Chronic Failure Archives - Page 32 of 67 - Friends For Fullerton's Future

March 13, 2018March 13, 2018Bad Cops

Felz and Hughes become celebrities in Federal Court

Remember the OCDA investigator who faced the wrath of Rackauckas and his minions for suggesting former Fullerton Police Chief Dan Hughes be charged with criminal obstruction?

Abraham Santos and co-plaintiff Tom Conklin have recently filed a lawsuit in Federal court. Be sure to read pages 23-24 where it talks about our esteemed former City Manager Joe Felz and his wild DUI ride home. “JC” refers to FPD Sergeant Jeff Corbett.

https://www.fullertonsfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Santos-Conklin_v_Rackauckas.pdf

Enjoy!

February 18, 2018February 21, 2018Chronic Failure

City Council to Decide Homeless Shelter Rezoning Ordinance (eventually)

by Sean Paden3 Comments

(Update: According to the agenda forcast, the vote on this ordinance will be held on March 6, 2018)

Writing for FFFF is a volunteer effort, aside from the stipend we receive from NASA and the Round Earth Cabal (which really hasn’t kept up with inflation, if we’re being completely honest here). Our lack of compensation gives us the advantage of calling things like we see them, without having to worry about how our opinion will play with our employer/advertisers, but it also means that issues often come up and none of us here at FFFF have the time to dig into the issue and provide any meaningful commentary on the subject.

This was the case for the recent vote on the Planning Commission, which will soon be appearing before the City Council, to rezone all commercial property to allow for homeless shelters provided they operate with a CUP. The decision was made as part of a settlement with Curtis Gamble filed through the Pacific Legal Aid Foundation. Local resident Scott Hess, who is opposed to the rezoning, has investigated the change to the ordinance, and much of the information below is from my email exchanges with him on the subject.

On January 24, 2018, the Fullerton Planning Commission adopted a code amendment to allow 24 hour Emergency Homeless Shelters in any of the commercial districts in Fullerton.

(more…)

January 23, 2018February 19, 2018About Us

While We Were Away: the Train Kept On Rolling

by Sean Paden13 Comments

The last substantive article to run on FFFF site before its almost four year hiatus was this little gem about the “College Connector Study”, a $300,000 study designed to convince the Fullerton City Council that a streetcar system in costing (in their estimate) $140 million was exactly what the City of Fullerton needed. Why? Well, because building the streetcar would encourage high density development all along the rail line, turning Fullerton from a two story bedroom community into a six story high density, high traffic eyesore.

And, just to be clear, that was the argument in favor of wasting $140+ million on the streetcar.

Based on that report, three members of the Fullerton City Council (Chaffee, Fitzgerald and Flory) voted to make a streetcar part of the City’s transportation plan.

For the next three years, progress on the streetcar has stalled, and a competing proposal in Anaheim (this one estimated at $325 million) was shot down by the City Council after a coalition of good government activists ousted the Chamber backed majority from power. Unfortunately (to borrow the tagline for the Friday the 13th Part VI poster), nothing this evil ever dies, and the Fullerton Trolley is back. And like all bad horror sequels, it’s even bigger and more elaborate than before, while making even less sense.

I present to you, the Orange County Centerline:

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair! Nothing beside remains. Round the decay. Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare.

The Centerline (something which has been in various stages of development at OCTA for over a decade) incorporates the Fullerton plan, along with a proposed streetcar line through Santa Ana, and several other lines. The plan is to run the line all the way through Harbor Boulevard all the way up to the transportation center. This would probably explain why that streetcar has been popping up on the artist conception for the Fox Block (image above).

OCTA recently provided a presentation to the Fullerton City Council at Tuesday’s meeting, which can be found here . No mention of which government entity will pay for the project, but even if the OCTA picks up the entire tab, we will at a minimum be on the hook for the maintenance cost , just as Anaheim is with the ARTIC Wasteland. Anaheim taxpayers have been forced to dip into the general fund for every year of ARTIC’s operation, as the revenue generated ($1.6 million) is nowhere near enough to pay the operation ($3.9 million). But hey – the City of Anaheim was given a fancy trophy for agreeing to shoulder these expenses, so the tradeoff was totally worth it, in some people’s eyes.

The trophy is huge, gaudy, expensive, tacky, unnecessary and completely impractical. It’s the perfect metaphor.

The Streetcar/ trolley concept is an absolutely terrible idea for too many reasons to count. The cost is astronomical , the benefit miniscule, it will render the streets it is located on un-drivable (seriously, just picture trying to make it through Downtown Fullerton with that thing blocking traffic). Oh, and it will also further undermine bus service in the county, because the cost of running a streetcar line is substantially higher than rapid bus service.

