Lot: Res / Comm Units:

Site Influence: Acres: 4.248 Water / Sewer Type:

Flood Zone Code: X Flood Map #: 06059C0041J Flood Map Date: 12/03/2009 Community Name: City Of Fullerton Flood Panel #: 0041J Inside SFHA: False Assessed Year: 2024 Assessed Value: $10,538,787 Market Total Value:

Tax Year: 2023 Land Value: $8,590,612 Market Land Value:

Tax Area: 03-032 Improvement Value: $1,948,175 Market Imprv Value:

Property Tax: $120,954.98 Improved %: 18.49% Market Imprv %:

Exemption: Delinquent Year: © 2024 First American Financial Corporation and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. NYSE: FAF PAGE 1 OF 1 Reference ID: 36615
Property Detail Report
4111 N Palm St, Fullerton, CA 92835-1025
Owner Information
Location Information
Last Transfer / Conveyance - Current Owner
Last Market Sale
Prior Sale Information
Property Characteristics
Site Information
Tax Information
Data ree
Disclaimer: This report: (i) is not an insured product or service or an abstract, legal opinion or a representation of the condition of title to real property, and (ii) is issued exclusively for the benefit of First American Data Tree LLC (Data Tree) customers and may not be used or relied upon by any other person. Estimated property values are: (i) based on available data; (ii) are not guaranteed or warranted; (iii) do not constitute an appraisal; and (iv) should not be relied upon in lieu of an appraisal. Data Tree does not represent or warrant that the information is complete or free from error, and expressly disclaims any liability to any person or entity for loss or damage caused by errors or omissions in the report. If the "verified" logo ( ) is displayed, or a record is designated "verified," Data Tree's algorithm matched fields from two or more data sources to confirm source data.

School information is copyrighted and provided by GreatSchools.org.

RELEVANCE
Assignment APN #

ADDRESS

OWNER / BORROWER

SELLER /LENDER
Assignment APN #

ADDRESS

OWNER / BORROWER

SELLER / LENDER
Assignment Of Rents APN #

ADDRESS

OWNER / BORROWER

SELLER /LENDER
Deed
For Recorders Use Only Deed Of Trust And Fixture Filing OWNER / BORROWER 36615
Per Page: Select all | Deselect all
Insights Center j DataTree 1 KAREN CALARCO d
SEARCH QUERY $

FILTERS
Order

DOCUMENT TYPES
Sort alphabetically or by volume

SHOW ALL DOCUMENT TYPES
ASSIGNMENT (2)
DEED (1)
DEED OF TRUST (1) Order
UNDETERMINED (1)
MORE
YEARS

SHOW ALL YEARS
2019(1) View Document
2017 (4)
Order View Property
40 Order

DOCUMENT TYPE

UNDETERMINED

DOCUMENT TYPE

DEED OF TRUST

DOCUMENT TYPE

ASSIGNMENT

DOCUMENT TYPE

ASSIGNMENT
The Assessors Parcel Number for the Property is 296-203-13.

APN: 296-203-13 CA ORANGE
The Assessor's Parcel Number for theProperty is 296-203-13.

APN: 296-203-13 CA ORANGE
APN#
296-203-13
APN#
296-203-13
(doc_full_text"296-203-13‘) AND
(doc_full_textlease) AND
(doc_state_abbr:'CA') AND
(doc_county_name:'Orange*)
The Assessors Parcel Number for the Real Property is 29&203-13.

APN: 296-203-13 CA ORANGE
The Assessors Parcel Number for the Real Property is 296-203-13.

APN: 296-203-13 CA ORANGE

RECORDING DATE
2017

RECORDING DATE
06/06/2017

RECORDING DATE
06/06/2017

DOCUMENT TYPE
DEED

RECORDING DATE
2017

RECORDING DATE
2019
The Assessors Parcel Number for the Property is 296-203-13.

APN: 296-203-13 CA ORANGE
5 documents found (searched 7,390,705,548 images in 1.404 seconds) 20 30

STANDARD SEARCH ADVANCED SEARCH
8Save SPrint 4 Email < Actions

OWNER /BORROWER

RONALDJ CASSELL JR FAMILY TRUST & CASSELL RONALDJ

ADDRESS
4111 N PALM ST FULLERTON CA 92835

ADDRESS
4111 N PALM ST FULLERTON CA 92835

SELLER / LENDER

GEMS HOLDINGS LLC & ZB NA
RECORDINGREQUESTEDBY FIRSTAMERICAN TITLEINSURANCECO. NATIONALCOMMERCIALSERVICES RECORDATION REQUESTED BY:

Zions Bancorporation, N.A. dba California Bank & Trust
Commercial - Tustin
17752 East 17th Street
Tustin, CA 92780
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

Zions Bancorporation, N.A. dba California Bank & Trust
Enterprise Loan Operations UT RDWG 1970
PO Box 25007
Salt Lake City, UT 84125-0007
Recorded in Official Records, Orange County
Hugh Nguyen, Clerk-Recorder
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll»
* $ R 0 0 1 0 5 9 1 042$*
2019000018000 9:46 am 01/18/19
9 406A36A34 10

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.00 0.00 0.000.00150.00 6.00

FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY

ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND RENTS
THIS ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND RENTS dated December 20, 2018, is made and executed between CL Investments, LLC, a California limited liability company, as to an undivided 67% interest, and MParent Investments, LLC, a California limited liability company, as to an undivided 33% interest, as tenants-in-common, whose address is 4111 N. Palm Street, Fullerton, CA 92835 (referred to below as "Grantor") and Zions Bancorporation, N.A. dba California Bank & Trust, whose address is 17752 East 17th Street, Tustin, CA 92780 (referred to below as "Lender").

ASSIGNMENT. For valuable consideration, Grantor hereby assigns, grants a continuing security interest in, and conveys to Lender all of Grantor's right, title, and interest in and to the Leases and Rents from the following described Property located in Orange County, State of California:

See the exhibit or other description document which is attached to this Modification and made a part of this Modification as if fully set forth herein (collectively, the "Real Property").

The Property or its address is commonly known as 4111 N. Palm Street, Fullerton, CA 92835. The Assessor's Parcel Number for the Property is 296-203-13.

This is an absolute assignment of Leases and Rents made In connection with an obligation secured by property pursuant to California Civil Code section 2938.

THIS ASSIGNMENT IS GIVEN TO SECURE (1) PAYMENT OF THE INDEBTEDNESS AND (2) PERFORMANCE OF ANY AND ALL OBLIGATIONS OF BORROWER AND GRANTOR UNDER THE NOTE, THIS ASSIGNMENT, AND THE RELATED DOCUMENTS. THIS ASSIGNMENT IS GIVEN AND ACCEPTED ON THE FOLLOWING TERMS:

GRANTOR'S WAIVERS. Except as prohibited by applicable law, Grantor waives any right to require Lender to (a) make any presentment, protest, demand, or notice of any kind, including notice of change of any terms of repayment of the Indebtedness, default by Borrower or any other guarantor or surety, any action or nonaction taken by Borrower, Lender, or any other guarantor or surety of Borrower, or the creation of new or additional Indebtedness; (b) proceed against any person, including Borrower, before proceeding against Grantor; (c) proceed against any collateral for the Indebtedness, including Borrower's collateral, before proceeding against Grantor; (d) apply any payments or proceeds received against the Indebtedness in any order; (e) give notice of the terms, time, and place of any sale of any collateral pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code or any other law governing such sale; (f) disclose any information about the Indebtedness, Borrower, any collateral, or any other guarantor or surety, or about any action or nonaction of Lender; or (g) pursue any remedy or course of action in Lender's power whatsoever.

Grantor also waives any and all rights or defenses arising by reason of (h) any disability or other defense of Borrower, any other guarantor or surety or any other person; (i) the cessation from any cause whatsoever, other than payment in full, of the Indebtedness; (j) the application of proceeds of the Indebtedness by Borrower for purposes other than the purposes understood and intended by Grantor and Lender; (k) any act of omission or commission by Lender which directly or indirectly results in or contributes to the discharge of Borrower or any other guarantor or surety, or the Indebtedness, or the loss or release of any collateral by operation of law or otherwise; (I) any statute of limitations in any action under this Assignment or on the Indebtedness; or (m) any modification or change in terms of the Indebtedness, whatsoever, including without limitation, the renewal, extension, acceleration, or other change in the time payment of the Indebtedness is due and any change in the interest rate.

Grantor waives all rights and defenses arising out of an election of remedies by Lender, even though that election of remedies, such as non-judicial foreclosure with respect to security for a guaranteed obligation, has destroyed Grantor's rights of subrogation and reimbursement against Borrower by the operation of Section 580d of the California Code of Civil Procedure, or otherwise.

Grantor waives all rights and defenses that Grantor may have because Borrower's obligation is secured by real property. This means among other things: (1) Lender may collect from Grantor without first foreclosing on any real or personal property collateral pledged by Borrower. (2) If Lender forecloses on any real property collateral pledged by Borrower: (A) The amount of Borrower's obligation may be reduced only by the price for which the collateral is sold at the foreclosure sale, even if the collateral is worth more than the sale price. (B) Lender may collect from Grantor even if Lender, by foreclosing on the real property collateral, has destroyed any right Grantor may have to collect from Borrower. This is an unconditional and irrevocable waiver of any rights and defenses Grantor may have because Borrower’s

LEASESAREUNRECORDED
Loan No: 9001

ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND RENTS
(Continued) Page 2
obligation is secured by real property. These rights and defenses include, but are not limited to, any rights and defenses based upon Section 580a, 580b, 580d, or 726 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Grantor understands and agrees that the foregoing waivers are unconditional and irrevocable waivers of substantive rights and defenses to which Grantor might otherwise be entitled under state and federal law. The rights and defenses waived include, without limitation, those provided by California laws of suretyship and guaranty, anti-deficiency laws, and the Uniform Commercial Code. Grantor acknowledges that Grantor has provided these waivers of rights and defenses with the intention that they be fully relied upon by Lender. Grantor further understands and agrees that this Assignment is a separate and independent contract between Grantor and Lender, given for full and ample consideration, and is enforceable on its own terms. Until all Indebtedness is paid in full, Grantor waives any right to enforce any remedy Grantor may have against Borrower's or any other guarantor, surety, or other person, and further, Grantor waives any right to participate in any collateral for the Indebtedness now or hereafter held by Lender.

BORROWER’S WAIVERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES. Lender need not tell Borrower about any action or inaction Lender takes in connection with this Assignment. Borrower assumes the responsibility for being and keeping informed about the Property. Borrower waives any defenses that may arise because of any action or inaction of Lender, including without limitation any failure of Lender to realize upon the Property, or any delay by Lender in realizing upon the Property. Borrower agrees to remain liable under the Note with Lender no matter what action Lender takes or fails to take under this Assignment.

PAYMENT AND PERFORMANCE. Except as otherwise provided in this Assignment or any Related Documents, Grantor shall pay to Lender all amounts secured by this Assignment as they become due, and shall strictly perform all of Grantor's obligations under this Assignment.

Unless and until Lender exercises its right to collect the Leases and Rents as provided below and so long as there is no default under this Assignment, Grantor may remain in possession and control of and operate and manage the Property and collect the Leases and Rents, provided that the granting of the right to collect the Leases and Rents shall not constitute Lender’s consent to the use of cash collateral in a bankruptcy proceeding.

GRANTOR'S REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE LEASES AND RENTS. With respect to the Leases and Rents, Grantor represents and warrants to Lender that:

Ownership. Grantor is entitled to receive the Leases and Rents free and clear of all rights, loans, liens, encumbrances, and claims except as disclosed to and accepted by Lender in writing.

Right to Assign. Grantor has the full right, power and authority to enter into this Assignment and to assign and convey the Leases and Rents to Lender.

No Prior Assignment. Grantor has not previously assigned or conveyed the Leases and Rents to any other person by any instrument now in force.

No Further Transfer. Grantor will not sell, assign, encumber, or otherwise dispose of any of Grantor's rights in the Leases and Rents except as provided in this Assignment.

LENDER'S RIGHT TO COLLECT LEASES AND RENTS. Lender shall have the right at any time, and even though no default shall have occurred under this Assignment, to collect and receive the Leases and Rents. For this purpose, Lender is hereby given and granted the following rights, powers and authority:

Notice to Tenants. Lender may send notices to any and all tenants of the Property advising them of this Assignment and directing all Leases and Rents to be paid directly to Lender or Lender's agent.

Enter the Property. Lender may enter upon and take possession of the Property; demand, collect and receive from the tenants or from any other persons liable therefor, all of the Leases and Rents; institute and carry on all legal proceedings necessary for the protection of the Property, including such proceedings as may be necessary to recover possession of the Property; collect the Leases and Rents and remove any tenant or tenants or other persons from the Property.

Maintain the Property. Lender may enter upon the Property to maintain the Property and keep the same in repair; to pay the costs thereof and of all services of all employees, including their equipment, and of all continuing costs and expenses of maintaining the Property in proper repair and condition, and also to pay all taxes, assessments and water utilities, and the premiums on fire and other insurance effected by Lender on the Property.

Compliance with Laws. Lender may do any and all things to execute and comply with the laws of the State of California and also all other laws, rules, orders, ordinances and requirements of all other governmental agencies affecting the Property.

Lease the Property. Lender may rent or lease the whole or any part of the Property for such term or terms and on such conditions as Lender may deem appropriate.

Employ Agents. Lender may engage such agent or agents as Lender may deem appropriate, either in Lender's name or in Grantor's name, to rent and manage the Property, including the collection and application of Leases and Rents.

Other Acts. Lender may do all such other things and acts with respect to the Property as Lender may deem appropriate and may act exclusively and solely in the place and stead of Grantor and to have all of the powers of Grantor for the purposes stated above.

No Requirement to Act. Lender shall not be required to do any of the foregoing acts or things, and the fact that Lender shall have performed one or more of the foregoing acts or things shall not require Lender to do any other specific act or thing.

APPLICATION OF LEASES AND RENTS. All costs and expenses incurred by Lender in connection with the Property shall be for Grantor's account and Lender may pay such costs and expenses from the Leases and Rents. Lender, in its sole discretion, shall determine the application of any and all Leases and Rents received by it; however, any such Leases and Rents received by Lender which are not applied to such costs and expenses shall be applied to the Indebtedness. All expenditures made by Lender under this Assignment and not reimbursed from the Leases and Rents shall become a part of the Indebtedness secured by this Assignment, and shall be payable on demand, with interest at the Note rate from date of expenditure until paid.

FULL PERFORMANCE. If Grantor pays all of the Indebtedness when due and otherwise performs all the obligations imposed upon Grantor

ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND RENTS
Loan No: 9001 (Continued) Page 3
under this Assignment, the Note, and the Related Documents, Lender shall execute and deliver to Grantor a suitable satisfaction of this Assignment and suitable statements of termination of any financing statement on file evidencing Lender's security interest in the Leases and Rents and the Property. Any termination fee required by law shall be paid by Grantor, if permitted by applicable law.

LENDER'S EXPENDITURES. If any action or proceeding is commenced that would materially affect Lender's interest in the Property or if Grantor fails to comply with any provision of this Assignment or any Related Documents, including but not limited to Grantor’s failure to discharge or pay when due any amounts Grantor is required to discharge or pay under this Assignment or any Related Documents, Lender on Grantor's behalf may (but shall not be obligated to) take any action that Lender deems appropriate, including but not limited to discharging or paying all taxes, liens, security interests, encumbrances and other claims, at any time levied or placed on the Leases and Rents or the Property and paying all costs for insuring, maintaining and preserving the Property. All such expenditures incurred or paid by Lender for such purposes will then bear interest at the rate charged under the Note from the date incurred or paid by Lender to the date of repayment by Grantor. All such expenses will become a part of the Indebtedness and, at Lender's option, will (A) be payable on demand; (B) be added to the balance of the Note and be apportioned among and be payable with any installment payments to become due during either (1) the term of any applicable insurance policy; or (2) the remaining term of the Note; or (C) be treated as a balloon payment which will be due and payable at the Note's maturity. The Assignment also will secure payment of these amounts. Such right shall be in addition to all other rights and remedies to which Lender may be entitled upon Default.

DEFAULT. Each of the following, at Lender's option, shall constitute an Event of Default under this Assignment:

Payment Default. Borrower fails to make any payment when due under the Indebtedness.

Other Defaults. Borrower or Grantor fails to comply with or to perform any other term, obligation, covenant or condition contained in this Assignment or in any of the Related Documents or to comply with or to perform any term, obligation, covenant or condition contained in any other agreement between Lender and Borrower or Grantor.

Default on Other Payments. Failure of Grantor within the time required by this Assignment to make any payment for taxes or insurance, or any other payment necessary to prevent filing of or to effect discharge of any lien.

Default in Favor of Third Parties. Borrower, any guarantor or Grantor defaults under any loan, extension of credit, security agreement, purchase or sales agreement, or any other agreement, in favor of any other creditor or person that may materially affect any of Borrower's, any guarantor’s or Grantor's property or ability to perform their respective obligations under this Assignment or any of the Related Documents.

Environmental Default. Failure of any party to comply with or perform when due any term, obligation, covenant or condition contained in any environmental agreement executed in connection with the Property.

False Statements. Any warranty, representation or statement made or furnished to Lender by Borrower or Grantor or on Borrower's or Grantor's behalf under this Assignment or the Related Documents is false or misleading in any material respect, either now or at the time made or furnished or becomes false or misleading at any time thereafter.

Defective Collateralization. This Assignment or any of the Related Documents ceases to be in full force and effect (including failure of any collateral document to create a valid and perfected security interest or lien) at any time and for any reason.

Death or Insolvency. The dissolution or termination of the Trust, the insolvency of Borrower or Grantor, the appointment of a receiver for any part of Borrower's or Grantor's property, any assignment for the benefit of creditors, any type of creditor workout, or the commencement of any proceeding under any bankruptcy or insolvency laws by or against Borrower or Grantor.

Creditor or Forfeiture Proceedings. Commencement of foreclosure or forfeiture proceedings, whether by judicial proceeding, self-help, repossession or any other method, by any creditor of Borrower or Grantor or by any governmental agency against the Leases and Rents or any property securing the Indebtedness. This includes a garnishment of any of Borrower's or Grantor's accounts, including deposit accounts, with Lender. However, this Event of Default shall not apply if there is a good faith dispute by Borrower or Grantor as to the validity or reasonableness of the claim which is the basis of the creditor or forfeiture proceeding and if Borrower or Grantor gives Lender written notice of the creditor or forfeiture proceeding and deposits with Lender monies or a surety bond for the creditor or forfeiture proceeding, in an amount determined by Lender, in its sole discretion, as being an adequate reserve or bond for the dispute.

Property Damage or Loss. The Property is lost, stolen, substantially damaged, sold, or borrowed against.

Events Affecting Guarantor. Any of the preceding events occurs with respect to any Guarantor of any of the Indebtedness or any Guarantor dies or becomes incompetent, or revokes or disputes the validity of, or liability under, any Guaranty of the Indebtedness.

Adverse Change. A material adverse change occurs in Grantor's financial condition, or Lender believes the prospect of payment or performance of the Indebtedness is impaired.

Insecurity. Lender in good faith believes itself insecure.

Cure Provisions. If any default, other than a default in payment, is curable and if Grantor has not been given a notice of a breach of the same provision of this Assignment within the preceding twelve (12) months, it may be cured if Grantor, after Lender sends written notice to Borrower demanding cure of such default: (1) cures the default within fifteen (15) days; or (2) if the cure requires more than fifteen (15) days, immediately initiates steps which Lender deems in Lender's sole discretion to be sufficient to cure the default and thereafter continues and completes all reasonable and necessary steps sufficient to produce compliance as soon as reasonably practical.

RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ON DEFAULT. Upon the occurrence of any Event of Default and at any time thereafter, Lender may exercise any one or more of the following rights and remedies, in addition to any other rights or remedies provided by law:

Accelerate Indebtedness. Lender shall have the right at its option without notice to Borrower or Grantor to declare the entire Indebtedness immediately due and payable, including any prepayment fee that Borrower would be required to pay.

Collect Leases and Rents. Lender shall have the right, without notice to Borrower or Grantor, to take possession of the Property and Loan No: 9001

ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND RENTS
(Continued) Page 4
collect the Leases and Rents, including amounts past due and unpaid, and apply the net proceeds, over and above Lender's costs, against the Indebtedness. In furtherance of this right, Lender shall have all the rights provided for in the Lender's Right to Receive and Collect Leases and Rents Section, above. If the Leases and Rents are collected by Lender, then Grantor irrevocably designates Lender as Grantor's attorney-in-fact to endorse instruments received in payment thereof in the name of Grantor and to negotiate the same and collect the proceeds. Payments by tenants or other users to Lender in response to Lender's demand shall satisfy the obligations for which the payments are made, whether or not any proper grounds for the demand existed. Lender may exercise its rights under this subparagraph either in person, by agent, or through a receiver.

Appoint Receiver. Lender shall have the right to have a receiver appointed to take possession of all or any part of the Property, with the power to protect and preserve the Property, to operate the Property preceding foreclosure or sale, and to collect the Leases and Rents from the Property and apply the proceeds, over and above the cost of the receivership, against the Indebtedness. The receiver may serve without bond if permitted by law. Lender's right to the appointment of a receiver shall exist whether or not the apparent value of the Property exceeds the Indebtedness by a substantial amount. Employment by Lender shall not disqualify a person from serving as a receiver.

Other Remedies. Lender shall have all other rights and remedies provided in this Assignment or the Note or by law.

Election of Remedies. Election by Lender to pursue any remedy shall not exclude pursuit of any other remedy, and an election to make expenditures or to take action to perform an obligation of Grantor under this Assignment, after Grantor's failure to perform, shall not affect Lender's right to declare a default and exercise its remedies.

Attorneys' Fees; Expenses. If Lender institutes any suit or action to enforce any of the terms of this Assignment, Lender shall be entitled to recover such sum as the court may adjudge reasonable as attorneys' fees at trial and upon any appeal. Whether or not any court action is involved, and to the extent not prohibited by law, all reasonable expenses Lender incurs that in Lender’s opinion are necessary at any time for the protection of its interest or the enforcement of its rights shall become a part of the Indebtedness payable on demand and shall bear interest at the Note rate from the date of the expenditure until repaid. Expenses covered by this paragraph include, without limitation, however subject to any limits under applicable law, Lender's attorneys' fees and Lender's legal expenses, whether or not there is a lawsuit, including attorneys' fees and expenses for bankruptcy proceedings (including efforts to modify or vacate any automatic stay or injunction), appeals, and any anticipated post-judgment collection services, the cost of searching records, obtaining title reports (including foreclosure reports), surveyors' reports, and appraisal fees, title insurance, and fees for the Trustee, to the extent permitted by applicable law. Grantor also will pay any court costs, in addition to all other sums provided by law.

DOCUMENT IMAGING. Lender shall be entitled, in its sole discretion, to image or make copies of all or any selection of the agreements, instruments, documents, and items and records governing, arising from or relating to any of Borrower's loans, including, without limitation, this document and the Related Documents, and Lender may destroy or archive the paper originals. The parties hereto (i) waive any right to insist or require that Lender produce paper originals, (ii) agree that such images shall be accorded the same force and effect as the paper originals, (iii) agree that Lender is entitled to use such images in lieu of destroyed or archived originals for any purpose, including as admissible evidence in any demand, presentment or other proceedings, and (iv) further agree that any executed facsimile (faxed), scanned, or other imaged copy of this document or any Related Document shall be deemed to be of the same force and effect as the original manually executed document.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROVISION. This Dispute Resolution Provision contains a jury waiver, a class action waiver, and an arbitration clause (or judicial reference agreement, as applicable), set out in four Sections. READ IT CAREFULLY.

SECTION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS GOVERNING ALL DISPUTES.

1.1 PRIOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION AGREEMENTS SUPERSEDED. This Dispute Resolution Provision shall supersede and replace any prior "Jury Waiver,” “Judicial Reference,” “Class Action Waiver,” “Arbitration,” “Dispute Resolution,” or similar alternative dispute agreement or provision between or among the parties.

1.2 “DISPUTE” defined. As used herein, the word “Dispute” includes, without limitation, any claim by either party against the other party related to this Agreement, any Related Document, and the Loan evidenced hereby. In addition, “Dispute” also includes any claim by either party against the other party regarding any_other_agreement or business relationship between anv of them, whether or not related to the Loan or other subject matter of this Agreement. “Dispute” includes, but is not limited to, matters arising from or relating to a deposit account, an application for or denial of credit, warranties and representations made by a party, the adequacy of a party’s disclosures, enforcement of any and all of the obligations a party hereto may have to another party, compliance with applicable laws and/or regulations, performance or services provided under any agreement by a party, including without limitation disputes based on or arising from any alleged tort or matters involving the employees, officers, agents, affiliates, or assigns of a party hereto.

If a third party is a party to a Dispute (such as a credit reporting agency, merchant accepting a credit card, junior lienholder or title company), each party hereto agrees to consent to including that third party in any arbitration or judicial reference proceeding for resolving the Dispute with that party.

1.3 Jury Trial Waiver. Each party waives their respective rights to a trial before a jury in connection with any Dispute, and all Disputes shall be resolved by a judge sitting without a jury. If a court determines that this jury trial waiver is not enforceable for any reason, then at any time prior to trial of the Dispute, but not later than 30 days after entry of the order determining this provision is unenforceable, any party shall be entitled to move the court for an order, as applicable: (A) compelling arbitration and staying or dismissing such litigation pending arbitration (“Arbitration Order”) under Section 2 hereof, or (B) staying such litigation and compelling judicial reference under Section 3 hereof.

1.4 CLASS ACTION WAIVER. If permitted by applicable law, each party waives the right to litigate in court or an arbitration proceeding any Dispute as a class action, either as a member of a class or as a representative, or to act as a private attorney general

1.5 SURVIVAL. This Dispute Resolution Provision shall survive any termination, amendment or expiration of this Agreement, or any other relationship between the parties.

Loan No: 9001

ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND RENTS
(Continued) Page 5
SECTION 2. Arbitration IF JURY WAIVER UNENFORCEABLE (EXCEPT CALIFORNIA). If (but only if) a state or federal court located outside the state of California determines for any reason that the jury trial waiver in this Dispute Resolution Provision is not enforceable with respect to a Dispute, then any party hereto may require that said Dispute be resolved by binding arbitration pursuant to this Section 2 before a single arbitrator. An arbitrator shall have no authority to determine matters (i) regarding the validity, enforceability, meaning, or scope of this Dispute Resolution Provision, or (ii) class action claims brought by either party as a class representative on behalf of others and claims by a class representative on either party’s behalf as a class member, which matters may be determined only by a court without a jury. By agreeing to arbitrate a Dispute, each party gives up anv right that party may have to a jury trial, as well as other rights that party would have in court that are not available or are more limited in arbitration, such as the rights to discovery and to appeal.

Arbitration shall be commenced by filing a petition with, and in accordance with the applicable arbitration rules of, National Arbitration Forum (“NAF”) or Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service, Inc. ("JAMS”) (“Administrator”) as selected by the initiating party. However, if the parties agree, arbitration may be commenced by appointment of a licensed attorney who is selected by the parties and who agrees to conduct the arbitration without an Administrator. If NAF and JAMS both decline to administer arbitration of the Dispute, and if the parties are unable to mutually agree upon a licensed attorney to act as arbitrator with an Administrator, then either party may file a lawsuit (in a court of appropriate venue outside the state of California) and move for an Arbitration Order. The arbitrator, howsoever appointed, shall have expertise in the subject matter of the Dispute. Venue for the arbitration proceeding shall be at a location determined by mutual agreement of the parties or, if no agreement, in the city and state where Lender or Bank is headquartered. The arbitrator shall apply the law of the state specified in the agreement giving rise to the Dispute.

After entry of an Arbitration Order, the non-moving party shall commence arbitration. The moving party shall, at its discretion, also be entitled to commence arbitration but is under no obligation to do so, and the moving party shall not in any way be adversely prejudiced by electing not to commence arbitration. The arbitrator: (i) will hear and rule on appropriate dispositive motions for judgment on the pleadings, for failure to state a claim, or for full or partial summary judgment; (ii) will render a decision and any award applying applicable law; (iii) will give effect to any limitations period in determining any Dispute or defense; (iv) shall enforce the doctrines of compulsory counterclaim, res judicata, and collateral estoppel, if applicable; (v) with regard to motions and the arbitration hearing, shall apply rules of evidence governing civil cases; and (vi) will apply the law of the state specified in the agreement giving rise to the Dispute. Filing of a petition for arbitration shall not prevent any party from (i) seeking and obtaining from a court of competent jurisdiction (notwithstanding ongoing arbitration) provisional or ancillary remedies including but not limited to injunctive relief, property preservation orders, foreclosure, eviction, attachment, replevin, garnishment, and/or the appointment of a receiver, (ii) pursuing non-judicial foreclosure, or (iii) availing itself of any self-help remedies such as setoff and repossession. The exercise of such rights shall not constitute a waiver of the right to submit any Dispute to arbitration.

Judgment upon an arbitration award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction except that, if the arbitration award exceeds $4,000,000, any party shall be entitled to a de novo appeal of the award before a panel of three arbitrators. To allow for such appeal, if the award (including Administrator, arbitrator, and attorney’s fees and costs) exceeds $4,000,000, the arbitrator will issue a written, reasoned decision supporting the award, including a statement of authority and its application to the Dispute. A request for de novo appeal must be filed with the arbitrator within 30 days following the date of the arbitration award; if such a request is not made within that time period, the arbitration decision shall become final and binding. On appeal, the arbitrators shall review the award de novo, meaning that they shall reach their own findings of fact and conclusions of law rather than deferring in any manner to the original arbitrator. Appeal of an arbitration award shall be pursuant to the rules of the Administrator or, if the Administrator has no such rules, then the JAMS arbitration appellate rules shall apply.

Arbitration under this provision concerns a transaction involving interstate commerce and shall be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. If the terms of this Section 2 vary from the Administrator’s rules, this Section 2 shall control.

SECTION 3. JUDICIAL REFERENCE IF JURY WAIVER UNENFORCEABLE (CALIFORNIA ONLY). If (but only if) a Dispute is filed in a state or federal court located within the state of California, and said court determines for any reason that the jury trial waiver in this Dispute Resolution Provision is not enforceable with respect to that Dispute, then any party hereto may require that Dispute be resolved by judicial reference in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure, Sections 638, et seq.. including without limitation whether the Dispute is subject to a judicial reference proceeding. By agreeing to resolve_Disputes by judicial reference, each party is giving up anv ricihtlhaLparty may have to a jury trial. The referee shall be a retired judge, agreed upon by the parties, from either the American Arbitration Association (AAA) or Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service, Inc. (JAMS). If the parties cannot agree on the referee, the party who initially selected the reference procedure shall request a panel of ten retired judges from either AAA or JAMS, and the court shall select the referee from that panel. (If AAA and JAMS are unavailable to provide this service, the court may select a referee by such other procedures as are used by that court.) The referee shall be appointed to sit with all of the powers provided by law, including the power to hear and determine any or all of the issues in the proceeding, whether of fact or of law, and to report a statement of decision. The parties agree that time is of the essence in conducting the judicial reference proceeding set forth herein. The costs of the judicial reference proceeding, including the fee for the court reporter, shall be borne equally by the parties as the costs are incurred, unless otherwise awarded by the referee. The referee shall hear all pre-trial and post-trial matters (including without limitation requests for equitable relief), prepare a statement of decision with written findings of fact and conclusions of law, and apportion costs as appropriate. The referee shall be empowered to enter equitable relief as well as legal relief, provide all temporary or provisional remedies, enter equitable orders that are binding on the parties and rule on any motion that would be authorized in a trial, including without limitation motions for summary adjudication. Only for this Section 3, “Dispute” includes matters regarding the validity, enforceability, meaning, or scope of this Section, and (ii) class action claims brought by either party as a class representative on behalf of others and claims by a class representative on either party’s behalf as a class member.

Judgment upon the award shall be entered in the court in which such proceeding was commenced and all parties shall have full rights of appeal. This provision will not be deemed to limit or constrain Bank or Lender’s right of offset, to obtain provisional or ancillary remedies, to interplead funds in the event of a dispute, to exercise any security interest or lien Bank or Lender may hold in property or to comply with legal process involving accounts or other property held by Bank or Lender.

Nothing herein shall preclude a party from moving (prior to the court ordering judicial reference) to dismiss, stay or transfer the suit to a forum outside California on grounds that California is an improper, inconvenient or less suitable venue. If such motion is granted, this Section 3 shall not apply to any proceedings in the new forum.

This Section 3 may be invoked only with regard to Disputes filed in state or federal courts located in the State of California. In no event

ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND RENTS
Loan No: 9001 (Continued) Page 6
shall the provisions in this Section 3 diminish the force or effect of any venue selection or jurisdiction provision in this Agreement or any Related Document.

SECTION 4. Reliance. Each party (i) certifies that no one has represented to such party that the other party would not seek to enforce a jury waiver, class action waiver, arbitration provision or judicial reference provision in the event of suit, and (ii) acknowledges that it and the other party have been induced to enter into this Agreement by, among other things, material reliance upon the mutual waivers, agreements, and certifications in the four Sections of this DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROVISION.

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. The following miscellaneous provisions are a part of this Assignment:

Amendments. This Assignment, together with any Related Documents, constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the parties as to the matters set forth in this Assignment. No alteration of or amendment to this Assignment shall be effective unless given in writing and signed by the party or parties sought to be charged or bound by the alteration or amendment.

Caption Headings. Caption headings in this Assignment are for convenience purposes only and are not to be used to interpret or define the provisions of this Assignment.

Governing Law. This Assignment will be governed by federal law applicable to Lender and, to the extent not preempted by federal law, the laws of the State of California without regard to its conflicts of law provisions. This Assignment has been accepted by Lender in the State of California.

Choice of Venue. If there is a lawsuit. Grantor agrees upon Lender's request to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of Orange County, State of California.

Joint and Several Liability. All obligations of Borrower and Grantor under this Assignment shall be joint and several, and all references to Grantor shall mean each and every Grantor, and all references to Borrower shall mean each and every Borrower. This means that each Grantor signing below is responsible for all obligations in this Assignment. Where any one or more of the parties is a corporation, partnership, limited liability company or similar entity, it is not necessary for Lender to inquire into the powers of any of the officers, directors, partners, members, or other agents acting or purporting to act on the entity's behalf, and any obligations made or created in reliance upon the professed exercise of such powers shall be guaranteed under this Assignment.

Merger. There shall be no merger of the interest or estate created by this Assignment with any other interest or estate in the Property at any time held by or for the benefit of Lender in any capacity, without the written consent of Lender.

Interpretation. (1) In all cases where there is more than one Borrower or Grantor, then all words used in this Assignment in the singular shall be deemed to have been used in the plural where the context and construction so require. (2) If more than one person signs this Assignment as "Grantor," the obligations of each Grantor are joint and several. This means that if Lender brings a lawsuit, Lender may sue any one or more of the Grantors. If Borrower and Grantor are not the same person, Lender need not sue Borrower first, and that Borrower need not be joined in any lawsuit. (3) The names given to paragraphs or sections in this Assignment are for convenience purposes only. They are not to be used to interpret or define the provisions of this Assignment.

No Waiver by Lender. Lender shall not be deemed to have waived any rights under this Assignment unless such waiver is given in writing and signed by Lender. No delay or omission on the part of Lender in exercising any right shall operate as a waiver of such right or any other right. A waiver by Lender of a provision of this Assignment shall not prejudice or constitute a waiver of Lender’s right otherwise to demand strict compliance with that provision or any other provision of this Assignment. No prior waiver by Lender, nor any course of dealing between Lender and Grantor, shall constitute a waiver of any of Lender’s rights or of any of Grantor's obligations as to any future transactions. Whenever the consent of Lender is required under this Assignment, the granting of such consent by Lender in any instance shall not constitute continuing consent to subsequent instances where such consent is required and in all cases such consent may be granted or withheld in the sole discretion of Lender.

Notices. Any notice required to be given under this Assignment shall be given in writing, and shall be effective when actually delivered, when actually received by teiefacsimile (unless otherwise required by law), when deposited with a nationally recognized overnight courier, or, if mailed, when deposited in the United States mail, as first class, certified or registered mail postage prepaid, directed to the addresses shown near the beginning of this Assignment. Any party may change its address for notices under this Assignment by giving formal written notice to the other parties, specifying that the purpose of the notice is to change the party's address. For notice purposes, Grantor agrees to keep Lender informed at all times of Grantor's current address. Unless otherwise provided or required by law, if there is more than one Grantor, any notice given by Lender to any Grantor is deemed to be notice given to all Grantors.

Powers of Attorney. The various agencies and powers of attorney conveyed on Lender under this Assignment are granted for purposes of security and may not be revoked by Grantor until such time as the same are renounced by Lender.

Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds any provision of this Assignment to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable as to any person or circumstance, that finding shall not make the offending provision illegal, invalid, or unenforceable as to any other person or circumstance. If feasible, the offending provision shall be considered modified so that it becomes legal, valid and enforceable. If the offending provision cannot be so modified, it shall be considered deleted from this Assignment. Unless otherwise required by law, the illegality, invalidity, or unenforceability of any provision of this Assignment shall not affect the legality, validity or enforceability of any other provision of this Assignment.

Successors and Assigns. Subject to any limitations stated in this Assignment on transfer of Grantor's interest, this Assignment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties, their successors and assigns. If ownership of the Property becomes vested in a person other than Grantor, Lender, without notice to Grantor, may deal with Grantor's successors with reference to this Assignment and the Indebtedness by way of forbearance or extension without releasing Grantor from the obligations of this Assignment or liability under the Indebtedness.

Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Assignment.

Waiver of Right of Redemption. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OF THE PROVISIONS TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED IN THIS

ASSIGNMENT, GRANTOR HEREBY WAIVES ANY AND ALL RIGHTS OF REDEMPTION FROM SALE UNDER ANY ORDER OR Loan No: 9001

ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND RENTS
(Continued) Page 7

JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE ON GRANTOR'S BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF EACH AND EVERY PERSON, EXCEPT JUDGMENT

CREDITORS OF GRANTOR, ACQUIRING ANY INTEREST IN OR TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF THIS ASSIGNMENT.

DEFINITIONS. The following capitalized words and terms shall have the following meanings when used in this Assignment. Unless specifically stated to the contrary, all references to dollar amounts shall mean amounts in lawful money of the United States of America.

Words and terms used in the singular shall include the plural, and the plural shall include the singular, as the context may require. Words and terms not otherwise defined in this Assignment shall have the meanings attributed to such terms in the Uniform Commercial Code:

Assignment The word "Assignment" means this ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND RENTS, as this ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND RENTS may be amended or modified from time to time, together with all exhibits and schedules attached to this ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND RENTS from time to time.

Borrower. The word "Borrower" means Ronald J. Cassell, Jr. Family Trust dated December 29, 1992 ; Margaret A. Cassell Living Trust dated June 20, 2007; Margaret A. Parent; Ronald J. Cassell, Jr; CL Investments, LLC; and MParent Investments, LLC.

Default. The word "Default" means the Default set forth in this Assignment in the section titled "Default".

Event of Default. The words "Event of Default" mean any of the events of default set forth in this Assignment in the default section of this Assignment.

Grantor. The word "Grantor" means CL Investments, LLC; and MParent Investments, LLC.

Guarantor. The word "Guarantor" means any guarantor, surety, or accommodation party of any or all of the Indebtedness.

Guaranty. The word "Guaranty" means the guaranty from Guarantor to Lender, including without limitation a guaranty of all or part of the Note.

Indebtedness. The word "Indebtedness" means all principal, interest, and other amounts, costs and expenses payable under the Note or Related Documents, together with all renewals of, extensions of, modifications of, consolidations of and substitutions for the Note or Related Documents and any amounts expended or advanced by Lender to discharge Grantor's obligations or expenses incurred by Lender to enforce Grantor's obligations under this Assignment, together with interest on such amounts as provided in this Assignment.

Leases and Rents. The words "Leases and Rents" mean all of Grantor's present and future rights, title and interest in, to and under any and all present and future leases, including, without limitation, all rents, revenue, income, issues, royalties, bonuses, accounts receivable, cash or security deposits, advance rentals, profits and proceeds from the Property, and other payments and benefits derived or to be derived from such leases of every kind and nature, whether due now or later, including without limitation Grantor's right to enforce such leases and to receive and collect payment and proceeds thereunder.

