Update: a well-informed reader pointed has out that 7/7/26 was removed from the calendar in December 2025 because staff determined it was too close to Independence Day.
I have no idea why it wasn’t so designated on the CC’s schedule found on the City website – until this afternoon.
This does beg the question as to why the meeting wasn’t rescheduled as an official hearing to make determinations regarding the budget and find out the status of the search for a new money-raising consultant. There seems to be almost no sense of urgency about the fact that the City still doesn’t have a budget for this fiscal year.
On Tuesday the Fullerton City Council is going to address the topic of selecting the next solid waste hauler. This is a big deal, with a lot of money involved.
And so they did. I won’t bore the Friends with the various details of proposals because in the end each is offering different rates, services, and feel good community involvement, the last item a useless PR gesture that somebody in City Hall thought merited points in their selection calculations.
But two RFP respondents offered something else. Big loans to the City’s General Fund that would be recovered over many years via augmented rates.
EDCO has sweetened the pot by offering a $15,000,000 one time payment to the City to be recovered by a differential in the annual Consumer Price Index that is applied to fees.
Republic, the current hauler, is offering a $10,000,000 one time payment they are charmingly calling a “Community Enhancing Payment” which sounds better than “City of Fullerton Bailout.”
Obviously these two cash offer proposals would present the City Council immediate, if only very temporary, relief from the impending budget reserve liquidation, and will attract attention for that. The other positive political result could be the elimination of a November 2026 ballot tax question – a problem in getting on the ballot, and passage by the voters. However, the underlying structural budget deficit would remain and would need to be addressed, anyway, and immediately.
The formulas increasing the CPI scales would really be amount to a hidden tax on waste producing customers in Fullerton, and the City would be in the effective position of incurring debt leveraged on hauling fee increases. I presume the offerors and the City have investigated the legality of this.
Of the two proposers, EDCO was previously ranked first by a narrow margin, while Republic was in last place. The City’s relationship with Republic really soured during negotiations for SB 1383 when Republic did the old bait-and-switcheroo so there’s that to consider.
Meantime CR&R is promising $4,000,000 upfront to pay for road improvements – no strings attached – however there are always strings attached and in this case recovery of the 4 mil will certainly be reflected in rates higher than other proposers.
Is the upfront payment concept viable? I think so. It would buy some time for the City. But somebody would have to pay the piper, and somebody is still going to have to make the budget cuts required to balance a budget and no one has shown any appetite for this bitter menu. Appointing a useless committee to study things has been a waste of time. Almost.
One of the committee members did suggest the very thing that EDCO, Republic and CR&R are offering demonstrating that at least somebody was thinking of alternatives.
My guess is that “Dr.” Ahmad Zahra and Shana Charles will not support this big payment option, seeing great liberal virtue in imposing a 13% sales tax increase like the ill-fated measure M of 2020. On the other hand, that passage is a risky business and they need 4 votes to make it even get on the ballot. Nick Dunlap probably would not vote for putting a tax on the ballot, or going with the upfront payment plan. But his vote might not be needed. The waste contract only needs 3 votes. Where are Jung and Valencia? I guess we’ll find out Tuesday.
Why write about news when you can try to make your own! (Photo by Julie Leopo/Voice of OC)
Yes, indeed. In an editorial masquerading as some sort of news, Fullerton Observer sister Sikita Kennedy explained the failure of government and the ways in which that failure is dressed up to look like victory. This article appears to be an AI generated creation since the estimable Satskia has never shown this sort of perspicuity in the past, but, whatever. After you weed out the jargon some fundamental management truths emerge.
The topic of course is something almost nobody gives a rat’s ass about: getting rid of bike lockers at the train station, the reason given that they are underused. The awkward title shouts out “Fullerton’s Bicycle Lockers Spark Controversy Among Cyclists” as if an inanimate object has such puissance. Naturally, it’s the removal of said lockers that is causing Siska herself grief; not a solitary cyclist is interviewed or quoted in her essay.