So to sum up, the OCTA wants to take Orange County into the twenty first century by spending hundreds of millions of dollars developing a nineteenth century technology designed to service people who don’t need it, at the expense of the bus riders who do. Sadly, this is about par for the course for state and county government, minus the exceptionally high price tag. Lets give the Center Line project – and every other streetcar project proposed in Orange County – the quick, merciful death it deserves.

January 17, 2018January 17, 2018Behind Closed Doors

One of the Worst Decisions

by David Curlee13 Comments

Your Fullerton City Council majority — consisting of Fitzgerald, Chaffee, and Silva — made one of the worst decisions in recent memory last night.

Desperate to protect their pensions, and to keep pension contributions at a minimum, the Fullerton Police Officer’s Association (FPOA) approached the City about extending their contract. They voted yes.

CalPERS pension costs are skyrocketing as a result of poor investment returns, and far too optimistic rates of return. To “correct” this problem, CalPERS is demanding the City of Fullerton pay more in the years ahead. The table shows pension costs for FPOA members which consist of Police Officers, Police Corporals, Police Sergeants, and a small handful of non-sworn civilian employees, such as Police Dispatchers.

The table above uses the current fiscal year as a baseline (on the bottom row) to get a feel for the pain ahead. Beyond the current fiscal year, the projected pension costs for FPOA employees will cost Fullerton residents — at the very least — an additional $12.3 million through June 2022.

That’s $12.3 million of new money the City of Fullerton doesn’t presently have.

The timeline of the FPOA contract status is illustrated above with the agreed to “concessions” which are disingenuous at best. As noted, the contract extension runs to 2021 at the earliest, and possibly 2022 if FPOA decides to exercise that option.

You might be thinking to yourself, wait a minute, if their current contract expires June 30, 2019, why not negotiate a new contract at that time to get a better handle on the escalating pension costs? That’s precisely the problem. Instead of acting in good faith for Fullerton residents, council members Fitzgerald, Chaffee, and Silva rolled over to satisfy the public safety unions that paid big money to help them get elected.

The worst part about the FPOA contract, and the extension handed out last night, is the City cannot reopen negotiations to combat rising pension costs. The promises are now etched in stone through 2021 or 2022 regardless of what CalPERS does.

All very troubling, not just for basic principles, but because the California Supreme Court is expected to rule in 2018 on the so-called “California Rule” which prevents government agencies from reducing already promised pension benefits. The court’s decision will carry significant implications either way. If they overturn or modify the “California Rule,” Fullerton could have sought to renegotiate FPOA pension benefits upon the expiration of the contract in June 2019 and saved Fullerton residents millions of dollars. Conversely, if the “California Rule” is upheld, CalPERS will likely respond by further lowering the discount rate (assumed rate of return). A lower discount rate will cost the City of Fullerton tens of millions more in the coming years.

At last night’s meeting, the introduction of a new financial forecasting tool was presented earlier in the night, before the FPOA extension came up for a vote. The gentleman making the presentation noted that his model predicts a U.S. recession in the year 2020 — right in the middle of the FPOA extension. I was at the meeting and brought this up when it came time for the FPOA vote. I also pointed out that Fullerton’s brand new City Treasurer, who started on January 8th — just eight days prior — should be given a chance to review the FPOA proposal and offer his thoughts to the City Council. After all, the existing FPOA contract didn’t expire for another 18 months, so what’s the rush?

Council member Sebourn registered his opposition to the FPOA proposal, and then, without another council member saying a word, it passed with a 3-2 vote, Sebourn and Whitaker voting no.

Last night’s recklessness puts us a couple steps closer to municipal bankruptcy. When the Library is forced to cut hours or close completely, when Parks and Recreation has to shutter the community center, when Public Works has to stop paving streets and repairing broken water mains, you now know exactly which three council members to thank. It was failure on full display. As usual.

January 13, 2018July 28, 2019Arts & Architecture

A Trip Up and Down Memory Lane…AKA The Pine Wood Stairs.

by Mr. Peabody27 Comments

“Pine Wood Stairs” looked a lot better in concept than in reality…

Back in May, FFFF documented the lamentable construction disaster of the Pinewood Stairs, a $1.6 million boondoggle created by City staff, whose construction defects were so bad and so plentiful that a reasonable person might even inquire about how we could get our money back. In fact, City Councilman Sebourn mumbled something about getting our money back, then said he was just kidding. Bruce Whitaker said nothing at all. On Facebook City Hall bureaucracy advocate Gretchen Cox cooked up a story about some alleged City “report” that exonerated all concerned.

Nine months have passed and I thought it might be interesting to revisit the site of the fiasco and share a visual tour to take another look.

Here’s a typical example of a project with nobody in charge and nobody who knows what they’re doing.

The caisson footings with the wood posts are almost all cracked; some of the posts aren’t even vertical. Some of the caissons are out of plumb, too.

Aspects of the construction reveal building that was cobbled together to make the contraption fit together.