Lender. The word "Lender" means Zions Bancorporation, N.A. dba California Bank & Trust, its successors and assigns.

Note. The word "Note" means the Promissory Note executed by Ronald J. Cassell, Jr. Family Trust dated December 29, 1992; Ronald J. Cassell, Jr.; Margaret A. Cassell Living Trust dated June 20, 2007; and Margaret A. Parent in the original principal amount of $6,200,000.00 dated June 1, 2017, together with all renewals of, extensions of, modifications of, refinancings of, consolidations of, and substitutions for the Note or Credit Agreement or any other subsequent Notes evidencing further Indebtedness.

Property, The word "Property" means all of Grantor’s right, title and interest in and to all the Property as described in the "Assignment" section of this Assignment.

Related Documents. The words "Related Documents" mean all promissory notes, credit agreements, loan agreements, security agreements, mortgages, deeds of trust, security deeds, collateral mortgages, and all other instruments, agreements and documents, whether now or hereafter existing, executed in connection with the Indebtedness; except that the words do not mean any guaranty or environmental agreement, whether now or hereafter existing, executed in connection with the Indebtedness.

THE UNDERSIGNED ACKNOWLEDGES HAVING READ ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ASSIGNMENT, AND NOT PERSONALLY BUT AS

AN AUTHORIZED SIGNER, HAS CAUSED THIS ASSIGNMENT TO BE SIGNED AND EXECUTED ON BEHALF OF GRANTOR ON DECEMBER 20, 2018.

GRANTOR:

CL INVESTMENTS, LLC
By:
nald J. Cassell, Jr, Manag^f of CL Investments, LLC

MPARENT INVESTMENTS, LLC
Margaret A. Parent, Manager of MParent Investments, LLC Loan No: 9001

ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND RENTS
(Continued) Page 8

CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.

STATE OF (-nrnir)
CX )SS
COUNTY OF L)V3D/SC ) ~ I
on 15^ _, 20 1 before me,
(here insert name and title of the officer)
personally appeared Ronald J. Cassell, Jr, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(X) whose name(X) is/aje subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/sXe/thZy executed the same in his/h^r/th^ir authorized capacity(i/s), and that by his/h/r/th^ir signature^ on the instrument the person^, or the entity upon behalf of which the person^ acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that thejoregoing paragraph is true^and correct.

WITNESS my
Signature (Seal)

WANDA BRANTLEY
COMM. #2201239
Orange County
My Comm. Expires June 15, 2021 f
Notary Public - California q
Loan No: 9001

ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND RENTS
(Continued) Page 9

CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.

STATE OF
COUNTY OF .
on JanwY 15^ 20 H before me,
)SS .
(here insert name and title
-MWof the officer)
personally appeared Margaret A. Parent, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(/J whose name(^) is//re subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in hfs/her/thgfr authorized capacity(i/s), and that by hffs/her/th^ir signature(jr) on the instrument the person^, or the entity upon behalf of which the person^) acted, executed the instrument.

WITNESS my
Signature (Seal)
Notary Public • California §
Orange County
-
My Comm. Expires June 15 2021(
correctCOMM. #2201239 z
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of Califorpf LaserPro, Ver. 18.4.10.002 Copr. Finastra USA Corporation 1997, 2019. All Rights Resen/ed. - CA C:\COMML\CFI\LPL\G14.FC TR-215965 PR-321
Exhibit "A"
Legal Description
Real property in the City of Fullerton, County of Orange, State of California, described as follows:

PARCEL A:

PARCEL 12, AS SHOWN ON A PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 56, PAGES 28 THROUGH 30 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OIL, GAS AND PRECIOUS MINERALS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES IN THAT PART OF SAID LAND LYING BELOW A PLANE 500 VERTICAL FEET BELOW THE SURFACE OF SAID U\ND BUT WITHOUT ANY RIGHT OF ENTRY UPON THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND OR WITHIN SAID TOP 500 FEET FOR ANY PURPOSE, AS RESERVED BY JULIUS S. BRADFORD, AND OTHERS, IN DEEDS RECORDED JUNE 28, 1957 IN BOOK 3956, PAGE 517; IN BOOK 3956, PAGE 512; IN BOOK 4430, PAGE 557; IN BOOK 4549, PAGE 229 AND IN BOOK 4352, PAGE 48, ALL OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

PARCEL B:

A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND DRIVEWAY PURPOSES AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN "DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AND GRANT OF EASEMENTS" RECORDED DECEMBER 26, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19970664457 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER ORANGE COUNTY.

APN: 296-203-13
1/3
September 11, 2023
Raytheon’s Fullerton Campus Sells for $77M
ocbj.com/real-estate/raytheons-fullerton-campus-sells-for-77m Real Estate
By
Katie Murar
September 11, 2023
Raytheon has been the sole occupant of the Fullerton campus for decades The 34-acre Raytheon campus in Fullerton has traded hands for nearly $77 million, in a deal that could ultimately result in a sizeable commercial or residential redevelopment for one of the larger office campuses in North Orange County.

A venture between Hines and Oaktree Capital Management LP sold the property—which includes two large office buildings totaling more than 405,100 square feet and several smaller industrial and research buildings—that has been entirely occupied by the Arlington, Va.-based defense contractor for nearly three decades.

Od‘ o —r
c
— .JB
1801 HwbMDr.
2/3
Records indicate the buyer is Prime Enterprises LLC, an affiliate of San Gabriel-based Diamond Development Group, which counts other area properties including the Diamond Jamboree shopping center in Irvine.

Raytheon is expected to remain in the facility through 2042, sources indicate, at which point the new owner may redevelop the site into different uses, such as education or housing.

The recent sale marks a nearly 113% premium over Hines’ reported investment in the site.

Hines had been considering a redevelopment of its own for the property, but those plans never moved forward.
“This was a great opportunity to acquire a rare office campus in Orange County with an existing Fortune 500, investment grade tenant, with attractive redevelopment options in the long term,” Jeff Cole, executive vice chairman for the capital markets team of Cushman & Wakefield, told the Business Journal.

Cole and Nico Napolitano from Cushman & Wakefield represented Hines in the deal; the buyer’s agent was undisclosed.

Long-Term Tenant
Hines in 2012 bought the buildings for a reported $18 million, then paid an additional $18 million in 2016 to buy the ground lease for the property, bringing its total investment to $36 million.

The investor, which has made several sizeable investments in North OC over the past decade, had once eyed redeveloping the site into different uses, but was unable to buy out Ratheon’s lease, sources indicate.

The Raytheon campus was built in 1986 at 1801 Hughes Drive, located about a mile north of the Riverside (91) freeway.

The site is nestled in the corner of what formerly was a larger complex used by Hughes Aircraft Co.; Raytheon has had operations in Fullerton since acquiring Hughes Aircraft in 1997.

The firm is Orange County’s second-largest aerospace and defense contractor, with an estimated 2,000 local employees.

Retail Focus
Upon Raytheon’s lease expiration in 2042, the buyer may demolish the campus to make way for different commercial uses, such as universities, to keep up with growing demand from local schools, or single-family housing, sources note.
3/3
The site is currently zoned for industrial. It backs up against Sunny Hills High School and Fullerton Chinese School, and is largely surrounded by residential uses. It’s about 5 miles west of California State University, Fullerton’s main campus.

Diamond Development is headed by Alethea Hsu, a doctor by trade who now owns several retail centers in OC and Los Angeles with an Asian focus.

The Diamond Jamboree shopping center, an H Mart-anchored mall along Alton Parkway, is among the company’s most notable retail holdings, and is one of the busiest Pan-Asian shopping centers in the county.

The 114,000-square-foot mall is the third in the Diamond Development portfolio.

The Fullerton deal is the largest reported buy for Hsu.

A housing or education-focused redevelopment would mark a shift of sorts for the commercial real estate firm, whose last reported area investment was in 2017, when it paid $12.4 million for land underneath the Newport Beach Tennis Club.

Office Conversion
Office campuses have been a source for new industrial developments in recent years, with investors favoring the logistics sector in the wake of pandemic-induced work-from-home trends.

Hines and Oaktree in 2021 sold off the 12.5-acre Volt Campus in Orange to Rexford Industrial Realty Inc. (NYSE: REXR) for $70 million; Rexford is in the process of redeveloping the office campus into an industrial hub.

Hines is moving ahead on plans for a separate redevelopment project elsewhere in the county on behalf of South Coast Plaza; it recently submitted plans alongside the Segerstrom family to redevelop the South Coast Plaza Village shopping center into The Village Santa Ana, a mixed-use project that proposes homes, office and retail.

The Raytheon sale is the largest office transaction for Hines since it sold the Intersect office campus in June 2022 for $235.3 million; that sale is tops for the OC office market since 2021.

Want more from the best local business newspaper in the country? Recorded in Official Records, Orange County
Hugh Nguyen, Clerk-Recorder
i iniiiiiii mi mi mi uni mi mi i mill iiiii^0
*$R0008672374$*
CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY 2016000432592 3:04 pm 09/08/16
90SC5M11F13 9

0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 24.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

Allen Matkins Leek Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1800
Los Angeles, California 90067
Attn: John M. Tipton, Esq.
(Space Above For Recorder’s Use)
This document is exempt from documentary transfer tax as a lease for a term (including all extension terms) of less than thirty-five (35) years.

MEMORANDUM OF LEASE
THIS MEMORANDUM OF LEASE ("Memorandum”) is entered into as of the 8 day of September 2016, by and between RAYTHEON COMPANY, a Delaware corporation ("Tenant”), and HUGHES DRIVE ACQUISITION PARTNERS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Landlord").

1. Defined Terms; Exhibits. Reference is made to that certain Lease dated as of September 8, 2016 (the "Lease") between Landlord and Tenant. Unless otherwise set forth herein, all defined terms used in this Memorandum shall have the same meanings ascribed thereto in the Lease. All Exhibits referenced herein are incorporated herein by this reference.

2. Premises. Landlord is leasing to Tenant and Tenant is leasing from Landlord those certain premises described in the Lease (the "Premises") consisting of the land described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein, the easements, rights and appurtenances thereto and all buildings and other improvements thereon.

3. Term. The term of the Lease ("Term") is for a period commencing as of the date hereof and expiring on March 31, 2022.

4. Renewal. Tenant shall have four (4) options to extend the Term, each for a period of five (5) years.

5. Lease Incorporated. All the other terms, conditions and covenants of the Lease are incorporated herein by this reference. In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Memorandum and the provisions of the Lease, the provisions of the Lease shall govern.

This Memorandum may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement. This Memorandum is solely for notice and recording purposes and shall not be construed to alter, modify, expand, diminish or supplement the provisions of the Lease.
[remainder of page intentionally left blank; signatures on following page] 760262.01'WLA
286671-00002/8-26-16/jmt/am -1-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Memorandum has been duly executed by the parties hereto as of the day and year first above written.
"Tenant” ’’Landlord”
By

RAYTHEON COMPANY,
a Delaware corporation
J. Moore
Ii§: Vice Presidentsiness Services
HUGHES DRIVE ACQUISITIONS PARTNERS LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company
By: Hines Hughes Drive Acquisitions Partners LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
its managing member
By: Hines Hughes Drive Associates Limited
Partnership, a Texas limited partnership,
its sole member
By: Hines Interests Limited Partnership,
a Delaware limited partnership,
its sole member
By: Hines Holdings, Inc.,
a Texas corporation,
its general partner
By:

Name:

Title:
760262.0L'WLA
286671-00002/8-26-16/jmt/am -2-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Memorandum has been duly executed by the parties hereto as of the day and year first above written.
"Tenant"

RAYTHEON COMPANY,
a Delaware corporation
By:

Name:

Its:
"Landlord"
HUGHES DRIVE ACQUISITIONS PARTNERS LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company
By: Hines Hughes Drive Acquisitions Partners LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
its managing member
By: Hines Hughes Drive Associates Limited
Partnership, a Texas limited partnership,
its sole member
By: Hines Interests Limited Partnership,
By: Hines Holdings, Inc.,
a Texas corporation,
its general partner
By:

Name: _ Raymond Lawler
Title: ManagingDirector
760262.0 bWLA
286671-00002/8-26-1 6/jmt/am -2-

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of Massachusetts )
County of Middlesex )
On ’August .30, 2016 , before me, Nancy L. Meagher ,
(insert name of notary)
Notary Public, personally appeared Robert J. Moore ,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of FfassadusettShat the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

Signature (Seal) ,
760262.0l/WLA
286671-00002/8-26-16/jmt/am -3-

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of ^^^^A )
County of )
On /UGUST' , before me, ~30CP) /^£X>r^C. ,
'
/ (insert name of notary)
Notary Public, personally appeared y
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(^) is/ata-subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/thurr authorized capacity(its), and that by his/hri/lllEtr signature^ on the instrument the person^), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(«) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.
760262.01/WLA
286671-00002/8-26-16‘jmt/am -4-

EXHIBIT

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF FULLERTON, IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

PARCEL A:

PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 86-183, IN THE CITY OF FULLERTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 219, PAGES 8 THROUGH 11 INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE ORANGE COUNTY RECORDER.

ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO. 280-012-10

EXCEPT THEREFROM SAID PARCEL A CERTAIN RIGHTS TO MINERALS, ORES AND

PRECIOUS OR USEFUL METALS, SUBSTANCES AND HYDROCARBONS OF GAS, ASPHALTUM

AND TAR, SUCH RIGHTS HAVING BEEN RESERVED OR CREATED BY THE FOLLOWING INSTRUMENTS:

A) AS RESERVED BY N. M. LAUNER AND RUTH D. LAUNER, HUSBAND AND WIFE, IN THE DEED RECORDED JUNE 19, 1947 IN BOOK 1529, PAGE 255, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

B) AS RESERVED BY DELMAR C. WEESE AND CLEOLA ZINN WEESE, HUSBAND AND WIFE, IN THE DEED RECORDED AUGUST 11, 1950 IN BOOK 2054, PAGE 366, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

C) AS RESERVED BY MABEL SCOTT ZINN, A WIDOW, IN THE DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 22, 1954 IN BOOK 2824, PAGE 83, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

D) AS RESERVED BY WARREN WRIEDEN, INC., A CORPORATION, BY DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 10, 1957 IN BOOK 4064, PAGE 498, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

E) AS GRANTED AND CONVEYED TO HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, BY DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 10, 1957 IN BOOK 4064, PAGE 527 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

F) THE RIGHT TO ENTER THE SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE DOWN TO A DEPTH OF 100

FEET, MEASURED VBERTICALLY FROM SURFACE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED

THEREIN WAS CONVEYED BY TITLE INSURANCE AND TRUST COMPANY, A

CORPORATION TO HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, BY DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 22, 1975 IN BOOK 11602, PAGE 765, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

PARCEL B:

A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN INGRESS AND EGRESS

OVER THAT PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN UNLOCATED ROAD KNOWN AS HUGHES DRIVE

AS IT PRESENTLY EXISTS AND AS DISCLOSED ON AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE LESSOR DATED JULY 8, 1984, LYING WESTERLY OF THE

WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE LOS ANGELES AND SALT LAKE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY

AS SHOWN ON A PARCEL MAP IN THE CITY OF FULLERTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE 760262 01/WLA
286671-00002/8-26-16. jmt/am
EXHIBIT "A"
-1-
OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 77, PAGES 12 TO 28, INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, AS FURTHER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF FULLERTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING A PORTION OF PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 77, PAGES 12 TO 28, INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY AND A PORTION OF PARCEL 4 AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 104, PAGES 14 TO 17, INCLUSIVE, OF SAID PARCEL MAPS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL 1, SAID POINT BEING THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP NO. 86-183 FILED IN BOOK 219, PAGES 8 TO 11, INCLUSIVE, OF SAID PARCEL MAPS, SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 432.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE OF SAID CURVE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 57° 05' 33” EAST; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 86-183, NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 39° 04' 05” AN ARC DISTANCE OF 294.65 FEET, TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, NORTH 71° 59’ 12” WEST 756.49 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 171.25 FEET, NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 9° 31' 38” AN ARC DISTANCE OF 28.48 FEET, TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, NORTH 62° 27’ 34” WEST 30.42 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 191.25 FEET, NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF9° 31' 38” AN ARC DISTANCE OF 31.80 FEET, AND TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, NORTH 71° 59' 12" WEST 58.22 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 86-183; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE, AND ITS NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION, OF PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 86-183, NORTH 17° 42' 25" EAST 623.22 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 72° 39' 37" EAST 204.76 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 419.50 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17° 01’ 48" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 124.69 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, SOUTH 89° 41' 25" EAST

30.82 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE LINE SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAPS AS HAVING A BEARING AND DISTANCE OF "Nl° 32' 13"E 69.58"’; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE, NORTH 1° 32' 13” EAST 30.01 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL WITH AND 30.00 FEET

NORTHERLY OF (MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO) THE LINE ABOVE MENTIONED HAVING A BEARING OF SOUTH 89° 41' 25” EAST; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, NORTH 89° 41' 25" WEST 31.46 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 389.50 FEET, AND BEING CONCENTRIC WITH SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 419.50 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17° 01' 48" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 115.77 FEET; THENCE TANGENTTO SAID CURVE, NORTH 72° 39’ 37” WEST 204.76 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 86-183; THENCE ALONG SAID PROLONGATION, NORTH 17° 42' 25” EAST

14.36 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 132.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY AND WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90° 00' 00” AN ARC DISTANCE OF 207.35 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, NORTH 72° 17' 35" WEST 351.00 FEET TO THE

BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1978.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1° 56’ 11” AN ARC DISTANCE OF 66.85 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, NORTH 70° 21’ 24" WEST 715.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE 760262.01/WLA
286671-00002/8-26-16/jmt/am
EXHIBIT "A"
-2-
SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 722.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5° 3T 30” AN ARC DISTANCE OF69.62 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, NORTH 75° 52’ 54” WEST 67.00 FEET TO THE

BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 622.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16° 02' 43” AN ARC DISTANCE OF 174.19 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, SOUTH 88° 04' 23" WEST 709.23 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE CURVED EASTERLY LINE

OF NORTH GILBERT STREET, DESCRIBED AS PARCEL B IN DEED TO THE CITY OF FULLERTON RECORDED DECEMBER 27, 1982 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 82-453654 OF OFFICIAL

RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, SAID EASTERLY LINE BEING A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1050.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE OF SAID CURVE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 89° 39' 11" EAST; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2° 17' 41" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 42.05 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL WITH AND 42.00 FEET SOUTHERLY OF (MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO) THE LINE ABOVE MENTIONED HAVING A BEARING OF SOUTH 88° 04' 23" WEST; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, NORTH 88° 04' 23" EAST 711.23 FEET,

MORE OR LESS, TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 580.00 FEET, AND BEING CONCENTRIC WITH SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 622.00 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16° 02' 43" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 162.43 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, SOUTH 75° 52' 54" EAST 67.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 680.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF5° 31’ 30" AN ARC DISTANCE OF65.57 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, SOUTH 70° 21' 24” EAST 715.00

FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2020.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1° 56' 11" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 68.27 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, SOUTH 72° 17' 35” EAST 351.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 90.00 FEET;

THENCE EASTERLY AND SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF90° 00' 00” AN ARC DISTANCE OF141.37 FEET;THENCE TANGENT TOSAID CURVE,SOUTH 17° 42' 25" WEST 731.39 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 71° 59’ 12” EAST 929.68 FEET TO THE

BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 378.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 39° 00' 55” AN ARC DISTANCE OF 257.40 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 77, PAGES 12 TO 28, INCLUSIVE, OF SAID PARCEL MAPS; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE, NORTH 68° 48’ 15" EAST 65.89 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

EXCEPT THEREFROM, ANY PORTION OF SAID PARCEL B LYING WESTERLY OF THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF NICOLASSTREET.

PARCEL C:

NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS FOR ELECTRICAL, WATER, GAS, SEWER, TELEPHONE AND OTHER UTILITY ACCESS TO PARCEL A OVER UNLOCATED PORTIONS OF PARCEL 1, AS

SHOWN ON A PARCEL MAP IN THE CITY OF FULLERTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN BOOK 77. PAGES 12 TO 28, INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY AND OF PARCEL 4 AS SHOWN ON A PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 104, PAGES 14 TO 17, INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, AS FURTHER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
760262.01/WLA
286671-00002/8-26-16/jmt/am
EXHIBIT ”A"
-3-
THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 4, IN THE CITY OF FULLERTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 104, PAGES 14 TO 17,

INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL, SAID POINT BEING THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 830.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE OF SAID CURVE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 1° 32’ 13” WEST; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15° 49' 02" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 229.13 FEET; THENCE NORTH 8° 46' 21” EAST 135.76 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 80° 35' 09” EAST 165.19 FEET; THENCE NORTH 81° 17' 09” EAST 54.98 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 71° 39’ 11” EAST 33.65 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL; THENCE ALONG THESOUTHEASTERLY AND EASTERLY LINES OFSAID PARCEL, SOUTH 30° 26’ 00” WEST 84.45 FEET AND SOUTH 1° 32' 13" WEST 69.58 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 1, IN THE CITY OF FULLERTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 77, PAGES 12 TO 28,

INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL 1, SAID POINT BEING THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP NO. 86-183 FILED IN BOOK 219, PAGES 8 TO 11, INCLUSIVE, OF SAID PARCEL MAPS, SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 432.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE OF SAID CURVE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 57° 05' 33” EAST; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 86-183, NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 39° 04' 45" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 294.65 FEET AND TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, NORTH 71° 59’ 12” WEST 416.97 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 1° 59’ 43" EAST 178.48 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 348.71 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 30° 50' 37" EAST

41.91 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE CURVED SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 77, PAGES 12 TO 28, INCLUSIVE, OF SAID

PARCEL MAPS, SAID CURVE BEING CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1462.69 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF0° 23' 30" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL WITH AND 10.00 FEETSOUTHWESTERLY OF(MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO) THE LINE ABOVE MENTIONED HAVING A BEARING OF SOUTH 30° 50' 37" EAST; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, NORTH 30° 50' 37” WEST 44.78 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL WITH AND 10.00 FEET WESTERLY OF (MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO) THE LINE ABOVE MENTIONED HAVING A BEARING OF SOUTH; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, NORTH 351.29 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL WITH AND 10.00 FEET WESTERLY OF (MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO) THE LINE ABOVE MENTIONED HAVING A BEARING OF SOUTH 1° 59’ 43” EAST; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, NORTH 1° 59’ 43" WEST 181.94 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 86-183; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY, SOUTH 71° 59’ 12” EAST 10.64 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
760262.01/WLA
286671-00002/8-26-16/jmt/am
EXHIBIT "A"

DATE: October 14, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor Dunlap and Councilmembers
SUBJECT: GPA/ZOA/EIR- Housing Element Update and HIOZ
The Housing Element Update public hearing is scheduled for the Nov. 19, 2024 City Council meeting. On Sept. 25, the Planning Commission on a 3-2 vote approved resolutions recommending to the Council approval of the proposed Housing Element Update, EIR, HIOZ development standards, and rezoning as presented by staff.

There was discussion about the allowed number of housing units, proposed HIOZ parcels and development standards, affordable housing, design guidelines, and EIR Statement of Overriding Considerations. There was also dialogue regarding HCD’s review of the documents, a couple of previous lawsuits, and litigation settlement deadlines. This caused the Commission majority to believe they could not make any changes to staffs recommendation of up-zoning 751 commercial and industrial properties to accommodate over 32,000 multi-family residential housing units and increase Fullerton’s population by 100,000 people without causing delays and putting the City in legal jeopardy.

Since we are less than a month away from when the City Council is to consider these major housing policies and new development standards, here are some recommendations:

1. Hold a study session prior to the public hearing so there is clear understanding what is the minimum number of parcels needed to be up-zoned in order to meet HCD’s requirement, and fully understand the proposed HIOZ and new R-5 zoning development and design standards.

2. Have staff prepare an alternative recommendation that reduces the number of HIOZ rezoning parcels from the 751 recommended by staff and Planning Commission so no more than 13,209 units (with a buffer) can be planned for development. (There is a Site Inventory Map, Attachment No. 1, already prepared that shows which parcels are adequate for upzoning in order to allow for 12,184 units so it could easily be modified to add a few more parcels increasing the inventory by 1,000+ units).

3. Remove ALL proposed HIOZ development standards in Chapter 15.17 Residential Zone Classifications and integrate into the proposed new Chapter 15.23 HIOZ making one chapter inclusion of ALL HIOZ zoning and development standards. This alleviates the need for architects, planners, developers, and citizens to check multiple zoning code chapters to understand all applicable HIOZ requirements and makes more sense. (The current proposal, which was only released to the public a few days before the Planning Commission meeting, adds HIOZ zoning standards to existing Residential Zone Classifications while making some wholesale changes to the existing RG, RG, R4, R5, and RMH Residential Development Standards which may not be necessary and might have some unintended consequences).

4. Include a maximum building height and maximum density requirement for HIOZ developments. (The current HIOZ proposal has “unlimited" building height and unlimited residential unit density. At previous public meetings this has been justified by staff because the current R-5 zoning classification does not have limits on these two standards. However, it should be pointed out that the current R-5 zoning exists primarily on large parcels around Cal State Fullerton which makes sense for high-rise buildings. And includes other zoning standards that factor into limiting the height and density that unfortunately are being reduced and/or eliminated under the proposed HIOZ standards. These include reducing maximum site coverage from 60% to 0%, reducing minimum lot size, reducing minimum setbacks, reducing private open space standards, and reducing off-street parking requirements.

Lastly, and most importantly, anyone proposing R-5 zoning today would have to go through a general plan amendment, a zoning amendment, a comprehensive and “focused” ElR, and a public hearing process giving surrounding property owners the opportunity to comment on traffic, building design, setbacks, open space, circulation, shadowing impacts to adjacent solar panels on residential homes, etc. The HIOZ process has included only a Program Level EIR and when all the zoning changes occur, the review process for high rise residential towers will not require any public hearing or notification process -it will be through administrative staff approval).

5. Mail out a legal notice regarding the Nov. 19 Council meeting to all property owners and businesses of property to be up-zoned as well as all property owners within 300 feet of the parcels to be up-zoned. (Fora significant change to the character of Fullerton that this housing plan will create, and since the Fullerton Plan encourages public outreach and public participation, the legal notice for this public hearing needs to be more user friendly with a basic introduction and should spell out the changes being proposed in simpler terms while still including State Law required noticing information. Some sample language is shown on Attachment No. 2).

In summary, if we do not get this right the first time, and adopt this plan as recommended by the Planning Commission for over 32,000 residential units, the City will not be able to reduce the number of HIOZ properties or change the development standards allowing for less units in the future because it would be considered downzoning. The staffs consultant as indicated that State Law prohibits cities from downzoning property that would reduce the allowable number of housing units approved in an adopted Housing Element. Therefore, it seems better positioning on the City’s part to start at a lower number closer to the 13,209 than a number allowing for almost twice that amount at this time.

Thai
(Lorii Time Fullerton Resident)
'oufopyour consideration,
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Site Inventory Map

2. Sample Legal Notice

3. Parcels for CEQA Map
ND,
Exhibit B-l Site Inventory
LiaiM
Craii Park
Bastonchury Rd/
L
Fairway lilac Dr Sunny Hlua
Acacia Park
AtreripHelfNs
Emery Park
txrumfx1'
M Birqua Ava
iWhMW
>- CUMUTrtJl^K^n (S'arrdimflrdtci.'Vi
.PI Gilbert Park
WBi
W.-BrtmSw.’.

Sites Inventory

0.5 1 N
Housing Incentive Overlay Zone Miles
raPark
Valencia
Park
kl las Palmar Ur/
W Sunnywood Dr
la Habra
South
Braa
West
W Oak Aw/
Lambert Dr Rancho
UPaz
University
Fullerton
rDaerpark Dr
Sherwood
Aw
West Coyote
W Valencia
Or/Courtnay
Are
Ca»7BlWaV»
.7 *
W Commonwealth
Ave/
Santa Fe
' District/.,
SoCo f
| California State
Ew?’ Harbor Blvd
^•'Nutwood p
} Ave/N J.
• Mountain ‘
Woodcraw^ «3
Park 4
• *«ri
ij
, • S Woods k Ave/W
jo-iowh-p.

Arterla
^■Ivd/
. N Gilbert
--1stfrr5] Fullerton City Boundary
• Neighborhoods in Fullerton
Santa Fe
J Dhtrlrt/ § I Ths Fo« Black j Byarrum Park
1 1 ।
%
Appendix H-B: Housing Element

FULLERTON4«WWKfe3&S^

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Project Reference No.: LRP-2024-0009
Housing Element Update for Cycle 6
The City of Fullerton encouregee the public to participate In the dodelon-meklng procoee. The following notice Ie being provided co that you can ask questions, make comments, and stay Informed about projects that might be Important Io you. Wo encourage you to contact ua prior to the PubUc Hearing If you have any questions and/or to enter your toatlmony Into the publicrecord In advance of the Public Hearing.

Meeting Time
TNs matter will be heard on Wodnaeday,.asRHmbHJ5,-2024/»t-6i3<LiMn. by the Planning Commlaelon In the Fullerton City-CouncilChamber, 303 Weal CommonwealthAvenue,Fullerton. CA 92832.Members of thepublic can access meetings streamed live online at www.cltvoffallerton.com/atientto. on Spectrum Cable Channel 3, and AT4T U-Verse Channel 99.

The public may alao remotely participate In th* meeting to make oral public comment via computer, smart device, or telephone. The Council Chamber will have limited seating available on a first-come, flral-served basis for members of the public to attend the meeting in person.

WhM 1» thp_P_rppott4 Project?
A request to consider amendments to the Fullerton Plan (l.e. GeneralPlan) and Fullerton Municipal Code for the 6th Cycle Housing Element lor the 2021-2029 planning period and the adoption of the Housing Incentive Overlay Zone (HIOZ) Program. Staff prepared a 8th Cycle Housing Element update which Includes the following: 1) Housing Needs Analysis; 2) Resources and Constraints Analysis; 3) Housing Policy Plan; and 4) Review of Past Performance under the 6th Cycle Housing Element for the 2014-2021 planning period.

The proposed HousingElement Update (HEU)has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Io CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) ('general rule' or “common sense") as It can be seen with certainty that there Isno possibility that the HEU would have a significant effect on the environment The Housing Incentive Overlay Zona Program la being processed with the Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2023090133)- see below.

Who tp Contact If Yom Have Question* or Comments
If you have any questions or would Ilka Io comment on the proposed action prior to the public hearing, please contact Chris Schaefer with the Community and Economic Development Department at (714) 738-6884 or send an email to Chrl8.Schaefef<g>cltVOffuller!9n.com. All written comments received by 12:00 noon the day of the meeting will be provided to the Planning Commission.

Where to Ort Mort Information
Prq|ecl detail may be found on the City website 72-hours prior to the public hearing at: www.citvoffullerton.wm/dqontles.

Under 'Upcoming Meetings," dick on tha link to the Aflmsla for the corresponding Planning Commissiondate. The agenda contains links to the staff report and other Informational materials for each agenda Item as well as Information on how to make oral public comment during the meeting.

PHwinlma tgimnlHlgnAgtlwi item*.

The Planning Cammission will hold a public hearing to consider the following:
• General Plan Revision (LRP-2024-0009) to adopt the Housing Element for Cycle 6 (Appendix H of the Fullerton Plan) as well es related revisions to the Fullerton Plan. • Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Title 16 of the Fullerton Municipal Code to establish standards for the Housing Incentive Overlay Zone Program as well as Identify those related parcels on the official Fullerton Zoning Map. Link to map: ht|oy//www.clfrpflvllertqn.wm/home/showpubllsheddoMment/7379 • Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2023090133) for the Fullerton Housing Incentive Overlay Zone (HIOZ) Program.

The decision of the Planning Commission will be a recommendation to the Chy Council.

SI tlens preguntas on ospsriol, favor do llemar a David Lopez al(714) 738-6878.

If requested, the agenda and backup materials will be made available In appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S,C. Sec. 12132) and the federal rules end regulations adopted In Implementation thereof. Should you require special accommodations to participate In a meeting, please contact Janet Ragland at JanetRaoiend@cllvofMierlon,com or (714) 738-6698 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to make arrangements.

If you challenge the decision on the above matter In court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else railed at the public hearing described In thia notice, or In written correspondence delivered to the City of Fullerton at, otfrikll
to. the public hearing. (Government Code 66009 (e))
no. z

CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
Perhaps somethinglike this for a header:
• ou are receivingthis public hearing notice because you own property that Is part of a Housing Element Update and proposed to be rezoned by adding a Housing Incentive Overlay Zone (HIOZ), or because you own property within 300' of property that being proposed to be rezoned. This rezoning will allow high density residential on commercial and Industrial properties Identified on the attached map.
(And then the Zoning Ordinance Amendment technical language should specify that It Includes "REZONING of property identified on the official Fullerton Zoning Map" rather than "Identify those related parcels on the official Fullerton Zoning Wap." Identify means something different than actual rezonlng.) 'ON
HOUSING INCENTIVE OVERLAY ZONE LASr UPDA1EP: 07/2S.4’025 DRAFT - WORK IN PROGRESS m^xw* p
XU*Klb
vu/m,,
•niwis
Hh-ra
hoO'
UMHNPX
MX** ^.m.w
OV^UL
<WI’'
Ms-r
K'lA.
th*NA
f*xrl'.Kr:

W*K»W
t.iw
^IM*' 1
XA1W,'
•IXJIW
MW
CUH
.»iiM<
Mfly
Ol.AK
•Hen;J BMC.J
yjMjr I
>
»M A*'
.. K1W-4
jk»M> M
t**-)
U>*
* •raiMmV'
ftxM.’ACvW
b'IU^W
ww
ww?
4>»»4<Vi;
,UWW Mk*t
|«W A>
T»*
bl t
e\\^'
’J%av
HIQZ: CEOAzCLEARED BOUNDARY
TOTAL OF 759 PARCELS (APPROX. 593 ACRES)
/>Mr.v
i?
/
PARCELS FOR CEQA S .,
s»v»o^* s J
• , L'KaWft
Ar-
Ralph Kim
Vice President
Provecho Market
312 N. Euclid St
Fullerton, CA 92832
Provecho
JVIarkev
10/17/2024
City Council
City of Fullerton
Fullerton, CA
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing on behalf of Provecho Market to express our strong support for the proposed Housing Incentive Overlay Zone (HTOZ) in our city of Fullerton. As a local business owner and long-time resident of Fullerton, I am delighted and hopeful that should the State of California approve the HIOZ program that our community would fully take advantage of the new housing opportunities and thrive.

I fully support the placement of the HIOZ zoning on Euclid Street without any reservations.

Having this special zoning creates options for local businesses and sets up our city to adapt to the needs of our community.

I urge the City Council to move forward with the HIOZ, recognizing its potential to create a more livable and economically robust Fullerton. Together, we can build a brighter future for our city.

Thank you for your consideration!
Sincerely,
Vice President
Provecho Market
1 Lilly Rudolph
Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: Housing Incentive Overlay - Letter of Support Request From: Sam Swabb < >
Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 12:26 PM
To: Sunayana Thomas <[email protected]> Cc: Michael Theil < >
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL]Re: Housing Incentive Overlay - Letter of Support Request

Hi Sunayana,
Thank you for the information. We are pleased to know that our site is included in the Housing Incentive Overlay Zone.

Sam
On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 5:14 PM Sunayana Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Sam,
I was given your contact information from Amy at Hines.

We’re preparing for the Housing Element adoption hearing with the City Council on November 19th, and I wanted to reach out to ensure you’re informed. Based on our selection criteria for sites and our previous conversations, your site is included in the proposed Housing Incentive Overlay Zone (HIOZ).

You may have received notices about this over the past year, and you’ll be receiving another notification this week. To summarize, the HIOZ designation would allow residential development on the site through an administrative process, provided that it meets a minimum 10% affordability requirement. If this aligns with your interests for potential uses in the future, a letter of support as the property owner to include your site in the HIOZ would be greatly appreciated.

Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions or would like to discuss further. I would also welcome the opportunity to catch up on any recent updates on your end.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you,
CAUTION: BE CAREFUL WITH THIS MESSAGE
This email came from outside City of Fullerton. Do not open attachments, click on links, or respond unless you expected this message and recognize the email address.

THOMAS B. MAYHEW
D
CHARLES J. HIGLEY
D
November 18, 2024
Via E-Mail
City Council
City of Fullerton
303 W. Commonwealth Ave.

Fullerton, California 92832
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: Draft Housing Element Update for City of Fullerton (November 2024 Draft) Comments of Housing Action Coalition
Dear City Council:

On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition,1 we write to further comment on the draft 2021-2029 Housing Element for the City of Fullerton being considered at your meeting on November 19, 2024. The draft Housing Element does not meet the City’s obligation to plan and provide for affordable housing. Absent substantial revisions before adoption, it may be found to be in violation of state law.

There are three major problems with the current draft, each of which result in a Housing Element that does not meet Fullerton’s RHNA allocation:

1. The constraint of a 60 du/ac maximum on the HIOZ is not analyzed, and prevents Fullerton from claiming that the site inventory will fully accommodate the need for affordable housing;

2. Even without the 60 du/ac maximum, the capacity numbers on the site inventory are inflated because they fail to take into account the probability of nonresidential development; and

3. The site inventory includes sites where there is no substantial evidence that the existing use will discontinue during the remaining five years of the Sixth Cycle. 1 The Housing Action Coalition is a nonprofit that advocates for building more homes at all levels of affordability to alleviate California’s housing shortage, displacement, and affordability crisis.

FARELLA
BRAUN+ MARTELllp
Russ Building •235 Montgomery Street •San Francisco, CA 94104 •T 415.954.4400 •F 415.954.4480 SAN FRANCISCO ST. HELENA www.fbm.com
Housing Element
November 18, 2024

A. THE 60 DU/AC MAXIMUM IN THE PROPOSED HIOZ WILL

CONSTRAIN HOUSING PRODUCTION AND PREVENT FULLERTON
FROM MEETING ITS RHNA OBLIGATIONS.

The draft HIOZ ordinance and Housing Element have recently been amended to propose a maximum on how much housing can be built on HIOZ sites: 60 dwelling units per acre. See Draft Housing Element at Appendix H-B, p. H-8 and H-13; compare June 2024 Draft at H-3-B (“HIOZ . . . does not have a maximum density.”). The City Council should remove this cap from the proposal, because it will prevent the HIOZ from helping the City meet its RHNA.

The Housing Element law mandates that the City’s Housing Element analyze governmental constraints on housing development. Gov. Code § 65583(a)(5) and (a)(6). The current draft recognizes the need to conduct this analysis – see, e.g., p. H-3-26, analyzing “Ability to Develop at Density Potential” with respect to the constraint on heights within 100 feet of R-1 zones – but does not do this with respect to the proposed 60 du/ac cap on the HIOZ.

Data in the current draft shows how a 60 du/ac cap might constrain housing production.

The capacity assumptions for the site inventory are based on Table B-7. See Appendix H-B at p.

H-9 to H-12. To justify the assumption that sites larger than 1 acre will develop with an average of 55 du/ac, Table B-7 averages the density of 11 projects. However, six of those projects had a density of greater than 60 du/ac, and so would not be allowed under the City’s zoning law. If those projects were capped at the HIOZ maximum of 60 du/ac, but the builders decided to go forward anyway at 60 du/ac, the average on Table B-7 would be reduced to 47.84 du/ac. And if those projects simply failed to “pencil out” – to be cost-justified given the reduced number of units that could legally be built – then the city would have ended up with 5 housing developments instead of 11, and those 5 had an average density of only 33 du/ac. Both of these are considerably lower than the 55 du/ac used to calculate the capacity of the site inventory to meet the RHNA. If the City then recalculated its site inventory based on these lower averages, as required by Government Code section 65583.2(c)(2) and 65583(a)(3), it would quickly understand how this constraint prevents the needed housing from being built.