But I digress. The topic is inconsequential, but the analysis of failure is quite remarkable and completely uncharacteristic. Kennedy seems to have finally discovered the cultural behavior of government bureaucracies that we have known all along. Let’s enjoy some of the fruits of her editorial labors:
Organizations in crisis rarely announce themselves as such.More often, they produce charts, reports, and performance metrics that tell a reassuring story — one that, on closer inspection, was shaped by the same decisions it purports to evaluate. This is one of the quieter dangers of institutional mismanagement: it doesn’t just damage an organization, it can generate the evidence that justifies its own continuation.
How perfectly true, and so descriptive of almost every staff and study report ever produced in Fullerton. The classic dodge is to answer a question that nobody asked.
“…a dispute over bicycle lockers is offering a textbook example of how low performance, manufactured by neglect, gets cited as the reason to eliminate the very thing being neglected.
Yes, indeed. Sort of sounds like the death-march noise ordinance fiasco, doesn’t it, wherein City failure to enforce codes results in the push to abandon the process of code enforcement altogether.
When managers make poor decisions, they typically face two options: change course or defend the course they’re on. Defense, in institutional settings, almost always involves data. The problem is that those same managers often control what data gets collected, how it gets measured, and how it gets reported.
Good Lord, Satkia, has had her come to Jesus revelation! The truth may yet set her free! How often have we seen a circling of the wagons, the manipulation of information to reinforce the error? Mostly data collection, crooked or otherwise, isn’t even necessary. Convoluted rhetoric often does the trick. Option number one never takes place.
A leader who has misallocated resources will tend to measure success in ways that don’t reveal the misallocation. A department head who has pursued the wrong strategy will frame performance indicators around the metrics where progress is easiest to show. Over time, the organization’s entire information infrastructure bends toward confirming decisions already made.
This is something we’ve seen time and time again. Throw out the jargon and it means this: “look over there.” The misdirection is so common as to be commonplace. This is what will happen when the City’s disastrous “fire fighter” ambulance driver chickens come home to the proverbial roost.
This is the classic mismanagement data trap: measuring outputs rather than outcomes, and then using those outputs to validate the decisions that produced them.
Amen, Sister, testify!
The “data trap” of measuring outputs was nowhere better seen than on the horrendously useless Trail to Nowhere, where the efforts were all about building something expensive and then patting yourself on the back for…building something expensive. But that wasn’t about a few piddling bike lockers, no, but the waste of $2,500,000, an irony lost on the Fullerton Observer editorial staff of two. The Observer Sisters will never expend a moment’s time worrying about actual users (or complete lack of same) on the “trail.”
One of the most common tools in this playbook is selective periodization — choosing a start date for measurement that makes current numbers look favorable by comparison. Applied to civic infrastructure, this often means measuring usage after a program has already been allowed to deteriorate, rather than tracking the arc from functional to neglected.
How funny. Siskia has had her epiphany, alright, but it sure is a selective enlightenment. Remember when staff tried to keep the ridiculous Waste on Wilshire going by citing low traffic on Wilshire after the street had been closed!
Organizations under poor leadership often commission external reviews that appear to provide independent accountability but are structured to confirm decisions already made. The questions given to reviewers shape the findings, and the questions come from the people who need favorable findings. The result carries the authority of objectivity while functioning as a mirror.
Let’s consider the very recent Grant Thornton report whose results were meant to cauterize a huge embarrassment without naming a single culprit or a single systemic failure. No outcries from the Observers, of course.
Cities do this too — with traffic studies, usage audits, and infrastructure assessments that are framed around the conclusion leadership has already reached. Whether that’s what’s happening with Fullerton’s active transportation data is a question advocates would do well to press publicly.
They sure do, Sitka. Who are you supposed to believe, your commonsense or the experts we have hired to back us up? Ahem, remember the “experts” hired to produce pro tax findings, pro development findings, pro this or pro that findings? In fact data supporting everything that the City Manager who hired them wants. The latest examples is that “traffic study” for the overbuilt Harbor/Hermosa project that will never in a million years stop the project as designed, from being built.
