Item 1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR – Per Government Code
Section 54956.8
Property: North and South Block of 100 West Amerige Avenue,
Fullerton, CA
Agency Negotiator: Rob Zur Schmiede, Director of Redevelopment and
Economic Development
Negotiating Parties: Richard Hamm, Pelican-Laing Fullerton, LLC
Under Negotiations: Price and terms
The Laing of the LLC is John Laing Holmes. Laing is a home builder with a reported debt of $500 million to $1 billion and is in Chapter 11 receivership. And furthermore, the word on the street is the front men of the LLC Hamm & Pellican are also on the verge of financial protection.
Exactly what kind of negotiations could our financially unexperienced City Council be doing with a group of financial wizards who are running amok in debt? When is the Redevelopment Agency going to realize the housing market has collapsed? If this project goes forward it will be a financial wreck for Fullerton.
Dear Friends, how many of you realize Pam Keller, Sharon Quirk, Don Bankhead and Dick Jones have already voted to place the Fullerton tax payers on the hook by guaranteeing the developer who’s in bankruptcy a 15% profit? Who besides us are willing to admit this project was a turkey from day 1?
A friend just emailed us this image of some sort of gizzmo that has recently appeared in the front patio of Roscoes “Famous” Deli. We are not quit sure why anyone would have made a decision to put the gizzmo on a public sidewalk in downtown. It’s taking up space that could also be used as sidewalk dining. For some reason, this doesn’t seem right.
So we did it. Friends for Fullerton’s Future has appealed the appalling decision by the Fullerton Planning Commission to grant a bogus “special event” permit to Jack Franklyn’s “Roscoe’s” in order to legitimize his ongoing violation of the City ordinance regarding outdoor amplified music in the C-3 District.
Yeah, baby! Mixed use!
We’ve been over this already so there’s no need to rehash all the details except to say that for some reason the City has been complicit in this ongoing permit-dodging scandal: no permits, no code enforcement, a cooked-up noise study, a phony special event permit. The list goes on and on. Now the City Council will be able to weigh in on the subject. We expect lots of chit-chat but the real issue is so simple: the law says you can’t do it! If you want to change the law, then do it. But not before all the necessary CEQA responsibilities are met. And that means an EIR!
We paid for it. Will it say what we want it to say?
Jack's musicians waiting for the amplifiers to arrive...
For some strange reason, the surrounding business owners and/or residents of properties within proximity of Roscoe’s were NOT notified to allow input at the Planning Commissions recent Public Hearing. A violation of the law (Sec 15.58.060).
Is an on going ’special event’ spanning 3 months the intent of this section? Obviously not. (Sec 15.58.020)
Was the application filed 90 days prior to June 14th? N0. (Sec 15.58.040)
Here’s the relevant section of the Fullerton Municipal Code:
15.58.010. Intent and purpose.
The intent of this chapter is to identify special events and to specify the requirements and provisions for their approval regardless of the proposed location or zone classification. The requirements and provisions established for each special event are intended to ensure the general safety, health, and welfare of the community and to ensure that the temporary operation of the special event will be a compatible activity for the neighborhood in which it is located. (Ord. 2982, 2001)
15.58.020. Definitions.
A “special event” is an event that will be conducted outdoors to which the general public is admitted or invited. Such an event includes a carnival, festival, tent or car show, circus, parade, auction, rally, or a similar kind of temporary outdoor exhibition or performance. A temporary commercial activity, such as a “sidewalk” or parking lot sale, which is intended to promote the sale of merchandise from on-site businesses, shall not be considered a “special event.” (Ord. 2982, 2001)
15.58.040. Application for permit and fees.
A. An application for a special event permit must be on file with the Director of Development Services at least 90 days before the scheduled special event. The City Council may, by resolution, set appropriate fees for the filing of the application.
15.58.060. Procedure for review of application.
B. A permit for a special event proposed on all other types of private property shall not be issued without a review and approval of the application by the Planning Commission. Prior to the Planning Commission reviewing the application, the Director of Development Services shall do the following:
1. Consult with other departments of the city on the request.
2. Notify business owners and/or residents of properties within proximity of the proposed venue, stating the nature of the request, the date, time and location where the Planning Commission will review the request, and the opportunity for the public to comment on the request during that review.