Now, as then, the wooden rails are extremely rough and splintiferous.

The lack of quality workmanship, structural and cosmetic remains in evidence. And those fraying cable ends? Why, they’ve been taped! Of course the tape is falling off.

Simple things – like removing the cardboard tube form from the caissons seem to have eluded the City’s crack inspection team. Crack. Get it?

Basic design oversight problems were jerryrigged and never addressed properly at all.

Weird features that are nothing but potential for risk management headaches and taxpayer payouts are still much in evidence – like this trip hazard. Shrug, indeed.

Loose cables. Down the hill goes the toddler.

As usual, maintenance of public property remains a challenge for the City. Loose ends are not their specialty.

How hard is it to keep a tree alive? Don’t bother asking. You won’t get an answer.

The effects of the inevitable pedestrian shortcuts betray both design and maintenance failure. It looked better on paper.

We have been assured by people who don’t know what they are talking about that everything was just grand about this grand failure; but, the evidence did and still does point to the exact opposite: a project that suffered from fundamental design shortcomings, incompetent and careless construction, a construction manager whose only function seems to have been to cash our check, and inspectors who were (and probably still are) a disgrace to their profession.

As you can see driving up Harbor, the City is now building its splendid new entry to the park – including a bridge – costing millions and accomplishing nothing but wasting park construction resources. Apart from the obvious uselessness of the project I have to wonder if it will suffer from the same dereliction that informs the so-called “Pinewood Stairs.” Nothing leads me to hope for the contrary.

January 9, 2018January 9, 2018Carpetbaggery

Ed Endorses Young Kim

by Mr. Peabody15 Comments

Running true to form, Ed Royce (R- Bad Dye Job) has apparently endorsed his vacuous protege, Young Kim, to replace him in Congress. It would seem that the job of County Supervisor isn’t as inviting an opportunity for this dedicated public servant to be serviced by the public.

This really isn’t much of a surprise, given the Little Corporal’s penchant to endorse unqualified candidates for office. Of course a ling cod would make a better congresscritter than Young Kim, but that cuts no ice with Royce, whose career has been marked by a decided indifference to the well-being of his constituents.

This is good news for Tim Shaw who is now the only Republican candidate for 4th District County Supervisor, and as things stand, would certainly make a run-off against the Democrat’s carpetbaggin’ union goon, Coto Joe Kerr.

December 17, 2017December 18, 2017Chronic Failure

City of Fullerton, OC Animal Care preparing to Euthanize Your Wallet

by Sean Paden17 Comments

Still have any money left over after the state gas tax increases (thanks, Josh Newman), the likely loss of SALT deductions in Congress (thanks, Ed Royce), plus all the state, local and national income, property and sales taxes, licenses, and fees we already pay? Well, too bad, because OC Animal Care and the City of Fullerton are cooking up a new scheme to take even more of your money. And it all comes down to the first law of holes, government style: when you find yourself in a hole, keep digging and hope nobody notices.

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017, the City Council will again be voting on substantial fee increases, this time for the services provided by OC Animal Care. If passed, the licensing cost for a neutered dog will be $51 per year, and the per day impound fee for any lost dog or cat will be increased to $136, plus an initial $205 impound fee on top of the daily fee, and so on; the full list is available here.

According to OC Animal Care, the fee increases are necessary because their current operating budget is only enough to pay for half of the services they provide (with the other half coming out of the participating cities’ general fund).

This shortfall is blamed on the recent decisions in Garden Grove, Stanton, Laguna Hills and Rancho Santa Margarita to contract with alternate animal care facilities. However, the problem is not that these cities left OC Animal Care, but that OC Animal Care’s services are already so expensive that it was in their financial best interest to leave the program in the first place. For example, the City of Garden Grove contracted with Orange County Humane Society in Huntington Beach after their annual payments to OC Animal Care increased from $729,000 to $1.3 million in just four years, and the City believes they will save over $8 million over the next ten years thanks to the switch.

So why hasn’t Fullerton joined these other cities? An opportunity did exist to opt out back in May 17, 2016, when OC Animal Care needed its members to commit to participate in the construction of a new shelter on the Tustin Air Base property.

However, the City Council squandered the opportunity in a 4-1 vote, placing the city on the hook for its share of the construction costs for the new facility without even placing an RFP out to private animal care providers. Even if we were to back out now, we might be on the hook for the cost of construction of this shelter. Oh, and Fullerton currently has an evergreen contract with OC Animal Care because, of course we do, so any effort to extricate ourselves from this failed government program will be complicated to say the least.

Keep the Evergreen Contract or the dog gets it!

But enough is enough. It is time to stop excusing poorly run government programs and to start demanding that we get our money’s worth.