The antidote to data shaped by mismanagement is not more data — it’s differently sourced data, with different incentive structures attached to it. Independent audits are conducted by parties with no relationship to the decisions being evaluated. Performance metrics set before interventions begin, not after. Usage data is examined in the context of program accessibility, not in isolation.
Great Caesar’s Ghost! What a splendid statement of objective accountability and something that should be happening, at least occasionally, and not on some silly bike lockers, but on real issues where millions are spent, from hiring ambulance drivers to deciding if anybody is now going to use a new but previously failed park; on weather there is a chance in hell that anybody would patronize a “boutique” hotel at the Transportation Center.
There is a vast irony in the Observer’s new-found demand for objective standards to promote accountability – exactly the thing government employees dread. See, it’s the squalid world of professional management, and such accountability is not to be applied to government bureaucrats who are made of a finer material. They are working for us, see, and have a noble calling not to be subjected to accountability.
And it’s deliciously ironic that the new Observer spirit has been discovered due to some footling bike lockers, and not the decades long history of Fullerton disasters that nobody but FFFF has chronicled.
Might Sciatica Kennedy’s observations and suggestions be applied to future Fullerton mishaps? Bet not. But let’s enjoy them while we can.
Warning: Conceptual only, not to be taken seriously!
The self-professed experts…
The City of Fullerton’s foray into boutique hostelry remains a big mystery to the public, partly because the public doesn’t know much, if anything about it; but mostly because the City staff doesn’t know what to do with their boondoggle and the people who voted for it – business experts Shana Charles and “Dr.” Ahmad Zahra certainly aren’t talking. Come to think of it, neither are the two councilmembers who voted against it – Fred Jung and Nick Dunlap.
Zahra’s Fullerton Transparency claque and the Fullerton Sisters are silent as the proverbial tomb.
Why is Johnny smiling?
The facts of this disaster hardly require another distasteful regurgitation, so I won’t do it, except to remind Friends that the City deeded over part of the Transportation Center parking facility to TA/Westpark for a pittance, given that they also change the entitlements making it worth 10 times what they sold it for. TA Partners is Johnny Lu and Larry Liu a couple of Chinese con men who had already pleaded guilty to fraud in LA County and who were in the process of going belly up on a huge loan in Irvine.
You may remember that the original grant deed that was recorded by Johnny and Larry was different than the one they recorded later, and the property description in the second recorded deed fraudulently includes the east end of the Depot loading dock now under leasehold by the Bushala Brothers, Inc., whose clock is ticking on their agreement. What a fiasco.
And it may be getting worse. That seems hard to imagine since the property was handed over three and a half years ago and nothing has happened. The hotel and attached mega apartment is supposed to be complete by October 21, 2026. My recollection is that the hotel and the attached mega apartment was supposed to be done only a few months from now. How many legally required milestones have been missed remains a part of the Big Sleep.
Meanwhile Johnny and Larry are said to have taken out a loan against their Fullerton real estate. I guess someone was willing to bet on the come, or just as likely, wasn’t – ahem – fully informed. Which deed was used to describe the lender’s collateral? Must have been the most recent one that includes the loading dock.
If some new loan fraud took place we can add that to the legal entanglements between TA Partners and the family of the original brainstormer, Craig Hostert, now unfortunately deceased. The agreement with the City should have excluded TA from creating debt on the property with permission from the City. But Fullerton, being Fullerton.
This comical boondoggle is now well over 7 years old and still there are no signs of official communication about the state of this mess, let alone resolution. Is staff trying to find a replacement to keep the embarrassment alive and save face for the disaster? Who knows?
Fullerton Boohoo comes in all shapes and sizes, but its members share one thing in common: a desperate drive to support Democrat Party candidates. Fullerton Forward, the brain child of someone called Steven Sherry is no exception. “Building a Better Future for All Fullertonians” is Sherry’s slogan #1. Slogan #2 is about “values”:
We met Fullerton Forward a few weeks ago as Sherry orchestrated a comical People’s Council meeting with limited pizza. The Fullerton Observer wouldn’t say who was behind the get together that attracted the cream of Fullerton Crazy’s crop, and that appointed immigration fraud “Dr.” Ahmad Zahra as the People’s Mayor.