3. State all reasonable concerns and issues identified by city staff and the general public when the Planning Commission reviews the request. (Ord. 2982, 2001)
All this begs the very obvious question: why is the City bending its own laws past the breaking point to accommodate Jack Franklyn and his outdoor nuisance? The City Manager and his planning staff are obviously doing this for a reason. What could it be?
Just what exactly does “temporary” mean? “Roscoe’s Famous” Deli,” and famous noise polluter in downtown Fullerton is back to the Planning Commission Wednesday night to try to get a “special event permit” for outdoor amplified music.
Oh yeah! Mixed-use, baby!
The Planning Commission and City Council already agreed that outdoor amplified music is not a good thing for our community. Allowing loud music to be permitted on a permanent basis will stump Fullerton’s bright future of continuing to become a center of mixed-use commerce and residences as defined by the current downtown zoning (C3.) If we want our downtown to unfold in a positive direction it’s imperative that we as a community find a balance between business, entertainment and living in the downtown. Its real simple: if you want loud noise you need to put it inside. In fact the city required Tuscany Club to keep it’s door shut during the hours it has its loud entertainment- that sounds like a reasonable idea doesn’t it ?
As usual the City staff has gotten everything ass-backward.
From where we're standing it looks reasonable...
Instead of establishing an objective code and requiring that businesses abide by it, they are actually justifying a likely nuisance as way to experiment with amplified music outdoors, and thus circumvent the existing Code. The taxpayers have just paid for an acoustical study. What are the results? Those results should be used to amend the Code or leave it as is. Then it should be used as a mechanism to approve or deny permits – “special event” or otherwise, and if necessary, code enforcement. The special event permit also strangely omits hours of operation. That’s pretty negligent, and we wonder why.
Roscoe’s didn’t get approved for a permanent permit to play amplified music outdoors; now they are trying to get a temporary permit to do that very same thing…. Hey that’s very creative, but we don’t think a special event permit should evade that original denial, and we don’t think a temporary permit was ever intended for eight events spanning an entire summer! Can you imagine having a neighbor that continues to have a backyard party with a loud electric band every weekend ? That’s how a lot of Roscoe’s neighbors feel…
It could be worse. It could be Speed Metal!
This is the Municipal Code that deals with temporary event permits in the City of Fullerton:
The Fullerton Municipal Code defines a special event as “an event that will be conducted outdoors to which the general public is admitted or invited. Such an event includes a carnival festival tent or car show, circus parade, auction rally or similar kind of temporary outdoor exhibit or performance” (Accents added).
As follows is the roster of Roscoe’s “special event” application-
Roscoe’s Special Events Request List:
Sunday June 14th Bootlegger Bike Fund Raiser. 4-9 pm
Saturday June 20th Silvia’s Engagement party. 7-12 pm
Sunday June 21st Fathers Day Celebration. 4-9pm
Sunday June 28th SOCO Guest Bartender Fund Raiser. 4-9 pm
Sunday July 12th Bootlegger Bike Fund Raiser. 4-9 pm
Sunday July 26th SOCO Guest Bartender Fund Raiser. 4-9pm
Sunday August 9th Bootlegger Bike Fund Raiser. 4-9pm
Sunday August 30th SOCO Guest Bartender Fund Raiser. 4-9 pm
Friends, you decide if this is just a way to get around the rules that all the rest of us are supposed to abide by. Let’s not forget that in the original permanent use hearing the City ignored its own environmental review obligations. Why is Famous Roscoes and its owner, Jack Franklyn, receiving all this special consideration and hand holding from the City? The law is the law. We all live by it everyday, and so should he.
Just what does Fullerton H.S. District Superintendent George Giokaris owe Fullerton City Manager Chris Meyer? What compels him to be a tattletale on his own Board? Unlike Mike Escalante, his predecessor, Giokaris apparently wants a McDonald’s right across from Fullerton High.