Housing builders could invoke state density bonus laws to achieve a higher density than the proposed HIOZ would allow, but they shouldn’t have to. A key purpose of Housing Element law is to require cities to analyze and change local zoning laws that constrain production of housing. HCD has frequently declined to certify substantial compliance for cities that try to use density bonus numbers to estimate inventory capacity, instead of focusing on how much housing can legally be built under city zoning laws.

Capping densities for housing prevents the full amount of housing California needs from being built. If Fullerton caps its HIOZ at a maximum of 60 du/ac, it will be unable to meet its obligation to authorize its fair share of housing under the RHNA, and will be in violation of state law.

Za FARELLA
Braun +Martelllp
Housing Element
November 18, 2024

B. THE CITY’S CAPACITY ESTIMATES FAIL TO ADJUST FOR THE

PROBABILITY THAT SITES ON THE HIOZ MAY LEGALLY BE
REDEVELOPED FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES.

The HIOZ is structured as an overlay zone. If the existing use discontinues, the site can be redeveloped either as a residential use or as a new industrial, commercial, or office use, depending on the underlying zoning. The option of non-residential development acts as a constraint on housing production: those who would buy a property for residential use have to compete with those who would buy it for a non-residential use.

The current draft fails to analyze this constraint and incorporate it into the realistic capacity estimate. As we explained in our prior letter (for the Council’s reference, it can be found in Appendix H-D, at pages 286-303 of the pdf), the HCD Site Inventory Guidebook explains that realistic capacity numbers should be adjusted downward for the “realistic potential” of residential development, taking the probability of nonresidential development into account.

The new draft does the math, then ignores it. In a section titled “Mixed-Use Development Trends,” the draft shows that from 2019 to 2024, projects in the two existing zones that allow owners to choose either residential or nonresidential re-development, owners chose to build non-residential projects 3 out of 6 times. Sometimes, even when given the opportunity to build housing, an owner will build a new bank building, a new coffee house, or some other new commercial use, even in areas with great access to transit. Choices like these support Fullerton’s job-creating economy, but it means that no one should assume that 100% of the properties on the HIOZ will be redeveloped as apartment buildings in the next five years. State law requires the City to be realistic: if people can still build nonresidential uses, they sometimes will. And if that happens with enough of the sites on the inventory – and here, Fullerton’s site inventory has a buffer of only 6% over the RHNA for housing affordable to those with lower incomes (which aren’t that low: in 2024 for Orange County, it includes a couple with no kids making less than $101,000 annually)2 – then the inventory isn’t big enough to meet the RHNA need.

The draft concludes that “projects zoned for mixed-use will likely continue to be developed primarily with residential uses.” But “primarily” isn’t the same as “exclusively,” and so unless the City plans to prohibit non-residential development on HIOZ sites, the draft needs to adjust the capacity numbers to take into account the realistic capacity of mixed-use zoning sites to meet the RHNA by adjusting for the probability of non-residential use. See Government Code § 65583.2(c) and (c)(2).
2 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/income-limits-2024.pdf Za FARELLA
Braun +Martelllp
Housing Element
November 18, 2024

C. THE CITY COUNCIL LACKS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE

EXISTING USES ARE LIKELY TO DISCONTINUE WITHIN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

As our prior letter explained, under Government Code section 65583.2(g)(2), there is a presumption that existing uses impede additional residential development: for example, that a doctor’s office will remain a doctor’s office, that a car dealership will keep needing a place to park its inventory, and a major corporate campus will remain a major corporate campus, at least during the next five years. Before passing a Housing Element that relies on non-vacant sites to meet most of the lower income need, as this one does, the City Council must make “findings based on substantial evidence that the [existing] use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.” Gov. Code § 65583.2(g)(2).

For the reasons in our prior letter, the City Council should not make this finding. Some examples we’ve provided show why:
 There is not substantial evidence that the Raytheon campus at 1751 Hughes Drive will close down and become housing during the next five years. The Orange County Business Journal has reported that Raytheon plans to stay until 2042, and its lease gives it the right to do so. No evidence suggests that Raytheon will instead move out before October 2029. While the draft Housing Element argues that leases can be bought out, this costs money, and the City hasn’t figured out whether anyone would actually pay Raytheon to move out in the next five years, or whether the price of buying it the tenant out of a lease that still has 18 years to run makes economic sense.
 There is not substantial evidence that all of the medical offices surrounding the Providence St. Jude Medical Center are likely to close before October 2029. To the contrary, the draft Housing Element confirms that there is still a high demand for medical office space. And while the draft asserts that some medical services are distributed in other areas of the city, it never explains why Providence St. Jude Medical Center would close parts of its own campus, or why a three-story medical office building filled with medical professionals will likely be completely vacant and torn down for housing in the next five years.
 4201 Bonita is the parking lot parcel for 4101 Bonita (which has been removed from the inventory). Both parcels are used by Wine Country Gift Baskets, and there’s no reason to expect that the business will stop needing a place for employees to park their cars in this industrial area not well-served by public transit. It’s also a particularly unlikely place to expect redevelopment: the parcel for 4201 Bonita is surrounded in all directions by giant warehouse buildings in this vast industrial zone that stretches from La Habra to Brea.

Further, removing the required parking for Wine Country Gift Baskets would render the business out of compliance with the parking minimums mandated in Fullerton Municipal Code section 15.40.050.A.

Za FARELLA
Braun +Martelllp
Housing Element
November 18, 2024

Without substantial evidence that the existing uses are likely to discontinue during the planning period – and now, there is less than five years left in the Sixth Cycle planning period – these sites can’t be listed as meeting the need for housing. The small “surplus” over the RHNA is actually a deficit: because these sites can’t be counted, Fullerton doesn’t meet its RHNA obligation to rezone sufficient sites to meet the need for housing affordable to those in the lower income categories.
* * *
For the reasons stated in this letter and our prior one, we suggest that additional sites will need to be identified and potentially rezoned to ensure compliance with state housing law.

Respectfully submitted,
Thomas B. Mayhew
36615\17222160.1
Za FARELLA
Braun +Martelllp
From: Damian Porreca < >
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2024 2:54 PM
To: Chris Schaefer <Chris.Schaefer@cityoƯullerton.com>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL MAIL]Housing overlay and how it aƯects our shopping center Chris -
We've seen this overlay principle employed in a number of diƯerent cities where we own both retail and industrial business parks and understand the pressure of mandates on the various cities. We weren't concerned.

The main concern was understanding Fullerton's concept of it and that our current tenants and future ability to lease units as retail or light industrial is not impacted. You can imagine that when an investor spends 2-10 million to buy a multi-tenant property, they plan to be able to continue the uses in that zone because the value of the property is based on it's income discounted at some expected rate of return. For a city to change that causes uncertainty. Uncertainty introduces risk which can be expensive.

We realize you have mandates for housing. My issue was that I hadn't heard about it and needed to understand it - once you explained it we were okay with it.

Your opposition put out a flyer that scared some of our tenants - they are small businesses investing in their units and they thought they were going to get kicked out so residential units could be built. One tenant had just done a new lease and the other's lease is up for renewal, so they were afraid.

You are wise to talk to the property owners. I think that is smart. Unfortunately, most city personnel I've encountered wouldn't do that, so I'm glad to help with information. We deal in about 12-15 diƯerent cities and/or county unincorporated areas throughout Southern California, so I deal with this type of thing regularly.

Damian Porreca
General Manager
S & D Associates
1020 N. Batavia, Suite B
Orange, CA 92867-5529
Facsimile 714/997-4930
sdassociatesproperties.com
Lic#01149302
From: Elizabeth Hansburg P4H < >
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2024 9:18 AM
To: McDougall, Paul@HCD <[email protected]>
Cc: Alex Fisch <[email protected]>
Subject: City of Fullerton Housing Element at City Council 11/19/2024 Dear Paul,
I was at the city council meeting last night in the hopes of (finally!) moving our housing element forward towards adoption. It was clear that Dudek and Rincon have been advising the city on a prudent and cost-effective policy that will not only meet the current RHNA but also set the stage for the 7th cycle now that we are halfway through the 6th. Unfortunately it fell on deaf ears. The mayor and council directed staff to literally do-the-minimum necessary to comply and to "drag their feet" (Whittaker's closing comments). The mayor kept telling the Rincon consultant to "Ask HCD to work with us..." I am writing to tell you -- NO-- DO NOT "work with them." Hold the line and hold the standards. The city is 4 years late to this party! It was this council majority (including this mayor!) that fired the city manager (Domer) and set in motion a cascade of events that meant our housing element sat UNTOUCHED for over a year once the department heads and city planning staff departed for cities with more functional councils. These decision makers have had the benefit of advice from qualified and highly-paid consultants for more than 2 years, paid for by the state's money in LEAP and SB 2 funding. The council members are choosing to disregard that professional advice and want to remove the Chapman, Commonwealth and Raymond corridors from the HIOZ. This is precisely where our city can handle the density. I live on this side of town-- 218 S. Harrington Dr.-- Google Map it.

There are tons of underperforming shopping centers, empty parking lots, and low-slung houses-turned-offices in this area, and if Prop 13 did not keep the taxes ridiculously low, the owners would seek redevelopment to make these parcels more economically productive.

While I feel for the current staff (Thomas and Schaffer) and appreciate the heroic efforts of the consultants, especially Gaurauv at Dudek, this is a mess of THIS council's making, and they should feel the full weight of what it means not to have a compliant housing element. I urge HCD to hold the line and make an example of the city, and I don't say that lightly. I love this city, but we need change. As another commenter said, this is an opportunity for our city! We have the most heavily used train station in Orange County. We have major bus lines that run through the corridors identified for redevelopment. We sit at the intersection of two major highways. The fact that some residents don't want more people to live here or have a fear of tall buildings is not a good enough reason for the state to give up its interest in seeing more production in this city.

Just because Fullerton is not thumbing its nose at the state with flags and a parade (a la Huntington Beach), do not think that there is not an element of racism and classism in our city's NIMBYism. There were public comments questioning the "type of people" that affordable housing will bring to our community and a tearful testimony from a Latina mother who identified as one of those people who needs affordable housing. "Think of me and my neighbors when you think of affordable housing," she said. This is 100% an AFFH issue. While many people are sympathetic to the need for more affordable housing, what no one-- not even the council-- seems to understand is that those deeper levels of affordability require subsidy and in the absence of government funding, we are left to the market to subsidize it. It takes A LOT of market rate units to offset the discounted revenues from only a few low-income units. 10% Inclusionary is the line. Do not think this real estate market is wildly different from neighboring Buena Park. The council and sympathetic residents want low-density and deep levels of affordability. That does not exist in this current funding landscape.

I have been disappointed in how HCD has accommodated the worst actors in Orange County, Yorba Linda for example. I'm pleading with you, Paul, Do not back down. This city is not unique or special as to deserve some special accomodation. We are not Los Alamitos, with an AirBase that counts for our square miles but over which we have no land use control. We are not Santa Ana, with a majority-non-white population or majority-highpoverty community. We are everything that is typical about suburban California, and if we don't accommodate more housing, we will continue to lose population, Congressional seats, and become the land of the hyper-wealthy and hyper-subsidized. I do not want to live in that dystopian California, and there is certainly no future for our kids there.

Sincerely yours,
--
Elizabeth Hansburg
Co-Founder & Director
November 22, 2024
Dear Honorable Mayor Dunlap and Members of City Council, Thank you for your consideration.

Debra Pember
Fullerton, CA 92831
The evolution of technology and how we do business has changed dramatically over the years. We continue to see more closures of local retail and industrial centers. These underutilized areas are prime for changing zoning to provide much needed housing. It's sad to drive by the areas that have degraded significantly over the years. Bringing these areas to life with new communities is what Fullerton needs.

The HIOZ will allow builders like Brandywine Homes and other quality infill builders to develop neighborhoods for all generations. Fullerton will benefit not only from providing housing, but the developer fees will also help Fullerton's budget to help with road and infrastructure repairs.

This is a great opportunity for our new City Council to have a positive impact and move our City in the right direction. Please support the adoption of the HIOZ.

I am a 35-year Fullerton resident and I support the adoption of the Housing Incentive Overlay Zone (HIOZ). Fullerton is known as "The Education Community", yet we lack housing to support our current and future generations.

Mayor Nicholas Dunlap & City Council Members
City of Fullerton
303 W. Commonwealth Ave.

Fullerton CA 92832
Re: HIOZ Support

DATE: November 26, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor Dunlap and Councilmembers
FROM: Scott Hess, Long Time City Resident
SUBJECT: Housing Element Update / New Multiple-Family Residential and Mixed Use Zone Changes (In Addition to HIOZ)
Thank you Mayor and Councilmembers for digging deeper into this Housing Plan and for giving direction to staff and consultants to reduce the number of HIOZ parcels to around 15,700 by reducing the number of parcels along historic Chapman and Commonwealth Aves, as well as State College and Chapman, to limit building height to 30’ on the entire parcel (not just 100’ within R1/R1P property) for “by-right” approval, and to allow additional height opportunities in the Harbor Gateway area. But there are still many issues to address.

Approved Units and Density Bonus “Credits”: “Credits” should be applied for units already permitted. Table B-2 in the 11/19/24 report indicates that there are 2,354 units approved and pending. Please also keep in mind that the 15,700 does not include any Density Bonus estimates, which still results in over-compliance. Additional parcels should be removed based on a conservative analysis of likely Density Bonus opt-ins.

Several Fullerton developers have indicated willingness to include 15% and even 20% affordability in HIOZ, and there is a history of developers asking for density bonus units in their projects.

Proposed Zoning Ordinance: There needs to be greater evaluation of the changes to the Title 15. This Ordinance deletes existing Section 15.17.070 Site Development Standards for Multiple-Family Residential and replaces it with a completely new rewrite.

It also creates new zoning regulations for mixed use projects on parcels with a HIOZ.

Unfortunately, as a couple speakers indicated at the last meeting, there are numerous revisions/deletions to the existing multiple-family standards in RG, R3R, R3, R3P, R4, R5, & RMH zones that you need to be aware about and perhaps should not be amended. In addition to increasing the height limits for existing and proposed apartment and condominium developments in these zones, the regulations reduce the setbacks allowing buildings to be closer to existing and proposed R1, R1P, R2, & R2P single family houses and historical structures impacting the preservation of these structures as well as existing buildings in other residential zones.

In order to better understand the changes between the existing regulations for RG, R3R, R3, R3P, R4, R5, & RMH zones, requests have been made over the last two months to provide a typical legislative draft (strike-out type for language to be deleted and underlining new language that is not in the current code, or red and green colored text) depicting the differences between the old and new code. However, nothing has been made available to me or the public. Could this be provided? As an example of such changes, the proposed Ordinance eliminates existing code sections applying to “infill development” (new development adjacent to existing residential) that affect the “quality of life” for Fullerton residents and impact historical preservation. A couple of the proposed changes include the following:

1. Maximum Building Height: Currently, the maximum building height in multiple-family zones (RG, R3R, R3, R3P, R4, R5, & RMH) within 100’ of existing R1 & R1 zones is limited to 1- and 2- story structures; beyond 100’ they can be 3- stories and higher.

Proposed Table 15.17.070.D allows up to 30’ in height with no story limit allowing for a 3-story building within 100’ of R1 & R1P zones (Please See Attachments 1 & 2).

The existing height limits within 100’ of R1 & R1P zones should be preserved and not changed. Additionally, R2 & R2P zones should be added to the first column.

2. Building Setbacks, Tiering, Window Separation, Window Setbacks: The current multiple-family residential zone code (Section 15.17.070.B) has a listing of setback requirements for front yards, side yards, through lots, rear yards, etc. when along an alley, and along a common property line as well as window separation requirements (see Attachment 3.1). It also includes regulations for tiering of buildings and window-to-property line setback requirements adjacent to other multiple family buildings and residences in R1, R1P, R2, R2P, RG, R3R, R3, R3P, R4, R5, & RMH zones (see Attachments 3.2 & 3.3). These work in concert with the building height limits previously noted. Unfortunately, most of these requirements are being deleted and/or reduced with no replacement protections (see Attachment 4).

There are also changes to the existing Zoning Code regarding mixed use projects.

Currently, Section 15.30.040.E under the Commercial Zone Classification chapter has requirements for mixed use and the proposed Ordinance creates a completely new Zoning Code Chapter 15.18 for Mixed Use Development Standards.

In your reevaluation of the Housing Plan/HIOZ Zoning on December 3rd, please examine the proposed Ordinance for detailed revisions/deletions to the multiple-family zoning code before approving it. Since most of the new HIOZ developments will be adjacent to existing buildings, the Ordinance needs to include good neighbor/buffer standards by preserving the building setbacks, tiering, window separation, and window setbacks; they should not be deleted from the current code. Also to point out, even with these development standards, density bonus requests can always be considered to waive development regulations when additional affordable housing units are proposed.

Recommendations:

A. Provide a Legislative Draft of the proposed Ordinance changes before final approval.

B. Apply approved units and conservative density bonus “credits” to 13,209 before adding buffer
C. Maintain the existing building height limits for multiple-family developments next to R1, R1P, R2, and R2P zoned property.

D. As Mayor Dunlap proposed, retain 3 stories as by-right, but higher with CUP.

E. Retain existing building setbacks, tiering, window separation, & window setbacks.

F. Whenever referencing R1, R2 or R3 in the code, always include R-1P, R-2P & R-3P.

Thank you for your consideration.

ATTACHMENTS:
1 - Maximum Building Height Requirements (Existing and Proposed Codes) 2 - Section Drawing Comparison: Existing & Proposed Building Height Limits 3 - Building Setbacks – Existing Code (RG, R3R, R3, R3P, R4, R5, RMH) 4 - Building Setbacks – Proposed Code (RG, R3R, R3, R3P, R4, R5, RMH, & HIOZ)

MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS
Existing Code
Proposed Code
ATTACHMENT 1
Table 15.17.070.F
Maximum Height Requirements for Multiple-family Residential Zones Parameter Reference
Subsection
R-G, R-3R, R3, R-3P, R-4, R5 Zones
R-MH Zone
Maximum height limit within 50 feet of
property with an R-1 zone classification
See
15 17.070C.3
One-story
(20 feet)
35 feet
Maximum height limit between 50 feet
and 100 feet of property with an R-1
zone classification
See
15 17.070.C.3
Two-story
(30 feet)
35 feet
Greater than 100 feet from a property
with an R-1 zone classification
Unlimited 35 feet
Table 15.17.070.D
Maximum Height Requirements for Multiple-Family Residential Zones R-G, R-3R, R-3, R-3P, R-4, R-5, and HIOZ R-MH
Maximum height limit
for development on
those portions of
parcels within 100
feet of a property line
with an R-1 zone
classification
30 feet.

If a multiple-family structure is located down-slope from an adjacent R-1 zoned property, the following maximum
height limits shall apply as illustrated in Figure 3.
- For a grade differential of less than 20 feet, a 30 feet maximum height limit applies.

For a grade differential of more than 20 feet, a 40 feet maximum height limit applies.
35 feet
Maximum height limit
for development on
those portions of
parcels greater than
100 feet from a
property line with an
R-1 zone
classification
Unlimited 35 feet

COMPARISON BETWEEN EXISTING AND PROPOSED
BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS (Section Drawings)
(Exhibits prepared by S. Hess)
ATTACHMENT 2
| Existing Code |
ft
<-
K-4P
£6; PHt
ZDse-b ।
zotAE^
Zd (\- ^Tof^)
HFKjHT UIHIT
< >
5o' FROMM/t^P 50' 1Z> \0o' FROM MP
[ Proposed Code |
^00^
^O' HEt&KT UIMI1T WITH
NO %TOMf UIN^T" ALUOWIK6-
j^-eroMe.^ ol-o^hf.to P.1FF1F
> RH RMH,4 ^OZ
ZONe-b
^-1
K-1P
<—
Z^NE.^
|C^' FMM\ Kl^^lPZOMg.^

BUILDING SETBACKS (RG, R3R, R3, R3P, R4, R5, RMH)
Existing Code:

Sections 15.17.070.B.1 through 5
ATTACHMENT 3.1
B. Building setbacks :

1. Building setbacks shall be as prescribed in Table 15.17.070.C.

2. One-story buildings may encroach into the required street setback, provided that the average setback for all buildings facing said street shall equal 15 feet or more and no building is less than 10 feet from the property line.

Table 15.17.070.C
Building Setbacks for the Multi-family Residential Zones Minimum setback from a property
line...

R-G, R-3R, R-3, R-3P, R4 and R-5 Zones R-MH Zone
...along a street:

Front yard 15 15
Side yard 15 15
Rear (through lot) 15 15
Garage door - swing out 25 25
Garage door -roll up 20 20
...along an alley:

Side or rear yard
See

15.17.070.B.5
5 Garage door 5 5
...along another property line (i.e. an interior lot line):

Side yard
See

15.17.070.B.5
10 Rear yard
See

15.17.070.B.5
0 Window separation requirements on the same property:

On the same property
See

15.17.070.B.4
N/A
Note: All measurements are in feet.

3. When the combined area of the required setbacks from public streets exceed 25 percent of the total lot area, said setbacks may be reduced so as not to exceed 25 percent of the total lot area, subject to the approval of the Director of Development Services (see Figure 6).
..15'Setback
Selback
may be
reouced so
not to
exceed 25%
of total lol
area.

Figure 6

Existing Code:

ATTACHMENT 3.2

4. Windows of residential units on the same property may face each other, but they shall be separated by a minimum distance based on the type of room in where the window is located (living room/family room; bedroom/kitchen; stained glass/opaque/translucent/clerestory windows; or no windows) and the number of stories for the buildings. Table 15.17.070.D shows the window-to-window separation requirements for units in buildings on the same property.

Table 15.17.070.D
Window-to-Window Separation Requirements for Units on the Same Property for Multiple-family Residential Zones Under Normal Design Circumstances
Window Types
Living/
Family Room
Bedroom/
Kitchen
Stained Glass,
Translucent
and Clerestory*
None
One Story Building
LivingFamily Room 18 16 13.5 12
Bedroom/Kitchen 16 12.5 11 9
Stained Glass, Translucent and
Clerestory* 13.5 II 9 7
None 12 9 7 6
Two Story Building
LivingTamily Room 30 26 22.5 20
Bedroom/Kitchen 26 22.5 19 15
Stained Glass, Translucent and
Clerestory*

22.5 19 15 12
None 20 15 12 11
Three Story Building
Living/Family Room 33 28.5 25
Bedroom/Kitchen 33 31.5 24 19
StainedGlass, Translucent and
Clerestory* 28.5 24 19 15
None 25 19 15 14
Four Story Building
Living/Family Room 43.5 38 32.5 29
Bedroom/Kitchen 38 32.5 27 22
Stained Glass, Translucent and
Clerestory* 32.5 27 22 17.5
None 29 22 17.5 16.5
Five Story Building
Living/Family Room 4’ 41 35 31.5
Bedroom/Kitchen 41 35 29.5 23.5
Stained Glass, Translucent and
Clerestory* 35 29.5 23.5 19
None 31.5 23.5 19 17.5
♦Other than primary or secondary windows.

Notes: All measurements are in feet.

The tieringofbuilding separation is permitted according to the separation requirements of each story.

The Director Development Services shall determine separation requirements for buildings higher than five stories.

5. Windows in multiple-family residential units that face either a side or rear property line or an alley are subject to specific setbacks based on the building's height and the type of room where the window is located. Table 15.17.070.E shows the building setback requirement from a side or rear property line. The required setback from a public alley is 50% of the value shown in Table15.17.170.E.
a. Notwithstanding this subsection, blank walls up to one story in height may be constructed on the property line. b. Notwithstanding the above setback requirements, a reduction of interior setbacks may be requested up to a maximum of five feet if the street setback is increased on a one-for-one basis, as long as an interior setback of seven feet is maintained.
c. When a building has subterranean parking or a basement that elevates the first story at least three feet above natural grade, said subterranean parking or basement shall be considered one-half of a story for purposes of computing the required setback as shown in Table 15.17.070.E.
d. The tiering of building setbacks according to the setback requirements of each story is permitted (see Figure7).

Existing Code:

ATTACHMENT 3.3
PL
Typicalrequued setback ftomproperty line
whenbtckoom windows face ptoperty line
Figure 7
Table 15.17.070.E
Window-to-Property Line Setback Requirements for Multiple-family Residential Zones Under Normal Design Circumstances
Number of stories
Window type 1 2 3 4 5
Living/Family Room 7 12 19 29 41
Bedroom/Kitchen 5 9 14.5 21.5 30.5
Stained Glass,
Translucent and Clerestory

3.5 7.5 9.5 14.5 20.5
None 0 4.5 7 11 15.5
Notes: All measurements are in feet.

The tiering of stories is permitted according to the setback requirement of each story.

The required setback from a public alley is 50% of the value shown in the table.

The Director of Development Services shall determine the setback requirement for a building over five stories.

BUILDING SETBACKS (RG, R3R, R3, R3P, R4, R5, RMH, & HIOZ) Proposed Code:

Section 15.17.070.A.2 and 3
ATTACHMENT 4.1

2. Setbacks Standards
a. Building setback standards for Multiple-Family Residential Zones shall be as prescribed in Table 15.17.070.B and as illustrated in Figure 1.
b. Exception: When the combined area of the required setbacks from public streets exceeds 25 percent of the total lot area, said setbacks may be reduced so as not to exceed 25 percent of the total lot area, subject to the approval of the Director of Development Services.
c. The following elements are allowed to encroach into the setback:
i. Walls and fences per § 15.17.070.B.3
ii. Landscaping per § 15.17.070.B.4.
(1) Setback standard is applicable to the ground floor (i.e., at finished grade). See § 15.17.070.A.3 Table 15.17.070.B
Minimum Building Setbacks for Multiple-Family Residential Zones R-G, R-3R, R-3, R-3P, R-4, R-5 R-MH HIOZ
Along Street (A) 15 feet 15 feet 10 feet
Alona Side Street (B) 15 feet 15 feet 10 feet
Along Alley (C) 5 feet (1) 5 feet 5 feet (1)
Along Interior Lot Line
(D)
5 feet (1) 10 feet 5 feet (1)
(Step-Back Standards) for upper-story step-backs.

SIDE STREET

SIDE STREET
(x) Setback Dimension
— — — Setback line
Lot/Parcel Une
Curb Line

Proposed Code:

ATTACHMENT 4.2

3. Step-Back Standards
a. Building step-back standards for Multiple-Family Residential Zones shall be as prescribed in Table 15.17.070.C and illustrated in Figure 2.
b. Building step-backs shall be measured from the setback line. c. Building step-backs shall occur for a minimum of 70 percent of the total facade length. d. The following elements are allowed within the step-back:
i. Open space per § 15.17.070.B.
ii. Walls and fences per § 15.17.070.B.3.

Hi. Landscaping per § 15.17.070.B.4.

Minimum Buildin
Table 15.17.070.C
g Step-Backs for Multiple-Family Residential Zones
R-G, R-3R, R-3, R-3P, R-4, R-5, and HIOZ
2nd story and above
Street (front and side) 0 feet
Along Alley or Interior Lot Line 5 feet
CAUTION: BE CAREFUL WITH THIS MESSAGE
This email came from outside City of Fullerton. Do not open attachments, click on links, or respond unless you expected this message and recognize the email address.

From: Mirna Vargas
To: City Clerk" s Office
Cc: Mirna Vargas
Subject:[ EXTERNAL MAIL] Exclusion of the Housing Incentive Overlay Zone Date: Saturday, December 7, 2024 6:12: 26 PM
Attachments: Signature list-Exclusiom from HIOZ.pdf
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear City of Fullerton Council Members, City Clerk’ s Office, I am writing to respectfully request the exclusion of the parcels located on Chapman Avenue between IvyCrest Montessori Private School and Searchlight Ministries Preschool from the proposed Housing Incentive Overlay Zone.

This area of Fullerton is a cherished landmark and embodies the family- oriented character that makes our city unique and special. It is a neighborhood where fathers ride bikes or play basketball with their children, and kids enjoy playing on their lawns— qualities that are increasingly rare in today’ s fast- paced world. These defining characteristics are central to Fullerton’ s identity as a small, family- friendly town.

Additionally, the streets in this neighborhood already experience heavy traffic due to their use as thoroughfares by students and families attending nearby schools, including:

IvyCrest Montessori Private School
Searchlight Ministries Preschool
Troy High School
Acacia Elementary School
California State University, Fullerton
The construction of additional housing in this area would only exacerbate traffic congestion, negatively impacting the safety and quality of life for residents and families who live here.

Building additional housing in this area could reduce the appeal to reside in this area by current residents for the following reasons:

Noise will increase in this quiet residential area- low noise is appreciated by the residents.

Schools, parks, and health services will become overcrowded- caused by the sudden increase in population.

Public services such as sewage systems, water quality and supply and utilities would be affected and any upgrades to these facilities will be costly and at the expense of the taxpayer.

Parking is already a problem in this residential area and the roads already need serious repair. An increase in traffic will create further additional parking problems, increase road repairs, and increase in vehicle theft may occur.

Further damage to the environment caused by the increase in vehicles and construction materials being utilized intensively in a small area. The City of Fullerton needs more greener areas and less concrete and asphalt to remain environmental friendly.

Services such as law enforcement, fire and paramedics will face the challenge to provide the same quality service to an increased population.

It is my belief that the primary beneficiaries of such a project would be the developers, while the community would bear the burden of increased traffic, noise, additional financial burden to taxpayers, and a diminished family- friendly environment.

I urge you to preserve the unique character of Fullerton and protect this neighborhood from unnecessary development. Family oriented cities like ours are becoming increasingly rare, and it is essential that we safeguard the qualities that make Fullerton a wonderful place to live.

Please see attached list of collected signatures of residents in support of the exclusion of this residential area from the Housing Incentive Overlay Program.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Mirna Vargas
F, I
ry rr 0 ;/ ff.-
Yl
Ek > c11 CFI)
lllA.{. L. £± v _llif --. ·"-·
f . . . •, , •• ., •, ·••:

Jl.*• t•o ;.-,., d •'.-~. Jt-,,..·- 71-•·- ••:·:·. ,·.-,:";;"' l-;-.. t-·. ,.. :.> .·.;,.. l ,_,
0 :.• j ' c·.,.,, •),, ...... .,..,.. •.· •. ·<:, • ,, ii . • • fa v•.' o/·,.,;+- l>;-/."'•· • ...:, ..... ,' I"-.;·'¼;':•.,.:.;:.,._l'l;-!':-, fr.>-J - • ..,,;,· 1;-- i:,.s,. t.y.-;,,_:,..,.<.•, 4,,,-:,,,.,.,.\, •• ';("./. -,,_,....,_,.-...,::.,;,."' t-1 •,-.. - 1t1.x .,;, .•/ i••c--;--' lo,. t:t;;•,•··:,,"'"<'.-?;.,-.<' l(f":S"' 1,:-,. . ...,,;,· -..:;-, ft' : y---• b ;.,. 1_,,.. s.· :. u,.n;,'-....+'.'.;,£;,:....,_.,,>: , r,.:;o ·:,.._,-.: '•"," _, ·, . ., . .,.,,• ' I,.-.. . · r :,•,,. , .. · ; z;, .. .,_ .... • ,·-: 1-•· •-.';+' 1 .rt•"-'I'.,: ·N• •'-y,,-.•-.,::; .. .-, ;·:. .. ,' 1.•{- e.·-• :· • ·· 1•• ••; ,;, . 1•,, ... e•·,--;,.. :, M. ;, v-.- ,:,.,,..,>,-.· t:, . •• , . . , _ ... •"'°'""' ,...-,....,,..,...,, f&U••• qi-:;< .. •': t.-;...,_. .., i.,\.Q .(xr-!'('•,.:, t;;·:. t,,_"<''¢ ,:. \<:• ;....,;.» .. :< Jr ,,.,.-!',·:.;.,> f "• · •·-,; V.,,.c;,. _,. -,,.,.,.!,\...,,_) :,,_ f. 1,:; r:t, ':'"'•.,._,.,.,<') di, .. ,,_,,. - -..::" r''°""""""- ,_..' I,(,-,,,.,.-·· ':'' .-. t"f">-: ,..,."""" ... ·" .:.,. ,..,...,,; .. • 1'<<•,':;._•·,: f.f,'•,.•'":'• " : ... ., . .._ .. ; •. . . -. .. . . ' - I .. " ... t • •• ;..•••• •' •· :••-"· .-.: ,;, •• •'• •.> .,,, v._:" tl:;"iI.' "(• '"' •:.:; ;,":.,.;_!-. ---•,.' .-'·•• ':'-•:;' • ,•,..; •: ..,,,. ... .,. '"•"':" .": f ••1J'>'<'-<°!-'\· I' • ·•,. 1 ,.. ,,..,..,_ 1, .. ; . • • -•. '.• o ,-". I • /•. • ,-..-.' : -.:••-.... •• ..._ • , .. -..•.,,; • .. . .,.. ,. , ; • .·,', -: ;"• • ' • •: ,-:. 0,l' ""-' • .,.:;. _,. .. ; \' ;,;: :<"-, , • : t ,..,..-, .. -, c, ,>;. ':.. • _,: .,. i)' , •" -: ..... , s;-..... ,., .... • .... ·,"' l-'" ......... .._ -: . .,;_.,... • -: -;....,,,,:-.,,; .. , • • ;,,(·-:! f -t.-•\ C . .............. ,, .. ;, ff,...., . . . ... : ·"'"• r-•-·.,.,., _., .... ;':-, ...... _· r'-''· ·•;:..,_..., ... ,., ....... : . .,. ... . ..,,, :'"• ;;,, c"!., . .,. .... ,-.. , - t.: .. :...--., t . -
1, •:.;,_.." , i-tf! •;-:-,'.- jl;;X ,,., • • : '-<':' ;•,; r• ;;,:: j, tJ.'./'i,·•s,,'.)·. ''. iJ-;:, • .-,._ c::,s,;;. i_;• ;.:.- c/).;,:• ,. _-._-.,;.,.(·•. 1::;.. 4 -·,. t ... ,{+ 1-<:1 ·,..,..,.,.,;..,,._.,.;,;.:,, a:· . i:;,,"(' P· •;; r.....,., .· · . .,:,;,.,;'.}(! ·_.,.::
t.

From: Elizabeth Hansburg P4H < >
Sent: Sunday, December 8, 2024 5:23 PM
To: McDougall, Paul@HCD <[email protected]>; Zisser, David@HCD <[email protected]>
Cc: Alex Fisch <[email protected]>; David Pai <[email protected]> Subject: Fullerton 12 8 2024: Housing Element at City Council 12/3/2024

Dear Messrs. McDougal and Zisser, I am writing to express additional concerns about the process to remove sites from the Housing Incentive Overlay Zone (HIOZ) that the city of Fullerton is undertaking, led by Mayor Dunlap. At the meeting this Dear Messrs. McDougal and Zisser,

I am writing to express additional concerns about the process to remove sites from the Housing Incentive Overlay Zone (HIOZ) that the city of Fullerton is undertaking, led by Mayor Dunlap.

At the meeting this past Tuesday, Dec 3, the Mayor directed staƯ to strip out even MORE parcels from the HIOZ. The item was continued with little discussion, and when the City Attorney was reading out the list of consequences for failing to move the Housing Element forward, the Mayor actually got up and walked out of the meeting. I understand this is not a violation of the Brown Act, but it gives you a feel for the "thumb in the eye" attitude that the Mayor has towards this process and HCD despite the stipulated judgment. The impact on morale of City StaƯ and the consultants from Dudek and Rincon should not be discounted.

Councilmembers Jung and Mayor Dunlap were dismissive and hostile to these professionals. This is the exact type of behavior by these same council members that lead to the mass-exodus of our city planning staƯ before Director Thomas and Mr. SchaeƯer were hired. I would remind you that the positions were empty for a prolonged period of time and the housing element untouched for a year. I was planning commission chair in 2021, the last year that saw any activity on the Housing Element. When Mr. SchaƯer and Ms.

Thomas took over, they asked me for the background information because everyone who had institutional knowledge about the housing element process had left the city's employment. I am worried that history will repeat itself because of these council members' toxic behavior is very frustrating for city staƯ.

In addition to concerns about the above public process, I have equal concerns about the substance of the policy that the Council is re-making at the 11th hour in response to NIMBYism, and they are doing so behind closed doors. The result is what I will call a Swiss Cheese eƯect. Please see page 17 of the attached document for an example, which I have also attached as a stand-alone document, and which corresponds to the attached photos.

The dashed green line represents the shopping center in the photographs and the red stars are where I was standing when I took the photos. The doc is a print out of the HIOZ was posted with the Nov 19th agenda materials.

How is redevelopment supposed to occur within this shopping center if the HIOZ aƯordability rules and ministerial approval process only applies to a portion of the redevelopable area? These sites are not that big to begin with. The city council's removal of sites from HIOZ creates holes in the applicability of the aƯordability rules and the ministerial approvals. It makes the redevelopment of the shopping center discretionary BUT WITH the added cost burden of aƯordable units! You must agree that this is a barrier to development and a constraint. I am all for more aƯordable housing! As an advocacy organization, we regularly organize and advocate for it! But in the absence of funding to subsidize the reduced rents, of which the city and state have NONE to oƯer, we are relying on the market to produce that housing, therefore we need to reduce the barriers.

This is what the HIOZ was intended to do.

With the Mayor's new direction given at the meeting this week on Dec 3rd undoubtedly MORE parcels will be removed and the HIOZ will be relatively useless since it will literally be full of holes, like a piece of swiss cheese. Moreover, the fact remains that Mayor Dunlap and Councilman Jung are not identifying the sites to be removed from the HIOZ in the public forum of the council meeting. They are giving direction to staƯ behind closed doors where no one can raise questions until the new sites are posted as attachments for the next council meeting agenda, and by then you know the decision is made and it is too late.

The next meeting is Tues. Dec 10th.

I want to draw your attention to the fact that Mayor Dunlap is himself a real estate investor and comes from a prominent family that owns a lot of real property in the city. In addition, Mayor Dunlap and Councilman Jung were heavily funded in their campaigns by various members of the Bushala Family, another big property owner in the city. [fullertonobserver.com] Both the Dunlap and Bushala Families own property in the Downtown area and along major transit corridors Chapman-Commonwealth-Raymond that contain the majority of the HIOZ parcels. We need to be sure that the parcels being removed do not unfairly advantage these property owners. It would not be that hard to remove everyone else's parcels to increase the value of one's own. I don't have access to the ownership records because Assessor Tax records are private in CA; however, someone should be looking to see exactly whose parcels are being removed. It is very noteworthy that the Bushala Family members were a major donor to both Mr. Dunlap and Mr. Jung's campaigns.

The city's conduct and policy making now rivals that of Huntington Beach. I urge you to hold Fullerton accountable in the same way that you hold HB accountable. All cities should be held to the same level of compliance regardless of their reputations. Fullerton is "The Education City." Tell the policy makers to be smarter in their planning.

Sincerely,
--
Elizabeth Hansburg
Co-Founder & Director
Friends for a Livable Fullerton Page 1
December 9, 2024
To: Fullerton City Council Members
Subject: Housing Element Update/HIOZ – Special Meeting December 10, 2024 Dear Mayor Dunlap and Council Members,
Thank you for the leadership you’ve shown in reining in the most excessive aspects of the HIOZ program while still addressing our affordable housing needs. Your efforts are very appreciated as we believe that Fullerton can meet its affordable housing goals while still preserving the uniqueness and historic nature of much of the city; we can have both! As we approach another special meeting concerning the HEU/HIOZ, we again ask you to make sure the following issues are properly addressed and highlight new concerns regarding process. Our previous letters apparently did not post and/or were not brought to your attention due to errors on the part of the City. They are now posted in Supplemental Materials, but may not have reached you directly. In the spirit of “getting this right,” this letter summarizes issues that must be addressed:

1. Public Safety is Job #1: The City has not adequately addressed how fire response times, equipment, staffing, police resources and facilities, and other infrastructure needs will be met or funded in light of the proposed program.

2. RHNA Compliance Must Stand Alone: The RHNA compliance process must be clearly distinguished from discretionary density increases facilitated through the HIOZ. Currently the RHNA and discretionary actions have been hopelessly commingled. The 13,209 units may be further reduced by excluding units already approved and pending, as well as a conservative estimate of density bonus applications.