According to the Fullerton Forward website, an individual named Linda Gardner is on the group’s 3 person “advisory council” whatever that title may mean. Here’s her bio:
Linda “…has been active in local and state politics for many years, serving as President of Democrats of North Orange County for six years and continuing to be an active member. Linda has actively worked on campaigns for California Governor, Senate and Assembly as well as Fullerton City Council and major propositions and recalls.
Linda is currently a Delegate for the California Democratic Party. She is passionate about positive change for the future of Fullerton.”
Sherry a former Democrat lobbyist, boasts about himself:
For over a decade, he has also worked in political campaigns, founding his own consulting firm, NewWave Strategies, in 2020. Through his firm, Steven has raised millions for clients nationwide and built highly effective, resourceful advertising campaigns.
Most of this is undoubtedly made up, and after you finish this post you may think the same thing.
Andre, all smiles for cannabis…
This guy looks an awful lot like the under-employed Andre Charles, husband of the insufferable hot air bag Shana whose employment history is sketchy, at best.
Anyhow, Fullerton Forward has finally submitted the necessary Form 460 required of political action committees after the June primary. This document is instructive for lots of reasons.
Cannabis Kitty Jaramillo
First, we can see several of Fullerton’s cyphers who contributed – like the failed Cannabis Kitty Jaramillo, who sued the City so she could get elected; and our old friend, the pathetic election fraud participant,Diane Vena,who endorsed Jaramillo then signed the nominating papers of the phony candidate/confessed perjurer Scott Markowitz.We see you angry liitle eye doctor Anjali Tapadia; and you too, developer shake down artist Elizabeth Hansberg; Aha, over there, indignant front parlor antique, Karen Lloreda, recalled from the Dana Point City Council, and come to Fullerton to roost in the municipal rafters.
Sherry raised almost $17K, which looks okay. But wait. There are only two main contributors:
As we will see, one is frequent Council irritant Helen Higgins, and the other is some dude named Joel Maus, which means “mouse” in English. I have no idea what his motivation is. Maybe he’ll drop by to tell us. He’s the $5K “small business” moneybags.
Like Andre Charles, Mr. Sherry seems to believe that personally doing well by doing good is his life’s path. How’s that? you ask.
Because according to the Form 460 Schedule E, Sherry paid himself almost $6000 for the campaign he ran against Fred Jung in the primary, a campaign that only lasted a couple months. I won’t even share the percentages of Sherry’s cost versus the totals he spent and raised, because the Form 460 Schedule E totals don’t add up to the total expenditures listed on the Form 460 top summary.
The best part of Sherry’s activities, with his name almost obscured, was this remarkable payment he made to himself: $4560.80 for “fundraising.” WTF?
I love the amount this honest and transparent political action committee paid to scofflaw Mario Marovic for holding their fundraiser at “Madero 1899,” even as his fake Irish pub across the street still illegally squats on the Commonwealth sidewalk. Did the dummy Sherry list the cost of the Big Fundraising Party twice, somehow? If so, the numbers still wouldn’t add up to the summary page, so it hardly matters.
Naturally, Sherry paid his tribute to the Democrat Party of OC – $500 on April 27th – confirming the purely partisan nature of his new plaything.
By the way, I’m informed that Sherry’s self-serve creation is also now the object of an FPPC complaint, dealing with illegal campaign sign disclosure rules.
Finally, we are we really to believe somebody who spent a lot to raise a little, and who, as treasurer and “Executive Director” of a PAC can’t seem to add, has “raised millions for nationwide clients?” Yeah, sure, Steve, whatever you say.
Almost half the money raised came from only two donors. If I were on that “Advisory Council” I’d be asking some serious questions of Mr. Sherry. Of course that won’t happen.
Last week “the People” held their own meeting in front of City Hall since the Fullerton City Council meeting had been cancelled for lack of a quorum.
Who were “the People?” Nobody was saying before the event, except that the organizers were springing for limited pizza.
