Friends For Fullerton's Future

Andre Charles is some sort of political consultant for Democrat politicians and causes. That’s what he tells us on his rather uninformative website. What he does between elections is not mentioned. He is also the President of the North Orange County Democrats, and his name has surfaced in connection with the phony and perjurious Scott Markowitz candidacy in Fullerton last fall.

My current interest with Mr. Charles has to do with his activities in the same election. Why? Because he was paid $4000 by a political action committee sponsored by the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 324 – a union for grocery store employees. You may remember the name of this group: Working Families for Kitty Jaramillo.

“Working Families” worked hard for Jaramillo, funneling $60,000 through the national HQ in Washington to fund their support for Jaramillo. Charles got some of that gravy:

Well, there’s nothing wrong, so far. At least on the surface. He’s a Dem working for Dems and that’s his job, part time or otherwise. It probably seems a little strange that a grocery store worker’s union would be involved in a local, small-time election.

But of course that’s not the whole story. See, Working Families not only represents the guy trimming lettuce in the produce section of your supermarket; they also represent workers trimming another green growing thing, namely cannabis.

The real money motive in marijuana dispensaries comes from the legalized dope cartel itself, not the promise of the union dues of a few dozen workers; even the least cynical person must wonder a little exactly who ponied up that $60,000, laundered through the national HQ.

Anyway, I digress. The real issue here is not the disheveled Charles’s job, day or moonlight. It’s the fact that his better half is none other than Shana Charles, the bloviating and sanctimonious councilmember for District 3.

Let me synopsize: Mr. Charles is the financial beneficiary of four grand in marijuana lobby money to do something to prop up the campaign of Vivian Jaramillo, a vocal cannabis dispensary advocate. And his fellow beneficiary, Mrs. Charles, is in a position to agendize reopening the issue of legalized MJ in Fullerton and using it as a remedy for Fullerton’s budgetary woes. And she would also be able to influence the zoning regulations that make winners and losers in this business, to wit: the dispensary store owners and their immediate residential neighbors.

A few months ago the Kennedy Sisters – who scratch and peck out the Fullerton Observer – made sure to review the fall campaign financial activity of their enemies, Jung, Valencia, and Dunlap. They omitted investigation of the same for their failed darling, Jaramillo.

And they never once addressed the activities of Working Families during or after the election. The silence was deafening. Even if they had they would have glossed over the relationship of marijuana money and the spouse of a councilmember they hold dear.

When the defunct disaster known as Walk on Wilshire was in its oxygen tent, the Observer, Ahmad Zahra, and a few of their running dogs tried real hard to make a legal issue of campaign donors affecting council decisions. Hopefully the same solicitude for public probity will be applied, when appropriate, to Mrs. Charles, who was the direct beneficiary of a big monied interest that poured tens of thousands into a Fullerton political campaign.

No, don’t call FPD. Not because they won’t catch anybody, but because the violation is plagiarism. And the perp? None other than one of the Fullerton Observer sisters, Sakinsia.

And the topic? Of course it relates to about the Orange County Water District.

A few years back the Observer let Ahmad Zahra pretend to write informative articles on water topics under his own name. You can still see them, uncorrected, here and here. Jan Flory was fooled about Zahra’s supposed expertise in water issues, but FFFF wasn’t.

We knew the articles were written by an OCWD bureaucrat and stolen by the Doctor From Damascus.

Here is an “article” clipped from the Observer and purportedly written by Saskina – since she put her own name above it.

The Orange County Water District (OCWD; the District) and the City of Tustin celebrated the dedication of a new PFAS treatment plant, marking a major milestone in ensuring safe and reliable water for Tustin residents and businesses.  

The dedication ceremony brought together local, state and federal representatives to recognize the proactive actions of both OCWD and the City of Tustin in addressing PFAS, a group of manufactured chemicals increasingly found in water sources across the country, including the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The new treatment system, implemented at the existing Main Street Water Treatment Plant, uses ion exchange technology to treat up to 6,400 gallons of groundwater per minute. The centralized plant is fed by four offsite wells connected through approximately 2.5 miles of conveyance pipeline. 

“This state-of-the-art PFAS treatment plant is a critical investment in our city’s water future,” said Tustin Mayor Austin Lumbard. “By removing PFAS from local groundwater, we help ensure that water delivered to residents and businesses is exceptional and continues to meet all state and federal drinking water standards.” 

Since 2019, OCWD has taken the lead in addressing PFAS, in partnership with its 19 cities and retail water districts, to remove them from the groundwater basin, which supplies up to 85% of the water to 2.5 million people in north and central Orange County. The District is funding design and construction costs, along with a portion of operational and maintenance costs for treatment facilities like this one.