3. Historic, Low-Density Corridors of Chapman and Commonwealth Should be Removed:

Density should be concentrated in areas with wider street infrastructure and away from historic-age structures. The evaluation of compliant options appears flawed. A proper analysis would demonstrate that corridors such as Chapman and Commonwealth can be excluded while still meeting RHNA compliance requirements.

4. HIOZ Requires a Valid EIR: The current EIR is fatally flawed. It fails to separate RHNA compliance from discretionary HIOZ actions, lacks a proper "No Build" or "RHNA-only" alternative, and does not adequately analyze cumulative impacts of density increases.

Furthermore, it contains incorrect statements about public services, unfunded mitigations, conflicts with existing plans, the Environmentally Superior Alternative, and improperly claims CEQA exemptions, and Statements of Overriding Consideration where they do not apply. This EIR is not required for RHNA compliance.

5. Conflicts with General Plan: The HIOZ and EIR conflict with several provisions of the General Plan, including those related to historic preservation, scenic resources, Level of Service (LOS) requirements, and mandates concerning sensitive land uses near polluters.

In a city dedicated to preserving its historic buildings, the EIR has no Cultural / Historic Resources study and several times indicates that analyses will not be done even on a Friends for a Livable Fullerton Page 2
project-level basis. The vast majority of Fullerton’s historic properties are not designated, yet many are valuable resources and are eligible for designation. A new protocol needs to be implemented as the City’s ability to evaluate eligible historic properties is broken.

Transparency & Public Participation
• Fundamental Brown Act Violation: We now realize that the email address listed on the agenda for submitting public comments ([email protected]) is not fully monitored. This is problematic and undermines the entire public participation process. The public is directed to use this email for submitting correspondence, yet their input was never apparently received or considered, explaining why our comment letters never posted. This is even more disturbing as I asked, on the record, at the November 19, 2024 meeting if our comments were received and I was told they were. This oversight calls into question the validity of all prior actions taken by the City Council in connection with these meetings.

We have now been instructed to send correspondence to
[email protected], but this correction comes too late for previous submissions or council consideration. All previously submitted correspondence, including our letters and potentially of others, needs to be properly reviewed and considered before any further action is taken.

Failure to monitor the designated email address and subsequently ignoring public correspondence constitutes a fundamental violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act. • Public Noticing: Many zoning changes are being considered that were not mentioned in the EIR or in any Public Noticing: Multi-Family zoning as well as Mobile Home Parks, and there was no legislative draft available to decisionmakers or stakeholders despite repeated requests.
• Public Comment Must Be Allowed: At the last meeting, the public was denied the opportunity to comment despite fundamental policy changes being presented. This is problematic. California law requires that all meetings of a legislative body allow for public participation. Fundamental changes continue to be made to the HEU and HIOZ, and failure to allow public comment or to address these issues may constitute a violation of the Brown Act. Combined with the unmonitored email issue, these actions represent severe breaches of transparency and public trust.

We maintain that the Housing Element Update must prioritize RHNA compliance, including proper accounting for approved projects and state and local density bonuses to avoid exceeding required levels. The program must not conflict with existing plans, particularly the General Plan. The Council should act to ensure transparency, legal compliance, and the prioritization of public safety for the benefit of Fullerton’s residents.

Sincerely,
Friends for a Livable Fullerton Page 3
Jane Reifer, on behalf of
Friends for a Livable Fullerton
CAUTION: BE CAREFUL WITH THIS MESSAGE
This email came from outside City of Fullerton. Do not open attachments, click on links, or respond unless you expected this message and recognize the email address.

From: Jane Reifer
To: City Clerk" s Office
Subject:[ EXTERNAL MAIL] Housing Element Update/ HIOZ - Special Meeting December 10, 2024 Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 1:57:01 PM
Dear Mayor Dunlap and Council Members,
This is a preliminary note to a later fuller letter to mention that the first of the 3 resolutions mentioned for tonight is not actually included in today’s staff report. It is referred to several times by title, but is not included either as Attachment 1 as stated, nor elsewhere in the packet.

There cannot be a vote today if there has not been proper 24-hour posting of the resolution to be approved.

Sincerely,
Jane Reifer, on behalf of
Friends for a Livable Fullerton

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

PRESIDENT

BROOKE DOI

SHEA HOMES
1st VICE PRESIDENT

MEGAN ELTRINGHAM

THE NEW HOME COMPANY

TREASURER

DAVE MELLO

LANDSEA HOMES

SECRETARY

JOE OFTILE

WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL

TRADE CONTRACTOR VP

ALAN BOUDREAU

BOUDREAU PIPELINE

ASSOCIATE MEMBER VP

MARK HIMMELSTEIN

NEWMEYER & DILLION, LLP

MEMBER AT LARGE

PETER VANEK

INTREGAL COMMUNITIES

MEMBER AT LARGE

SEAN MATSLER

COX, CASTLE, & NICHOLSON LLP

IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT

ERIC NELSON

TRUMARK HOMES
SR. VICE PRESIDENT, OC CHAPTER

ADAM WOOD
BIAOC
BUILDING INDUSTRY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.

ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER
17192 MURPHY AVE #14445, IRVINE, CA 92623
949-553-9500 I BIAOC.COM
December 10, 2024

Mayor Nicholas Dunlap
City of Fullerton
303 West Commonwealth Ave.

Fullerton, CA 92832
Re: File Item 1 – 6th Cycle Housing Element
Dear Mayor and Council,
On behalf of the Building Industry Association of Southern California - Orange County Chapter (BIA/OC), I write to oppose the inclusion of an Inclusionary Zoning policy as part of your Housing Element adoption process.

As presented, Code Section 15.23.060 will require a minimum requirement for affordable housing of at least 20% of the total residential units in a HIOZ project.

There is a long history of Inclusionary Zoning being a detriment to housing production and it has prevented far more units from ever being constructed, than such a policy has ever created.

Further, this policy is slated to apply equally to for-sale and for-rent developments despite the extreme difference in financing required for the two different construction types. At a minimum, we request that all for-sale product be removed from the proposed Inclusionary policy, as has been recently done by the cities of Anaheim and Costa Mesa. Both jurisdictions expressed a strong commitment to the American Dream of home ownership and removed IZ barriers in their recently adopted policies.

As jurisdictions across California begin to realize that Inclusionary Zoning is a failed approach, it is regrettable to see Fullerton consider this path. While housing policy is challenging, we hope for a future where new barriers to production are not added.

Sincerely,
Adam Wood
Sr. Vice President
BIA/SC – Orange County Chapter
BUILDING INDUSTRY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.

Bifir ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

PRESIDENT

BROOKE DOI

SHEA HOMES
1st VICE PRESIDENT

MEGAN ELTRINCHAM

THE NEW HOME COMPANY

TREASURER

DAVE MELLO

LANDSEA HOMES

SECRETARY

JOEOFTILE

WARMINCTON RESIDENTIAL

TRADE CONTRACTOR VP

ALAN BOUDREAU

BOUDREAU PIPELINE

ASSOCIATE MEMBER VP

MARK HIMMELSTEIN

NEWMEYER & DILLION, LLP

MEMBER AT LARGE

PETER VANEK

INTREGAL COMMUNITIES

MEMBER AT LARGE

SEAN MATSLER

COX, CASTLE, & NICHOLSON LLP

IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT

ERIC NELSON

TRUMARK HOMES
SR. VICE PRESIDENT, OC CHAPTER

ADAM WOOD
BIAOC
17192 MURPHY AVE #14445, IRVINE, CA 92623
949-553-9500 I BIAOC.COM

DATE: December 10, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor Dunlap and Councilmembers
FROM: Scott Hess, Long Time City Resident
SUBJECT: HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / HIOZ – AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 The Housing Element Update and HIOZ Up-Zoning report with all the attachments is an improvement from the Dec. 3rd Council meeting but there are still so many unaddressed issues/concerns. Here are just a few examples:

1. What will the funding source and what will be the long term costs to the City for providing adequate fire response times, equipment, staffing, police resources and facilities, and other infrastructure needs in light of amending the City’s Land Use Plan/Housing Element by adding 13,000+ housing units in existing commercial, office, and manufacturing zones? These questions should be answered in order to fully plan for Fullerton’s future. The Retail Market Analysis prepared last year is only half of the equation. The Council and the public need to understand the long term City costs before approval . A comprehensive “Fiscal Impact Report” should be prepared to analyze the City’s revenues and expenses over the next 20 years as a result of this Housing Element Update and HIOZ Up -zoning! Many cities require such a FIR/FIA as part of any GPA).

2. The EIR states that Implementation of the Program WILL create severe, significant, and unavoidable cumulative adverse environmental impacts to the City BY inducing substantial unplanned population growth, creating significant cumulative noise and traffic impacts, and committing the City to provide increased public services (police, fire, water, etc.) that the annual City budget cannot support. Look at our city streets today! And there are many conflicts between the General Plan , the HIOZ, and EIR.

Several are related to historic preservation, scenic resources, Level of Service (LOS) requirements, and mandates concerning sensitive land uses near polluters. In a city dedicated to preserving its historic buildings, the EIR has no Cultural / Historic Resources study and several times indicates that analyses will not be done even on a project-level basis. The City Council should not certify the EIR and not adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations.

3. On Table 15.17.070.D, the maximum height limit for portions of HIOZ parcels within 100’ of a property line with an “R1 zone” classification is 30’ (for same grade level parcels). Since there are many residential and historical homes in “R1P, PRD, R2, R2P, RG, R3, and R3P zones,” these seven zoning classifications should be added to that Table! In addition, the height limit should include “maximum 2-stories” to be consistent with the existing Multi-Family Residential height standard when within 100’ of R1 (see Attachments No.1 & No. 2).

4. There are some multi -family residential apartments/condominiums in RG, R2, R2P, R3, R3P, R4, R5 zones that share a common property line (or across a public alley) with C3, and CG zones. The new HIOZ has no maximum site coverage (unlike other multi -family residential zones) and allows “by-right” the approval for high density residential buildings greater than 30’ in height to be built within 5’ of these common property lines creating a canyon effect (see Attachment No. 3). Add to the fact that HIOZ development standards will have reduced minimum lot size, reduced minimum building setbacks along the front street yard and side street yards, reduced private open space standards, and reduced off-street parking requirements creating an even larger building envelope. Residents/property owners living in an apartment, condominium or historical structure (on property not zoned R1) next a parcel zoned HIOZ, and an super-sized, 6-story building is being proposed, should be given the benefit of receiving notification of a proposed HIOZ project. Because depending on window/balcony locations, site visibility angles, building shadowing and setbacks, etc., their “quality of life” will be affected. These are issues that cannot be addressed with “by-right” approval. In these cases, Major Site Plan approval by the Planning Commission with public hearing should be required giving surrounding property owners the opportunity to comment on the HIOZ project.

5. Add the following requirements (used by other cities) into proposed Chapter 15.23:
a. As part of the Site Plan Review process, require notification to property owners and tenants within a 300-foot radius of the subject property at the time of Site Plan Review submittal to the City. The applicant (or staff) shall send out notices and provide proof of the entire list including names and addresses of those receiving the mailing. The notice shall be sent by first class mail and include name of applicant, location of planned development or use, address (map is optional), complete description of the proposed development or use such that there is full disclosure in the notice, and the Community and Economic Development Department phone number and address of City Hall where plans may be reviewed.
b. Require as part of the Site Plan Review submittal, a dimensioned site plan which depicts existing site improvements on adjacent properties within 100’ of the project’s property lines. This would include location of all buildings (commercial, manufacturing, residential, etc.), building entrances, openings, overhead loading doors, driveways, parking areas, and landscaped areas. (Since many of the HIOZ developments will be infill, it will help to evaluate and address possible noise and traffic impacts from existing commercial and manufacturing uses to the proposed residential units).

Thank you for your consideration .

ATTACHMENTS:
1 - Maximum Building Height Requirements (Existing MFR and Proposed HIOZ) 2 - Section Drawing Comparison: Existing MFR & Proposed HIOZ Building Height Limits 3 - Height Limits In GC/C3 Zones Adjacent To MFR Zones With And Without HIOZ

MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS
Existing Code (For Multi-Family Residential Zones next to R1) Proposed Code (For HIOZ next to R1)
Please add R1P, PRD, R2, R2P, RG, R3, & R3P to the left column and “ Maximum 2-story” to the 30’) ATTACHMENT 1

COMPARISON BETWEEN EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDING
HEIGHT LIMITS WITHIN 100’ OF R1/ R1P ( Section Drawings) Exhibits prepared by S. Hess)
ATTACHMENT 2
HIOZ ZONE (ALLOWS BUILDINGS WITHIN 5’
FROM COMMON PROPERTY LINE “ BY-RIGHT”)

BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS IN COMMERCIAL ZONES ADJACENT

TO MULTIPLE- FAMILY ZONES WITH AND WITHOUT HIOZ
Existing Commercial Building Height Without HIOZ:

Sections 15.30.050.B.1
Proposed Residential Building Height In Commercial Zones With HIOZ Allows 6-Story Condos/ Apts 5 Feet From Multi-Family Property Line):

ATTACHMENT 3
Prepared by S. Hess)

DATE: December 10, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor Dunlap and Councilmembers
FROM: Scott Hess, Long Time City Resident
SUBJECT: HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / HIOZ – AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 The Housing Element Update and HIOZ Up-Zoning report with all the attachments is an improvement from the Dec. 3rd Council meeting but there are still so many unaddressed issues/concerns. Here are just a few examples:

1. What will the funding source and what will be the long term costs to the City for providing adequate fire response times, equipment, staffing, police resources and facilities, and other infrastructure needs in light of amending the City’s Land Use Plan/Housing Element by adding 13,000+ housing units in existing commercial, office, and manufacturing zones? These questions should be answered in order to fully plan for Fullerton’s future. The Retail Market Analysis prepared last year is only half of the equation. The Council and the public need to understand the long term City costs before approval . A comprehensive “Fiscal Impact Report” should be prepared to analyze the City’s revenues and expenses over the next 20 years as a result of this Housing Element Update and HIOZ Up -zoning! Many cities require such a FIR/FIA as part of any GPA).

2. The EIR states that Implementation of the Program WILL create severe, significant, and unavoidable cumulative adverse environmental impacts to the City BY inducing substantial unplanned population growth, creating significant cumulative noise and traffic impacts, and committing the City to provide increased public services (police, fire, water, etc.) that the annual City budget cannot support. Look at our city streets today! And there are many conflicts between the General Plan , the HIOZ, and EIR.

Several are related to historic preservation, scenic resources, Level of Service (LOS) requirements, and mandates concerning sensitive land uses near polluters. In a city dedicated to preserving its historic buildings, the EIR has no Cultural / Historic Resources study and several times indicates that analyses will not be done even on a project-level basis. The City Council should not certify the EIR and not adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations.

3. On Table 15.17.070.D, the maximum height limit for portions of HIOZ parcels within 100’ of a property line with an “R1 zone” classification is 30’ (for same grade level parcels). Since there are many residential and historical homes in “R1P, PRD, R2, R2P, RG, R3, and R3P zones,” these seven zoning classifications should be added to that Table! In addition, the height limit should include “maximum 2-stories” to be consistent with the existing Multi-Family Residential height standard when within 100’ of R1 (see Attachments No.1 & No. 2).

4. There are some multi -family residential apartments/condominiums in RG, R2, R2P, R3, R3P, R4, R5 zones that share a common property line (or across a public alley) with C3, and CG zones. The new HIOZ has no maximum site coverage (unlike other multi -family residential zones) and allows “by-right” the approval for high density residential buildings greater than 30’ in height to be built within 5’ of these common property lines creating a canyon effect (see Attachment No. 3). Add to the fact that HIOZ development standards will have reduced minimum lot size, reduced minimum building setbacks along the front street yard and side street yards, reduced private open space standards, and reduced off-street parking requirements creating an even larger building envelope. Residents/property owners living in an apartment, condominium or historical structure (on property not zoned R1) next a parcel zoned HIOZ, and an super-sized, 6-story building is being proposed, should be given the benefit of receiving notification of a proposed HIOZ project. Because depending on window/balcony locations, site visibility angles, building shadowing and setbacks, etc., their “quality of life” will be affected. These are issues that cannot be addressed with “by-right” approval. In these cases, Major Site Plan approval by the Planning Commission with public hearing should be required giving surrounding property owners the opportunity to comment on the HIOZ project.

5. Add the following requirements (used by other cities) into proposed Chapter 15.23:
a. As part of the Site Plan Review process, require notification to property owners and tenants within a 300-foot radius of the subject property at the time of Site Plan Review submittal to the City. The applicant (or staff) shall send out notices and provide proof of the entire list including names and addresses of those receiving the mailing. The notice shall be sent by first class mail and include name of applicant, location of planned development or use, address (map is optional), complete description of the proposed development or use such that there is full disclosure in the notice, and the Community and Economic Development Department phone number and address of City Hall where plans may be reviewed.
b. Require as part of the Site Plan Review submittal, a dimensioned site plan which depicts existing site improvements on adjacent properties within 100’ of the project’s property lines. This would include location of all buildings (commercial, manufacturing, residential, etc.), building entrances, openings, overhead loading doors, driveways, parking areas, and landscaped areas. (Since many of the HIOZ developments will be infill, it will help to evaluate and address possible noise and traffic impacts from existing commercial and manufacturing uses to the proposed residential units).

Thank you for your consideration .

ATTACHMENTS:
1 - Maximum Building Height Requirements (Existing MFR and Proposed HIOZ) 2 - Section Drawing Comparison: Existing MFR & Proposed HIOZ Building Height Limits 3 - Height Limits In GC/C3 Zones Adjacent To MFR Zones With And Without HIOZ

MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS
Existing Code (For Multi-Family Residential Zones next to R1) Proposed Code (For HIOZ next to R1)
Please add R1P, PRD, R2, R2P, RG, R3, & R3P to the left column and “ Maximum 2-story” to the 30’) ATTACHMENT 1

COMPARISON BETWEEN EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDING
HEIGHT LIMITS WITHIN 100’ OF R1/ R1P ( Section Drawings) Exhibits prepared by S. Hess)
ATTACHMENT 2
HIOZ ZONE (ALLOWS BUILDINGS WITHIN 5’
FROM COMMON PROPERTY LINE “ BY-RIGHT”)

BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS IN COMMERCIAL ZONES ADJACENT

TO MULTIPLE- FAMILY ZONES WITH AND WITHOUT HIOZ
Existing Commercial Building Height Without HIOZ:

Sections 15.30.050.B.1
Proposed Residential Building Height In Commercial Zones With HIOZ Allows 6-Story Condos/ Apts 5 Feet From Multi-Family Property Line):

ATTACHMENT 3
Prepared by S. Hess)
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-1
Appendix H-E:

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
NOTE: Appendix H-E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing replaces former Appendix H-E Assessment of Fair Housing dated November 2021. As such, this section contains no markups or highlights to improve readability.

E Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
E.1 Introduction and Overview
In 2018, the California State Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 686 to expand upon the fair housing requirements and protections outlined in the federal Fair Employment and Housing Act. The law requires all State and local public agencies to facilitate deliberate action to explicitly address, combat, and relieve disparities resulting from past patterns of segregation to foster more inclusive communities. AB 686 created new requirements that apply to all housing elements due for revision on or after January 1, 2021.

The passage of AB 686 ensures that California Cities affirmatively further fair housing.

AB 686 defined “affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH)” to mean “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combat discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity.” AB 686 added to the Housing Element requirements an assessment of fair housing which includes the following components:
• A summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the City’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity
• An analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities • An assessment of contributing factors
• An identification of fair housing goals and actions.1 The analysis identified patterns of racial and economic segregation between the neighborhoods in northern Fullerton and southern Fullerton, as well as concerns over displacement, fair housing enforcement, and access to public transportation and resources. This chapter identified actions to address these issues such as promoting integration and development in areas with high resources and tools to combat displacement and discrimination.

E.1.1 Approach to Analysis
This AFFH analysis has been prepared consistent with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements which provides guidance on the preparation of housing elements and ensures statutory requirements are satisfied, pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(c)(10). 1 Housing and Community Development (HCD). 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/index.shtml H-E-2 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
This AFFH analysis evaluates fair housing issues on the following topics:
• Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
• Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
• Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty • Disparities in Access to Opportunity
• Disproportionate Housing Needs
• Other Relevant Factors, including historical disinvestment, lack of infrastructure improvements, and presence of older affordable housing units that may be at risk of conversion to market-rate housing.

For the purposes of this analysis, the city is divided into 33 neighborhoods (Figure E-1). These neighborhoods are based on the Census block group delineations, as well as local knowledge from City staff. Most of the geographic analysis of fair housing issues in Fullerton is based on the HCD AFFH Data Viewer. The Data Viewer relies on information provided by the Census and other data sources at the census tract and block group level. This AFFH addresses impediments through AFFH-specific goals, and actions based on the contributing factors for each identified fair housing issue.

For reference, the E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd neighborhood is comprised of entirely commercial and industrial uses and does not contain any residential units. However, several sites within this neighborhood have been identified for the Housing Incentive Overlay Zone (HIOZ), which requires a set aside for affordable housing in exchange for increased density. Additionally, the neighborhood of California State University Fullerton (CSUF) is the location of the California State University Fullerton campus, which is adjoining E Chapman Ave/State College Blvd. The large number of students in this area likely factors in the data provided for this neighborhood.

E.1.2 Fair Housing Methodology
The California Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(ii) requires Cities and Counties to analyze areas of segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk.

To conduct this analysis, the City utilized data from a variety of sources, including:
• The HCD AFFH Data Viewer
• Urban Displacement Project (UDP)
• U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) • CalEnviroScreen
• California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)
• County of Orange 2020 – 2024 Five-Year Housing and Community Development Plan (Consolidated Plan)
• The Regional Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice for FY 2020-25 for Orange County • Comprehensive House Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
• US Census American Community Survey (ACS)
Additionally, the analysis includes a discussion of historic land use and segregation patterns and input from sources of local knowledge, including advocates for people with special needs, housing development and advocacy organizations, housing and social services providers, and low-income residents.

Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-3
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-1 Fullerton Neighborhoods
H-E-4 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
E.1.3 Housing and Community Development’s AFFH Viewer
The AFFH Data Viewer is a tool developed by HCD that features census block group and tract level data from an expansive collection of sources including ACS, HUD, TCAC, UDP, and CHAS. The Data Viewer tool serves as a resource for local and regional governments and provides the ability to explore spatial data patterns concerning fair housing enforcement, segregation and integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, and disparities in access to opportunities and housing. The Data Viewer is intended to assist in the creation of policies that alleviate disparities, combat discrimination, and increase access to safe and affordable homes.

E.1.4 Urban Displacement Project (UDP)
The UDP was developed to track neighborhood change and identify areas that are vulnerable to gentrification and displacement in California. Indicators of gentrification and displacement are measured at the census tract level based on data from the 2015 ACS. UDP indicators examine census tracts to identify areas that qualify as disadvantaged neighborhoods. Additionally, census tracts identified as disadvantaged neighborhoods by UDP’s criteria are further analyzed to explore changes in the percentage of college educated residents, white, non-Hispanic population, median household income, and median gross rents over time to determine levels of gentrification and displacement risk.

E.1.5 CalEnviroScreen
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment developed a screening methodology to identify communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. This tool, called the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen), utilizes existing environmental, health, and socioeconomic data to rank census tracts based on 20 distinct indicators. In general, if a community has a high score for that indicator, it is more likely to have greater degree of pollution burden and a higher rate of residents vulnerable to the effects of that pollution exposure as compared to census tracts statewide. Designated disadvantaged communities are those with CalEnviroScreen percentile scores of 75 or higher, meaning that they scored within the highest 25 percent of census tracts for pollution and other social and economic burden indicators across California.

E.1.6 California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) To assist fair housing analysis, HCD and the TCAC created the California Fair Housing Task Force to provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals.2 The California Fair Housing Task Force created Opportunity Maps to identify resource levels across the state to accompany new policies aimed at increasing access to high opportunity areas for families with children. Opportunity mapping is a way to measure and visualize place-based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes, such as educational attainment, earnings from employment, and economic mobility.2 Opportunity Maps reflect composite scores of three different domains made up from a set of indicator data shown in Table E-1. 2 Office of The State Treasurer (STO). 2021. https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity/2020-tcac-hcd-methodology.pdf Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-5
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Table E-1 Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic Poverty, Adult Education, employment, Job proximity, median home value Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution indicators and values Education Math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, student poverty rates Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2020 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020 E.1.7 2020-2024 Five-Year Housing and Community Development Strategic Plan for Orange County (Consolidated Plan)
The HUD Consolidated Plan is used by the federal government, states, and local jurisdictions to assess affordable housing and community development needs and is a required document for jurisdictions to be eligible for federal HUD grant programs. Orange County is required to submit a federally mandated Consolidated Plan every five years and submit an Annual Action Plan in order to receive its annual Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement grant. The Consolidated Plan assesses Orange County’s affordable housing and community development needs through a housing market analysis; articulating priorities, goals, and strategies to address identified needs; and describing the actions that need to be taken to implement strategies for housing and community development including public services and city infrastructure. Orange County’s Consolidated Plan comprises of four priority needs:

Affordable Housing Needs, Quality of life, Public Services, and Planning and Administration. The Consolidated Plan was approved on June 23, 2020. As identified by HUD, Fullerton received $1,312,305 in CDBG funds and $576,341 in Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) funds. These amounts represent the approximate annual allocation that the City of Fullerton receives for general administration, community development, and affordable housing development.

E.1.8 2020 Orange County Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) As part of the CDBG program certification process and prior to HUD’s reinstatement of the AFFH standards in 2020, participating jurisdictions prepared an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice every five years. The Orange County Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) was a countywide effort to pool resources and combine efforts to identify discrimination and increase fair housing choices for residents across the county. It was produced in collaboration by Orange County jurisdictions, including the City of Fullerton. The AI addresses fair housing issues on both a countywide level and in each jurisdiction.

The AI provides an assessment of the regional laws, ordinances, statutes, and administrative policies, as well as local conditions that affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing. It also analyzes the conditions in the private market and public sector that may limit the range of housing choices or impede a person’s access to housing and provides solutions and measures to mitigate or remove identified impediments.

E.1.9 HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data Each year, HUD receives custom tabulations of ACS data from the U.S. Census Bureau. This data, known as the "CHAS" data (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy), demonstrates the extent of housing problems and housing needs, particularly for low-income households. CHAS data is estimated by the number of households that have certain housing problems and have income low enough to qualify for HUD’s programs (primarily 30, 50, and 80 percent of median income). It is also important to consider the H-E-6 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
prevalence of housing problems among different types of households, such as seniors, people with disabilities, minorities, and different household types.

E.1.10 AllTransit
AllTransit is an online database that details transit opportunities for communities. The website explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. The AllTransit performance score explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, such as connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service.

E.2 Analysis of Impediments Findings
The AI provides a demographic profile of Orange County, assesses the extent of housing needs among specific income groups, and evaluates the availability of a range of housing choices for residents. The AI addresses disparities in housing needs, existing patterns of segregation and racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) and contributing factors to fair housing impediments.

Regional Trends
The AI identifies the following impediments to fair housing in Orange County:
• Residential segregation between white residents and non-white residents has increased between 2010 and 2020.
• Supply of affordable housing is insufficient to meet the county’s housing needs. • Affordable housing and accessible housing for people with disabilities is concentrated in the central and northern portions of the county, particularly in the cities of Anaheim, Garden Grove, Irvine, and Santa Ana.
• White, non-Hispanic residents exhibit the highest exposure to educational opportunity and nonHispanic Asians as the second-highest. Hispanics have the lowest access to these opportunities, with Black, non-Hispanic residents in between.
• White, non-Hispanic residents exhibit the highest access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods. All other racial/ethnic groups obtain lower environmental health access scores: Hispanic resident score lowest, followed by Black, non-Hispanic residents, Asian/Pacific Islander non-Hispanic residents, and Native American, non-Hispanic residents.
• There are significant disparities in economic opportunity scores across racial/ethnic groups. White, non-Hispanic residents have the greatest access to economic opportunity. Asian and Pacific Islander residents, Native Americans, and Black residents have lower economic opportunity scores. Hispanic residents have the lowest access to economic opportunity of all racial and ethnic groups in Orange County.
• Areas with high access to opportunity tend to have predominant populations of white and Asian, nonHispanic residents. Areas with low access to opportunity tend to have higher percentages of Black and Hispanic residents.
• Black and Hispanic residents are more likely to have at least one housing problem, which includes overcrowding, severe overcrowding, cost burden, and severe cost burden. White and Asian and Pacific Islander residents have slightly lower rates of housing problems.

Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-7
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
• No public housing is located in the county in the broader Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, which includes Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura Counties, public housing is concentrated in the cities of Long Beach and Los Angeles, particularly in South East Los Angeles.
• Communities with higher concentrations of persons with disabilities are more likely to be areas that are also more racially and ethnically diverse such as the northern portion of the county, than they are in the less diverse southern portion of the county.
• Overcrowding in Orange County is very high, with 9.5 percent of all households being overcrowded, compared to the state average of 8.2 percent. The rate of overcrowding is highest among Hispanic households.
• Community opposition to affordable housing is prevalent throughout Orange County. • White mortgage applicants are more likely to have their loan applications result in originated loans.

White and Asian borrowers are least likely to be given a high-cost loan. Meanwhile, Black residents are nearly twice as likely to receive subprime loans than white, non-Hispanic residents and Hispanic residents are nearly 2.5 times more likely.

Concentrations of Lower- and Moderate-Income Earning Populations HUD defines a Lower and Moderate Income (LMI) area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population earn an income that is considered lower or moderate relative to the area median income (AMI). For Orange County, the AMI is $ 127,800 for a household of four residents. In Fullerton, households with low and moderate incomes are concentrated in the southern portion of the city.

Language Barriers
A language barrier can be an impediment to accessing housing. Those who do not speak English may face discrimination, communication challenges while trying to obtain housing, and barriers to accessing services and information. According to the AI, 20 percent of city residents aged five and older in Fullerton had Limited English Proficiency (LEP), with Spanish being the most commonly spoken language other than English, followed by Korean, Chinese, and Vietnamese. This is comparable to the LEP percentage in Orange County (21 percent).

Lending by Race/Ethnicity
The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination when obtaining a mortgage. However, in Fullerton the lending pool is not representative of the demographics of a community and disparities in loan approvals are an impediment to fair housing.

Limiting Community Opposition
Communities play a significant role in the development of housing in the city. According to the AI, opposition towards multifamily housing and housing for the homeless and affordable housing contributes to disproportionate housing needs in Fullerton and Orange County.

H-E-8 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
E.3 Fair Housing Resources
E.3.1 Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity is the ability of a local jurisdiction and fair housing agencies to provide fair housing and tenants’ rights information to community members. Enforcement and outreach capacity also includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, resolving issues, and conducting fair housing testing.

Regional Resources
Orange County contracts with The Fair Housing Council of Orange County (FHCOC), a private non-profit fair housing group, to administer a wide variety of fair housing services to residents of Orange County, including residents in Fullerton.

The FHCOC provides the following services to Orange County residents:
• Serving as a fair housing resource for the region, including implementation of an affirmative fair housing marketing plan, testing, and complaint verification • Responding to all citizen complaints regarding violation of fair housing laws • Providing tenant-landlord counseling to all inquiring citizens • Promoting community awareness of tenant-landlord rights and responsibilities • Reporting monthly on complaint processing
• Providing fair housing education to residents, County staff, community organizations, agencies, and service providers
• Increasing the supply of affordable housing in high opportunity areas • Preventing displacement of low- and moderate-income residents, seniors, and people with disabilities • Increasing community integration for persons with disabilities • Ensuring equal access to housing for persons with protected characteristics who are disproportionately likely to be lower-income and to experience homelessness • Expanding access to opportunities for protected classes During the 2015-2019 reporting period, the FHCOC staff received 363 allegations of housing discrimination and opened 179 cases where the allegations seemed sufficiently meritorious to warrant further investigation and/or action. FHCOC also conducted 362 systemic onsite tests, 51 tests occurring in the jurisdiction, and 215 other testing activities. FHCOC held 32 training sessions for rental property owners/managers and presented 16 fair housing seminars and 70 general fair housing workshops. On a regional basis, activities provided by FHCOC included assisting 7,664 unduplicated households addressing 24,766 issues, disputes and/or inquiries.

The FHCOC ensures that the City’s fair housing practices are consistent with State law and that residents have the tools and resources they need to address fair housing issues appropriately. The City relies on the FHCOC to track, monitor, and investigate fair housing cases as well as hold training sessions for property owners/managers.

Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-9
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
In addition to the FHCOC, there are several agencies that have historically provided fair housing services in Orange County, listed in Table E-2. These organizations and provide the following services:
• Fair housing testing and complaints
• Fair housing counseling and education
• Tenant/landlord counseling and mediation
• Homeless prevention program
• Rental assistance program
• Rent/deposit grant program
• Home-seeking services
• Shared housing counseling placement
• Homebuyers’ education learning program
Table E-2 Fair Housing Service Providers Active in Orange County Organization1 Website Phone Number
Lutheran Social Services of Southern California https://www.lsssc.org/ (714) 685-1800 Korean Resource Center https://www.krcla.org/ (714) 869-7624 GreenPath Financial Wellness https://greenpath.com/ (833)344-0606 Neighborworks Orange County https://nwoc.org/ (714) 490-1250 Homeownership OC https://www.homeownershipoc.org/ (714) 204-2314 Fair Housing Council of Orange County https://www.fairhousingoc.org/ (714) 569-0823 Orange County Community Housing Corporation https://www.occhc.org/ (714) 558-8161 Habitat for Humanity of Greater Los Angeles https://www.habitatla.org/ (310) 323-4663 Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Maryland and
Delaware, Inc.
https://cccsmd.org/ (800) 642-2227
Fair Housing Foundation https://fhfca.org/ (800) 446-3247 Source: HUD Exchange Housing Counseling Agency search tool Local Resources
The City of Fullerton maintains a contract with the non-profit organization Fair Housing Foundation (FHF), a regional non-profit fair housing agency. FHF assists residents with fair housing counseling services, counseling for landlords and tenants, rental housing counseling, provides education and outreach. In addition, FHF screens fair housing complaints, investigates through testing, and will engage in conciliation or mediation efforts or refer the complaints to the appropriate administrative agencies where appropriate.

The City allocates CDBG funds to FHF's fair housing services with the goal of assisting residents and landlords by providing fair housing counseling and education.

H-E-10 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Compliance with Existing Fair Housing Laws
The City of Fullerton is subject to state and federal laws related to fair housing. These laws include the following:
• California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2)
• FEHA Regulations (California Code of Regulations (CCR), title 2, sections 12005-12271) • Government Code section 65008 covers actions of a city, county, city and county, or other local government agency, and makes those actions null and void if the action denies an individual or group of individuals the enjoyment of residence, landownership, tenancy, or other land use in the state because of membership in a protected class, the method of financing, and/or the intended occupancy. o For example, a violation under Government Code section 65008 may occur if a jurisdiction applied more scrutiny to reviewing and approving an affordable development as compared to market-rate developments, or multifamily housing as compared to single family homes. o Government Code section 65008, subdivision (e), authorizes preferential treatment of affordable housing
• Government Code §8899.50 requires all public agencies to administer programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing and avoid any action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. • Government Code §11135 et seq. requires full and equal access to all programs and activities operated, administered, or funded with financial assistance from the state, regardless of one’s membership or perceived membership in a protected class.
• Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, §65915.)
• Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, § 65589.5.)
• No-Net-Loss Law (Gov. Code, § 65863)
• Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov. Code, § 65913.1)
• Excessive subdivision standards (Gov. Code, § 65913.2.) • Limits on growth controls (Gov. Code, § 65302.8.)
• Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65583, esp. subds. (c)(5), (c)(10).) The City of Fullerton complies with these laws through the City’s daily operations. The City complies with the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), prohibiting discrimination based on marital status, ancestry, source of income, sexual orientation, and arbitrary discrimination in addition to the groups protected under federal fair housing legislation. The City does not have local ordinances that relate to fair housing.

E.4 Ability to Address Complaints
Initiated by the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division in 1991, fair housing testing is a technique used to uncover evidence of discrimination in rental housing. Fair housing testing involves one or more individuals who pose as prospective renters for the purpose of determining whether a landlord is complying with local, State, and federal fair housing laws. Enforcement actions may be taken when Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-11
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
investigations yield evidence of a pattern or practice of illegal housing discrimination. Testing may be initiated following the filing of a specific housing discrimination complaint or, as is the case when testing for discrimination against a specific class, as part of an overall effort to determine whether the discrimination is happening in a consistent systemic pattern in a city or region. In Orange County, fair housing testing is used to identify unlawful housing discrimination practices based on the real or perceived race, ethnicity, color, religion, gender identity or expression, national origin, disability, familial status, marital status, age, ancestry, sexual orientation, and source of income of prospective renters.

FHF Housing is funded to provide the full range of fair housing enforcement services to local renters and conducts fair housing testing of rental properties to assess how well rental properties conform to fair housing laws. In cases when evidence of deferential treatment is found, the property owners and managers are encouraged to attend fair housing workshops, which provide training and educational resources aimed at ending fair housing discrimination. Between 2015 and 2020, a total of 1,128 individuals participated in fair housing workshops, trainings, or counseling hosted by FHF.

HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO). Based on data provided by HUD, 30 FHEO inquiries were reported in Fullerton between 2013 and 2021. These inquiries are not considered official cases; however, they indicate a potential basis for discrimination in the city. Four of these inquiries were based on disability, and the remainder did not provide a basis.

E.5 Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
To inform priorities, policies, and actions, the housing element must include an analysis of integration and segregation, including patterns and trends. Integration generally means a condition in which there is not a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability in a specific geographic area. Segregation generally means the opposite condition, in which there is a high concentration of the characteristics described above in a specific geographic area. To adequately assess the patterns of integration and segregation, this section identifies trends at the regional scale (Orange County and the broader Southern California region) and at the local scale (City of Fullerton). To identify socio-economic and demographic spatial trends across these jurisdictions, this analysis utilizes HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer, which provides an expansive collection of data from sources including the 2015-2019 ACS, HCD, HUD, UDP, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and other regional and federal agencies. In its AFFH guidance document published in April 2021, HCD describes the importance of segregation and integration analysis in relation to fair housing:

Residential segregation and exclusion, whether by race, ethnicity, disability, or income, is a result of numerous housing policies, practices, and procedures—both public and private—that have had enduring and pervasive negative impacts. Overt and covert housing discrimination through land use policy, shifting housing markets, and patterns of investment and disinvestment, have restricted meaningful fair housing choice and equitable access to opportunity, particularly for communities of color. Historic patterns of segregation persist in California despite the long-standing federal mandate, established by the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (FHA), that federal agencies and federal grantees affirmatively further the purposes of the FHA.

Past and present discriminatory policies and practices, including long-term disinvestment, have resulted in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty and poor housing stock, limited access to opportunity, unsafe environmental conditions, underfunded schools, dilapidated infrastructure, and other disproportionately experienced problems. In addition, governmental policies have subsidized the development of segregated, high-resourced suburbs in metropolitan areas by constructing new highway systems—often through lower income communities of color— to ensure access to job opportunities in urban centers. This physical and H-E-12 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
policy infrastructure supports patterns of discrimination and high levels of segregation that continue to persist in California and across the country. All of these conditions persist despite the over 50-year-old obligation to prohibit discrimination and affirmatively further fair housing.3 E.5.1 Race and Ethnicity
The ethnic and racial composition of a region relates to fair housing concerns such as household size, locational preferences, and economic opportunity. Historic exclusionary governmental policies, biased mortgage lending practices, and other tactics have caused racial and ethnic segregation and spatial inequities.

Regional Trends
Regionally, the northern and central areas of Orange County, including the Cities of Buena Park, Santa Ana, and Westminster contain populations with the highest percentage of non-white residents. These areas have at least 80 percent of non-white residents, as shown in Figure E-2. Comparatively, the western and southeastern areas of Orange County have higher percentages of white alone populations, particularly near the less urbanized areas of the county and along the coast, which contain areas with 80 percent or more white residents. Orange County has the one of the lowest percentage of people of color in the SCAG region, second only to Ventura County. However, a large portion of the unurbanized areas of the county are designated a Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP), or national forest lands. The Cleveland National Forest makes up the majority of the southeastern corner of the county. As a result, little to no permanent housing exists in these areas.