The turnout, predictably, was a couple dozen of the usual agitators at City Council meetings – a combination of Fullerton Boohoo, Fullerton Self-righteous, Fullerton Angry and Fullerton Nuts.
The ostensible theme of the get together was to bitch about the usual stuff, including transparency, which was funny because Sanka Kennedy of the Fullerton Observer who advertised this event, didn’t even bother to say who was putting on what turned out to be an overtly political event, whose principal purpose was to attack Mayor Fred Jung and promote Connor Traut in advance of the upcoming Supervisorial primary election.
It turns out the shindig was the work of Fullerton Forward, a political action committee cooked by council annoyance Steven Sherry, one of those underemployed political cling-ons looking to make his way in a cold, cruel political world. He was the one who sprang for the dozen pizzas, apparently.
O, the sparkling rhetoric from Crazy Air-punching Tim Johnson. Little Angry Bird, Dancing Ms. Green Card, Professor Curtis Gamble, Tender Young Elijah, Oliver the No-account of Montecristo, and other luminaries! Stika Kennedy, erstwhile “journalist” addressed the gaggle, too, showing again her failure to distinguish journalism from partisan politics.
The booby prize…
Then, at last, to the mawkish business of “appointing” the “People’s Mayor.” Angry Johnson had already prepared certificate of accomplishment for the Dodgy Doctor from Damascus, Ahmad Zahra! What a surprise!!
The People’s Mayor contemplating his political future…and then free pizza for dinner!
The entire affair was an unwitting foray into comic opera, so at least some entertainment value was produced.
Questions about whether such an overtly political event on public property is legal and whether Fullerton Forward had permits or insurance to put on this affair are being raised by concerned citizens (see what I did there, Observers?).
Fullerton’s so-called Ad Hoc Fiscal Sustainability Committee met again, and probably for the last time last Thursday. Like its predecessor, the meeting expended hours of lots of peoples’ time and accomplished nothing. Not very little. Nothing.
Hours and hours of already familiar Power Point readings.
Three things worth mentioning happened.
Miss Daisey was driven…
First, Daisy Perez, the Assistant City Manager reminded the committee that if the City were to get a dedicated “infrastructure” half-cent sales tax increase, that money could be diverted to pay for “maintenance” of police and fire department facilities. She said nothing about a commensurate reduction in the “public safety” budgets and naturally nobody on the committee asked her.
Later, when pressed, the City Manger had to explain that he needed some sort of City Attorney blessing before he could share polling questions asked by the City’s quality of life/pro tax consultant. Huh? The only people who get to know the questions are the ones who got phone solicitations? What bullshit is this? Fortunately, Joshua Ferguson was on hand to share the nature of the questions his wife got; of course they were directed to promoting a sales tax increase of some kind.
You will be taxed…sooner or later!
Later still, when everyone was fatigued, Perez tried to get the committee to vote on a laundry list of options, all of which would be passed on to the council. This is the precise swindle that occurred during the redistricting process courtesy of City Clerk Lucinda Williams – when Fullerton Booohoo was trying real hard to keep Jesus Quirk-Silva in a political job.
Chris Norby, our former City Councilman, County Supervisor and Assemblyman showed up to save the day. He shared the value of vacant properties the City owns, and threw in the airport. These collectively are worth half a billion he asserted. He didn’t remind committee members that these properties would be declared surplus, and that “affordable” housing developers would get first shot at them. He reminded the committee that sales taxes are inherently regressive, perhaps thinking anybody cared about that.
In the end a completely improper process of trying to vote on something, anything, occurred. Without following any order except prompting by staff, the committee voted 3-2 against a Tony Bushala suggestion of a 1/2 cent sales tax dedicate to infrastructure, and keeping in place an existing ordinance guaranteeing a certain percentage of funding for infrastructure.
Peace. No, piece. Another piece of your money. You have it. We want it.
Then the appointees of the liberals Shana Charles and Ahamad Zahra, Derek Smith and Jennifer Duong proposed their own idea: a one cent general sales tax. This failed 3-2, also with Bushala, Wehn and Wozab voting no.
