Fountain Valley City Council to place charter city measure on ballot

Fountain Valley residents will be asked next year to decide whether the community will adopt its own charter, after a divided City Council this month opted to place the question before voters in November 2026.

Cities that operate under a charter may have more control over municipal affairs, including land use and zoning, elections and fiscal matters, but they can also sometimes face greater exposure to legal costs. Incorporated in 1957, Fountain Valley operates as a general law city bound by rules and regulations set forth by the state.

In California, 121 of the state’s 482 municipalities have adopted their own charters, including the nearby cities of Huntington Beach, Irvine and Newport Beach.

The decision to put a charter city measure on the ballot for Fountain Valley residents to consider passed on a 3-2 vote in a Nov. 4 city council meeting, with Mayor Ted Bui, Vice Mayor Jim Cunneen and Councilmember Patrick Harper backing the initiative.

State housing mandates have been front and center among cities’ reasons for considering charter status. To comply with its Regional Housing Needs Assessment, Fountain Valley must plan for 4,839 housing units, including 2,093 for lower-income residents, during a planning period that began in 2021 and concludes in 2029.

Council members weighing the option at the Nov. 4 meeting approved a recommendation to use a simple charter drafted by the city’s legal counsel. The city must hold two public hearings, at least 30 days apart, before the measure can be submitted to the Orange County Registrar of Voters.

Doing so could cost between $8,500 to $17,000 for inclusion in a general election, in addition to $20,000 in attorney fees, plus staff time, for which city officials did not provide an estimate.

Officials in favor of seeking charter status cited local control issues, particularly over housing mandates.

“If there’s something that the state is doing, or wants to do, that is not in the best interest of the city, I think it’s our obligation to stand up and do something about it,” Harper said. “With a charter city, for me, it gives us one extra tool.”

Bui made note of several bills passed at the state level, including Senate Bill 9, which allows for a single-family lot to be split in two and for two housing units to be built on each of those parcels. Among others, he also referenced Senate Bill 79, which sanctions the building of high-density housing projects — up to nine stories — near transit centers.

“Over the past six years, Sacramento has passed several laws. … I think you get the message where I’m going with this,” Bui said. “That’s continuing to take away more and more local control from the city. What is next, I ask you. While many of these laws may have started with good intention, together, that made it harder for local communities to decide what’s best for their own residents.”

“Many of you asked why now?” he said to meeting attendees. “I’m going to tell you why now. In the last six years, the state keeps taking away our power to self governance. Enough is enough.”

As Fountain Valley has weighed becoming a charter city, critics have repeatedly pointed to Huntington Beach as a cautionary tale for municipalities deciding to challenge state mandates in court. Most recently, a ruling Surf City had won on voter identification requirements was overturned by an appellate court.

That decision came on Nov. 3, one day prior to the statewide special election that saw voters pass Proposition 50, a measure allowing for the temporary redrawing of California’s congressional districts.

Despite repeatedly claiming impunity due to its charter status, Huntington Beach has also been handed litigation losses on housing and access to library materials deemed to include sexual content.

Carson, Del Mar, Redondo Beach, Torrance and Whittier — all charter cities — received a favorable ruling in Los Angeles County Superior Court last year, which stated Senate Bill 9 did not apply to them.

Councilmembers Glenn Grandis and Kim Constantine cast dissenting votes on the charter city proposal, with Grandis taking the stance that simply placing the matter before voters, without a formal plan or process in place, could have unintended consequences.

“There’s so much bad that can happen,” Grandis said at the Nov. 4 meeting. “Let that sink in for a second. … If there was a plan, if there was something in place, if we had a charter commission made up of 15 residents who helped build something to offset some of the risks on the other side, maybe, but that comes with a plan...

“This is willy-nilly. This is, ‘You know what? I want to do a charter city. Let’s do it.’ That’s about the extent of the level of effort that went into this.”

Constantine said charter city discussions might give people “false hope” about the city could accomplish with such a distinction.

Councilmembers had considered the charter city question for six months, city officials said, with outreach efforts that included some public surveys and two recent town hall meetings. One midweek meeting at City Hall drew approximately 20 people, while a subsequent weekend meeting at the city’s Recreation Center had about 50 attendees.

Roughly three dozen speakers took to the podium during the Nov. 4 council meeting to voice their opinions on the issue. Most did not support a shift in local governance.

“The general law framework already delivers stable, transparent governance and fiscal restraint,” resident Alicia “Rudy” Huebner said during the public hearing. “Charter status should serve residents, not shield the city from oversight. Local control means living within our means and prioritizing fiscal integrity over symbolism.

“Fountain Valley’s size and fiscal position doesn’t justify a complete structural overhaul. The risks outweigh the benefits. Remaining under state law ensures consistency, prevents overreach and prioritizes responsible management of taxpayer funds.”