HUD utilizes the racial/ethnic dissimilarity index to measure segregation levels across a defined geographic boundary. The racial/ethnic dissimilarity index ranges from 0-100, where 0 represents perfect integration between racial groups and 100 representing perfect segregation. 4 According to the AI, Orange County
experiences moderate levels of segregation, with significant variances in some individual jurisdictions. The Non-White/White value is 44.71, Black/White 46.98, Hispanic/White 52.82, and Asian or Pacific Islander/White is 43.19. Areas in central Orange County, particularly the cities of Orange, Santa Ana, and Tustin, have the highest Dissimilarity Index values for their populations. Black and Hispanic residents are particularly segregated in these jurisdictions. Racial/ethnic segregation has increased significantly since 2010.
3 HCD 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 4HUD, 2020. https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/AFFH-T-Data-Documentation-AFFHT0006-July-2020.pdf Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-13
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-2 Percentage Total Non-White Population (Orange County) Source: AFFH Viewer
H-E-14 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Local Trends
According to the 2020 Census, Hispanic/Latino residents comprised the largest racial/ethnic group in Fullerton, followed closely by White residents. Table E-3 shows the population by racial category for Fullerton in 2010 and 2020 and compares the 2020 population to the composition of the SCAG region in 2020.

Fullerton’s racial composition has a higher percentage of white, non-Hispanic, Asian American/Pacific Islander, and “Other or Multiple Races” than the Southern California region, and a lower percentage of residents who identified as Hispanic and Black/African American. Generally, Fullerton’s population has become more diverse during the past decade. However, as shown in Figure E-3, there are several neighborhoods scattered throughout the city that have low-medium levels of segregation and several neighborhoods with high segregation. The neighborhoods of high POC segregation include Emery Park, Amerige Heights, La Habra South, Sunny Hills, E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd, and Acacia Park. These neighborhoods are predominantly Asian and are concentrated in the northeastern portion of the city. The neighborhood of Byerrum Park, located in the center of the city, has high white segregation. Areas with low-medium levels of segregation are Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St, Valencia Park, Gilbert Park, Independence Park, Woodcrest Park, Santa Fe District/SoCo, Rancho La Paz, The Fox Block, Brea West, Craig Park, and Artisan Walk.

Table E-3 Population by Racial Group, City of Fullerton and the Southern California Region

Fullerton
(Percent of Population)
Southern California Region
(Percent of Population)
Race 2010 2020 2020
Hispanic/Latino 34.4 37.7 46.7
White 53.8 37 30.3
Black/African American 2.3 2.2 6.2
Asian American/Pacific Islander 22.7 26.9 13.5
Other or Multiple Races 20.1 33 3.1
Source: US Census, 2020. Census State Redistricting Data, Table P1 and P2; SCAG. Racial Equity Baseline Conditions Report. 2022. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/2022racialequitybaselineconditionsreport_final.pdf According to the most recent HUD data, Fullerton has higher levels of racial integration than segregation levels than the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim region (as defined by HUD), and the state overall. The racial/ethnic dissimilarity index ranges from 0-100, where 0 represents perfect integration between racial groups and 100 representing perfect segregation. Over the past three decades, the racial/ethnic segregation index score in Fullerton fluctuated, with slight increases and decreases (Table E-4). Since 2010, segregation between non-White/White residents and Black/White residents increased, and segregation between Asian American/Pacific Islander and Hispanic/Latino/White residents decreased. Although racial/ethnic segregation has increased in the city, segregation levels between all groups remain low compared to the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim region.

Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-15
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Table E-4 Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation (Fullerton and Los Angeles-Long BeachAnaheim Region) Fullerton Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Region
Race 1990 2000 2010 Current 1990 2000 2010 Current
Non-White/White 25.53 31.16 30.52 34.31 55.32 55.50 54.64 56.94 Black/White 30.60 31.84 26.53 38.26 72.75 68.12 65.22 68.85 Hispanic or Latino/White 33.72 39.98 38.28 35.48 60.12 62.44 62.15 63.49 Asian or Pacific
Islander/White

30.41 33.48 35.24 31.01 43.46 46.02 45.77 49.78
Source: HUD, 2023, Table 3 – Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends Figure E-5 shows the predominance of white, Hispanic/Latino, and Asian American/Pacific Islander populations in the city. The southern portion of the city has a sizable or predominant proportion of Hispanic/Latino residents, particularly the neighborhoods of Woodcrest Park and Rancho La Paz. The AFFH Data Viewer also shows the neighborhood of E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd in northern Fullerton as also having a predominant proportion of Hispanic Latino residents; however, this data is based on the residential units within the neighboring cities of La Habra and Brea. The portion of this census tract located within the City of Fullerton is comprised of entirely commercial and industrial uses and does not contain any residential units. The western section of the city, particularly in Emery Park, has a predominant Asian American/Pacific Islander population. The central and northern portions of the city have a sizable white majority population.

Areas with higher percentages of non-white residents are primarily located on the outer edges of the city, particularly within the south and western portions of the city (Figure E-4). These are also the densest areas of the city, with smaller lot sizes and more commercially zoned areas. Neighborhoods in northeastern and central Fullerton has higher percentages of white, non-Hispanic populations compared to other areas of the city. The northeastern and central portions of the city are less dense than the southern area of the city and contain several golf courses and the Robert E. Ward Nature Preserve, which does not contain any housing.

H-E-16 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-3 Neighborhood Segregation (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-17
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-4 Percent of Total Non-White Population (Fullerton) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022.

H-E-18 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-5 Predominant Populations (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-19
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
E.5.2 Persons with Disabilities
For persons with disabilities, fair housing choice and access to opportunity include access to accessible housing and housing in the most integrated setting appropriate to an individual’s needs as required under federal civil rights law, including equitably provided disability-related services that an individual needs to live in such housing. For example, persons with disabilities who are unable to use stairs or need a zero-step shower may not have actual housing choice if there are not sufficient housing units with these accessibility features.5
High spatial segregation of persons with disabilities may indicate fair housing issues related to not only physical needs, but also economic disparities. According to the 2020 Annual Report on People with Disabilities in America, more than 25 percent of persons with disabilities (including physical, intellectual, and developmental; sensory; and other disability categories) live below the Census Bureau-designated poverty line, which is 14.5 percentage points higher than people without a disability.6 Persons with disabilities may be more reliant than persons without disabilities on fixed incomes or access to public transit.

Regional Trends
According to 2021 ACS estimates, 276,827 Orange County residents had one or more disabilities, or 8.8 percent of the total population. Figure E-7 shows the percentage of the population living with one or more disabilities throughout Orange County. The northwestern area of the county and the urban centers of cities had higher concentrations of persons living with one or more disabilities than other areas of the county.

Local Trends
Approximately 13,617 residents (nearly 10 percent) of Fullerton’s population live with one or more disabilities. According to 2021 ACS estimates shown in Figure E-6, independent living difficulty was the most common disability reported by Fullerton residents. 5 HCD, 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 6 Annual Disability Statistics Compendium, 2020. https://disabilitycompendium.org/annualreport H-E-20 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-6 Disability by Type (Fullerton)
Notes: These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates (2021), Table S1810 Figure E-8 shows the percentage of the population living with one or more disabilities in the city by census tract. The percentage of residents reporting living with one or more disability ranged between zero and 20 percent. The neighborhoods in the city where disability ranged between 10 to 20 percent include Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St, Valencia Park, Gilbert Park, W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, S Woods Ave/W Orangethorpe Ave, Sunny Hills, E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd, Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isle Dr, Byerrum Park, Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl. These neighborhoods are scattered throughout the city. The remainder of the city has less than 10 percent of residents reporting a disability. The neighborhood with the highest percentage of residents reporting a disability is S Woods Ave/W Orangethorpe Ave, located south of Valencia Drive and north of State Route 91, between Euclid Avenue and Richmond Avenue. This area is primarily comprised of low-density residential uses.

2.4%

1.6%

4.1% 4.0%

2.4%

5.0%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%
With a hearing
difficulty
With a vision
difficulty
With a cognitive
difficulty
With an
ambulatory
difficulty
With a self-care
difficulty
With an
independent living
difficulty
Percentage of Adult Population Reporting Disability
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-21
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-7 Percent of Population with a Disability (OrangeCounty) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
H-E-22 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-8 Percentage of Population with One or More Disabilities (Fullerton) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-23
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
E.5.3 Familial Status
Familial status refers to the presence of children under the age of 18 and the martial status of the head of the household. Families with children may face housing discrimination by landlords who fear that children will cause property damage. Examples of differential treatment include limiting the number of children in an apartment complex or confining households with children to a specific location are potentially discriminatory. Single parent households are protected by fair housing law. A 2016 HUD study studied the effects of housing discrimination based on familial status. The study found that landlords presented households with children fewer housing options, and the units shown were generally larger, and as a result, slightly more expensive to rent.7 Additionally, female-headed households with children require special consideration and assistance because of generally greater needs for affordable housing and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services.

Regional Trends
Orange County had 1,057,592 households in 2021. According to 2017-2021 ACS estimates, households with children present comprise 23 percent of the total households in Orange County. Tenure by household type and presence of children is shown in Table E-5. Married couple families with children comprise the largest share of owner- and renter-occupied households with children. Single-parent, female-headed households comprised approximately eight percent of renter-occupied households, but only two percent of owner-occupied households.

Table E-5 Tenure by Household Type and Presence of Children (Orange County) Household Type
OwnerOccupied
Percent of
Total OwnerOccupied RenterOccupied
Percent of
Total RenterOccupied
Married Couple Family, with Children Present 146,405 24.3% 97,736 21.5% Single-Parent, Male Householder, no Spouse Present 6,933 4.3% 14,628 3.2% Single Parent, Female Householder, No Spouse Present 13,116 2.1% 37,771 8.2% Total Households with Children Present 166,454 27.6% 80,831 17.8% Total Households 602,440 100% 455,152 100%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, ACS Table B25115 Tenure by Household Type (Including Living Alone) and Age of Householder, 2017-2021 Estimates.

The majority of Orange County has a relatively low percentage of households characterized as femaleheaded, single-parent households, as shown in Figure E-9. There are small pockets with higher proportion of households with children who reside in female-headed, single-parent households, such as portions of the cities of Laguna Woods, Newport Beach, Irvine, and Orange. The urban areas in the northwest portion of the county tend to have higher proportions of female headed households than the southeastern part of the county. The patterns amongst married couple households with children are very similar, as shown in Figure E-10.The urban areas in the northwest portion of the county tend to have lower proportions of married couples with children under 18 than the southeastern part of the county. 7 HUD. 2016. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/HDSFamiliesFinalReport.pdf.

H-E-24 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Local Trends
According to 2017-2021 ACS estimates, households with children present comprised 30 percent of the total number of households in Fullerton, which was higher than the county. An overview of household tenure by type for households with children present is provided in Table E-6. Similar to regional trends, married-couple families in Fullerton comprised the largest share of households with children present, and married-couple families were more likely to own than rent. Single-parent, female-headed households comprised nine percent of renter-occupied households and only one percent of owner-occupied households. The homeownership rate for single-family, female-headed households is slightly lower in Fullerton (1.2 percent) than the county (2.1 percent).

Table E-6 Tenure by Household Type and Presence of Children (Fullerton) Household Type
OwnerOccupied
Percent of
Total OwnerOccupied RenterOccupied
Percent of
Total RenterOccupied
Married couple family, with Children Present 6,060 24.6% 4,447 20.4% Single-Parent, Male householder, no spouse present 350 1.4% 950 4.4% Single-Parent, Female householder, no spouse present 297 1.2% 1,849 8.5% Total Households with Children Present 6,707 27.2% 7,246 33.2% Total Households 24,629 100% 21,805 100%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, ACS Table B25115 Tenure By Household Type (Including Living Alone) and Age of Householder, 2017-2021 Estimates.

Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-25
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-9 Female-Headed Households with Children Present, No Spouse/Partner Present (Orange County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
H-E-26 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-10 Children in Married-Couple Households (Orange County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021.

Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-27
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-11 shows the percentage of children residing in single-parent, female-headed households in Fullerton, which ranges from less than 20 percent to less than 40 percent. The neighborhoods that have a higher percentage of children residing in single-parent, female-headed households compared to the rest of the city include La Habra Southeast, Independence Park, W Valencia Dr/Courtney Ave, California State University Fullerton, and Bradford Park. These neighborhoods are scattered throughout the city. However, none of the neighborhoods in Fullerton have an extremely high percentage of single, female-headed households.

Figure E-12 shows the percentage of children in married-couple households across Fullerton. Most census tracts in the city had over 60 percent of children living in married-couple households, according to 2015- 2019 ACS estimates. Several of the areas that have the highest percentage of married couple households overlap with the areas with a predominant white, non-Hispanic or Asian American population. These include the neighborhood of West Coyote Hills, Emery Park, Amerige Heights, Sunny Hills, The Fox Block, Acacia Park, Brea West, Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, and Craig Park. Additionally, the neighborhoods of Gilbert Park, W Oak Ave/Lambert Dr, and Nicolas Park have a high percentage of married couple households with children. The area with the lowest percentage of married-couple households with children is the neighborhood of Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St.

Neighborhoods that have lower rates of children in married-couple households are more likely to contain higher density residential development, smaller lot sizes, and industrial and commercial land uses compared to neighborhoods with higher rates of children in married-couple households.

H-E-28 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-11 Female-Headed Households with Children Present, No Spouse/Partner Present (Fullerton) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-29
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-12 Children in Married-Couple Households (Fullerton) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
H-E-30 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
E.5.4 Household Income
Household income is directly connected to the ability to afford housing. Higher-income households are more likely to own rather than rent housing. As household income decreases, households tend to pay a disproportionate amount of their income for housing and the number of persons occupying unsound and overcrowded housing increases. To achieve fair housing objectives, people in low-income households must have actual choice in housing opportunities, that is, when they are able to locate units that are affordable and well maintained in all parts of a jurisdiction and region.

This section identifies household income disparities using data based on median household income and low or moderate income (LMI) geographies. HUD defines an LMI area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI. The definition of low or moderate income is based on HUD income definitions of up to 80 percent of the AMI.

Regional Trends
According to 2021 ACS estimates, Orange County has a median household income of $100,559, which is much higher than the SCAG regional income of $77,430 Figure E-13 displays median household income by block group for Orange County using 2015-2019 ACS estimates. However, there are some gaps in data across the county (as shown in white), which may skew the median income ranges within the county.

Median household income tends to be higher in communities located in southwest Orange County.

Generally, households in the urban core of cities, such as Santa Ana, Westminster, Placentia, and Anaheim have a lower income than rural or suburban areas. Communities with the lowest median household incomes are concentrated in the urban areas in the northwest portion of the county.

LMI populations by census tract for Orange County are displayed in Figure E-14. Census tracts within the cities of Santa Ana, Fullerton, and Anaheim contain the highest percent of LMI populations in Orange County. LMI populations are in communities with a relatively greater percentage of children living in singleparent, female-headed households (Figure E-9) and a greater percentage of non-white populations (Figure E-11).

Local Trends
Geographically, median household income varies throughout Fullerton. According to 2021 ACS estimates, Fullerton has a median household income of $95,431, which is approximately five percent lower than the median income for Orange County but 19 percent higher than the SCAG region’s median income of $77,430. Fullerton’s median income is slightly lower to other cities in northern Orange County, such as Buena Park, Orange City, and Brea ($101,346, $103,045, and $108,721 respectively) Figure E-15 provides an overview of median household income by block group in the city. The lowest median household income areas are in the southern portion of the city. The block group with the lowest median household income is the location of California State University Fullerton. It is likely that the prevalence of students in this neighborhood lowers the median household income.

In contrast, the neighborhoods of West Coyote Hills, Amergie Heights, Sunny Hills, E Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr, Craig Park, The Fox Block, Byerrum Park, and Acacia Park neighborhoods in the central and northern areas of Fullerton have higher median household incomes. These areas also have predominant Asian and White, non-Hispanic residents, as shown in Figure E-16. The neighborhood with the highest median income is Sunny Hills with a median income of $184,018.

Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-31
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
LMI populations in Fullerton are concentrated in the southern portion of the city, as shown in Figure E-17.

The Rancho La Paz, Woodcrest Park, and Valencia Park neighborhoods had a higher percentage of LMI populations (between 75 and 100 percent of the population). In contrast, neighborhoods in the center and northern portion of the city tend to have lower percentages of LMI populations. West Coyote Hills, Acacia Park, Byerrum Park, and Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl have the lowest percentage of LMI populations (less than 25 percent of the population). Neighborhoods with higher rates of LMI populations tend to overlap with areas of the city that have predominantly Hispanic/Latino populations.

Poverty rates in Fullerton have shifted slightly over time. Poverty rates increased from 12 percent in 2019 to 13 percent in 2021. This is on par with the poverty rates in the larger Southern California region (13 percent). Figure E-18 displays the percentage of the population earned an income that was below the poverty line.

H-E-32 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-13 Median Household Income (Orange County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-33
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-14 Low and Moderate Income Population (Orange County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
H-E-34 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-15 Median Household Income (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-35
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-16 Median Household Income and predominant Racial/Ethnic Population (Fullerton) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
H-E-36 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-17 Low to Moderate Income Population (Fullerton) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-37
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-18 Poverty Status (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
H-E-38 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Table E-7 displays income level by household type. According to 2017-2021 ACS data, married-couple families within Fullerton have significantly higher incomes than nonfamily households, which consist of people who live alone or share a residence with unrelated individuals. Given the location of California State University Fullerton, many of the nonfamily households within Fullerton may be comprised of students, which may impact the median incomes of that household category. Approximately 63 percent of married couple families make above $100,000 per year, compared to 25 percent of nonfamily households and 47 percent of total households.

Table E-7 Income Level by Household Type (Fullerton)
Income Level Total Households Married-Couple Families Nonfamily Households Less than $10,000 4.4% 0.9% 10.7%
$10,000 to $14,999 2.8% 1.0% 6.0%
$15,000 to $24,999 4.4% 1.9% 6.3%
$25,000 to $34,999 6.0% 4.1% 8.1%
$35,000 to $49,999 9.0% 6.5% 12.0%
$50,000 to $74,999 15.1% 11.9% 20.0%
$75,000 to $99,999 11.1% 10.3% 12.2%
$100,000 to $149,999 19.1% 22.5% 12.8%
$150,000 to $199,999 12.5% 17.3% 6.4%
$200,000 or more 15.6% 23.6% 5.4%
Median income $92,718 $129,862 $58,271
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, ACS Table S1901, Income in the Past 12 Months (Inflation-Adjusted Dollars), 2017-2021 Estimates E.5.5 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty To identify racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (known as R/ECAPs), HUD developed thresholds based on racial and ethnic concentration and income level. The threshold for racial and ethnic concentration is a non-white population of 50 percent or more in metropolitan or micropolitan areas. The income threshold is based on areas of “extreme poverty,” where 40 percent or more of households earn incomes at or below the federal poverty line, or where the poverty rate is three times the average poverty rate in the metropolitan area, whichever is less. An area that meets both thresholds for racial or ethnic concentration and “extreme poverty” is considered a R/ECAP.

E.5.6 Poverty and Segregation
Regional Trends
In Orange County, R/ECAPs are present in neighborhoods in the urban cities in the northern portion of the county, including in Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Anaheim, and Placentia. These areas are shown with hash marks in Figure E-19.

Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-39
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-19 Areas of High Segregation and Poverty (Orange County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
H-E-40 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Local Trends
While R/ECAPs were not identified within Fullerton, there are areas where lower household income and racial and ethnic concentration overlap. The neighborhoods of Woodcrest Park, California State University Fullerton, and Deepark Dr/Sherwood Ave had the highest poverty rates within the city. However, the high percentage of students surrounding CSUF likely affects at least some of this data. The southern portion of the city had higher percentage of the population below the poverty line than the northern portion of the city, with the majority of neighborhoods south and immediately north of Commonwealth Avenue having between 10 and 20 percent of the population below the poverty line. The neighborhood of Woodcrest Park has a poverty rate between 20 and 30 percent.

E.5.7 Concentrated Areas of Affluence
While R/ECAPs have long been the focus of fair housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must also be analyzed. RCAAs are defined as affluent, white communities.8 According to a policy paper published by HUD, white residents are the most racially segregated group in the United States typically more affluent than majority non-white communities. RCAAs have not been studied extensively, nor has a standard definition been adopted by HCD or HUD. Therefore, this assessment uses the percent white population and median household income as thresholds to identify potential RCAAs. In addition to having a higher median income, areas of affluence experience less overcrowding, less housing cost burden on renters, and are generally less susceptible to displacement compared to LMI areas, as described in Section 4.4, Household Income.

Regional Trends
The areas characterized as RCAAs in Orange County are shown in Figure E-20, which are concentrated in the southeastern portion of the county and along the coast, such as Laguna Beach, San Clemente, Newport Beach, and non-urbanized areas. Generally, cities with higher median incomes such as the Laguna Beach and San Clemente have relatively larger concentrations of white residents compared to jurisdictions with lower median incomes such as the cities of Anaheim, Santa Ana and Buena Park, as shown in Figure E-2 and Figure E-13.

Local Trends
Similar to trends occurring in Orange County, areas with higher median incomes are associated with a larger proportion of white residents compared to census tracts with lower median incomes.

Neighborhoods in the northeast corner of Fullerton had a predominately white population and the highest median income levels in the city, as shown in Figure E-21. In Fullerton, the neighborhoods of E Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr, Craig park, Sunny Hills, Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, Acacia Park, and Byerrum Park are defined as RCAAs.

Most RCAA designated neighborhoods in northeast Fullerton are comprised primarily of single-family homes. Less than 10 percent of structures are comprised of two or more units. This is much less than the neighborhoods in the southern half of the City, where between 20 and 35 percent of the housing stock is comprised of multifamily homes in most areas. Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, Acacia Park, and Byerrum Park neighborhoods have a lower percentage of older units than other neighborhoods in the city, with less 8 Goatz, Damanio and Williams, 2019. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/vol21num1/ch4.pdf Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-41
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
than 20 percent built before 1960. In the neighborhoods of E Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr and Craig Park, between 20 and 40 percent of units were built prior to 1960. This is much lower than the southern portion of the city, where between 40 and 80 percent of units were built prior to 1960. RCAAs in Fullerton have lower rates of overcrowding. Most residents in RCAAs do not have walkable access to High Quality Transit Stops.

A survey conducted in May 2024 to gather stakeholder input provided local knowledge on the patterns of RCAA designated neighborhoods in northeastern Fullerton. Five survey respondents indicated that RCAAs are characterized by large parcels, large single-family homes, greater setbacks, and hilly terrain. The large, single-family homes are affordable to higher-income residents who are typically well-educated professionals. The area also has abundant parkland and high performing schools. It was noted that RCAAs in Fullerton have minimal multifamily zoning and opportunities for diverse housing typologies, which limits opportunities for low or moderate-income households. It was also noted that while some residents in RCAAs may support constructing an ADU for a family member, they are generally opposed to additional density, citing infrastructure constraints. The lack of diverse housing opportunities in RCAAs has created and perpetuated racial and economic segregation within the city.

While most of the RCAAs are built out, the City has prioritized strategies to increase density and diversify housing types in these areas:
• Providing adequate sites for housing development, targeting higher density development in northeastern Fullerton (Policy Action 3.1)
• Facilitating infill development in high resource areas, particularly on religious sites (Policy Action 3.3) • Targeting ADU outreach in high resource areas (Policy Action 3.6) • The Site Inventory identifies 1,008 housing units in RCAAs, including 368 lower-income units and 311 moderate-income units, to provide diverse housing opportunities and increase opportunities for economic integration. The City will also implement Policy Action 3.4 to support the development of a variety of housing types and greater densities, as well as Policy Action 3.6 to support ADU development in northern Fullerton.

H-E-42 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-20 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (Orange County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-43
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-21 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (Fullerton) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
H-E-44 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
E.6 Disparities in Access to Opportunities
According to HCD guidance, land use policies and urban planning impact the ability of residents to access neighborhoods of opportunity, with high-performing schools, greater availability of jobs that afford entry to the middle class, and convenient access to transit and services. The limits on housing choice and access experienced by people within protected classes, such as race, sexual orientation, or disability, have farreaching impacts on access to job opportunity, quality education, and mental and physical health.9 This section analyzes the following place-based characteristics linked to opportunity indicators: quality education, employment, transportation, and healthy environment. The primary objective is to understand the disparity between communities in terms of access to real and potential economic benefits and quality of life.

HUD’s Opportunity Indices were created to inform communities about racial/ethnic segregation and disparities in access to opportunity.10 Table E-8 provides opportunity indicator index scores (ranging from 0-100, with 100 representing the most positive outcomes) for Fullerton for each race/ethnicity, as described by the AI. Measured at the neighborhood level, the index scores are intended to inform communities about segregation and disparities in access to opportunity in their jurisdiction and compare the opportunity indicators rankings across racial/ethnic groups. Generally, higher index scores are indicative of greater access to opportunity. For example, the “low poverty index” captures the poverty rate within a given neighborhood; the higher the index score means the less exposure to poverty. A higher “jobs proximity” score means that residents have greater accessibility to employment locations within the larger region.11 Each index is measured using the following variables:
• Economic Opportunity Index: a composite of poverty rate by census tract, percentage of adults with a bachelor’s degree, percentage of adults employed, and number of jobs for persons without a bachelor's degree that fall within a given radius of each census tract. • Environmental Opportunity Index: exposure to pollution burden shown in CalEnviroScreen. • Educational Opportunity Index: the percentage of fourth-grade students testing proficient in reading and math within three miles of a census block group.
• Low Transportation Cost Index: the cost of transportation and proximity to public transportation by neighborhood.
• Transit Index: How often low-income families in a neighborhood use public transportation.

In Fullerton, Asian/Pacific Islander and white, non-Hispanic residents have greater accessibility to areas with greater economic opportunity, lower environmental pollutants, educational opportunity, lower transportation costs. In comparison, Hispanic/Latino residents and, Black/African-American and Hispanic/Latino populations had greater access to public transit, but lower economic and educational opportunities, and the greatest exposure to environmental health concerns. Most opportunity scores were lower for residents earning an income below the federal poverty level compared to the total population in Fullerton.
9 HCD. 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 10 HUD, 2020. https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/AFFH-T-Data-Documentation-AFFHT0006-July-2020.pdf 11 Urban Institute, 2018. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/98674/place_and_opportunity_brief_3.pdf Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-45
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Residents who earned an income below the poverty level in Fullerton had lower economic and education opportunities, greater exposure to environmental health concerns, but lower transportation costs.

Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino and Asian/Pacific Islander residents earning below the poverty line had greater access to public transit.

Table E-8 Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (Fullerton) Total Population
Economic
Opportunity
Index
Environmental
Opportunity
Index
Educational
Opportunity
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Transit
Index
White, Non-Hispanic 55.78 26.03 58.12 38.56 36.36
Black, Non-Hispanic 43.93 23.39 50.62 43.17 39.78
Hispanic 37.14 20.28 43.05 41.48 39.47
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 64.09 25.70 65.77 35.43 35.37 Native American, Non-Hispanic 42.61 22.90 48.14 41.21 38.35 Population Below Federal Poverty Line
White, Non-Hispanic 42.62 23.49 50.72 45.41 10.98
Black, Non-Hispanic 26.27 20.02 37.49 50.76 44.32
Hispanic 29.84 19.52 38.35 43.06 41.15
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 57.70 27.73 64.75 42.01 39.39 Native American, Non-Hispanic 43.26 22.70 51.35 38.76 34.99 Source: County of Orange AI, 2020
An overview of opportunity indicators for Orange County is provided in Table E-9. According to the AI, compared to Orange County, Fullerton scored slightly lower for economic opportunity and educational opportunity, and had significantly greater exposure to environmental health concerns. Fullerton scored higher for transportation costs and proximity to public transit compared to Orange County as a whole.

Across Orange County, residents earning an income below the poverty level scored slightly lower for environmental health concerns, and economic and educational opportunities compared to the total population.

H-E-46 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Table E-9 Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (Orange County) Total Population
Economic
Opportunity
Index
Environmental
Opportunity
Index
Educational
Opportunity
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Transit
Index
White, Non-Hispanic 59.36 53.88 58.61 33.84 27.43
Black, Non-Hispanic 45.85 45.21 45.63 39.68 36.21
Hispanic 31.86 41.02 30.86 41.80 41.28
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 49.36 46.78 52.50 37.48 36.11 Native American, Non-Hispanic 46.39 48.19 45.07 37.47 33.02 Population Below Federal Poverty Line
White, Non-Hispanic 51.70 51.01 52.13 39.18 32.26

36.25 36.25 40.42 37.29 40.77 35.60
Hispanic 22.65 39.02 23.81 45.65 46.35
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 38.9 46.38 48.32 41.97 39.51 Native American, Non-Hispanic 35.89 38.62 40.92 40.15 40.17 Source: County of Orange AI, 2020
E.6.1 Transit Access and Walkability
Reliable public transit access and active transportation options such as walking and biking are imperative for low-income residents and/or persons with disabilities to connect to employment opportunities. Lack of transportation options can impede fair housing choice and continue to reinforce barriers for low-income communities in accessing housing and employment opportunities.

Regional Trends
Orange County generally has widespread access to public transit. Accessible transportation infrastructure includes the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Metrolink, and Amtrack. OCTA provides a variety of bus services and OC Flex, an on-demand curb-to-curb shuttle service. Amtrak operates the Pacific Surfliner, which runs along the 351-mile Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor (LOSSAN Corridor) through Orange County. The Surfliner stops at stations in Fullerton, Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Irvine.

Transit use is higher where investment in transit service has been made. Almost all major employment centers in Orange County are served by some form of public transit. However, having regional access to jobs by means of public transit does not necessarily translate into stable employment. Some residents with unique needs, such as households with children, have unique travel patterns that may prevent them from obtaining work far from home due to childcare needs, access to schools, and other considerations.

Orange County received an average AllTransit performance score of 4.2 which equates to a low combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible by transit, enabling relatively few people to take transit to work.
12 The land uses within Orange County do not support transit ridership. Throughout much of the county, residential uses are low density and spread out. The streets were not designed with walkability in mind. Additionally, bus service is focused on a select number of hubs, and on a few key 12 AllTransit.Org, 2023. https://alltransit.cnt.org/
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-47
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
corridors, mostly within the northern part of the county. As a result, there can be barriers between a commuter’s transit stop and their home. Of the six SCAG counties, Orange County’s AllTransit score ranks third, below Los Angeles County (6.8) and San Bernadino (4.4), but above Imperial County (0.1), Riverside (3.3), and Ventura (3.4).

Local Trends
The City of Fullerton is not very accessible by public transit. According to AllTransit, only 2.7 percent of workers in Fullerton take public transportation to work. The city has an AllTransit Performance Score of 4.8, which is higher than the county as a whole but still results in few people taking transit to work.

Metrolink’s Orange County line and 91-Perris line run through Fullerton, as well as Amtrak’s Surfliner, with a stop at the Fullerton Transit Station. There are also several bus lines operated by OCTA.

Figure E-22 illustrates transit access within a quarter-mile of transit stops for both bus routes and Metrolink. A significant portion of the city is within a quarter-mile access of a transit stop, particularly within the southern half of the city. The northern half of the city has less access to transit. The neighborhoods of Acacia Park, West Coyote Hills, Emery Park, and Amerige Heights have limited access to transit.

Fullerton has some neighborhoods with high walkability. Walk Score is a private company that offers a walkability index on its website, that measures the pedestrian friendliness of a given location by analyzing walking routes to nearby amenities and examining population density and road metrics, including block length and intersection density.13 According to Walk Score, Fullerton has a walk score of 54 out of 100, which is categorized as “Somewhat Walkable.”14 Downtown Fullerton has a Walk Score of 97, which is categorized as “Walker’s Paradise.”
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also has a walkability index, that ranks block groups according to their relative walkability.15 The EPA walkability map, shown in Figure E-23, shows that most of the city has a walkability score above that national average. The highest walkability scores are generally located in the southern portion of the city, although there are pockets of high walkable neighborhoods scattered throughout the city. Neighborhoods located in the northern area of Fullerton have lower walkability scores compared to the rest of the city.
13 Walk Score, 2022. https://www.walkscore.com/methodology.shtml 14 Walk Score, 2022. https://www.walkscore.com/CA/Fullerton 15 EPA, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/national-walkability-index-user-guide-and-methodology H-E-48 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-22 Access to Transit Within a Quarter-Mile (Fullerton) Source: City of Fullerton, County of Los Angeles, 2022.

Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-49
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-23 Walkability Index (Fullerton)
Source: National Walkability Index, 2022.

H-E-50 Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) City of Fullerton
Housing Element
E.6.2 Access to Quality Education
Economics literature has consistently found about a 10 percent increase in wages/salary with each additional year of education.16 Therefore, educational attainment is directly linked to housing opportunities. To assess educational opportunities by geography, this analysis uses TCAC education domain scores, which incorporate a variety of indicators including math and reading proficiency scores, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates at the census tract level.

Regional Trends
An overview of education outcomes across Orange County is illustrated in Figure E-24. Educational outcomes varied across Orange County, In general, urban areas in the northwest portion of the county had less positive education outcomes compared with the rest of the county, particularly in Santa Ana, Anaheim, and Placentia. Additionally, the neighborhood of Great Park in Irvine had low educational outcomes compared to the county, however there are limited residential uses in this neighborhood. According to Kidsdata.org, a data compilation program of the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Health, Orange County high school graduation rates were highest among Asian-American and Filipino students (95 percent) and white, non-Hispanic students (94 percent). American Indian/Alaska Native students (86 percent) and Hispanic/Latino students (87 percent) had lower graduation rates.17 Local Trends
Fullerton’s youth are served by the Fullerton School District (FSD) and Fullerton Joint Union High School District (Fullerton JUSD). FSD serves kindergarten through eighth grade students in the City of Fullerton.

FSD operates 15 elementary schools, two K-8th campuses, and three junior high schools.18 Fullerton JUSD operates five high schools in Fullerton and serves the City of Fullerton and the cities of La Habra, La Habra Heights, Buena Park, and small sections of Brea and Whittier. The City of Fullerton is also served by 11 private schools that serves kindergarten students through high school.19 Figure E-25 shows Fullerton’s TCAC scores for education outcomes at the census tract level. In general, the southern areas of the city had the lowest degree of positive education outcomes, particularly in the neighborhood of Rancho La Paz. This area also has a high percentage of LMI population, predominant Hispanic majority, and lower median income. The northern portion of the city has more positive educational outcomes. These areas also have high percentages of Asian American and non-Hispanic White residents, higher incomes, and a lower percentage of LMI residents.
16 Annual Disability Statistics Compendium, 2020. https://disabilitycompendium.org/annualreport 17 Kids Data. 2021. All Data: Orange County. https://www.kidsdata.org/region/365/orange-county/results#ind=&say=&cat=18 18 Fullerton School District. https://www.fullertonsd.org/domain/6 19 City of Fullerton. Private Schools. https://www.cityoffullerton.com/residents/schools/private-schools Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-51
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-24 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Outcomes (Orange County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
H-E-52 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-25 TCAC Opportunity Areas - Education Outcomes (Fullerton) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) H-E-53 City of Fullerton
Housing Element
E.6.3 Economic Outcomes
Housing opportunities are directly related to economic opportunities. Access to high quality employment close to desired and affordable housing results in more housing opportunities and shorter commute times.

The analysis for economic opportunities uses TCAC economic indicators, employment participation data from the ACS and the HUD Jobs Proximity Index.

TCAC economic opportunities are measured by census tract. They consider poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home values. A higher economic index score reflects more positive economic outcomes. The HUD Jobs Proximity Index assesses the accessibility to job opportunities at the census block group level.

Regional Trends
Economic outcomes vary across Orange County as shown in Figure E-26. Areas with more positive economic outcome scores were identified along the coastal communities and in the southern and eastern portions of the county. Conversely, similar to educational outcomes, the urban areas in the northwestern portion of the county had less positive economic outcomes, particularly in Santa Ana, Anaheim, Fullerton, and Buena Park.

According to ACS estimates, Orange County has an employment rate of 60 percent, a decrease of three percent from 2019. Table E-10 shows employment status by disability status estimates for Orange County for ACS 2015-2019 and 2017-2021. Overall, the percent of all employed residents age 16 remained the same, but unemployment increased slightly.

Table E-10 Employment Status by Disability Status (Orange County) Disability Status
Employed
2015-2019
Unemployed
2015 -2019
Employed
2017-2021
Unemployed
2017-2021
No Disability 1,445,013
(96.7%)
65,384
(91.9%)
1,435,544
(96.3%)
77,022
(91.8%)
With a Disability 48,800
(3.2%)
5,723
(8.0%)
54,620
(3.6%)
6,819
(8.1%)
Total 1,493,813
(74.7%)
71,107
(3.5%)
1,490,164
(74.4%)
83,841
(4.1%)
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, ACS Table C18120 Employment Status by Disability Status, 2015-2019, 2017-2021 Estimates.

Local Trends
The TCAC opportunity maps help to identify patterns of negative and positive economic, educational and environmental outcomes across the state. Census tracts are ranked from low (negative outcomes) to highest resource (positive outcomes) based on TCAC’s Opportunity Maps analysis. TCAC economic outcome scores vary across neighborhoods in Fullerton, as shown in Figure E-27.

H-E-54 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-26 TCAC Opportunity Areas - Economic (Orange County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022.

Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-55
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-27 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (Fullerton) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
H-E-56 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Generally, lower economic outcomes are located in the southern part of the city south of Commonwealth Avenue. However, the neighborhood California State University Fullerton in the east of the city also has less positive economic outcomes, likely due to the prevalence of students. The E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd neighborhood is characterized as having less positive economic outcomes, but no residential units are located in this neighborhood. Areas with more positive economic outcomes were in the central and northern portions of Fullerton. Generally, areas with lower economic outcome scores were in neighborhoods with a higher percent of Hispanic/Latino residents, whereas areas with higher economic outcomes had a predominately non-Hispanic white or Asian-American population.

Employment status by disability status estimates is provided in Table E-11. The labor participation rate of residents age 16 and older decreased by one percent, slightly more than the county’s rate of change. The number of employed residents with a disability increased slightly in Fullerton, while employment for residents without a disability decreased. The total unemployment rate (5.6 percent) in 2021 is higher than the county (4.1 percent), but lower than the SCAG region (9.3 percent).

Table E-11 Employment Status by Disability Status (Fullerton) Disability Status
Employed
2015-2019
Unemployed
2015 -2019
Employed
2017-2021
Unemployed
2017-2021
No Disability 62,864
(96.5%)
4,206
(93.2%)
61,918
(95.8%)
4,768
(93.2%)
With a Disability 2,234
(3.4%)
305
(6.7%)
2,648
(4.1%)
346
(6.7%)
Total 65,098
(72.0%)
4,511
(4.9%)
64,566
(71.0%)
5,114
(5.6%)
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, ACS Table C18120 Employment Status by Disability Status, 2015-2019, 2017-2021 Estimates.

According to TCAC, census tracts with a designation of “High Resource” indicate that the census tract has strong educational and economic opportunities for current and future residents. The majority of Fullerton is comprised of moderate to high resource areas. The highest resource areas are concentrated in the central and northern portion of the city. Several neighborhoods in the city are characterized as low resource, including Gilbert Park, Woodcrest Park, and Rancho La Paz. E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd in the northern tip of the city also is characterized as low resource, but this neighborhood is comprised of commercial and industrial uses and does not contain any residential units.

Access to employment opportunities has a significant impact on the type and size of housing a household can afford. HUD’s Jobs Proximity Index utilizes origin-destination employment statistics to examine the distance from a given neighborhood to all job locations in the Southern California Region and assess the accessibility to job opportunities at the census block group level. Because the size of employment centers and the supply of labor differ across the SCAG region, the distance from any single job location is positively weighted by the size of employment (job opportunities) at that location and inversely weighted by the labor supply (competition) to that location.20
Accessibility to employment opportunities differs across Fullerton is shown in Figure 5-28. Neighborhoods with the highest access to employment opportunity are concentrated in the eastern area of the city, primarily east of Harbor Boulevard, which is closest to the industrial zoned areas of northeastern Anaheim. 20HUD, 2020. https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/AFFH-T-Data-Documentation-AFFHT0006-July-2020.pdf Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-57
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Generally, accessibility to jobs decreases relative to the distance from that area, with the lowest scores in the western and southern areas of the city. Neighborhoods with the lowest job proximity scores in the southwestern area of the city are primarily comprised of single-family homes with pockets of commercial, and no industrial uses. Although it may appear counter-intuitive, there are some neighborhoods with higher proximity to jobs, such as Rancho La Paz that the lowest TCAC economic outcome scores and higher rates of LMI populations compared to other areas of the city with lower proximity to jobs. Despite being in close proximity to employment, residents in this area of Fullerton may not benefit from high proximity to job centers, as this area has low TCAC economic outcome scores and a high share of LMI populations.