Finally a legitimate motion was made by Eric Wehn and seconded by Bushala: investigate the possible sale of the water function to an independent water company. That proposal was finally passed 3-2 again with the liberal appointees voting no. This idea really has no place to go, except that an exploration of the Water Department’s vacant property should be definitely considered for offloading.
There seemed to be confusion about whether the committee could meet again to keep kicking the can around. No decision was made on that as far as I can tell, but I’ve seen so many Fullerton meetings dissolve into incoherence at their end that I really can’t say.
Fullerton’s illustrious ad hoc Budget Sustainability Committee was treated to a marathon “we’re cut to the bone” presentation by the City’s department heads last Tuesday night.
One of the interesting concepts for revenue enhancement, albeit one-time, came from our Director of Public Works Stephen Bise.
It seems that over time, unrefunded “engineering” fees from City permit applicants adds up. Currently, the City has about $700,000 in such fees sitting idly in a Public Works account. According to Bise some of the fees were collected way back in the 1990s. The City Council would have to put its seal of approval on the deal and a notice to the rightful owners of this money would have to be made.
Similarly, funds gathered from contractor bonds and not claimed piles up, too. Bise reckons that ampount is $145,000. Presumably the same process for keeping that dough would be deployed.
This situation begs the obvious question: what responsibility does the City have to notify its customers that they have positive balances; or better yet, why can’t the Public Works Department simply write checks and return the money to its rightful owners before it piles up? There seems to be an unwritten rule that the money belongs in City funds (gathering interest at least) until such time, if any, that the owners request reimbursement. It really is a form of indirect “taking.” These individual amounts may be small, but as Director Bise indicated, are substantial in aggregate.
Apparently Fullerton made a grab of these bond funds a few years ago that had accumulated up to 2016. That amounted to $800,000. The next decade’s worth is now on the table, apparently. Can the Council resist seizing this cash? I wouldn’t bet against it.
As to the process of notification I admit my ignorance. Are such notifications made to the real owners or their heirs and assigns? I wonder. It would be so much easier to put a public notice in a “newspaper of record” where virtually nobody would ever see it; and then put it on a Council Agenda, posted 72 hours before the meeting where even fewer people would see it.
Well, there she goes. Don’t worry. There’s more where that came from…
When a misleading City of Fullerton agenda proclaims: “Introduction of Special Fiscal Audit – Grant Thornton Risk Advisory Services.”
I assumed, wrongly, that somebody had already been hired to look into the misdirection of funds into the General Fund Reserves that should have gone some place else, a fact that has caused considerable embarrassment to our severely and habitually underinformed City Council. I also figured this firm was going to talk about what they found.
But no.
A Manfro all seasons…
In fact, the firm of Grant Thornton Risk Advisory Services were brought before the council by the City Manager, Eddie Manfro, simply to make a sales pitch for their services. And what services.
Step one is to be some sort of forensic accounting exercise, a fishing expedition to explore the world of Fullerton’s accounting regime to see what, if anything, is amiss. Nobody said anything, but there must have surely been some internal squirming when the company rep kept using the word “fraud.” And that included our Finance Director and recently anointed City Treasure, Steven Avalos who was sitting in the pit.
The second phase of GTRAS’s endeavor was to explore how the City might improve efficiencies, save money, and help address Fullerton’s grim fiscal situation. Why this all-purpose company was suggested for this task seems odd, the two tasks having nothing to do with one another.
I’ll address the first project first. Why is it necessary at all to delve into Fullerton’s accounting with an audit? We have been told that there were seemingly honest bookkeeping errors – embarrassing, sure and it did alter the already dire projection of General Fund reserve draw downs, but fear not, all was well. The councilmembers kept talking about transparency and public trust, but what does that really mean? Is this serious or just a political pantomime?
Consider the following facts. GTRAS was picked by the City Manager under his own authority and just brought to the council to give them a chance to ratify the decision. That’s a sole source contract, and the public has no idea how much they will be paid, and won’t without a PRA request. Will added scope to the $100,000 contract be reviewed by anybody except the City Manager and Steven Avalos? If some sort malfeasance were actually discovered – purely by accident, of course – would offender(s) names be published? Is any of this going to discussed in Closed Session because it touches on employee issues? Who knows? The Council approved the deal, without knowing whatever it is or might be.
