F-U to North Fullerton, Almost

I really think that’s what a lot of last night’s council meeting regarding a proposed development at the northwest corner of Harbor Blvd. and Hermosa Drive was about.

The appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial was the issue and to their credit Dunlap, Jung and Valencia rejected the appeal. But the real show was put on by Ahmad Zahra and his stablemate Shana Charles.

First a little about the project. It would cram 32 dinky “townhomes” on a a parcel that the City claims is 1.3 acres (it looks smaller); the zoning for the site is R-1-20 which is typical in the old horsey part of town – a minimum 20,000 square foot lot, or about half an acre. But the developer applied for permits during a period when Fullerton’s “Housing Element” was not in compliance with the State regulations; therefore he could rely on “Builder’s Remedy” a harebrained scheme by the State Legislature whereby somebody can cram a whole bunch of units on to a site and fuck you, neighbors. There just has to be mandated and restricted “low income housing” of which our friendly builder was to produce the bare minimum.

Such is our government that the project still needed to be approved by the Planning Commission, and City planning staff recommended approval lest there be spooky lawsuits. The PC bravely said nay, exercising their authority as a discretionary body. The Council did the same.

But it was a fight. Zahra and Charles did their best to defend what can only be described as an out of scale, mini-monstrosity. Five stuccoed buildings with crappy plastic windows; three stories each jammed onto the site with only way in and out. And because of, ya know, low income housing, the developer doesn’t even have to bring power to the site underground!

Zahra tried mightily to show that the PC had no objective basis for their decision given staff’s assurances; but this begs the question of how much due-diligence staff actually put into this to make a balanced presentation in the first place. Apparently there was no traffic study required and because of our wonderful Legislature, “in-fill” projects are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff said there was no basis for a claim of public safety endangerment, a finding, if made, that could be used to reject the project. Zahra tried to undermine the neighbors and the Planning Commission’s conclusions as mere opinion, not fact.

Charles was just as bad with her usual dumb grin, condescending routine. We have to abide by the State’s diktats and there was nothing else that could be done. And although public opinion is just great we have no choice, yadda, yadda. The ridiculousness of voting on something about which you have no choice seems to have escaped the otiose public health professor. How come you dropped the low income level from 20% to 13%, asked the smiling academic of the developer. Higher interest rates the fellow claimed; both were play-acting. The Legislature previously reduced that requirement over a year ago and of course they both know it.

A few of Fullerton Boohooers got up to present pre-coordinated statements: the need for housing uber alles. Fresh and fragile Elijah Manassero gloated that there was no way to reject this; and we need places for people like him to live, he tenderly beseeched! Of course these folks mentioned the horrible lawsuits coming Fullerton’s way – as if that had ever concerned readers of the Fullerton Observer. The “pastor” who can’t figure out how to button his shirt was there, on cue to preach to us that a city’s character” is more than just scale and density.

Sitkia Kennedy could be seen in the fifth row applauding these speakers, presumably before she returned to her role of objective journalist.

Our old friend Elizabeth Hansberg showed up via Zoom to advocate for the project. We recall her “advocacy group” that advertises her willingness to advocate for a project; developer donations to her non-profit always welcome. She betrayed her affiliation with the comment: “we are providing the opportunity for people to move up…” Of course she gleefully entertained the council with the threat of lawsuits from her legal pals.

The net result of this proposal, if approved, is only 32 out of the 13,000 new housing units demanded by the SCAG and Sacramento crowd. Only 5 would be deed restricted to low income. The units are meant to be sold at this point so the positive impact for poor renters like Zahra and Charles is virtually nil.

I’m trying to figure out why the Fullerton liberal claque was so het up on this project. I couldn’t think of a good reason except that they thought this was something that would annoy northern Fullertonions – those folks that Zahra is always complaining get all the municipal goodies while his underserved constituents get the short end of the stick.

Is this really about a perceived class distinction of north versus south? I really don’t think there’s anything more involved than that. One of the speakers said it: “The entire city needs to do their (sic) part…”