E.6.4 Healthy and Safe Housing Environment
Healthy Environment in AFFH addresses disparities in access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods by protected class groups. An assessment of environmentally healthy neighborhoods can include air and water quality, safety, environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions. Recent California laws— Assembly Bill (AB) 1550, Senate Bill (SB) 535 and SB 1000 emphasize the importance of environmental justice as a fair housing issue. Environmental Justice, according to HUD, means ensuring that people have equal access to safe and healthy housing. HUD requires all entitlement jurisdictions to conduct reviews under the National Environmental Protection Act to determine if a proposed project creates adverse impacts due to environmental conditions. It furthers the requirement that human health deserves equal protection for all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income. Under Executive Order 12898, Federally assisted projects may also target funding to communities that have disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts on minority and low-income populations due to environmental conditions.21 The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment developed CalEnviroScreen, a mapping tool that uses spatial data collected by various regulatory agencies (e.g., air quality indicators from South Coast Air Quality Management District, water quality indicators from Orange County Water District, monitored chemical releases into the air or water table from Environmental Protection Agency, HUD socioeconomic indicators, etc.). The dataset uses a methodology to identify communities disproportionately burdened by exposures to pollution, environmental effects of existing pollutants in communities, among other indicators of sensitive populations or socioeconomic factors. Residents in census tracts with high CalEnviroScreen scores as compared to other California census tracts (shown as percentiles) are disproportionately burdened by pollution and are more vulnerable to related effects. 21 HUD, 2022. https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/environmental-review/environmental-justice/ H-E-58 Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure 5-28 Job Proximity Index (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) H-E-59 City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Regional Trends
The CalEnviroScreen map for Orange County identifies the degree to which communities are considered burdened by pollution. Figure E-29 shows that generally, the more urbanized, northwestern portions of the county have less positive environmental outcomes, most notably near the industrial areas in the cities of Buena Park, Stanton, Fullerton, Anaheim, Garden Grove, and Santa Ana.

Local Trends
As shown in Figure E-30, pollution burden varies across Fullerton communities. In general, the northern portion of the city, particularly the neighborhoods of Sunny Hills and Acacia Park, has more positive environmental outcomes than areas south. The neighborhood of E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd, which contains several distribution centers with high truck traffic, and the neighborhood of Woodcrest Park, which contains large, big box commercial areas that generate car trips, have the worst environmental outcomes within the city. Areas with high pollution tend to have a greater percentage of industrial or commercial land uses. Areas with higher pollution burden are also areas that that had higher percentages of Hispanic/Latino residents, as shown in Figure E-30.

According to TCAC, environmental outcome scores vary across the city. Figure E-31 shows that higher environmental health scores are concentrated in western and northeastern Fullerton. Similarly, TCAC shows that the neighborhoods of Sunny Hills and Acacia Park have the highest environmental outcomes in the city. These areas have a high proportion of open space and public lands, and a majority white, nonHispanic population. Conversely, the neighborhoods with the heavier pollution burden are concentrated in the southeastern portion of the city and have a higher percentage of Hispanic/Latino residents.

H-E-60 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-29 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (Orange County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-61
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-30 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores and Predominant Racial/Ethnic Populations (Fullerton) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
H-E-62 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-31 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environment (Fullerton) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-63
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
E.7 Disproportionate Housing Needs
Disproportionate housing needs refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. To analyze the extent of disproportionate housing needs in Fullerton, this section reviews data on housing cost burden and severe housing cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions.

Information for this section relies on the HUD CHAS data.

E.7.1 Housing Cost Burden
Housing cost burden is defined as the proportion of a household’s total gross income spent on housing costs. Households that spend at least 30 percent of their total gross income on housing costs (rent, mortgage, utilities, and other housing-related costs) are considered “cost burdened,” and households spending over 50 percent on housing costs are considered “severely cost burdened.” The higher the housing cost burden, the more likely residents are to live in overcrowded and substandard conditions and are less likely to afford to relocate. Low-income households and persons in protected classes disproportionately experience severe housing problems.

Regional Trends
Figure E-32 shows areas of Orange County where renter households experienced housing cost burden (spending more than 30 percent of household income on housing costs). As shown, paying more than 30 percent of gross income on rent is widespread across most of Orange County, where a significant portion of the county have between 40 and 80 percent of renter households pay more than 30 percent or more of household incomes on rent. There are a few census tracts in the county where over 80 percent of renter households pay more than 30 percent or more of household incomes on rent, particularly within the urbanized northern portion of the county including within the cities of Yorba Linda, Placentia, Orange, and Fountain Valley. Additionally, the less urbanized coastal community of Laguna Niguel has high levels of overpayment. Overpayment amongst homeowners is also widespread across the county, as shown in Figure E-33. Housing cost burden among homeowners is most prevalent in the northwestern area of the county, especially in the cities of Placentia, Anaheim, Westminster, and Santa Ana.

Local Trends
Similar to Orange County, housing cost burden among renters varies across Fullerton. As Shown in Figure E-34, most neighborhoods in Fullerton have between 40 and 80 percent of renters experiencing housing cost burden, according to 2017-2021 ACS estimates. The neighborhoods with higher rates of cost burden (60 and 80 percent of renters) include Brea West, Craig Park Artisan Walk, California State University, and Bradford Park, located in the northeast of the city, and Valencia Park, W Valencia Dr/Courtney Ave, S Woods Ave/W Orangethorpe Ave, located in the southwest of the city. The neighborhood with the lowest rates of overpayment by renters (less than 20 percent) is West Coyote Hills.

Housing cost burden among owner-occupied households varies across the city. An overview of housing cost burden for owner-occupied households is provided in Figure E-35. In most of the city, between 20 and 60 percent of owner-occupied households are cost burdened. The neighborhood of Emery Park has the highest percentage of cost burdened households within the city (between 60 and 80 percent). Areas with the highest cost burden generally have higher percentages of Asian American, non-Hispanic, and H-E-64 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Hispanic/Latino populations. The California State University Fullerton neighborhood has between 40 and 60 percent of owner-occupied households are cost burdened; however, this neighborhood also has a significantly lower percentage of owner-occupied units than the city as a whole (13 percent, compared to 50 percent for the entire city).

Nine neighborhoods within Fullerton contain between 60 and 80 percent of cost burdened renters. As shown in Figure E-36, three of these neighborhoods have a majority non-Hispanic white population, and six of these neighborhoods had a majority Hispanic/Latino population. The lowest rate of overpayment by renters was in the West Coyote Hills neighborhood in the northwest corner of the city, which is predominantly Asian American.

Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-65
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-32 Overpayment by Renters (Orange County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
H-E-66 Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-33 Overpayment by Homeowners (Orange County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-67
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-34 Overpayment by Renters (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
H-E-68 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-35 Overpayment by Homeowners (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-69
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-36 Overpayment by Renters and Predominant Racial/Ethnic Populations (Fullerton) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
H-E-70 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
E.7.2 Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined as housing units with more than one person per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen) while severe overcrowding refers to more than 1.5 persons per room. Overcrowding is a measure to understand the needs of large families, defined as five or more persons per household. Generally, large households have special housing needs due to lower per capita income and the need for housing with three or more bedrooms.

Some large households may not be able to accommodate high-cost burdens for housing and accept housing with too few rooms. Potential fair housing issues emerge if non-traditional households are discouraged or denied housing due to a perception of overcrowding. Household overcrowding reflects various living situations, including housing units that are inadequately sized to meet a household’s needs; the necessity or desire to have extended family members reside in an existing household; or unrelated individuals or families that share a single housing unit.

Not only is overcrowding a potential fair housing concern, but it can also potentially strain electrical systems in older housing that have not been updated or contribute to a perceived shortage of parking. As a result, some property owners/managers may be more hesitant to rent to large households, thus making access to adequately sized housing even more difficult. According to local fair housing service providers and property managers, addressing the issue of large households is complex as there are no set of guidelines for determining the maximum capacity for a unit. Fair housing issues may arise from policies aimed to limit overcrowding that have a disparate impact on specific racial or ethnic groups with different preferences for housing size and/or ability to pay according to the household size standards identified.

Regional Trends
Orange County has 144,734 large households; approximately 13 percent of total households. Owneroccupied households comprise a larger share than renters of the total number of large households in the county. Overcrowding remains low overall in the county, compared to the statewide average, but there is a disproportionate impact of overcrowding in households primarily occupied by non-white racial/ethnic groups. According to ACS 2021 estimates, three percent of white, non-Hispanic households are overcrowded (more than one occupant per room), compared to 22 percent of Hispanic/Latino, eight percent of Asian, and four percent of Black/African American households. According to the California Department of Health and Human Services data shown in Figure E-37, overcrowded housing is most prominent in the northwestern area of Orange County, mainly in urban centers such as the cities of Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Orange, Anaheim, Buena Park, La Habra, Costa Mesa, and Westminster. There are also pockets of overcrowding int the southern area of Orange County near the cities of Laguna Niguel and Mission Viejo.

Local Trends
According to ACS 2017-2021 data, Fullerton has 6,651 large households; approximately 14 percent of the total households. Renter occupied large households comprise of 52 percent of the total number of large Fullerton households. Additionally, 10.8 percent of households in Fullerton are overcrowded, slightly higher than 8.6 percent for the county as a whole. Fullerton has an average of 2.87 persons per household in 2021, a decrease from 2011, when the city had an average of 3.00 persons per household. As shown in Figure E-38, neighborhoods with a higher degree of overcrowded households are generally located in the southern area of the city.

Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-71
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-37 Overcrowded Households (Orange County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
H-E-72 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-38 Overcrowded Households (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-73
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
The neighborhood with the highest percentage of overcrowding is Woodcrest Park (more than 20 percent).

The predominant population in this area is Hispanic/Latino. Neighborhoods with 10 to 15 percent overcrowding include Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St, Valencia Park, W Oak Ave/Lambert Dr, E Wilshire Ave/N Raymond Ave, Rancho La Paz. The AFFH Data Viewer also shows the neighborhood of E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd in northern Fullerton as having high levels of overcrowding; however, this data is based on the residential units within the neighboring cities of La Habra and Brea. The portion of this census tract located within the City of Fullerton is comprised of entirely commercial and industrial uses and does not contain any residential units. Neighborhoods with low levels of overcrowding are generally located in the central and northern portion of the city.

According to the 2017-2021 ACS estimates shown in Figure E-39, overcrowding is a more common housing issue for residents of Fullerton who identified as American Indian/Alaskan Native, Hispanic/Latino, and those of “other race or multiple races” than for people who identified as white, non-Hispanic, Black/African American, or American Indian/Alaska Native.

Figure E-39 Overcrowding by Race in Fullerton
Notes: The Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latino. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latino may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latino, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units. *Hispanic and non-Hispanic
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2017-2021), Table B25014A-I 9%
21%
11%
0%
23%
22%
2% 3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%

PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS
MORE THAN 1.0 OCCUPANTS PER ROOM
H-E-74 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
E.7.3 Housing Problems
HUD considers housing units to be “standard units” if they are in compliance with local building codes.

Many federal and State programs use the age of housing as a factor to determine a community’s housing rehabilitation needs. Housing age can be an important indicator of housing condition in a community. Like any other tangible asset, housing is subject to gradual physical or technological deterioration over time. If not properly and regularly maintained, housing can deteriorate and discourage reinvestment, depress neighboring property values, and eventually impact the quality of life in a neighborhood. Typically, housing over 30 years old is more likely to have rehabilitation needs that may include replacing plumbing, roof repairs, foundation work, and other repairs. Housing units built before 1978 may have health risks such as lead-based paint and asbestos. Housing issues prompted by disrepair such as mold may elevate health conditions such as asthma.

Regional Trends
Housing problems are defined as units having incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than one person per room, and households with a cost burden greater than 30 percent. Severe housing problems are defined as all of the above and with a cost burden greater than 50 percent. 22 Approximately 44 percent of total households in Orange County experience housing problems, and another 26 percent of total households experience severe housing problems. According to the AI, more than half of Hispanic/Latino (63 percent) households experience housing problems compared to white, non-Hispanic residents. Housing problems are significantly higher among large households, as nearly 65 percent of large households experience housing problems compared to 39 percent of households comprising less than five persons.

A housing unit is considered substandard by the ACS if it lacks complete plumbing or kitchen facilities.

According to the 2017-2021 ACS, 0.2 percent of all occupied housing units in Orange County lack complete plumbing facilities and 1.3 percent lack complete kitchen facilities.

Fifty-six percent of Orange County’s housing stock was built prior to 1980. These units are potentially in need of repair and modernization improvements. Additionally, lead-based paint was banned from residential uses in 1978. All houses constructed before 1978 are therefore considered at risk for containing lead-based paint.

Local Trends
According to the 2015-2019 CHAS data, 46 percent of households in Fullerton experience at least one housing problem, similar to the rate for Orange County. According to the AI, Hispanic/Latino, Asian/Pacific Islanders, and Black/African-American households experience the highest rate of housing problems at 63, 48, and 45 percent, respectively. In comparison, 36 percent of white, non-Hispanic households experienced housing problems. According to the 2017-2021 ACS, 0.3 percent of all occupied housing units in Fullerton lack complete plumbing facilities and 2.2 percent lacked complete kitchen facilities, slightly higher than the county as a whole. Over 74 percent of the city’s current housing stock is greater than 40 years old.

Additionally, 71 percent of large households (five or more persons) in the city experience housing problems compared to 42 percent of households of five persons or less, as referenced in the AI. 22 HUD, 2021. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp/CHAS/bg_chas.html Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-75
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Respondents to a survey conducted in May 2024 to gather stakeholder input noted the neighborhoods of Independence Park, Artesia Blvd/N, Gilbert Park, W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave; Valencia Park, as well as the neighborhoods south of Commonwealth Ave, and areas near downtown and the train station have a concentration of units in need of rehabilitation.

E.7.4 Persons Experiencing Homelessness
Regional Trends
The 2022 Orange County Everyone Counts Point-in-Time (PIT) Summary is the most recent evaluation of people experiencing homelessness in the county. According to the 2022 PIT count, there were 5,718 people experiencing homelessness in Orange County (sheltered and unsheltered), which was a decrease of 1,142 people (16.7 percent) from 2019 (latest available comparable year). There were 3,961 individuals who were observed as being unsheltered in the county, a decrease of 904 people from 2019.

Fifty-five percent of unsheltered individuals, and 38 percent of sheltered individuals in Orange County were chronically homeless (individual has a disabling condition and has had four episodes of homelessness in the past three years or has been continuously homeless for one year or longer). Twenty-eight percent of sheltered individuals reported suffering from a mental health issue, 20 percent reported a substance abuse issue, and 11 percent were fleeing domestic and dating violence. Three percent had HIV/AIDS, and one percent had a developmental disability. Sheltered individuals were more likely to be male (51.4 percent) and most likely to be older than the age of 25 (72.6 percent). Approximately 4.7 percent were young adults between the ages of 18 and 24, and 22.6 percent were younger than 18 years of age.

White, non-Hispanic residents had the largest overrepresentation in terms of percent of sheltered individuals respective of county population share (77 percent of sheltered individuals versus 43 percent share of population). Asian Americans were the most underrepresented for sheltered individuals respective of city population share (4 percent of sheltered individuals versus 22 percent of population share). Other racial/ethnicity groups of sheltered individuals were closer to their respective city population shares.

State law (Section 65583(a)(7)) requires municipalities to address the special needs of persons experiencing homelessness within their boundaries. “Homelessness,” as defined by HUD, describes the condition of an individual, who is not imprisoned or otherwise detained, who:
• Lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and • Has a primary nighttime residence that is:
o A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill);
o An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or
o A public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.

H-E-76 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Local Trends
The 2024 PIT count reported that 434 individuals were experiencing homelessness in Fullerton, including 226 sheltered and 208 unsheltered. This represents an increase of 162 individuals experiencing homelessness compared to the 2022 PIT count. The City established a Homeless Plan Committee in 2019 to create a comprehensive strategic plan to address homelessness. This plan was published in January 2020.

The report indicated that the top four causes of homelessness in Fullerton are:

1. Lack of housing affordable to very low-income residents;

2. Lack of Permanent Supportive Housing for individuals living with mental illness;

3. Growing numbers of opioid addicted individuals reduced to living on the streets; and

4. Lack of jobs with sufficient pay to afford food and shelter in our community. 23 A survey conducted in May 2024 to gather stakeholder input provided local knowledge on the patterns of people experiencing homelessness in Fullerton. Five survey respondents indicated a concentration of people experiencing homelessness in the neighborhoods of Santa Fe District/SOCO, Independence Park, and S. Woods Ave/W Orangethorpe Ave, Craig Park, and Chapman Park. Individuals experiencing homelessness are also found along major arterials, including Lemon Street, Orangethorpe Avenue, under the State Route (SR) 57 freeway, Hillcrest Park, and in the shopping centers and at bus depots. In terms of trends among homeless residents, respondents noted that older women appear to be a growing population of residents experiencing homelessness.

The majority of the areas where there is a concentration of people experiencing homelessness are located in southern Fullerton, most of which has transit access within a quarter mile of a transit stop, as shown in Figure E-22. The Fullerton Transportation Center, located at E Santa Fe Avenue and S Lemon Street in the Rancho La Paz neighborhood, is served by Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner and Southwest Chief trains, as well as Metrolink's 91/Perris Valley Line and Orange County Line trains. It is also a major bus depot for the OC Bus system and is one of the major transportation hubs of Orange County. The Fullerton Transportation Center is located in short proximity (walking distance) from the major arterials where people experiencing homelessness are likely to congregate, is less than 30 minutes’ walk or bus ride from Independence Park and Hillcrest Park, and is two blocks from the Women’s Transitional Living Center.

The Fullerton Navigation and Recuperative Care Center at 3535 West Commonwealth Avenue is in the Artesia Boulevard/N Gilbert Street neighborhood and is 20 minutes via bus from the Fullerton Transportation Center and the neighborhoods where people experiencing homelessness are likely to congregate.

A number of organizations located in southern Fullerton provide services to unhoused persons and families. Several emergency shelters, food distribution centers, religious institutions, and organizations provide emergency services for people experiencing homelessness are in close proximity (within 20 minutes’ walk or bus ride) from areas where people experiencing homelessness are likely to congregate, including:
• Women’s Transitional Living Center: 210 N Pomona Avenue in the Santa Fe District/SOCO neighborhood
• Armory shelter: Brookhurst Street and W Valencia Drive in the W Oak Avenue/Lambert Park neighborhood
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-77
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
• New Vista Shelter: 514 W Amerige Avenue in the Independence Park neighborhood • Hub of Hope Food Bank: 611 S Ford Avenue in the Woodcrest Park neighborhood • INCO Relief USA: 505 E Commonwealth Avenue in the Santa Fe District/SOCO neighborhood • Pathways of Hope: 1231 Chapman Avenue in the Byerrum Park neighborhood • OC United: 418 W Commonwealth Avenue in the Independence Park neighborhood • Lutheran Social Services: 247 E Amerige Avenue in the Santa Fe District/SoCo neighborhood • Inter Community Action Network: 4128 Commonwealth Avenue in the Artesia Boulevard/North Gilbert Street neighborhood
• Young Lives Redeemed: 1105 Commonwealth Avenue in the E Willshire Avenue/North Raymond Avenue neighborhood
• Food for Christ at the Rock Food Distribution Center: 101 E Orangethorpe Avenue in the Santa Fe District/SoCo neighborhood
• Calvary Community Church Food Distribution Center: 1465 W Orangethorpe Avenue in the Nicolas Park neighborhood
• New Wine Church Food Distribution Center: 1425 S Brookhurst Road I the Gilbert Park neighborhood • Fullerton Seventh Day Adventist Church Food Distribution Center: 2355 W Valencia Drive in the Valencia Park neighborhood
• Saint Philip Benizi Church - Society of Saint Vincent de Paul Food Distribution Center: 235 S Pine Drive in the W Valencia Drive/Courtney Avenue neighborhood
• Dolphin Market Pacific Drive Elementary Food Distribution Center: 1501 W Valencia Drive in the W Commonwealth Avenue/N Basque Avenue neighborhood
• ICNA Relief USA Food Distribution Center 505 E Commonwealth Avenue in the 212 E Wilshire Avenue in the Santa Fe District/SoCo neighborhood
• Heart of Downtown Food Co-op: 212 E Wilshire Avenue in the Santa Fe District/SoCo neighborhood • First Lutheran Church Food Distribution Center: 215 N Lemon Street in the Santa Fe District/SoCo neighborhood
• Fullerton Community Center Food Distribution Center: 340 W Commonwealth Avenue in the Independence Park neighborhood
• Saint Mary’s Church Food Distribution Center: 400 W Commonwealth Avenue in the Independence Park neighborhood
Through ongoing outreach and canvassing efforts, the City continues to identify individuals experiencing homelessness in key areas, including transportation hubs (such as train stations), parks, and washes. The City played a pivotal role in developing a comprehensive, synchronized system of care through the establishment of the Hope Center. This multi-city, multi-disciplinary partnership aims to streamline and standardize homeless outreach and engagement by centralizing resources, coordinating responses, and integrating data. A key component of this system is the management of an Outreach Grid, which tracks and responds to reports of homelessness. Calls are dispatched to outreach workers and city-funded Homeless Liaison Officers (HLOs), including Police Officers, who respond in real-time and check the availability of shelter beds.

H-E-78 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
The HLO Unit partners with local organizations including the Orange County Mental Health Agency, the Fullerton Navigation and Recuperative Care Center run by Illumination Foundation, Placentia Navigation Center run by PATH, Buena Park Navigation Center run by Mercy House, and the Anaheim Bridges Shelter run by Mercy House to conduct weekly outreach to persons experiencing homelessness. The HLO Unit has a clinician from the Orange County Mental Health Agency in the patrol vehicle of an officer two to three days of the week to assist persons experiencing homelessness and those experiencing mental health issues.

In addition, all police officers in Fullerton are trained on how to assist individuals experiencing homelessness.24
The City has taken a number of actions to address homelessness through services in the community. These efforts include hiring a dedicated Homeless Outreach Case Manager, who is responsible for performing case management, outreach, intervention services and assistance in obtaining resources from community partners to individuals deemed homeless residents of the City of Fullerton. The Case Manager utilizes Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) to collect client-level data and data on the provision of housing and services to individuals and families at risk of experiencing homelessness. The City also recently filled the Housing Manager position to implement programs to address the homeless population and those at risk of becoming homeless.

The Homeless Case Manager program employs an outreach coordinator to ensure the City’s homeless residents are receiving individualized care. The now full-time position was filled in 2024 and is stationed at the Hope Center. The position works with the County’s Continuum of Care, which was not occurring with City Net. The City provided CDBG-CV funds for the construction costs of Project HOPE (Homeless Outreach Proactive Engagement). The Hope Center opened in 2022 and provides a hub for Homeless Case Managers, Mental Health Specialists, paramedics and social workers working together to provide whole person care.

Additionally, in 2024-25, HOME-ARP funds are used to assist the homeless and at risk of homelessness populations.

The City continues to support various non-profit organizations that provide homeless services including Mercy House (homeless shelter), Pathways of Hope (transitional housing, life skills training), Lutheran Social Services of Southern California (victims of domestic violence, at risk of homelessness) and the Women's Transitional Living Center (victims of domestic violence, at risk of homeless). Orange County Health Care Agency provides linkage to mental health services and refers homeless into emergency shelters.

Other partner agencies are assisting Fullerton in reducing homelessness. St. Jude Medical Center assists homeless individuals who visit the Emergency Room through their Community Care Navigators who provide case management and linkage to services when needed to help prevent another visit. Chrysalis provides job training and opportunities to individuals who walk-in or are connected to the emergency shelters. OC United’s “Jobs for Life” program is offered at emergency shelters as a life skills and job readiness class.

The City partners with the 13 cities of the North Service Planning Area (SPA) on a Memorandum of Understanding that have resulted in the development of two homeless navigation centers providing a total of 250 beds serving the North Orange County homeless population. The City financially supports emergency shelter/navigation beds for Fullerton homeless individuals at the Buena Park 150-bed 24 Fullerton Police Department. 2024. Homeless Outreach. https://www.cityoffullerton.com/government/departments/police/police-services/homelessoutreach Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-79
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
navigation center and Placentia 100-bed shelter that provides comprehensive housing services. Since 2020, 164 persons have been referred to the Buena Park Navigation Center from Fullerton.25 The City has a partnership with Illumination Foundation that established a 150-bed facility in Fullerton that not only provides navigation center beds with wrap-around services but also provides recuperative care beds, which provide care for homeless patients after a hospital stay or emergency room visit. Bridges at Kramer Place operated by Mercy House is a 200-bed year-round shelter for single adults in North Orange County. Bridges is a 24-hour emergency homeless shelter facility in the City of Anaheim that is ADA Accessible and serves homeless single men and single women in the North Orange County area. The shelter’s primary focus is assisting program participants with creating a housing plan, making connections to housing resources and ending their homelessness as soon as possible. The City of Fullerton assisted in funding the shelter and is allowed access for Fullerton homeless clients.26 The City partners with the nonprofit organization City Net to provide street outreach, in-reach, and case management to those experiencing homelessness in Fullerton. The City also partners with the OC Health Care Agency, which serves individuals who are homeless or on the verge of becoming homeless. Services are offered to individuals of all ages with behavioral health conditions ranging. Staff frequent known gathering places for the homeless including food banks, shelters, and public areas such as parks/libraries in order to identify individuals and screen for program eligibility. The team responds to community referrals and collaborates with various community partners in support of an individual’s recovery.

The City of Fullerton Five-Year Consolidated Plan reflects a unified vision for providing decent housing, addressing homelessness issues, and taking community development actions as determined by a collaborative effort of the community. The plan outlines three basic goals set by the Department of Housing and Urban Development: to provide decent housing; to provide a suitable living environment; and to expand economic opportunities for low/moderate income individuals.

The City plans to continue partnerships with non-profit organizations and regional agencies to provide outreach and services for persons experiencing homelessness during the planning period and as described in Policy Action 3.15 in Chapter 4, Housing Plan. The outreach and services will continue to be targeted to the geographic areas in the city where people experiencing homelessness tend to congregate and preventative services targeted to the populations most at risk of homelessness.

E.7.5 Displacement
Displacement, as defined by HCD, is used to describe any involuntary household move caused by landlord action or market changes. Shifts in neighborhood composition are often framed and perpetuated by established patterns of racial inequity and segregation. Movement of people, public policies, and investments, such as capital improvements and planned transit stops, and flows of private capital can lead to displacement. Displacement is fueled by a combination of rising housing costs, rising income inequality, stagnant wages, and insufficient market-rate housing production. Decades of disinvestment in low-income communities, coupled with investor speculation, can result in a rent gap or a disparity between current rental income of the land, and potentially achievable rental income if the property is converted to its most profitable use. These processes can disproportionally impact people of color, as well as lower income 25 Mercy House. June 2024 report.
https://cms7files1.revize.com/buenaparkca/departments/Community%20Services/Homeless%20Services/Navigation%20Center/Buena%20Park%20Monthly% 20Report%20-%20June%202024.pdf 26 City of Fullerton. 2024. Draft HUD Action Plan. https://www.cityoffullerton.com/home/showpublisheddocument/8740/638560482273030000 H-E-80 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
households, persons with disabilities, large households, and persons at-risk or experiencing homelessness.27
Regional Trends
As shown in Figure E-40, the majority of Orange County has a lower risk of displacement, but there are several cities in the northwestern portion of Orange County (primarily the cities of Anaheim, Placentia, Buena Park, Garden Grove, Westminster, Santa Ana, Stanton, and Orange) that are at risk of displacement.

Local Trends
The majority of Fullerton is at lower risk of displacement, but there are several neighborhoods in southern Fullerton at risk of displacement, as shown in Figure E-41. These include the neighborhoods of Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert, Valencia Park, Woodcrest Park, Rancho La Paz, and California State University Fullerton.

Vulnerable areas in Fullerton had higher poverty rates, higher percentage of LMI residents, overcrowded households and were more likely to have a higher percentage of Hispanic/Latino residents. Fullerton has the highest number of rent-based eviction filings in all of Orange County.28 E.8 Local Area Knowledge
E.8.1 Historic Patterns of Segregation
Regional
Patterns of racial segregation are the byproduct of local and federal policies, private housing discrimination, and community prejudice. To understand present challenges to fair housing, it is necessary to review the history of actions that have led to regional patterns of segregation.

The first people to live in Orange County were the Shoshonean-speaking people, the ancestors of the tribes we know today as the Juaneño and the Gabrielino. Spanish missionaries were established in the area in 1770s. In 1810, the first land grant in what is now Orange County was established east and south of the Santa Ana River. The area was dominated by cattle ranches. The Gold Rush of 1849 brought tens of thousands of new settlers to California. By 1850, the future Orange County comprised the southern tip of Los Angeles County. By late 1800s, residents had mobilized enough political support to pass the secession measure despite opposition by Los Angeles County in the State Legislature. Orange County was given jurisdictional autonomy on March 11, 1889.
27 HCD. 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 28 United Way. 2023. Orange County Evictions Report. https://www.unitedwayoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/OC-Evictions-Spring23_final.pdf, accessed August, 2023
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-81
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-40 Estimated Displacement Risk (Orange County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
H-E-82 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-41 Estimated Displacement Risk (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-83
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Much of Orange County’s growth in the first half of the 20th Century was fueled by new forms of transportation. Between 1904 and 1910, the Pacific Electric Railway built three branches to serve Orange County with its “big red cars.” The coast line spurred development from Seal Beach to Corona del Mar. The Santa Ana line prompted the founding of Cypress and Stanton. And the La Habra line ran all the way down to the new community of Yorba Linda. Freeway construction began in the 1950s with the opening of the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway and continued almost unabated into the 1970s. During World War II, a number of important military bases were established in Orange County. At the end of the war, many veterans decided to settle in Southern California, and the region began to grow at an unprecedented rate.

By the mid-1950s, Orange County’s farms were being replaced by single-family tract housing. South Orange County began to grow in the 1960s, with master planned communities such as Irvine, Mission Viejo, and Laguna Niguel. Aliso Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, Ladera Ranch, and others followed in the 1980s and 1990s.

Until the 1940s, Orange County's economy was based largely on agriculture. With the rapid southward expansion of Los Angeles' population and industrial development, Orange County's economy began to change rapidly, particularly in the northern parts of the county. In 1940, twice as many workers were employed in agriculture as in manufacturing. Orange County's demographic explosion began with the onset of the military build-up for the Second World War and continued with the post-war expansion of California.

Between 1940 and 1960, Orange County's population grew from 130,000 to more than 700,000, transforming the county into a major suburban outpost for Los Angeles.

By 1960, manufacturing employed three times as many workers as the agricultural industry. Aerospace and other high-tech industries began moving into the area, bringing with them growing affluence. Between 1950 and 1960, Orange County's median income grew from the 20th highest of California's 58 counties to the third highest, behind only the Bay Area suburbs of Contra Costa and Marin Counties. By the mid-1990s, Orange County's high-tech and information industries were among the most dynamic in the United States.

Today, Orange County comprises 34 cities and has a population of approximately three million residents.

The unincorporated territory, consisting of approximately 321 square miles, is geographically diverse with unincorporated areas spread throughout the County. The largest portion of unincorporated territory is found in southern Orange County and includes a number of planned communities such as Coto de Caza, Las Flores and Ladera Ranch as well as large portions of undeveloped territory south of Ortega Highway.

In the late 1800s, Santa Ana was one of the only cities in Orange County with a Chinatown neighborhood.

These Chinese immigrants were recruited to meet the demands of labor in farming, railroads, and construction and worked for low wages to send to their families back in China. The area was burned down by the City in 1906 based on claims of mitigating the spread of disease. Residents were relocated to land along the Santa Ana River, but by 1912, most Chinese residents had left Santa Ana to reside in nearby Anaheim.

In the 1920s, Anaheim was home to members of the racist “white power” entity known as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). In 1924, Anaheim elected four KKK affiliated candidates to city council, and KKK membership in Anaheim expanded. They spread prejudices until 1925, when they were recalled after residents were alerted of their KKK affiliations. In 1930s, most citrus laborers in Orange County were immigrants from Mexico, who formed the Federation of Agricultural Workers Unions of America (FAWUA). Strikes for better working conditions were met with state-sponsored violence.

H-E-84 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
The 1930s and 40s was a time of public segregation across the nation. Orange County participated in upholding racial hierarchies based on racist notions of white superiority. Various Orange County swimming pools had separate days for ethnic groups. Xenophobia was rampant. In 1942, President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 which allowed local military commanders to designate military areas as “exclusion zones” from which any or all person may be excluded. Accordingly, 127,000 US residents of Japanese ancestry, most of them US Citizens were removed from the Pacific Coast and were sent to internment camps.29 At the end of their internment, many Japanese Americans struggled to find housing due to poverty, restrictive covenants, and racism.30
Starting in the 1930s, parts of Orange County were subject to redlining, which is the practice of federally sanctioned discriminatory mortgage lending that either steered or opted against providing loans to borrowers based on the racial or socioeconomic status of the neighborhood in which a property is located.

Redlining, a government-sponsored system of denying mortgage loans and services to finance the purchase of homes in specific areas, served as a tool to limit homeownership opportunities, as federally insured and long-term mortgages were routinely denied to often non-white persons seen as “undesirable.” Redlining directed both public and private capital to white households and away from Black/African American, nonwhite, immigrant, and Jewish households. As homeownership is one of the most significant means of intergenerational wealth building in the United States, these redlining practices had long-term effects in creating wealth inequalities. Additionally, many of the housing deeds in Orange County included prohibitions against Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, and Native American people, permitting them only if they were gardeners, servants, or nannies.
31 In 1971, the OC Human Relations Commission was created by advocates for civil rights who were upset with police brutality against non-white residents, housing discrimination, lack of affordable health care, and discrimination in education. The Commission was intended to eliminate prejudice, intolerance, and discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, socio-economic status, and age.32 The OC Human Relations Commission, Fair Housing Council, League of Women Voters, Legal Aid Society, and other housing advocates formed the Housing Coalition to advocate for the development of Affordable Housing. In addition, the Hate Crime Network was established in 1991 to respond to hate crime and build relationships between police and diverse communities within Orange County.

Local
In early 1887, the California Central Railroad, a subsidiary of Santa Fe, sent George H. Fullerton, president of the Pacific Land and Improvement Co., to purchase land for railroad right-of-way. Brothers George and Edward Amerige learned that a likely site for a town was located north of Anaheim. With George Fullerton's assurance that the area north of Anaheim would be included, the Ameriges purchased 430 acres and Fullerton was established.
29 Japanese-American Internment During World War II. U.S. National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/japanese-relocation 30 For Japanese Americans, Housing Injustices Outlived Internment, New York Times, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/20/magazine/japaneseinternment-end-wwii-trailer-parks.html 31 Fullerton Observer. 2020. A Brief History of Housing Discrimination in Fullerton and North Orange County. https://fullertonobserver.com/2020/07/27/abrief-history-of-housing-discrimination-in-fullerton-and-north-orange-county/ 32 Fullerton Observer. 2020. A Brief History of Housing Discrimination in Fullerton and North Orange County. https://fullertonobserver.com/2020/07/27/abrief-history-of-housing-discrimination-in-fullerton-and-north-orange-county/ Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-85
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Historically, the city was a center of agriculture, notably groves of Valencia oranges and other citrus crops.

Drilling for petroleum began in 1880 with the discovery of the Brea-Olinda Oil Field, which started a boom that peaked in the 1920s.

Anecdotal evidence suggests Fullerton was a “sundown town,” which is a city, county or region that was intentionally “all white” by forcing out anyone considered non-white by force, law, or custom. In 1919, hundreds of residents protested at a city council meeting after they learned that the Santa Fe Railroad planned to build housing for its Mexican workers near the company’s tracks.33 There were widespread racist civic and housing policies throughout Orange County, including Fullerton, that prevented minorities from accessing housing. According to anecdotes, the only neighborhood where minorities were allowed to rent or own homes was on the south side of the train tracks in the Truslow neighborhood.34 Today, the Truslow Avenue neighborhood has some of the lowest median incomes in and the highest percentage of non-white residents in the city.

Racial covenants were prevalent within Fullerton. Fullerton is the home of the Bernal House, which is the subject of one of the leading anti-discrimination cases in 1943 known as “Doss v. Bernal.” The Sunnyside Addition was established in 1923 and by the time the Bernals moved in, it had become a predominantly lower middle-class community occupied exclusively by whites. The Bernals, a Mexican family, purchased a home on Ash Avenue in the Sunnyside neighborhood of Fullerton with a deed restriction attached to the house, that supported residential segregation in housing covenants. Neighbors filed a lawsuit against the Bernals, but they refused to leave. The case was successfully argued under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and the Bernals were able to keep their home.35 Terrorism of Black/African American residents was widespread in the area. Just outside Fullerton in Placentia, the first African American family to move into the neighborhood in 1956 was firebombed and their home was vandalized.36 Redlining was a practice in Fullerton. By the 1970s, national fair housing laws were created; however, Black/African American residents still faced discrimination in buying and renting.37 While redlining does not occur today, land uses and differences in predominant populations between neighborhoods reflect old policies that promoted racial segregation.

California State University Fullerton was established in 1957 as Orange County State College. The majority of the campus was developed throughout the 1960’s. The campus has grown rapidly since the early 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s.

Downtown Fullerton serves as the commercial center of the city and is clustered with over 70 historic buildings dating as far back as the early 1900s.
33 Fullerton Observer. 2020. Recognizing the History Behind the Bernal House. https://fullertonobserver.com/2020/06/11/recognizing-the-history-behind-thebernal-house/ 34 Fullerton Observer. 2020. A Brief History of Housing Discrimination in Fullerton and North Orange County. https://fullertonobserver.com/2020/07/27/abrief-history-of-housing-discrimination-in-fullerton-and-north-orange-county/ 35 Fullerton Observer. 2020. Recognizing the History Behind the Bernal House. https://fullertonobserver.com/2020/06/11/recognizing-the-history-behind-thebernal-house/ 36 OC Weekly. 2019. Remembering When the Home of Placentia’s First African American Family Was Firebombed. https://www.ocweekly.com/rememberingwhen-someone-firebombed-placentias-first-african-american-family/ 37 Fullerton Observer. 2020. A Brief History of Housing Discrimination in Fullerton and North Orange County. https://fullertonobserver.com/2020/07/27/abrief-history-of-housing-discrimination-in-fullerton-and-north-orange-county/ H-E-86 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
E.9 Stakeholder and Community Input
E.9.1 Homes for All Initiative
The City of Fullerton participated in the Homes for All initiative, which is a coalition of family members and non-profit organizations who are working together to get more affordable homes built in their respective cities (Garden Grove, Lake Forest, and Fullerton). The Homes for All collaborative coalition is comprised of The Kennedy Commission, Welcoming Neighbors Home, Tapestry, a Unitarian Universalist Congregation, Hope Community Services, People for Housing OC, and Hope Through Housing Foundation/Amplify Communities (National CORE). As part of the Homes For All Initiative, People For Housing OC utilized a questionnaire provided by the Kennedy Commission to collect responses from a select sample of residents in impacted neighborhoods to capture conditions. The questionnaire contained 30 questions designed to capture measures of rent burden, overcrowding, demographics, public health, and civic engagement.

Public for Housing OC received 90 responses to the questionnaire, with a high percentage of Hispanic mothers and families due to the ties of the organizations they are a part of. The survey made several conclusions:
• The majority of the people surveyed are renters who have lived in Fullerton for six or more years. Rents are regularly increasing and are outpacing monthly incomes, increasing the risk of displacement for long-term residents.
• The average family size of respondents is 5.5 people per household. Apartments are not big enough to meet the needs of large families. Larger-sized apartments are needed in affordable developments. • Residents are concerned about habitability of housing and deterioration of housing stock. The City’s code enforcement efforts and results need to be improved.