As for the second part of GTRAS offer, the City Manager announced that would be returned to the Council for approval of a $130,000 deal. At least someone might get the chance to ask some pertinent questions, such as why is this “economic development” effort needed, given that Fullerton has highly paid staff who enjoy employment as economic developers. What have these people been doing and why do they need outside help. These people have been on the payroll for years. What have they accomplished?
Economic Development is my specialty…
Sunaya Thomas, in charge of economic development, was in attendance. Her presence at the meeting was an almost begging of the question about her own success in this endeavor, the effort of bureaucrats that never even pays for itself.
I wonder if GTRAS will actually suggest something that might help, outside of taxes. Personally, I doubt if their suggestions would even pay for their own service. That we will probably never know because no one will talk about it. This will be an agreement with no metrics for success or failure, just more electronic billboards and hotel occupancy taxes. Staff reductions? Getting rid of all our brand new “firefighters” and ambulance drivers? Don’t be ridiculous.
Anyhow our brave Council voted unanimously to proceed down this dark corridor, protesting their sincere desire to pursue those most elusive prey: transparency and public trust. No one said much about accountability. They never do.
College Park is an old neighborhood adjacent to Fullerton Junior College. Back in 1979 the City designated it as an historic preservation zone. That was 46 years ago if you’re counting. The area is full of little bungalows and small spanishy looking houses. It’s a nice neighborhood even if you add in the dinky roundabouts on Wilshire – the brainstorm of Wild Ride Joe Felz, who certainly could not have navigated them on election night, 2016.
But I digress.
Cornell Avenue resident
At the last City Council meeting a woman who lives on Cornell Avenue in the district complained about a building on her street under construction that was completely out of character with the neighborhood and the preservation rules, adopted in 1996, that are supposed to protect against such things. She kindly reminded the Council that she lives in D5 – Ahmad Zahra’s district.
So I went over to the 100 North block of Cornell Avenue and snapped some images.
The Thing That Ate Cornell…
Now I’m not an architect, but something is awfully wrong here. Yeah, it’s a big box with cheap, misaligned windows that is completely out of scale with the houses around it. Yikes. Check out the puny little rooflet over the cheapo Home Depot door.
It may be ugly but it sure is big…
How could this happen? It looks like somebody in City Hall dropped the melon with a loud plop. As I understand it, there is a staff process for reviewing these developments. Did it occur? I don’t know. But whether it did or didn’t happen, the problem is obvious. If it didn’t, why not? If they did what sort of knucklehead(s) could have approved this?
Eyesore is right.
At the meeting Development Director Sunaya Thomas preposterously claimed this hulking monster was somehow an ADU development – meaning a mere accessory dwelling unit, a “granny unit,” and that the City had no real control over the design of the beast; and also that it was up to the owner to figure out parking for his tenants! Up to the owner?Since when?
Of course Ms. Thomas is talking out of her backside, as is so often the case. The rules for preservation in the R2P zone are called out in the Municipal Code – Chapter 15.17.60, from which I quote:
All proposed development, including the rehabilitation of existing structures, will be reviewed for compliance with established design criteria and standards, specific to the preservation zones and identified significant properties. These adopted design criteria and standards, entitled “Design Guidelines for Residential Preservation Zones,” are intended to serve as a baseline — a set of elementary guidelines — by which a proposal will be evaluated.
Here are the the guidelines, supposedly unknown to the very person in charge of applying them to new development in preservation zones:
I learned a long time ago that it’s almost impossible to make Fullerton planning bureaucrats do their jobs (see noise ordinance issues). The defensiveness and lack of shame will always prevail. But this is appalling. The rules are there to follow, not to pick and choose.
Thomas failed and failed badly. The Council was lied to on Tuesday night. Does anybody care?
Hopefully the D5 council representative Ahmad Zahra, who champions transparency and accountability, will get to the bottom of this fiasco.