Here’s what we’ve gathered from credible sources:
Last week, County Supervisor Chris Norby (FHS ’68) spoke with former district Superintendent Escalante and current Boardmembers Dutton and Singer. All confirmed their opposition to the $6 million McDonald’s move across the street from FHS. Escalante recounted an earlier conversation with Meyer opposing the relocation on traffic and safety grounds.
Unfortunately, these concerns were kept from the city council.
This week, Norby wrote a letter to Dutton and Singer suggesting they communicate their position to the city council, while there’s still time. Giokaris saw the letter, then quickly dispatched a “heads up” email to Meyer warning of a possible lobbying effort by members of the High School Board against the McDonald’s relocation fiasco.
Is there something we should know about these two?
Imagine that – a warning from a Superintendent that his own bosses on the School Board may actually stand up for their students’ safety and their taxpayers’ wallets! Instead of tattletaling to Meyer, he should repeat the opposition of his predecessor and oppose this super-sized boondoggle!
And we say to Dutton and Singer–if you really do oppose this $6 million move, say so now. Don’t be intimidated by Giokaris’s little intrigues behind your back – be outraged by them!
That’s the way Redevelopment likes to choose its favored developers. A kabuki-like pantomime is undertaken by issuing an RFP (Request for Proposals). In the end the process presents the decision makers with a choice that is essentially no choice. To illustrate the point, Loyal Friends, we go back in time almost ten years to examine how the “Save The Fox” movement got off to a rousing start.
Let's hope we don't end up going around in circles...
In 1999 after catching the wave of the Save The Fox movement, the City issued an RFP for private developers to take over the job of restoring the Fox and developing the adjoining area. The City had committed to build a parking structure and hand over other developer goodies. Proposals were received in August. In October the Agency was presented with the lucky winner, Staff’s choice – “Berkman/Chaffee” a local restaurant owner and a politically-connected lawyer turned low-income housing credits entrepreneur. Paul Berkman was there to provide credibility to run a “dinner theater” and Doug (Bud) Chaffee’s job was to look like a land developer. The only problem, as it soon transpired, was that Berkman refused to promise a dinner theater, only movies. And Chaffee had never “developed” anything but heavily subsidized housing.
That isn't very good, is it?
To complicate matters a second proposer named Dana Morris of Morris productions, who believed himself to be in the running, actually showed up at the meeting desiring that the elected officials, not staff, decide who might get the gig. His idea was to create an performing and fine arts academy on the site that would, in turn, generate all sorts of ancillary business opportunities downtown and not compete with existing businesses.
To the acute embarrassment of staff, Morris managed to organize a slew of supporters, including a backer who promised to help finance the venture. They asked for more time to prove their bona fides.
On cue, some of Fullerton’s usual lefty suspects got up to promote Berkman/Chaffee although their proposal was dubious, at best, and despite the fact that neither partner had any experience doing what they claimed they were going to do. There were strong undertones of religious bigotry pulling their adherents along, for it had become known that that Morris was affiliated with BIOLA, and in some peoples’ minds that was anathema.
Nuh-uh. Not in our city!
To add hypocrisy to the mix, people who had never shown a dime’s worth of concern when the City acquired property in downtown Fullerton were suddenly horrified by the thought of a non-profit foundation paying no property tax!
The council finally voted 4-1 (Flory dissenting, naturally) to continue the item so that Morris could clarify certain financial points in his proposal. In the intervening time, as Morris later told us, he was treated with such overt contempt and continuing hostility by Redevelopment Director Gary Chaplupsky that he finally abandoned his proposal as simply not worth the aggravation. We have only his word for what happened, but given the Redevelopment Agency staff’s propensity for prevarication over the years, we are inclined to accept it. And so a plausible concept for the Fox was lost because the staff did its level-best to thwart a reasonable proposal and award the deal to their favored team – the team that could be counted on to play ball.
Gee, Paul, I don't remember this being so hard...