E.9.2 Study Sessions
The City held two Planning Commission study sessions on January 19, 2022 and February 15, 2023, and one City Council study session on September 20, 2023 to review and discuss the Housing Element. Overall, community members showed support for affordable housing development in the city and requested additional information on the Housing Incentive Overlay Zone (HIOZ) and continued public participation in the Housing Element update process. The HIOZ received both support and disapproval from community members. The following comments were provided during the Planning Commission and City Council study sessions:
• General support and disapproval for establishing the HIOZ • Need for housing for homeless residents, low-income residents, and affordable housing for seniors • Recommendation the City increase affordability percentage requirements for the HIOZ and Religious Surplus Land
• Support for an inclusionary housing program
• Concern over the effects of increased density in the city E.9.3 Stakeholder Survey
Following HCD comments received on May 9, 2024 , the City emailed a survey to interested parties to obtain local knowledge on fair housing issues and patterns. More specifically, the City asked for input on the differences between northeast Fullerton, characterized as “racially concentrated areas of affluence” Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-87
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
and other areas of the city. Questions explored whether City policies have historically provided diverse housing opportunities in these affluent neighborhoods and what measures could enhance housing availability, with options including ADUs, multifamily housing on commercial sites, and multiple-unit housing. Additionally, the survey sought information on neighborhoods where people experiencing homelessness tend to congregate, including their access to transportation and services. It also asked about recent trends among the homeless population. Finally, the survey requested identification of neighborhoods with housing in poor physical condition needing rehabilitation or repairs. The City received responses from five survey participants. The survey revealed several patterns:
• RCAAs are characterized by large parcels, single-family homes, greater setbacks, hilly terrain, abundant parkland, and high-performing schools. RCAAs have minimal multifamily zoning and limiting housing opportunities for low or moderate-income households. The lack of diverse housing in RCAAs perpetuates racial and economic segregation.
• Residents may support constructing ADUs for family members but generally oppose additional density due to infrastructure constraints. To increase housing opportunities in RCAAs, respondents suggested encouraging ADU construction, allowing multifamily and mixed-use housing, and developing affordable housing on religious institutional sites.
• Respondents also supported an ordinance to streamline affordable housing development on land owned by religious institutions and remove the prevailing wage requirement. • Homelessness trends noted concentrations of homeless individuals in Santa Fe District/SOCO, Independence Park, S. Woods Ave/W Orangethorpe Ave, Craig Park, and Chapman Park, as well as along major arterials, under the SR 57 freeway, Hillcrest Park, shopping centers, and bus depots. A growing population of older women among the homeless was noted. • Areas in need of housing rehabilitation or repair include Independence Park, Artesia Blvd/N, Gilbert Park, W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, Valencia Park, neighborhoods south of Commonwealth Ave, and areas near downtown and the train station.

E.10 Other Relevant Factors
E.10.1 Fair Housing Capacity
The most recent Orange County AI analyzed fair housing enforcement capacity in the county. The City of Fullerton does not have its own Impediments to Fair Housing report. The identified fair housing issues include:
• Limited resources for regional fair housing organizations • Lack of local public fair housing enforcement
• Limited loan opportunities for home rehabilitation
• Racial discrepancies in loan origination rates
• Lack of affordable housing and segregation of existing affordable housing assets Although Orange County is served by two high-quality private, non-profit fair housing organizations, they are underfunded and understaffed in comparison to the total need for their services. Victims of discrimination would be more able to exercise their rights, thus deterring future discrimination, if the capacity of existing organizations grew to meet the scale of the problem. Additionally, the size of the H-E-88 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
federal Fair Housing Initiatives Program, the primary funding program for fair housing organizations, has failed to keep up with inflation, making Congress’s appropriations worth less over time. In order to meet the needs of residents of a large and diverse county, local fair housing agencies and organizations require greater levels of resourcing.

There are no local public entities that conduct fair housing outreach and enforcement, with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and HUD constituting the only public enforcement bodies that operate in Orange County. Advocates across Orange County and the state of California have reported issues with the timeline of the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing’s investigations and the standards that it applies in making probable cause determinations. A local public enforcement agency, if created, would have the potential to be more responsive to victims of discrimination in Orange County than either the state or HUD.

Given the scarcity of affordable rental housing and high cost of living within Orange County, loan opportunities for home improvement, purchase, and refinancing are important tools for moderate and low-income households. The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data shows there is a racial discrepancy of loan approval rates, with white residents most likely to have their applications result in originated loans.

With respect to the location of affordable housing, at a high level, there is relatively little such housing in coastal areas, hillside communities, or in the southern portion of the county, all areas that are disproportionately White and have relatively low Hispanic population concentrations. Within some cities that have patterns of segregation, affordable housing is concentrated in particular areas that tend to be more heavily Hispanic. In Fullerton, affordable housing is more concentrated in the disproportionately Hispanic southern portion of the city. With respect to the role of the type of affordable housing in causing fair housing issues, the total lack of public housing in Orange County, which tends to be more accessible to members of protected classes than do Low Income Housing Tax Credit developments, may play a role in perpetuating segregation.

E.10.2 Land Use and Zoning
Most of the city’s housing stock was built in the post-war era between the 1940s and 1970s. The city’s current form and character was defined during this era, when over half of the city’s current housing stock was constructed. Most of the housing built before and during the post-war era was built in southern and central Fullerton in the neighborhoods near Orangethorpe Avenue, Commonwealth Avenue, and E.

Chapman Avenue. The neighborhoods with the highest percentage of housing stock built prior to 1960 (60 to 80 percent of the housing stock) are Independence Park, S Woods Avenue/W Orangethorpe Avenue, W Valencia Drive/Courtney Avenue, W Oak Ave/Lambert Drive, Byerrum Park, and E Wilshire Avenue/N Raymond Avenue. These neighborhoods are more likely to have housing stock in need of repair.

Today, single-family detached housing comprises 54 percent of the city’s housing stock, higher than Orange County (51 percent) and other areas of Southern California such as Los Angeles County (49 percent). Today, most of the city’s residentially zoned areas are designated for single-family homes.

E.10.3 Demographic Trends
Fullerton’s demographics have reflected regional migratory trends. Southern California has one of the highest foreign-born populations in the nation, with half of residents born in Latin American countries, and an increasing share from Asian countries. As a result, the city has become much more diverse over the last Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-89
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
several decades. Southern California has also been impacted by out-bound domestic migration trends. In each year since 2014, an average of 91,000 people have left the region than the number of those who have arrived. High housing costs are often cited as a reason for leaving.38 Additionally, the median age in the region has steadily increased in the past two decades, changing the ratio of working age population to seniors, and increasing the need for housing for seniors and assistance to help seniors stay in their homes. While the region has experienced tremendous job growth, moderateincome households within the region have been declining since 2000.39 E.10.4 Student Housing
The California State University, Fullerton (CSUF) is located in the eastern portion of the city and enrolls approximately 41,000 students. The University provides approximately 2,000 students with on-campus housing. As a result, there is a significant need for off-campus housing within the city and surrounding communities. The large student population creates a unique need for student-friendly affordable housing.

The influx of students adds significant pressure to the existing housing stock within the city. A survey of student housing needs found that the average rental cost for a studio or one-bedroom off-campus in Fullerton was $19,206 per year (May 2022 costs), higher than the average cost for the same type of housing for all CSU campuses ($14,857 per year). Additionally, only four percent of all CSUF students resided in on-campus housing.40
E.10.5 Access To Transportation for Persons with Disabilities Fullerton’s main public transportation systems are operated by OCTA and Metrolink light rail service. OCTA operates nine bus lines that extend throughout Fullerton and Orange County. To assist persons with disabilities, OCTA busses are equipped with accessibility improvements. Paratransit service is available through OC Flex and OC ACCESS. It is available for people unable to use fixed-route bus service because of functional limitations caused by a disability. While most areas of Fullerton are within a quarter-mile of a OCTA bus route, or the Metrolink line (see Figure E-22), there are segments of the city that are not in close proximity to existing transit service, including the West Coyote Hills, and most of Emery Park, Amerige Heights, Acacia Park, and E Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr neighborhoods. Residents with disabilities residing in these areas may have limited access to transportation as the Acacia Park and E Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr are located in census tracts that contain a slightly higher rate of persons with disabilities, compared to other areas of Fullerton.

E.10.6 Access to Home Ownership
As previously mentioned, governmental constraints enacted throughout the 20th century impacted homeownership opportunities for non-white populations.

To understand current racial/ethnic disparities among homeownership opportunities, this analysis reviews mortgage application filing and acceptance by race and ethnicity using the latest available data from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC). As shown in Table E-12, there were 12,138 mortgage applications filed in Fullerton in 2021. Race and ethnicity data is unknown for more than onequarter of loan applicants and the analysis on race and ethnicity for loan applications may not be fully 38 SCAG. Connect SoCal. 2020. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176 39 Ibid. 40 Cal State University Business and Finance. 2022. 2022 CSU Systemwide Housing Plan. https://www.calstate.edu/impact-of-the-csu/government/Advocacyand-State-Relations/legislativereports1/Legislative-Report-CSU-Systemwide-Housing-Plan.pdf H-E-90 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
complete. Of the known racial/ethnic categorization of mortgage applications, most were filed by Asian American/API residents and by white, non-Hispanic residents. In comparison, Hispanic/Latino applicants comprised 22 percent, Black/African-American applicants comprised one percent, and American Indian or Alaskan Native applicants comprised less than 1 percent of total mortgage loan applications. Non-Hispanic white residents were the only racial population that was representative for mortgage applications relative to proportion of population (36 percent of applications, 37 percent of population). Asian American residents underrepresented for mortgage applications (16 percent of applications, 27 percent of population), as were Black/African American residents (1 percent of applications, 2 percent of population), Hispanic/Latino residents (22 percent of applications, 37 percent of population), and American Indian/Alaska Native (less than 1 percent of applications, 1 percent of population).

Table E-12 Mortgage Applications and Acceptance by Race, 2021 Racial/
Ethnic Group
Application
Approved
but Not
Accepted
Application
Denied
Application
Withdrawn
by
Applicant
File Closed for
Incompleteness
Loan
Originated
Other
Action
Total
Applications
American Indian or
Alaska Native, NonHispanic
0 0 3 0 5 0 8
(<1%)
Asian American/API,
Non-Hispanic
32 166 286 62 1,331 58 1,935
(16%)
Black/African-American,
Non-Hispanic
2 11 14 1 54 2 84
(1%)
Non-Hispanic White, 50 206 301 98 1,596 2,111 4,362
(36%)
Hispanic/Latino 37 154 175 83 783 1,386 2,618
(22%)
Unknown 60 217 292 149 1,338 1,075 3,131
(26%)
Total 181 754 1,071 393 5,107 4,632 12,138
(100%)
Notes: “Loan originated” means that the application was accepted a loan was made by a financial institution to the applicant. “File incomplete or withdrawn” means a loan was not originated because the application was withdrawn before a credit decision was made or the file was closed for incompleteness. “Application denied” means a loan was not originated because the financial institution did not approve the mortgage application. “Application approved but not accepted” means the financial institution approved the loan application but the applicant did not complete the transaction and a loan was not originated. Other categories of application actions were not included in this analysis, such as purchased loan, preapproval request denied, and preapproval request approved but not accepted. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latino” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latino ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latino ethnicity.

Source: Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's (FFIEC) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act loan/application register (LAR) files As shown in Figure E-42, approximately 71 percent of Asian American/API and white, non-Hispanic mortgage applicants had their loans originated, compared to 64 percent of Hispanic/Latino and 66 percent of Black/African American applicants. American Indian/Alaskan Native applicants had the lowest rates of denied applications, but also the lowest number of total applications. Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino applicants had the highest denial rate at 13 percent.

Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-91
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-42 Mortgage Rates and Acceptance by Race (Fullerton) Source: Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's (FFIEC) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act loan/application register (LAR) files E.11 Subsidized Housing
The Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA) operates several housing programs. The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program provides financial assistance to rent-burdened residents. The Family SelfSufficiency program helps HCV program participants access employment. The Non-Elderly Disabled program provides HCVs for non-elderly disabled families with demonstrated need for supportive services.

Additionally, the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) program, run jointly through the Department of Housing and the Department of Veteran Affairs, provides HCVs and wraparound services to homeless veterans.

Figure E-43 shows the percent of housing units that accept HCVs. Most HCV households are located in southern Fullerton, which is considered low resource and has a higher percentage of multifamily homes. 9% 13% 9% 13% 11%
38% 15% 17% 13% 14% 14%
7% 7%
63% 71% 66% 71% 64% 65%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Application Approved but Not Accepted Application Denied Application Withdrawn by Applicant File Closed for Incompleteness Loan Originated
H-E-92 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-43 Housing Choice Vouchers (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-93
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
E.12 Housing Site Inventory Analysis
This portion of the AFFH analyzes the relation between the housing opportunity sites and AFFH-related issues. Government Code Section 65583(c)(10) requires the housing opportunity sites to be analyzed with respect to AFFH to ensure that sites designated for low-income households are dispersed equitably throughout the county rather than concentrated in areas of high segregation and poverty or low-resource areas that have historically been underserved, and conversely, that sites designated for above moderateincome households are not concentrated in areas of high resources. By comparing the Site Inventory to the fair housing indicators in this assessment, this section analyzes whether the sites included in the Housing Element Site Inventory improve or exacerbate fair housing conditions, patterns of segregation, and access to opportunity.

The housing opportunity sites are designated by income category—whether the sites could accommodate housing appropriate for low-, moderate-, or above moderate-income households. The “appropriateness” of sites for various affordability levels is dictated by state housing element law and HCD guidance and includes allowable density, size of site, realistic capacity, existing use(s), and other factors. More information about the sites and income designations is available in Chapter 4, Housing Resources.

A portion of the City’s RHNA will be satisfied by planned and approved projects that will develop 2,558 units. This analysis only considers the 10,399 units of capacity identified on housing opportunity sites on vacant land and potential rezone sites.

E.12.1 Housing Sites by TCAC Opportunity Area
For purposes of evaluating fair housing, resource levels designated by TCAC/HCD denote access to economic and educational opportunities such as low-cost transportation, jobs, and high-quality schools and the quality of environmental factors in the area such as proximity to hazards and air quality. TCAC has a composite opportunity score for each census tract. The majority of northern Fullerton is designated “Highest Resource” and “High Resource,” while southern Fullerton is mostly designated “Moderate Resource and “Low Resource.”
Figure E-44, Figure E-45, Figure E-46, Figure E-47, Figure E-48, Figure E-49, Figure E-50, and Figure E-51 show the location of the Housing Element opportunity sites by TCAC-designated resource area. Most of the housing opportunity units are in Highest, High, or Moderate-Resource areas: 3,500 units (34 percent) are located in Highest-Resource and High-Resource areas and 4,939 units (48 percent) are in ModerateResource areas. 1,967 units (19 percent) are located in Low-Resource areas.

The housing opportunity sites will add the following units to Low-Resource areas:
• 927 lower-income units (19 percent of total lower-income units) • 396 moderate-income units (19 percent of total moderate-income units) • 644 above moderate-income units (18 percent of total above moderate-income units) The housing opportunity sites will add the following units to Moderate-Resource areas in the city:
• 2,230 lower-income units (47 percent of total lower-income units) • 1,005 moderate-income units (49 percent of total moderate-income units) • 1,679 above moderate-income units (47 percent of total above moderate-income units) H-E-94 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
The planned and approved projects and the housing opportunity sites will add the following units to highand highest-resource areas:
• 1,616 lower-income units (34 percent of total lower-income units) • 664 moderate-income units (32 percent of total moderate-income units) • 1,220 above moderate-income units (34 percent of total above moderate-income units) The housing opportunity sites will add most of the lower-income units in moderate-, high-, and highestresource areas (81 percent). Similarly, a higher percentage of low-, moderate-, and above moderateincome units will be included in High- and Highest-Resource areas (34, 33, and 35 percent, respectively), than Low-Resource areas (18, 17, and 16 percent, respectively). Therefore, overall housing development during the planning period will not increase patterns of segregation and will increase integration by household income in terms of access to opportunity.

E.13 Sites by Income Population
The percentage of Low to Moderate Income (LMI) households vary across the city. Census tracts with more than 50 percent LMI households are located primarily in the southwestern area of the city. The communities with the highest percentage of LMI residents are Independence Park and Woodcrest Park in the south-central portion of the city (79 percent LMI).

As shown in Figure E-52, Figure E-53, Figure E-54, Figure E-55, Figure E-56, Figure E-57, Figure E-58, and Figure E-59, a majority of the housing opportunity sites are located in communities with greater than 50 percent of LMI populations (6,479 or 62 percent of all units). The Site Inventory assumes that the areas of the city with greater than 50 percent LMI households could accommodate 2,994 units appropriate for lowincome households (63 percent of the total lower-income units), 1,308 units for moderate-income households (63 percent of the total moderate-income units) and 2,177 units for above moderate-income households (61 percent of the total above moderate-income units). The Site Inventory assumes the areas of the city with less than 50 percent LMI households could accommodate 1,779 units appropriate for lower-income households, 757 units appropriate for moderate-income households, and 1,384 units for above moderate-income households. Lower-income areas in Fullerton will benefit from the mix of households of differing income levels and additional housing options. Without private investment in areas like Independence Park and Woodcrest Park, it is unlikely that these areas would revitalize in ways that advance housing equity in Fullerton.

E.14 Sites by Overcrowded Households
The majority of northern Fullerton has low levels of overcrowding (less than five percent of households), while southern Fullerton has higher rates of overcrowding (5 to 22 percent of households). The communities with the highest percentage of overcrowded households are Independence Park and Woodcrest Park in the south-central portion of the city (22 percent overcrowded). Figure E-60, Figure E-61, Figure E-62, Figure E-63, Figure E-64, Figure E-65, Figure E-66, and Figure E-67 show the Site Inventory by overcrowded households.

The Site Inventory assumes that areas with lower levels of overcrowding (less than 10 percent) could accommodate 6,682 units (64 percent of the city’s total Site Inventory), including 3,026 units appropriate for lower-income households (64 percent of the total lower-income units), 1,317 units for moderateincome households (64 percent of the total moderate-income units) and 2,339 units for above moderate- Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-95
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
income households (66 percent of the total above moderate-income units). The Site Inventory assumes that areas with higher levels of overcrowding (greater than 10 percent) could accommodate 3,717 units (36 percent of the Site Inventory), including 1,747 units appropriate for lower-income households, 748 units appropriate for moderate-income households, and 1,222 units for above moderate-income households.

The Site Inventory will not exacerbate overcrowding conditions but will add new housing opportunities across all income levels throughout the city, which will lessen the concentration of overcrowded households in southern Fullerton.

H-E-96 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-44 Housing Opportunity Sites by TCAC Opportunity Score (Craig Park, Acacia Park, Artisan Walk, Deerpark Dr/ Sherwood Ave) Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-97
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-45 Housing Opportunity Sites by TCAC Opportunity Score (E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd, La Habra Southeast, Sunny Hills, El Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr)
H-E-98 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-46 Housing Opportunity Sites by TCAC Opportunity Score (West Coyote Hills, Amerige Heights, La Habra South, W Commonwealth Ave/N Masque Ave, Independence Park, Sunny Hills, Santa Fe Distric/SoCo) ~!
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-99
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-47 Housing Opportunity Sites by TCAC Opportunity Score (Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St, Valencia Park, W Valencia Dr/Courtney Ave, Gilbert Park, W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, W Oak Ave/Lambert Dr, Nicolas Park) H-E-100 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-48 Housing Opportunity Sites by TCAC Opportunity Score (Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, California State University Fullerton, Bradford Park, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave)
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-101
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-49 Housing Opportunity Sites by TCAC Opportunity Score (The Fox Block, Byerrum Park, Rancho La Paz, Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, Chapman Park, California State University Fullerton) H-E-102 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-50 Housing Opportunity Sites by TCAC Opportunity Score (W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, Nicolas Park, Independence Park, S Wood Ave/W Orangethorpe Ave, Woodscrest Park, Rancho La Paz, Santa Fe District/SoCo) Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-103
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-51 Housing Opportunity Sites by TCAC Opportunity Score (Sunny Hills, Santa Fe District/SoCo, Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, The Fox Block)
H-E-104 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-52 Opportunity Sites by Income Population (Craig Park, Acacia Park, Artisan Walk, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave) Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-105
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-53 Opportunity Sites by Income Population (E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd, La Habra Southeast, Sunny Hills, El Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr)
H-E-106 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-54 Opportunity Sites by Income Population (West Coyote Hills, Amerige Heights, La Habra South, W Commonwealth Ave/N Masque Ave, Independence Park, Sunny Hills, Santa Fe Distric/SoCo) Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-107
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-55 Opportunity Sites by Income Population (Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St, Valencia Park, W Valencia Dr/Courtney Ave, Gilbert Park, W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, W Oak Ave/Lambert Dr, Nicolas Park) H-E-108 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-56 Opportunity Sites by Income Population (Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, California State University Fullerton, Bradford Park, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave)
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-109
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-57 Opportunity Sites by Income Population (The Fox Block, Byerrum Park, Rancho La Paz, Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, Chapman Park, California State University Fullerton)
H-E-110 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-58 Opportunity Sites by Income Population (W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, Nicolas Park, Independence Park, S Wood Ave/W Orangethorpe Ave, Woodscrest Park, Rancho La Paz, Santa Fe District/SoCo) Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-111
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-59 Opportunity Sites by Income Population (Sunny Hills, Santa Fe District/SoCo, Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, The Fox Block) H-E-112 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-60 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overcrowded Households (Craig Park, Acacia Park, Artisan Walk, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave) Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-113
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-61 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overcrowded Households (E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd, La Habra Southeast, Sunny Hills, El Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr)
H-E-114 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-62 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overcrowded Households (West Coyote Hills, Amerige Heights, La Habra South, W Commonwealth Ave/N Masque Ave, Independence Park, Sunny Hills, Santa Fe Distric/SoCo) Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-115
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-63 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overcrowded Households (Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St, Valencia Park, W Valencia Dr/Courtney Ave, Gilbert Park, W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, W Oak Ave/Lambert Dr, Nicolas Park) H-E-116 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-64 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overcrowded Households (Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, California State University Fullerton, Bradford Park, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave)
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-117
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-65 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overcrowded Households (The Fox Block, Byerrum Park, Rancho La Paz, Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, Chapman Park, California State University Fullerton) H-E-118 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-66 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overcrowded Households (W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, Nicolas Park, Independence Park, S Wood Ave/W Orangethorpe Ave, Woodscrest Park, Rancho La Paz, Santa Fe District/SoCo) Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-119
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-67 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overcrowded Households (Sunny Hills, Santa Fe District/SoCo, Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, The Fox Block)
H-E-120 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
E.14.1 Sites by Overpayment by Renters
The average housing overpayment rate for renter households in all census tracts in the city is 54 percent.

Overpayment is lowest in the northwestern communities of West Coyote Hills and La Habra South (less than 20 percent of renter households), and highest in the southern communities of Valencia Park and W Oak Ave/Lambert Dr (60 to 80 percent of renter households).

The housing opportunity sites will provide housing opportunities for a mix of income levels in areas with both high and low rates of overpayment by renters, as shown in Figure E-68, Figure E-69, Figure E-70, Figure E-71, Figure E-72, Figure E-73, Figure E-74, and Figure E-75. In areas with rates of overpayment by renters at or above 54 percent, the Site Inventory assumes capacity for 3,691 units (35 percent of the total inventory), including 1,672 units appropriate for low-income households (35 percent of the total lowerincome units), 755 units for moderate-income households (37 percent of the total moderate-income units) and 1,264 units for above moderate-income households (35 percent of the total above moderate-income units). The Site Inventory assumes the areas of the city with rates of overpayment by renters below 54 percent could accommodate 6,708 units (65 percent of the city’s total Site Inventory), including 3,101 units appropriate for lower-income households, 1,310 units appropriate for moderate-income households, and 2,297 units for above moderate-income households.

According to the UDP, new market-rate construction in gentrifying areas neither worsens nor eases rates of people moving out of the area.41 It increases rates of people moving to an area across all socio-economic groups, particularly high-socio-economic residents. The mix of lower-, moderate, and above moderateincome housing units in areas with high overpayment rates will provide affordable housing options for existing lower-income residents as well as encourage higher-income households to move into the area. The Site Inventory will add new rental housing opportunities which may alleviate high costs due to lack of availability.

E.15 Sites by Areas of Integration and Segregation
The northwestern and southeastern areas of the city are the most racially and ethnically diverse, with the highest percentage of non-white residents (between 80 and 100 percent), compared to the center and northeastern areas of the city, which are predominantly white.

The Site Inventory proposes 1,197 housing units (11 percent of the total inventory) in communities where non-white residents exceed 75 percent of the population, including 558 lower-income units (12 percent of total lower-income units), 243 moderate income units (12 percent of total moderate-income units), and 396 above moderate-income units (11 percent of total above moderate-income units). Figure E-76, Figure E-77, Figure E-78, Figure E-79, Figure E-80, Figure E-81, Figure E-82, and Figure E-83 show the housing opportunity sites by percent of the population comprised of non-white residents. Almost 90 percent of the total Site Inventory units are located in areas with less than 75 percent non-white residents. The Site Inventory will not contribute to segregation based on race/ethnicity.

Additionally, the neighborhoods of Sunny Hills, El Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr, Bastanchurty Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, Craig Park, Acacia Park, and Byerrum Park are designated as RCAAs. As shown in Figure E-84, Figure E-85, Figure E-86, Figure E-87, Figure E-88, Figure E-89, Figure E-90, and Figure E-91, the Site Inventory identifies 1,380 housing units in these areas (13 percent of all units), including 659 lower-income units, 272 41 Chapple, Hwang, Jeon, Zhang, Greenberg, and Kumar. New Development for Whom? How New Housing Production Affects Displacement and Replacement in the San Francisco Bay Area. 2022. https://www.urbandisplacement.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/IGS_1_New-Production_Brief_03.01.22.pdf, accessed August, 2023.

Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-121
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
moderate-income units, and 449 above moderate-income units. The addition of housing units in these areas will further integrate households of varied incomes within the city.

E.16 Sites by Communities Vulnerable to Displacement
While most of Fullerton is at lower risk of displacement, there are several communities in southern Fullerton that are considered vulnerable to displacement, including the neighborhoods of Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St, Valencia Park, Woodcrest Park, Rancho La Paz, California State University Fullerton, and Bradford Park. These neighborhoods also have higher poverty rates, higher percentage of LMI residents, overcrowded households and were more likely to have a higher percentage of Hispanic/Latino residents.

Figure E-92, Figure E-93, Figure E-94, Figure E-95, Figure E-96, Figure E-97, Figure E-98, and Figure E-99 show the housing opportunity sites in relation to the location of areas that are at risk of displacement. The majority of the housing opportunity sites identified by the Site Inventory are located in areas with lower displacement risk. Nineteen percent of the Site Inventory is located in areas considered at risk of displacement, including 878 low-income units, 417 moderate-income units, and 703 above moderateincome units. Additional lower-income and moderate-income units in areas of displacement risk will provide affordable housing options for existing low- and moderate-income residents, allowing residents to remain in their communities, and additional moderate- and above moderate-income units may provide housing mobility options and opportunities for home ownership to increase neighborhood stabilization.

E.17 Sites by CalEnviroScreen Score
The majority of the city has low or moderate CalEnviroScreen scores. However, there are a few neighborhoods that are subject to high CalEnviroScreen scores. In general, the northern portion of the city, particularly the neighborhoods of Sunny Hills and Acacia Park, has more positive environmental outcomes than areas south. Higher CalEnviroScreen scores (associated with negative environmental outcomes) are located within the southeastern portion of the city. Figure E-100, Figure E-101, Figure E-102, Figure E-103, Figure E-104, Figure E-105, Figure E-106, and Figure E-107 show the housing opportunity sites by CalEnviroScreen score.

The average CalEnviroScreen score for census tracts in the city is 72. Approximately 61 percent of the housing units proposed by the Site Inventory are proposed in census tracts with a CalEnviroScreen score higher than 75. The remaining 39 percent of housing units are in a census tract with a CalEnviroScreen score lower than 75. Of the units located in areas with higher CalEnviroScreen scores, 2,907 units are appropriate for low-income residents (61 percent of the low-income units), 1,260 units are appropriate for moderate-income residents (61 percent of the moderate-income units), and 2,212 units appropriate for above moderate-income residents (62 percent of the above moderate-income units).

H-E-122 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-68 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overpayment by Renters (Craig Park, Acacia Park, Artisan Walk, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave) Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-123
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-69 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overpayment by Renters (E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd, La Habra Southeast, Sunny Hills, El Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr)
H-E-124 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-70 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overpayment by Renters (West Coyote Hills, Amerige Heights, La Habra South, W Commonwealth Ave/N Masque Ave, Independence Park, Sunny Hills, Santa Fe Distric/SoCo) Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-125
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-71 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overpayment by Renters (Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St, Valencia Park, W Valencia Dr/Courtney Ave, Gilbert Park, W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, W Oak Ave/Lambert Dr, Nicolas Park) H-E-126 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-72 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overpayment by Renters (Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, California State University Fullerton, Bradford Park, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave)
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-127
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-73 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overpayment by Renters (The Fox Block, Byerrum Park, Rancho La Paz, Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, Chapman Park, California State University Fullerton) H-E-128 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-74 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overpayment by Renters (W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, Nicolas Park, Independence Park, S Wood Ave/W Orangethorpe Ave, Woodscrest Park, Rancho La Paz, Santa Fe District/SoCo) Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-129
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-75 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overpayment by Renters (Sunny Hills, Santa Fe District/SoCo, Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, The Fox Block)
H-E-130 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-76 Housing Opportunity Sites by Total Non-White Population (Craig Park, Acacia Park, Artisan Walk, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave) Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-131
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-77 Housing Opportunity Sites by Total Non-White Population (E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd, La Habra Southeast, Sunny Hills, El Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr)
H-E-132 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-78 Housing Opportunity Sites by Total Non-White Population (West Coyote Hills, Amerige Heights, La Habra South, W Commonwealth Ave/N Masque Ave, Independence Park, Sunny Hills, Santa Fe Distric/SoCo) Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-133
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-79 Housing Opportunity Sites by Total Non-White Population (Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St, Valencia Park, W Valencia Dr/Courtney Ave, Gilbert Park, W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, W Oak Ave/Lambert Dr, Nicolas Park) H-E-134 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-80 Housing Opportunity Sites by Total Non-White Population (Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, California State University Fullerton, Bradford Park, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave)
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-135
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-81 Housing Opportunity Sites by Total Non-White Population (The Fox Block, Byerrum Park, Rancho La Paz, Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, Chapman Park, California State University Fullerton) H-E-136 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-82 Housing Opportunity Sites by Total Non-White Population (W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, Nicolas Park, Independence Park, S Wood Ave/W Orangethorpe Ave, Woodscrest Park, Rancho La Paz, Santa Fe District/SoCo) Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-137
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-83 Housing Opportunity Sites by Total Non-White Population (Sunny Hills, Santa Fe District/SoCo, Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, The Fox Block)
H-E-138 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-84 Housing Opportunity Sites by Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (Craig Park, Acacia Park, Artisan Walk, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave)
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-139
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-85 Housing Opportunity Sites by Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd, La Habra Southeast, Sunny Hills, El Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr)
H-E-140 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-86 Housing Opportunity Sites by Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (West Coyote Hills, Amerige Heights, La Habra South, W Commonwealth Ave/N Masque Ave, Independence Park, Sunny Hills, Santa Fe Distric/SoCo) Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-141
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-87 Housing Opportunity Sites by Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St, Valencia Park, W Valencia Dr/Courtney Ave, Gilbert Park, W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, W Oak Ave/Lambert Dr, Nicolas Park) H-E-142 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-88 Housing Opportunity Sites by Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, California State University Fullerton, Bradford Park, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave) Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-143
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-89 Housing Opportunity Sites by Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (The Fox Block, Byerrum Park, Rancho La Paz, Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, Chapman Park, California State University Fullerton) H-E-144 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-90 Housing Opportunity Sites by Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, Nicolas Park, Independence Park, S Wood Ave/W Orangethorpe Ave, Woodscrest Park, Rancho La Paz, Santa Fe District/SoCo) Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-145
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-91 Housing Opportunity Sites by Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (Sunny Hills, Santa Fe District/SoCo, Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, The Fox Block)
H-E-146 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-92 Housing Opportunity Sites by Displacement Risk (Craig Park, Acacia Park, Artisan Walk, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave) Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-147
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-93 Housing Opportunity Sites by Displacement Risk (E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd, La Habra Southeast, Sunny Hills, El Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr)
H-E-148 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-94 Housing Opportunity Sites by Displacement Risk (West Coyote Hills, Amerige Heights, La Habra South, W Commonwealth Ave/N Masque Ave, Independence Park, Sunny Hills, Santa Fe Distric/SoCo) Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-149
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-95 Housing Opportunity Sites by Displacement Risk (Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St, Valencia Park, W Valencia Dr/Courtney Ave, Gilbert Park, W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, W Oak Ave/Lambert Dr, Nicolas Park) H-E-150 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-96 Housing Opportunity Sites by Displacement Risk (Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, California State University Fullerton, Bradford Park, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave)
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-151
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-97 Housing Opportunity Sites by Displacement Risk (The Fox Block, Byerrum Park, Rancho La Paz, Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, Chapman Park, California State University Fullerton) H-E-152 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-98 Housing Opportunity Sites by Displacement Risk (W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, Nicolas Park, Independence Park, S Wood Ave/W Orangethorpe Ave, Woodscrest Park, Rancho La Paz, Santa Fe District/SoCo) Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-153
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-99 Housing Opportunity Sites by Displacement Risk (Sunny Hills, Santa Fe District/SoCo, Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, The Fox Block)
H-E-154 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-100 Housing Opportunity Sites by CalEnviroScreen Score (Craig Park, Acacia Park, Artisan Walk, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave) Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-155
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-101 Housing Opportunity Sites by CalEnviroScreen Score (E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd, La Habra Southeast, Sunny Hills, El Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr)
H-E-156 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-102 Housing Opportunity Sites by CalEnviroScreen Score (West Coyote Hills, Amerige Heights, La Habra South, W Commonwealth Ave/N Masque Ave, Independence Park, Sunny Hills, Santa Fe Distric/SoCo) Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-157
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-103 Housing Opportunity Sites by CalEnviroScreen Score (Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St, Valencia Park, W Valencia Dr/Courtney Ave, Gilbert Park, W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, W Oak Ave/Lambert Dr, Nicolas Park) H-E-158 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-104 Housing Opportunity Sites by CalEnviroScreen Score (Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, California State University Fullerton, Bradford Park, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave)
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-159
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-105 Housing Opportunity Sites by CalEnviroScreen Score (The Fox Block, Byerrum Park, Rancho La Paz, Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, Chapman Park, California State University Fullerton) H-E-160 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-106 Housing Opportunity Sites by CalEnviroScreen Score (W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, Nicolas Park, Independence Park, S Wood Ave/W Orangethorpe Ave, Woodscrest Park, Rancho La Paz, Santa Fe District/SoCo) Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-161
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-107 Housing Opportunity Sites by CalEnviroScreen Score (Sunny Hills, Santa Fe District/SoCo, Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, The Fox Block)
H-E-162 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Sites Analysis Summary Data
Table E-13 summarizes the Site Inventory by development priority area, sites, number of units by income level, and census tract characteristics.

E.18 Contributing Factors and Meaningful Actions
State law (AB 686) requires identification and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues based on all the previously required analysis. This identification and prioritization must give highest priority to factors that limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights. AB 686 also requires identification of metrics or quantified objectives and milestones for determining what fair housing results will be achieved. Meaningful actions must be taken in concert with each other and address the following:
• Significant Disparities in Housing Needs and in Access to Opportunity • Replacing Segregated Living Patterns with Truly Integrated and Balanced Living Patterns • Transforming R/ECAP into Areas of Opportunity
• Fostering and Maintaining Compliance with Civil Rights and Fair Housing Laws42 This section lists contributing factors that create, perpetuate, or increase the severity of one or more fair housing issues that were identified in the AI, community outreach, and the analysis in this document.

Table E-14 summarizes the identified fair housing issues, contributing factors to these issues, and meaningful actions the City will undertake to affirmatively further fair housing for special needs, racial/ethnic minority, and low-income residents.

E.18.1 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
The following contributing factors to inadequate fair housing enforcement and outreach include:
• Lack of local private fair housing outreach and enforcement • Lack of local public fair housing enforcement
• Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations to conduct more rigorous testing and audits, outreach, training, public education campaigns. • Lack of funding for consumer rights and responsibility education on Fair Lending practices and identification of predatory lending practices.
• Lack of language access
Although Fullerton residents are served by the Fair Housing Foundation, fair housing resources are limited due to available funding. Additionally, as stated in the AI, the size of the federal Fair Housing Initiatives Program, the primary funding program for fair housing organizations, has failed to keep up with inflation, reducing the capacity of fair housing organizations over time. In order to meet the needs of residents of a large and diverse county, local fair housing agencies and organizations require greater levels of resourcing. 42 HCD. 2021. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements. April 2021 Update. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-163
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
This page intentionally left blank.