November 30, 2017November 30, 2017Chronic Failure

Another bad sign

by David Curlee20 Comments

A few months ago, I pointed out bogus signs at the train station which cited non-existent instances of the Fullerton Municipal Code. Those signs were removed a short time later.

Here we have a similar sign posted at the Wilshire Avenue parking structure.

Fullerton does not have a “No Loitering” ordinance that could be used here.

The second part, warning about confiscation of property, only comes up in Title 9, which covers parks — not parking structures, nor anywhere else in the City.

9.12.530 Enforcement — Seizure of property.

The Director, park attendants, parking control officers and police officers are authorized to seize, confiscate and hold for the City any property, thing or device in the park used in violation of this chapter.

(Ord. 1900 (part), 1973: prior 4320.9(3) — Ord. 999 § 1, 1959).

Nowhere in 9.12.530 does it address “unattended or unsecured” items. Even if the City wanted to play word games, and say the parking structure is part of the park and museum immediately adjacent to it, the sign doesn’t even agree with the code. Perhaps that is why the sign makes no mention of the Fullerton Municipal Code — there’s nothing to cite because somebody made it up.

So the next time City Hall tells you such and such is the “law” you should probably take that assurance with a grain of salt.

November 27, 2017November 27, 2017Behind Closed Doors

Airport Saga Continues. Does “Hangar 21” Conform To Zoning Law?

by Mr. Peabody37 Comments

In my previous post regarding recent doings at the Fullerton Airport I described a big lawsuit by a disgruntled former tenant, Air CombatUSA, and also remarked upon the propriety of the use of airport property as a party venue called “Hangar 21.” The implication was there might be some sort of Federal Aviation Administration issue. One Friend, “Order 5190.6B, Chapter 9” provided the name and place where such issues as equality access to aviation facilities are spelled out by the FAA.

But then another of our Friends, “Little City Planner School Graduate” questioned whether such use was even legal per the Fullerton Municipal Code. I didn’t have a clue. So I looked it up.

Per Fullerton’s Zoning Map, the airport is designated “P-L,” i.e., public land. Municipal Code Section 15.25 describes permitted and CUP uses for the P-L designation. Here they are:

15.25.020. Permitted uses.

The following uses are permitted in a Public Land (P-L) zone, subject to the provisions of this chapter:

A. Flood control reservoir areas.

B. Public parks and open space areas.

C. Public educational facilities.

D. Public buildings including administrative buildings, libraries, fire stations, reservoirs, and maintenance facilities.

E. Public parking facilities.

F. Public transportation facilities.

G. Public golf courses.

H. Other similar public facilities when in conformance with the purpose of this zone when recommended by the Director of Development Services, and approved by the City Council.

(Ord. 2982, 2001)

15.25.025. Conditionally permitted uses.

A. The following non-public uses or activities are permitted in a Public Land (P-L) zone when approved by and subject to conditions of the City Council:

1. Commercial stables, subject to the development requirements, provisions and conditions of Subsection 15.55.030.C of this title.

2. Open-air marketing activities including, but not limited to such activities as a cooperatively sponsored farmers market or swap meet.

3. Commercial agricultural production and non-retail plant nursery operations excluding cannabis cultivation as defined in Chapter 15.04.

B. A special event may be permitted on a property with a Public Land (P-L) zone pursuant to Chapter 8.71 or Chapter 9.12 of the Fullerton Municipal Code.

(Ord. 3227 § 3, 2016; Ord. 2982, 2001)

You will notice that there is no provision for a private party venue, no matter how tenuously tied to a legitimate “public transportation” use such as helicopter rides.

So what gives? Hangar 21 as a party spot seems to be in violation of the Code since it is not consistent with the uses described above, and since the City Council has never even tried to legitimize it via 15.025.020(H).

November 26, 2017November 26, 2017Behind Closed Doors

Trouble at the Airport?

by Mr. Peabody86 Comments

Perhaps. Big trouble. The City is being sued by a former tenant – Air Combat USA – whose owner is claiming the Airport Director conspired to keep him from renewing his lease option for another thirty years, and thus depriving him of the revenue and profit therefrom.

Here’s the complaint:

Air Combat USA vs City of Fullerton Complaint

$50,000,000 is a lot of dough, so we’ll have to watch this one. Is there any validity to the complaint? I don’t know. A lot of facts are asserted that may be very hard for the plaintiff to prove even if they are true. Some of the allegations have the ring of truth.

Unfortunately for the taxpayers, Fullerton city employees have a pretty poor track record when it come to mismanaging facilities and interfering with people they don’t care for via restraint of trade practices. And just because Redevelopment is sort of gone doesn’t mean the bureaucratic lust to play Monopoly is gone with it.

Meantime, other airport lessees have been heard complaining about a tenant called Hangar 21 that is operating a big party space out of a hangar – a non-aviation use that may not be kosher for a general aviation airport, and that might therefore have Federal funding implications for the City.