And now Patient Friends, we finally return to our title. At the hearing in October, 1999 it slipped out that of the eight original proposals only two were even deemed worthy of consideration; and the City Council was never informed that one of the other six actually came from the janitor at the Hub Cafe! Of the two “finalists” it was clear that Morris never stood a chance, thus effectively limiting the Agency’s choices to none. This “planning and activity” as our faithful reader “Jack B. Nimble” characterizes it was nothing but a sham, a fact that later became evident when the Berkman/Chaffee partnership permitted its agreement with the City to lapse, and was never heard from again. And so a feeble concept had gained traction even though (excluding Morris) there was not one credible respondent to the proposal. But in government circles, that’s all it takes to gain momentum!
What’s going on in Fullerton? Many city officials seem intent on “redeveloping” a city that has no blight — even as they have wasted $20,000 in bureaucratic expenses to make sure kids don’t ride their bikes in a vacant lot. As the economy worsens for everyone, the city just can’t get its priorities straight.
First, the redevelopment absurdity. The city claims West Fullerton’s commercial areas and East Fullerton industrial areas are “blighted” and wants to redevelop them. This could mean using “eminent domain” to forcibly take property from its rightful owners, then give it to other private owners for a supposedly “better” use. And it could mean using our hard-earned tax dollars to “help” the new owners redevelop the property.
At a recent City Council meeting, City Councilman Shawn Nelson ripped the redevelopment“argument” to shreds. “Clearly, the data has been manipulated, and it’s been manipulated for a purpose,” he said, referring to a report that supposedly proved the areas were “blighted.” He added, “This is not an objective report…. I don’t think that any… objective report would have reached the conclusion that there’s blight.” He pointed out that the supposed “blight” in Fullerton “doesn’t come anywhere near” the threshold set by the California Court of Appeal for imposing eminent domain. Click here for the YouTube of Shawn’s comments:
Second, the Fullerton Code Enforcement Department spent $20,000 and countless hours of staff and attorney time prosecuting local businessman Tony Bushala (admin) for allowing his sons and their friends to ride bicycles on three acres of vacant land he owns behind the Brea Dam. The bureaucrats grandiosely called the vacant lot “outdoor recreational facilities.” Will they next also call every home driveway in the city “outdoor recreational facilities” — and ban kids from using driveways to ride up to park their bikes in the home garage?
How silly. Isn’t it better to have kids riding their bikes on private property owned by one kid’s dad, than to have them hanging out somewhere else, possibly getting into mischief? And that $20,000 in wasted tax money could have meant half a year of work for someone in the private sector — instead of staying in an unemployment line in this severe recession.
After various bureaucratic wranglings, the Appeals Board found that “no nuisance exists.” But the bike incident produced an incredible 47 pages of documents. What a waste.
These are serious economic times. The go-go days are over. We need to save our money, both private and public. The city needs to stop attacking the private-property rights of citizens, whether by threatening to take their property through eminent domain, or by stopping kids from having innocent fun on family property.
When we heard Mr. Frisbee mention former Redevelopment employee Terry Galvin’s name at the recent Council meeting regarding the McDonald’s boondoggle, we started to reflect on the span of his career.
Even though he has been retired for several years, Galvin’s influence still pervades almost every downtown debacle and disaster – including the ongoing McDonald’s relocation and the disgrace of the poisoned UP Park.
We though it might be fun to trace some of the highlights of Terry’s 25 year Redevelopment career to illustrate the influence one person can have over the lives and wealth of so many:
Harbor Blvd. Removal of parking
Construction and removal of concrete trestles along Harbor
Conversion of downtown Fullerton from commercial to high density residential
Slotsy’s Depot platform embarrassment and cover-up
Interference in contract @ Dean Block bld.
The Depot ceiling screwup
To us the most interesting question about Galvin’s reign of error was how he managed to avoid discipline, let alone termination for his string of disasters that adorn Fullerton’s downtown like a string of cheap beads. It could only have happened in an environment free of accountability, and with the complicity of elected officials who not only tolerated this failure, but were also complicit in it.
And that, Dear Friends is why city councilmembers actually keep bragging about what has been “accomplished” in downtown Fullerton; and why, rather than disbanding the Agency, they prefer to expand it!