H-E-164 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Table E-13 Site Inventory by Census Tract Characteristics Neighborhood
and Census Tract
Number of
Existing
Households
Site Inventory Capacity (Units) AFFH Indicators
LowerIncome ModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncome
Percent
NonWhite
Median
Household
Income
Percent LMI
Households
TCAC
Opportunity
Area
Percent
Overpayment by
Renters
Percent
Overcrowded
Households
Displacement
Sensitivity
CalEnviroScreen
Percentile
Acacia Park
6059001602 1,701 79 30 46 41.12% $137,869 19.94% Highest Resource

51.1% 0.59% Lower Risk 29.33
Amerige Heights
6059001704 2,411 261 98 155 94.11% $137,202 34.57% Highest Resource

49.9% 3.28% Lower Risk 55.61
Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St
6059001801 1,659 263 103 165 75.53% $56,169 70.21% Low
Resource
60% 11.51% At Risk 90.45
Artisan Walk
6059011707 2,437 126 47 77 41.76% $92,593 39.02% Highest Resource

61.2% 1.07% Lower Risk 66.63
Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr
6059001601 1,559 74 32 57 51.25% $105,801 34.74% Highest Resource

56.8% 3.85% Lower Risk 90.09
Bradford Park
6059011711 2,425 84 36 66 86.61% $64,961 70.33% High
Resource

63.9% 6.93% At Risk 60.16
Brea West
6059001503 1,811 1 3 7 46.43% $98,157 40.82% High
Resource

60.5% 5.58% Lower Risk 93.06
Byerrum Park
6059011402 979 0 1 4 38.36% $127,847 19.7% High
Resource

31.4% 1.23% Lower Risk 48.39
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-165
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Neighborhood
and Census Tract
Number of
Existing
Households
Site Inventory Capacity (Units) AFFH Indicators
LowerIncome ModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncome
Percent
NonWhite
Median
Household
Income
Percent LMI
Households
TCAC
Opportunity
Area
Percent
Overpayment by
Renters
Percent
Overcrowded
Households
Displacement
Sensitivity
CalEnviroScreen
Percentile
California State University Fullerton
6059011504 1,795 140 67 113 59.36% $46,992 70.91% Moderate Resource

79.3% 3.90% 1 Income Group
Displacement

61.84 Chapman Park
6059011502 1,633 426 173 287 65.70% $76,458 67.46% High Resource

52.9% 7.23% Lower Risk 95.26
Craig Park
6059001505 2,349 31 22 37 53.68% $132,932 36.79% High
Resource

63.8% 8.05% Lower Risk 62.60
Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave
6059011708 1,695 21 7 14 59.70% $82,614 61.28% Moderate Resource

54.2% 6.73% Lower Risk 57.62
E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd
6059001404 997 278 105 168 66.58% $81,602 70.47% Low
Resource

42.5% 12.14% Lower Risk 95.00
E Wilshire Ave/N Raymond Ave
6059011403 1,922 815 329 530 60.96% $85,481 63.68% Moderate Resource

57.3% 11.55% Lower Risk 95.83
Gilbert Park
6059001903 885 52 22 36 66.26% $98,819 42.9% Low
Resource

51.2% 9.72% Lower Risk 80.49
Independence Park
6059011200 1,667 534 220 373 57.18% $96,964 41.94% Moderate Resource

42.8% 5.28% Lower Risk 58.95
Nicolas Park
H-E-166 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Neighborhood
and Census Tract
Number of
Existing
Households
Site Inventory Capacity (Units) AFFH Indicators
LowerIncome ModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncome
Percent
NonWhite
Median
Household
Income
Percent LMI
Households
TCAC
Opportunity
Area
Percent
Overpayment by
Renters
Percent
Overcrowded
Households
Displacement
Sensitivity
CalEnviroScreen
Percentile
6059011101 1,339 86 56 101 67.25% $98,165 49.54% Moderate Resource

42.9% 8.44% Lower Risk 70.82
Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl
6059011503 553 2 8 13 44.46% $107,102 16.56% High
Resource

37.7% 4.52% Lower Risk 48.46
Rancho La Paz
6059011602 1,760 300 124 199 68.68% $65,192 75.97% Low
Resource

53.5% 12.22% At Risk 99.69
S Woods Ave/W Orangethorpe Ave
6059011102 1,188 25 18 31 71.47% $111,524 52.61% Moderate Resource

60.2% 6.82% Lower Risk 72.97
Santa Fe District/SoCo
6059011300 2,030 56 23 159 57.96% $92,604 40.72% High
Resource

48.2% 2.86% Lower Risk 89.50
Sunny Hills
6059001706 1,331 475 187 305 57.30% $184,018 25.2% Highest Resource

48.5% 3.98% Lower Risk 34.60
The Fox Block
6059011401 663 1 4 7 55.81% $138,625 36.97% High
Resource

42.9% 3.62% Lower t Risk 48.62
Valencia Park
6059001802 2,248 57 45 84 77.44% $61,354 76.8% Moderate Resource

66.1% 13.75% At Risk 85.65
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-167
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Neighborhood
and Census Tract
Number of
Existing
Households
Site Inventory Capacity (Units) AFFH Indicators
LowerIncome ModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncome
Percent
NonWhite
Median
Household
Income
Percent LMI
Households
TCAC
Opportunity
Area
Percent
Overpayment by
Renters
Percent
Overcrowded
Households
Displacement
Sensitivity
CalEnviroScreen
Percentile
W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave
6059011000 2,521 551 259 444 67.59% $81,033 50.63% Moderate Resource

44.7% 0.67% Lower Risk 83.95
6059011101 1,339 86 56 101 66.64% $98,165 49.54% Moderate Resource

42.9% 8.44% Lower t Risk 70.82
W Valencia Dr/Courtney Ave
6059001901 850 1 4 7 59.84% $106,630 44.09% Moderate
Resource

70.2% 2.94% Lower Risk 59.76
Woodcrest Park
6059011601 2,240 34 42 76 78.12% $65,789 79.36% Low
Resource

68.1% 21.88% At Risk 96.58
Total 4,773 2,065 3,561
H-E-168 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
There are no local public entities that conduct fair housing outreach and enforcement in Fullerton. The city provides links to the Fair Housing Foundation and upcoming fair housing workshops. A local agency contracted by the City would have the potential to be more responsive to discrimination complaints.

According to the AI, 20 percent of city residents have Limited English Proficiency (LEP), with Spanish being the most commonly spoken language other than English, followed by Korean, Chinese, and Vietnamese.

Residents with LEP may have a harder time understanding fair housing laws and increased difficulty in accessing fair housing resources. Fair housing outreach must be inclusive of multiple languages to accommodate LEP residents.

E.18.2 Segregation and Integration
Contributing factors to segregation and integration patterns in Fullerton include:
• Location, type, and supply of affordable housing
• Land use and zoning laws
• Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
• Racial discrepancies in loan origination
Fullerton is an ethnically diverse city with a high degree of integration. As previously mentioned, most areas of Fullerton have a three-group neighborhood mix consisting of Asian American, Hispanic/Latino, and non-Hispanic white residents, and several neighborhoods have a four-racial group mix. No singular racial/ethnic group is segregated within Fullerton, but there several neighborhoods with predominant racial gaps (gap greater than 50 percent), with a predominantly Asian American population in the eastern area of the city and a predominantly Hispanic/Latino population in the southwestern area of the city.

Economic disparities have been intensified by the high cost of housing in recent years in Fullerton and Orange County as a whole, which have resulted in displacement of low-income residents. These disparities have been worsened by the limited growth of low- and moderate-income housing in the city and have resulted in significant segregation by race and ethnicity and income levels.

Zoning patterns exacerbate patterns of segregation by concentrating higher density residential zoning and industrial zoning in southern and southeast portion of Fullerton and low-density residential and open space zoning in the northern portion of the city. The majority of the multifamily homes are located in the southern neighborhoods with a predominant Hispanic/Latino population that are at risk of displacement.

Recent new multifamily development within the city is also concentrated in southern Fullerton, while new single-family development and open space preservation is concentrated in high resource areas in northern Fullerton. While recent new developments have increased the availability of housing in areas that need it, the dichotomy in development patterns further segregates the city by incomes and race. Further, the majority of the existing subsidized housing stock is located in proximity to the industrial zoned areas in the city in the neighborhoods of Woodcrest Park and Rancho La Paz, which exacerbates economic segregation and subjects lower-income residents to poorer air quality.

Disparities in mortgage origination is a contributing factor to fair housing issues in Fullerton. Asian American and white, non-Hispanic mortgage applicants had their loans originated at higher rates compared to other races. Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino applicants had the highest loan denial rate. This may be due to disparities in income and mortgage education across races.

Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-169
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
E.18.3 Significant Disparities in Housing Needs and Access to Opportunity The following contributing factors to disparities in access to opportunities in Fullerton include:
• The availability, type, frequency, and reliability of public transportation • Location of environmental health hazards
• Location, type, and supply of affordable housing
• The availability of affordable units in a range of sizes Access to Opportunity
According to HCD, access to opportunity is a concept to approximate place-based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes. Neighborhoods located in the southeastern central area of the city are generally associated with lower access to opportunity in terms of environmental health determinants, housing, and economic opportunities. The neighborhoods with the lowest outcomes across all opportunity areas include Woodcrest Park and Rancho La Paz. Conversely, the northern portion of the city has greater access to educational, economic, and environmental opportunities than the southern half of the city.

Neighborhoods in southern Fullerton, such as Woodcrest Park, E Wilshire Ave/N Raymond Ave, Chapman Park, and Rancho La Paz, have higher levels of exposure to particulate matter from truck and vehicle emissions due to the proximity of industrial and commercial uses. These neighborhoods have the highest housing density within the city, with the majority of multifamily homes concentrated in these areas.

Subsidized housing units are also concentrated in this area of the city. As a result, there is a high percentage of lower-income, non-white residents that are exposed to greater environmental hazards, compared to the wealthier communities in northern Fullerton that are primarily comprised of single-family homes.

In general, the disproportionately white and Asian American northern half of the city, which tends to have greater access to opportunities, is primarily comprised of single-family homes, contributing to higher housing costs. Increasing housing affordability and the availability of different housing types in these areas would make it easier for low-income households, which disproportionately are associated with Hispanic/Latino and Black/African American households, to access the types of services and amenities that further social mobility.

Transit Access
The lack of service routes for public transportation in northern Fullerton impacts fair housing issues in the city. The southern half of the city is more heavily serviced with more bus routes than the northern half of the city. Households that rely on public transit are pressured to reside in southern Fullerton, which has a higher degree of pollution exposure, a lower median household income, and a higher percentage of Hispanic/Latino and Black/African-American residents than northern Fullerton. Therefore, lack of transit options in northern Fullerton reinforces existing patterns of segregation and lack of access to opportunity.

Housing Needs
Overcrowding, as defined by HUD, in Fullerton is higher than Orange County. Broken down by race, overcrowding was a more common housing issue for residents of Fullerton who identified as American Indian/Alaskan Native, Hispanic/Latino, and those of other race or multiple races than for people who identified as white, Black/African American, or American Indian/Alaska Native. According to the AI, the H-E-170 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
majority of subsidized housing units, includng Project-Based Section 8 units, other multifamily assisted units, and HCV units are comprised of studios and one-bedroom units. As a result, low-income households, especially those with multiple children, may have difficulty finding adequately sized affordable housing.

E.19 Meaningful Actions to Address Fair Housing Issues
This assessment of fair housing issues identifies factors that contribute to fair housing issues in Fullerton, identified in Table E-14. The meaningful actions are incorporated into programs and actions in Chapter 4, Housing Policy Plan. Based on community feedback and data analysis, it was determined that high-priority issues in the city are lack of affordable housing, displacement, and segregation of low-income residents.

Fair housing enforcement and outreach are determined to be medium priority. Additionally, several programs included in Chapter 4, Housing Policy Plan, affirmatively further fair housing by the action areas determined by HCD.

Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-171
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Table E-14 Meaningful Actions to Address Fair Housing Issues Identified Fair Housing
Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Fair housing
enforcement and
outreach
• Lack of local private
fair housing outreach
and enforcement
(Priority: high)
• Lack of public fair
housing enforcement
(Priority: medium)
• Lack of resources for
fair housing agencies
to conduct more
rigorous testing and
audits, outreach,
training, public
education campaigns
(Priority: high).
• Lack of funding for
consumer rights and
responsibility
education on Fair
Lending practices and
identification of
predatory lending
practices. (Priority:
medium)
• Lack of language
access (Priority: high)
Fair Housing Services and Education:
• Provide informational seminars to area residential real estate agents and brokers on fair housing laws and regulations; • Work with tenants, tenant advocates to identify violations of fair housing federal and State fair housing laws and support prospective and existing tenants who are experiencing
discrimination;
• Provide trainings for property owners/managers on the requirements of federal and State fair housing laws to prevent discrimination. (Policy Action 3.13-a)
Provide trainings to at least 15 real estate agents
and brokers annually.

Provide trainings to at least 15 property owners
and managers annually.

Report the number of complaint-based testing
efforts and number of resulting complaints filed
with HUD or CRD annually.

With the Fair Housing Foundation, support an annual Fair Housing Audit Report that assesses typical or timely market-based suspected areas of discrimination. (Policy Action 3.13-e) Consult with the Fair Housing Foundation to
review methodology for a Fair Housing Audit by
January 2025.

Affordable Rental Housing Counseling Services: Provide funding for information and referral services that direct families and individuals with financial resources for housing rental or purchase, locating suitable housing, and obtaining housing with special needs facilities such as disabled-accessible units. (Policy Action 3.13-b) Beginning in 2025, hold at least four informational
events during the planning period to disseminate
informational materials or provide trainings to
residents, prioritizing communities sensitive to
displacement (Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert, Valencia
Park, Woodcrest Park, Rancho La Paz, and
California State University Fullerton). Assist at
least 50 residents and landlords with fair housing
services annually.

Create a Language Access Plan based on HUD guidelines and publish on the City’s website: The goal of the Language Access Plan is to survey, maintain and publish a list of multi-lingual staffcapacity at City Hall so that staff may respond to the needs of Limited English Proficiency households. (Policy Action 3.5-b) Create a Language Access Plan by January 2025.

Maintain multilingual staff capacity at City Hall to
respond to the needs of Limited English
Proficiency households and ensure that all
residents may participate fully and equally in the
housing market.

H-E-172 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Identified Fair Housing
Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Ensure that local housing programs respond to the needs of a culturally diverse community that includes multi-generational families, a variety of living arrangements, and Limited English Proficiency households. Plans should ensure collaboration with community groups, including faith-based and nonprofit
organizations, to provide outreach on housing resources to all types of households and those households with Limited English Proficiency. (Policy Action 3.13-c)
Review the existing fair housing marketing plan
every two years ensure compliance with current
City policy to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
and make necessary changes within six months.

Fair Lending: Work to promote fair lending practices throughout the city:
• Ensure that low-income and minority residents have fair access to capital resources needed to acquire and maintain housing. • Prevent predatory lending through information and referrals to the Fair Housing Foundation. (Policy Action 3.13-f)
Annually conduct and publish third party review of
City or regional HMDA data to identify areas of
need regarding fair access to lending.

Add information on fair housing laws and resources on the City’s website regarding housing programs in several languages. (Policy Action 3.13-g)
Update website content with updated information
on fair housing services and programs by January
2025.

Seek opportunities to expand outreach and public education strategies on available tenant protection, fair housing services, and homeownership education to reach vulnerable households by offering information in multiple languages, targeted social media efforts, combining information with other assistance programs, distributing resources through local schools and colleges, and partnering with community-based organizations. (Policy Action

3.13-h)
Partner with three new schools or communitybased organizations during the planning period to disseminate materials and provide trainings to
residents, prioritizing services in communities
sensitive to displacement within southern
Fullerton, including Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St,
Valencia Park, Woodcrest Park, Rancho La Paz,
California State University Fullerton, and Bradford
Park.

Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-173
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Identified Fair Housing
Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Concentration of
minority and low-income
residents in southern
Fullerton; displacement
of residents
• Location, type, and
supply of affordable
housing (Priority: high)
• Land use and zoning
laws (Priority:
medium)
• Displacement of
residents due to
economic pressures
(Priority: high)
• Racial discrepancies in
loan origination
• The availability, type,
frequency, and
reliability of public
transportation
(Priority: medium)
Develop an outreach strategy in multiple languages for property owners who own fewer than 10 residential units (either in singlefamily or multi-family rental housing) to assess needs and connect them with resources, such as housing unit rehabilitation and financing programs. The intent of this program is to preserve Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (i.e., not currently regulated with affordability restrictions), particularly in the neighborhoods of Woodcrest Park and Rancho La Paz. The program will seek to prioritize communities vulnerable to displacement, generally in the southern areas of the city, a focus on neighborhoods with lower median income. (Policy Action 3.14-a)
Develop an outreach strategy for “mom and pop”
property owners by January 2026. After the
strategy is adopted, conduct outreach to at least
15 property owners with less than 10 units and
assist at least 5 property owners with a combined
total of 20 units or more by December 2029.

Implement changes to the in-lieu fee structure and the desire and ability of developers to contribute to an affordable housing trust fund. Adopt incentives such as increased densities, increased height limits, reduced parking standards, and ministerial review for projects that incorporate increased affordable units or deeper levels of affordability. (Policy Action 3.14-b)
Complete a feasibility study on in-lieu payments to
a Housing Trust Fund by January 2026. If feasible,
amend the municipal code to allow for an in-lieu
fee structure by December 2027 and implement
an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance by December
2029.

Facilitate the development of housing for persons with disabilities (including developmental disabilities) through incentives for affordable housing development with services, resources, and assistance. (Policy Action 3.17-a)
Develop 25 housing units for special needs
households during the planning period.

Increase participation in homeownership education and assistance programs for historically underrepresented residents in the homeownership market. (Policy Action 3.18-a)
Partner with the County and/or community-based
organizations to facilitate homeownership
workshops, counseling, and/or education
campaigns by January 2025. Organizations may
include teachers’ associations, school districts,
and community-based service providers to
increase awareness of, and access to, housing
resources and financial planning services during
the planning period.

By October 31, 2029, connect at least 30 residents
to education on homeownership-related topics in
the neighborhoods of Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert,
Valencia Park, Woodcrest Park, Rancho La Paz,
and California State University Fullerton.

H-E-174 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Identified Fair Housing
Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Review the City’s Tenant-Based Rental Assistance program with input from tenants and property owners/managers, ensuring representation across the economic spectrum, and update as appropriate. Outreach to be conducted to all vulnerable communities during the update process and after final adoption in 2027.

Fill any gaps between Section 8 assistance and rent, or to aid those who may not qualify for Section 8 but need one-time emergency assistance, to provide relief to tenants to avoid the displacement in vulnerable communities. (Policy Action 3.14-c)
Update the City’s Tenant-Based Rental Assistance
program by January 2027.

Prepare and present a report on
recommendations for programs that would
provide relief to tenants and landlords to avoid
the displacement in vulnerable communities by
December 2026. If a rental assistance program is
approved and implemented as a result, the
program will assist at least 10 lower income renter
households annually.

Evaluate existing State and federal “just cause for eviction” (AB 1482; 2019-Chiu) and other similar legislation with provisions to determine if additional protections through a local ordinance is warranted. (Policy Action 3.16-c)
In consultation with fair housing service providers
and community-based organizations, assess if
additional protections are needed, by January
2026. If warranted, recommend adoption of a
local tenant protection ordinance to City Council
by December 2026.

Provide financial support to organizations that provide supportive housing for emancipated foster youth (ages 18-21) who are homeless or at immediate risk of becoming homeless. (Policy Action 3.15-f)
Assist at least 10 foster youth with supportive
housing during the planning period by December
2029.

In compliance with recent updates to the Surplus Land Act (AB 1255, 2019-Rivas; AB 1486, 2019-Ting), identify City-owned land for the development of affordable housing. If surplus properties are identified, pursue development via a competitive Request for Proposals or other processes. (Policy Action 3.7-d)
Report on identified surplus land in Housing
Element Annual Progress reports. Annually, assess
the list of surplus sites and solicit development via
a competitive RFP process or other forms of
partnership such as land lease agreements.

Acquire funds from local, state, and federal grant opportunities, including the HCD Infill Infrastructure Grant Program, to support the development of affordable housing, housing for special needs, and support service projects. When a critical mass of state (various HCD programs) and/or federal (CDBG, HOME) funding is available, the City will issue a competitive Notice of Funding Availability with objective criteria to transparently identify the best non-profit affordable housing developer to partner with on new affordable housing developments in the city.

Partner with at least one nonprofit housing
developer biennially throughout the planning
period and support the entitlement of at least 400
subsidized housing units affordable to extremely
low-, very low-, and low-income households in the
city during the planning period.

Conduct feasibility study for an affordable housing
trust fund by January 2027.

Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-175
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Identified Fair Housing
Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Partner with Orange County Housing Finance Trust to secure funding for affordable housing in Fullerton. (Policy Action 3.7-c) Develop a web-based Housing Development Toolkit that outlines a step-by-step process for residential development, including identifying steps in the entitlement and building permit process, detailed information on development incentives, and funding programs and resources for affordable housing development. (Policy Action 3.4-d)
Publish Housing Development Toolkit on City’s
website by December 2026.

Review the General Plan, applicable Specific Plans, and Zoning Code and Zoning Map to evaluate opportunities for removing barriers to housing production such as adding housing capacity and
accommodating a greater mix of dwelling types and sizes in High and Highest Resource areas identified by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), focusing efforts in northeastern and northwestern Fullerton. Recommend amendments, as necessary, to accommodate added housing capacity in these areas.

Additionally, review the Zoning Code to identify opportunities to increase and encourage a greater mix of dwelling types and sizes, specifically housing types that may accommodate moderateincome households (e.g., duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, courtyard buildings), in lower-density residential areas and mixed-use zones citywide and amend the Zoning Code as needed (i.e., implementation of LTD). (Policy Action 3.4-g) Review the General Plan, applicable Specific Plan,
and Zoning Code and Zoning Map by June 2025
and implement any changes by January 2026.

Following adoption of zoning code changes,
monitor at least 1,801 moderate-income units and
2,238 lower-income units to be constructed
annually in High and Highest Resource areas as
designated by TCAC. Permit the development of at
least 150 moderate-income dwelling types in the
neighborhoods of E Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood
Dr, Craig park, Sunny Hills, Bastanchury
Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, Acacia Park, and Byerrum Park
(Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence) by the
end of 2029.

Identify and advertise housing opportunity sites within one-quarter mile of public transit stops in northern Fullerton. Educate developers on the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Housing Program, and/or pursue funding to increase transit infrastructure in northern Fullerton. (Policy Action 3.14-d)
On an ongoing basis, consult with interested
developers on the TOD Housing Program. Conduct
a study with OCTA to identify capital projects to
increase transit infrastructure by 2026. Apply for
TOD Housing Program funds as NOFA becomes
available.

Partner with Cal State Fullerton to develop a plan to address the need for off-campus affordable housing for students. (Policy Action

3.4-m)
Develop a city-wide student housing plan by
December 2029.

H-E-176 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Identified Fair Housing
Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Monitor lot splits and two-unit developments under SB 9, provide technical assistance to homeowners, and develop or adjust development standards as needed. Provide easily accessible information and resources about SB 9 on the City website. Conduct outreach to homeowners’ associations in the neighborhoods of E Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr, Craig Park, Sunny Hills,
Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, Acacia Park, and Byerrum Park, and the neighborhoods in northwest Fullerton, and provide information on SB 9 (Policy Action 3.3-b)
Beginning in 2025, meet with at least one
homeowners’ association annually in the areas of
northwest Fullerton and the neighborhoods of E
Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr, Craig Park, Sunny
Hills, Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, Acacia Park,
and Byerrum Park to provide education on SB 9
implementation. Amend the Zoning Code to
comply with SB 9 by December 2025.

Conduct outreach to religious institutions and provide technical assistance for interested parties to develop affordable housing on sites zoned religious institution (Policy Action 3.3-f).

Starting in 2025, annually mail or email resources
on developing affordable housing to all religious
institutions in the city with underutilized land.

Conduct follow up calls with institutions with sites
that hold the most potential based on location
and size, prioritizing potential sites in the
neighborhoods of E Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood
Dr, Craig Park, Sunny Hills, Bastanchury
Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, Acacia Park, and Byerrum Park
since they are Racially Concentrated Areas of
Affluence. By December 2026, present
information during at least one meeting with the
board and/or members of OC United. By the end
of 2027, provide technical assistance for the
potential development of at least one affordable
housing development on a religious institution
site.

Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-177
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Identified Fair Housing
Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Conduct outreach to people experiencing homelessness with the Illumination Foundation and the OC Health Care Agency, focusing efforts in areas where there is a high concentration of homeless individuals in the neighborhoods of Independence Park, Santa Fe District/SoCo, and Gilbert Park, and along arterial boulevards and commercial centers. Provide resources to connect individuals with shelter space in Fullerton and as needed, to services in surrounding cities (Policy Action 3.4-i).

Annually allocate funding and City resources to
support outreach efforts in coordination with the
Illumination Foundation and the OC Health Care
Agency to provide information and resources to
those experiencing homelessness. Annually fund
the Fullerton Police Department’s Homeless
Liaison Officer Unit, and as funding is available and
based on need, increase the number of officers to
provide services for residents experiencing
homelessness.

Adopt an ordinance for new development standards to allow additional ADUs that meet basic setbacks and square footage requirements on properties exceeding one acre in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. The ordinance shall allow at least two ADUs on qualifying properties if such properties can safely accommodate two ADUs (e.g., that the properties have adequate sewer/septic and water capacity, can construct the ADUs in compliance with all building code and fire prevention requirements, and can meet parking requirements) (Policy Action 3.3-g).

Adopt the ordinance by July 2025.

Reduce minimum unit sizes and update the Zoning Code, as necessary, to accommodate alternative housing types such as housing co-operatives, Single-Room Occupancy (SROs), dormitories, tiny homes, and collective home ownership models in more areas of the city, including religious sites and publicly owned land.

Stakeholder outreach shall include discussions with for-profit and non-profit housing developers. (Policy Action 3.4-e)
Amend the Zoning Code by July 2025. Conduct
stakeholder outreach with developers and
community groups and service providers on
alternative housing at least once by January 2026,
with the goal of achieving 30 units of alternative
housing types by the end of 2029, with at least
half of those units in the neighborhoods of E Las
Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr, Craig park, Sunny
Hills, Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, Acacia Park,
and Byerrum Park since they are Racially
Concentrated Areas of Affluence.

H-E-178 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Identified Fair Housing
Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Encourage the development of both smaller rental and owner units (studio and one-bedroom) and larger rental units (3 to 4- bedroom units) in residential and mixed-use development. In consultation with developers, identify and provide incentives and reduction of constraints to encourage the construction of these housing types and develop a work plan to implement any proposed changes to development standards, City programs, and so forth.

Develop incentives and mitigations to constraints
by July 2025. Starting in 2025, hold an annual
workshop with developers and provide education
about technical assistance and incentives for
larger and smaller rental units, with a goal of
supporting the development of 50 large (3-4-
bedroom) units and 100 studio/1-bedroom units
by December 2029. At least 50 percent of large
and small rental units should be in neighborhoods
of greater degrees of overcrowding, including
Woodcrest Park, Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St,
Valencia Park, W Oak Ave/Lambert Dr, E Wilshire
Ave/N Raymond Ave, Rancho La Paz.

Improving place-based
strategies to encourage
Community conservation
and revitalization
• Location of
environmental health
hazards (Priority: high)
• Lack of investment in
community-based
infrastructure and
services (Priority: low)
• Lack of access to
housing mobility
(Priority: medium)
Prioritize public health, education, economic, and safety programs in lower resource areas as defined by TCAC in coordination with area public health entities. school districts, workforce development groups, and the police department. Identify addresses and compile mailing list and email addresses to focus outreach to
neighborhoods with higher concentrations of low-income and minority residents to prioritize services in these areas. (Policy Action 3.14-e)
Increase participation in the City’s first-time
homebuyer seminars and owner-occupied housing
rehabilitation grant program 5 percent annually
from lower income and minority concentration
areas through the planning period (data collection
via surveys conducted at the seminars).

Assess potential preference policy for affordable housing opportunities, land use, transportation, urban design, public facilities and services, and economic development strategies. The City will seek involvement from community organizations and advocates, business councils, and residents to further refine program scope. (Policy Action 3.14-f)
Establish a community working group that meets
annually to prioritize funding for community
investments.

Apply for funding and coordinate with the OCTA Safe Routes to School program to establish at least one partnership in the city for active transportation projects and/or safety education campaign, prioritizing school routes within and from the neighborhood of E Imperial Highway and N Harbor Boulevard. (Policy Action 3.14-h)
Establish partnership for Safe Routes to School
and apply for grant funding by the end of 2025.

Initiate at least one project or campaign by the
end of the planning period.

Appendix H-F: Housing Element H-F-1
Appendix H-F:

Glossary of Housing Terms
Above-moderate Income Household. A household with an annual income usually greater than 120 percent of the area Median Family Income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.

Apartment. An apartment is one (1) or more rooms in an apartment house or dwelling occupied or intended or designated for occupancy by one (1) family for sleeping or living purposes and containing one (1) kitchen.

Assisted Housing. Generally multi-family rental housing, but sometimes single-family ownership units, whose construction, financing, sales prices, or rents have been subsidized by federal, State, or local housing programs including, but not limited to federal Section 8 (new construction, substantial rehabilitation, and loan management set-asides), federal Sections 213, 236, and 202, federal Section 221(d)(3) (below-market interest rate program), federal Section 101 (rent supplement assistance), CDBG, FmHA Section 515, multifamily mortgage revenue bond programs, local redevelopment and in lieu fee programs, and units developed pursuant to local inclusionary housing and density bonus programs.

Below-market-rate (BMR). Any housing unit specifically priced to be sold or rented to low or moderate income households for an amount less than the fair market value of the unit. Both the State of California and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development set standards for determining which households qualify as “low income” or “moderate income.” The financing of housing at less than prevailing interest rates.

Build-out. That level of urban development characterized by full occupancy of all developable sites in accordance with the General Plan; the maximum level of development envisioned by the General Plan.

Build-out does not assume that each parcel is developed to include all floor area or housing units possible under zoning regulations.

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). A grant program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on a formula basis for entitlement communities and by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for non-entitled jurisdictions. This grant allots money to cities and counties for housing rehabilitation and community development, including public facilities and economic development.

Condominium. A structure of two or more units, the interior spaces of which are individually owned; the balance of the property (both land and building) is owned in common by the owners of the individual units. (See “Townhouse.”)
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). A term used to describe restrictive limitations that may be placed on property and its use, and which usually are made a condition of holding title or lease.

Deed. A legal document that affects the transfer of ownership of real estate from the seller to the buyer.

H-F-2 Appendix H-F: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Density Bonus. The allocation of development rights that allow a parcel to accommodate additional square footage or additional residential units beyond the maximum for which the parcel is zoned; usually in exchange for the provision or preservation of an amenity at the same site or at another location.

Density, Residential. The number of permanent residential dwelling units per acre of land. Densities specified in the General Plan may be expressed in units per gross acre or per net developable acre.

Developable Land. Land that is suitable as a location for structures and that can be developed free of hazards to, and without disruption of, or significant impact on natural resource areas.

Down Payment. Money paid by a buyer from his own funds, as opposed to that portion of the purchase price that is financed.

Duplex. A detached building under single ownership that is designed for occupancy as the residence of two families living independently of each other.

Dwelling Unit (du). A building or portion of a building containing one or more rooms, designed for or used by one family for living or sleeping purposes, and having a separate bathroom and only one kitchen or kitchenette. See Housing Unit.

Emergency Shelter. A facility that provides immediate and short-term housing and supplemental services for the homeless. Supplemental services may include food, counseling, and access to other social programs. (See “Transitional Housing.”)
Extremely-low Income Household. A household with an annual income less than 30 percent of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.

Fair Market Rent. The rent, including utility allowances, determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for purposed of administering the Section 8 Existing Housing Program.

Family. (1) Two or more persons related by birth, marriage, or adoption [U.S. Bureau of the Census]. (2) An Individual or a group of persons living together who constitute a bona fide single-family housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit, not including a fraternity, sorority, club, or other group of persons occupying a hotel, lodging house or institution of any kind [California].

General Plan. A comprehensive, long-term plan mandated by State Planning Law for the physical development of a city or county and any land outside its boundaries which, in its judgment, bears relation to its planning. The plan shall consist of seven required elements: land use, circulation, open space, conservation, housing, safety, and noise. The plan must include a statement of development policies and a diagram or diagrams illustrating the policies.

Goal. A general, overall, and ultimate purpose, aim, or end toward which the City will direct effort.

Green Building. Green or sustainable building is the practice of creating healthier and more resourceefficient models of construction, renovation, operation, maintenance, and demolition. (US Environmental Protection Agency)
Group Quarters. Group quarters include nursing homes, orphanages, and prisons. Non-institutional group quarters include dormitories, shelters, and large boarding houses.

Appendix H-F: Housing Element H-F-3
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Historic Preservation. The preservation of historically significant structures and neighborhoods until such time as, and in order to facilitate, restoration and rehabilitation of the building(s) to a former condition.

Historic Property. A historic property is a structure or site that has significant historic, architectural, or cultural value.

Household. All those persons—related or unrelated—who occupy a single housing unit. (See “Family.”) Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). The State agency that has principal responsibility for assessing, planning for, and assisting communities to meet the needs of low and moderate income households.

Housing Element. One of the seven state-mandated elements of a local General Plan. It assesses the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community, identifies potential sites adequate to provide the amount and kind of housing needed, and contains adopted goals, policies, and implementation programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. Under State law, Housing Elements must be updated every five years.

Housing Payment. For ownership housing, this is defined as the mortgage payment, property taxes, insurance, and utilities. For rental housing this is defined as rent and utilities.

Housing Ratio. The ratio of the monthly housing payment to total gross monthly income. Also called Payment-to-Income Ratio or Front-End Ratio.

Housing Unit. The place of permanent or customary abode of a person or family. A housing unit may be a single-family dwelling, a multi-family dwelling, a condominium, a modular home, a mobile home, a cooperative, or any other residential unit considered real property under State law.

Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of (HUD). A cabinet-level department of the federal government that administers housing and community development programs.

Impacted Areas. Census tracts where more than 50 percent of the dwelling units house low and very-low income households.

Implementing Policies. The City’s statements of its commitments to consistent actions.

Implementation. Actions, procedures, programs, or techniques that carry out policies.

Infill Development. The development of new housing or other buildings on scattered vacant lots in a builtup area or on new building parcels created by permitted lot splits.

Jobs-Housing Balance. A ratio used to describe the adequacy of the housing supply within a defined area to meet the needs of persons working within the same area. The General Plan uses the Southern California Association of Government’s definition, which is a job total equal to 1.2 times the number of housing units within the area under consideration.

Land Use Classification. A system for classifying and designating the appropriate use of properties.

Live-Work Units. Buildings or spaces within buildings that are used jointly for commercial and residential purposes where the residential use of the space is secondary or accessory to the primary use as a place of work.

H-F-4 Appendix H-F: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Low Income Household. A household with an annual income usually no greater than 51 percent-80 percent of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.

Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Tax reductions provided by the federal and State governments for investors in housing for low income households.

Manufactured Housing. Residential structures that are constructed entirely in the factory, and which since June 15, 1976, have been regulated by the federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 under the administration of the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (See “Mobile Home” and “Modular Unit.”)
Mixed-use. Properties on which various uses, such as office, commercial, institutional, and residential, are combined in a single building or on a single site in an integrated development project with significant functional interrelationships and a coherent physical design. A “single site” may include contiguous properties.

Moderate Income Household. A household with an annual income usually no greater than 81 percent-120 percent of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.

Modular Unit. A factory-fabricated, transportable building or major component designed for use by itself or for incorporation with similar units on-site into a structure for residential, commercial, education, or industrial use. Differs from mobile homes and manufactured housing by (in addition to lacking an integral chassis or permanent hitch to allow future movement) being subject to California housing law design standards. California standards are more restrictive than federal standards in some respects (e.g., plumbing and energy conservation). Also called Factory-built Housing and regulated by State law of the title.

Monthly Housing Expense. Total principal, interest, taxes, and insurance paid by the borrower on a monthly basis. Used with gross income to determine affordability.

Multiple-Family Building. A detached building designed and used exclusively as a dwelling by three or more families occupying separate suites.

Ordinance. A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a governmental authority, usually a city or county.

Overcrowding Housing Unit. A housing unit in which the members of the household, or group. Are prevented from the enjoyment of privacy because of small room size and housing size. The U.S. Bureau of Census defines an overcrowded housing unit as one that is occupied by more than one person per room.

Parcel. A lot or tract of land.

Persons with Disabilities. Persons determined to have a physical impairment or mental disorder expected to be of long or indefinite duration. Many such impairments or disorders are of such a nature that a person’s ability to live independently can be improved by appropriate housing conditions.

Appendix H-F: Housing Element H-F-5
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Planning Area. The area directly addressed by the General Plan. A city’s planning area typically encompasses the city limits and potentially annexable land within its sphere of influence.

Policy. A specific statement of principle or of guiding actions that implies clear commitment, but is not mandatory. A general direction that a governmental agency sets to follow, in order to meet its objectives before undertaking an action program. (See “Program.”)
Poverty Level. As used by the U.S. Census, families and unrelated individuals are classified as being above or below the poverty level based on a Poverty Index that provides a range of income cutoffs or “poverty thresholds” varying by size of family, number of children, and age of householder. The income cutoffs are updated each year to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index.

Program. An action, activity, or strategy carried out in response to adopted policy to achieve a specific goal or objective. Policies and programs establish the “who,” “how” and “when” for carrying out the “what” and “where” of goals and objectives.

Redevelop. To demolish existing buildings; or to increase the overall floor area existing on a property; or both; irrespective of whether a change occurs in land use.

Regional. Pertaining to activities or economies at a scale greater than that of a single jurisdiction, and affecting a broad geographic area.

Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). A quantification by the Southern California Association of Government of existing and projected housing need by household income group, for all localities within a region.

Rehabilitation. The repair, preservation, and/or improvement of substandard housing.

Residential. Land designated in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance for building of dwelling units. May be improved, vacant, or unimproved. (See “Dwelling Unit.”) Residential Care Facility. A facility that provides 24-hour care and supervision to its residents.

Residential, Multiple-Family. Usually three or more dwelling units on a single site, which may be in the same or separate buildings.

Residential, Single-Family. A single dwelling unit on a building site.

Retrofit. To add materials and/or devices to an existing building or system to improve its operation, safety, or efficiency. Buildings have been retrofitted to use solar energy and to strengthen their ability to withstand earthquakes, for example.

Rezoning. An amendment to the map to effect a change in the nature, density, or intensity of uses allowed in a zoning district and/or on a designated parcel or land area.

Second Unit. A self-contained living unit, either attached to or detached from, and in addition to, the primary residential unit on a single lot. “Granny Flat” is one type of second unit.

H-F-6 Appendix H-F: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Section 8 Rental Assistance Program. A federal (HUD) rent-subsidy program that is one of the main sources of federal housing assistance for low income households. The program operates by providing “housing assistance payments” to owners, developers, and public housing agencies to make up the difference between the “Fair Market Rent” of a unit (set by HUD) and the household’s contribution toward the rent, which is calculated at 30 percent of the household’s adjusted gross monthly income (GMI). “Section 8” includes programs for new construction, existing housing, and substantial or moderate housing rehabilitation.

Senior Citizen. A person 62 years of age or older, or 55 years of age or older in a senior citizen housing development. (California Civil Code §51.3.b.1)
Shared Living. The occupancy of a dwelling unit by persons of more than one family in order to reduce housing expenses and provide social contact, mutual support, and assistance. Shared living facilities serving six or fewer persons are permitted in all residential districts by §1566.3 of the California Health and Safety Code.

Single-family Dwelling, Attached. A dwelling unit occupied or intended for occupancy by only one household that is structurally connected with at least one other such dwelling unit. (See “Townhouse.”) Single-family Dwelling, Detached. A dwelling unit occupied or intended for occupancy by only one household that is structurally independent from any other such dwelling unit or structure intended for residential or other use. (See “Family.”)
Single Room Occupancy (SRO). A single room, typically 80-250 square feet, with a sink and closet, but which may require the occupant to share a communal bathroom, shower, and kitchen.

Subsidize. To assist by payment of a sum of money or by the granting to terms or favors that reduces the need for monetary expenditures. Housing subsidies may take the forms of mortgage interest deductions or tax credits from federal and/or State income taxes, sale or lease at less than market value of land to be used for the construction of housing, payments to supplement a minimum affordable rent, and the like.

Substandard Housing. Residential dwellings that, because of their physical condition, do not provide safe and sanitary housing.

Target Areas. Specifically designated sections of the community where loans and grants are made to bring about a specific outcome, such as the rehabilitation of housing affordable by very-low and low income households.

Tax Increment. Additional tax revenues that result from increases in property values within a redevelopment area. State law permits the tax increment to be earmarked for redevelopment purposes but requires at least 20 percent to be used to increase and improve the community’s supply of very-low and low income housing.

Tenure. A housing unit is “owned” if the owner or co-owner lives in the unit, even if it is “mortgaged or not fully paid for. All other occupied units are classified as “rented,” including units rented for cash rent and those occupied without payment of cash rent.

Townhouse. A townhouse is a dwelling unit located in a group of three (3) or more attached dwelling units with no dwelling unit located above or below another and with each dwelling unit having its own exterior entrance.

Appendix H-F: Housing Element H-F-7
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Transitional Housing. Shelter provide to the homeless for an extend period, often as long as 18 months, and generally integrated with other social services and counseling programs to assist in the transition to self-sufficiency through the acquisition of a stable income and permanent housing. (See “Emergency Shelter.”)
Undevelopable. Specific areas where topographic, geologic, and/or superficial soil conditions indicate a significant danger to future occupants and a liability to the City are designated as “undevelopable” by the City.

Very-low Income Household. A household with an annual income usually no greater than 50 percent of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.

Acronyms Used
ACS American Community Survey
BMPs: Best Management Practices
CalHFA: California Housing Finance Agency
CALTRANS: California Department of Transportation
CCRC: California Community Reinvestment Corporation
CDBG: Community Development Block Grant
CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act
CIP: Capital Improvement Program
CMP: Congestion Management Plan
DIF: Development Impact Fee
DU/ac: Dwelling units per acre
EDD: California Employment Development Department
FAR: Floor Area Ratio
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency
GDP: General Development Plan
HCD: California Department of Housing and Community Development HOA: Homeowners Association
HUD: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission
H-F-8 Appendix H-F: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
LIHTC: Low Income Housing Tax Credit
MFI: Median Family Income
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OCHA: Orange County Housing Authority
PRD: Planned Residential Development
RHNA: Regional Housing Needs Assessment
RTP: Regional Transportation Plan
SCAG: Southern California Association of Governments
SF: Summary File (U.S. Census)
SOI: Sphere of Influence
SPA: Sectional Planning Area
SPD: Specific Plan District
SRO: Single Room Occupancy
STF: Summary Tape File (U.S. Census)
TOD: Transit-Oriented Development
TDM: Transportation Demand Management
TSM: Transportation Systems Management
WCP: Water Conservation Plan