“OCWD is proud to support the City of Tustin and our other partners in the construction of treatment facilities that safeguard public health,” said OCWD President Denis R. Bilodeau, P.E. “Tackling PFAS contamination head-on reflects our long-standing commitment to water quality, innovation and regional collaboration.”

The City of Tustin PFAS treatment facility was partially funded by a $10 million grant from the State Water Resources Control Board through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and a $5 million Community Grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

For more information on OCWD’s PFAS treatment program, visit the PFAS education center.

Now you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to recognize that this is one of those canned press releases that makes up vacuous quotations and puts them in the mouths of officers of government agencies. But typical Observer readers are not known for their sharpness on the uptake.

Our Friend and sharp-eyed commenter Lab Rat has pointed out that it’s outright theft. And here’s the relevant press release from OCWD:

Is this just the usual sloppy incompetence, or is it deliberate? Does it matter? It’s just one more instance of the sanctimonious “who cares so long as we believe what we believe, and what we believe is sacrosanct.”

Let’s see if it gets corrected with an appropriate notice.

It only took three days. Not bad for the Observer Sisters. Glad to see some Observer or other reads FFFF!

Part III of an essay sent in to FFFF.

THE WHITE PAPER
CAUGHT IN A CULTURE WAR of HISTORIC PRESERVATION

PART III

 In the last article, we covered the introduction of SB 9, which was the YIMBY’s way of taking a hatchet to single family zoning by making it legal not only to build ADUs, but also to subdivide lots and build up to four units per 2400 sq ft lot (now divided into 50/50 or 40/60). Crafted by 7 authors and co-authors, SB 9 had the support from a mix of housing groups and organizations like AARP, big money builders, cities, planners, advocates, urban planners, developers, and companies such as Facebook. The CA YIMBY claimed that it is illegal to build middle income housing in 70% of Los Angeles County because of R-1 zoning. The YIMBY movement adheres to the belief expressed in a paper, “It’s Time To End Single Family Housing,” by Manville, Monkkonen and Lens that R-1 zoning is built on racist and classist assumptions as well as exclusion. The authors call for an outright abolition of R 1 zoning, which is the basis of the YIMBYs view of the future, and it has influenced every bill passed. However, the authors state that ending R-1 zoning will not guarantee the end of segregation, exclusion or housing affordability. In other words, you can do all of this -SB 330, SB 9, but still have dickheads. Because getting rid of assholery is a totally different challenge (which extends to both sides of the aisle). But for the YIMBY movement, passing a bill is where they decided to start.

IN LIEU OF COWS, APPLY PRESERVATION

Because this is politics, there are loopholes, places where SB 9 does not apply: Farms, hazardous waste sites, high fire risk zones, ecological conservation areas, and historic preservation zones. Short of adding cattle or flooding city lots, NIMBYs stepped up to blanket entire neighborhoods as “historic preservation zones” in response to SB 9. Much of it by neighborhood groups or nonprofit organizations like Fullerton Heritage, who have moved aggressively to include downtown adjacent areas.

However, YIMBYs believe that this is an abuse by impassioned locals to ʻweaponize preservation.ʻ They claim NIMBYs donʻt want to preserve as much as they want to keep state-mandated multi-family as well as affordable housing out under the guise of “homey” and “charming.”

But SB 9 is used by NIMBYʻs to get people to side with adding Preservation layers, as happened at a community meeting in Fullerton, requested by Fullerton Heritage and facilitated by City Planning for the purposes of finding out about this top-down proposal. All anyone had to do to gain support was say the word, “four-plex” without being informed of the nuances of SB 9, along with the many restrictions that make the implementation of this bruiser bill both costly and difficult.

PUSHBACK: AB 2580

To help cities ensure that their Housing Element is met, YIMBYs countered this rush to create new preservation zones or move land into land trusts. AB 2580 was passed to monitor them:
“(N) A list of all historic designations listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic places by the city or county in the past year, including an assessment of how those designations affect the ability of the city or county to meet its housing needs.” –Text of Assembly Bill 2580
            The reality is that by declaring entire districts ‘historic’ regardless of whether or not the neighborhoods were built to express one or a few historically significant styles, puts more pressure on adjacent neighborhoods to fill a city’s Housing Element (the required number of state-mandated housing units). Neither style, nor era-based uniformity is required. One such neighborhood, Skyline Park, is an attractive mix of single family homes built over a 100 year period, from Spanish revival, mock colonial, and to houses that reflect a broad scope of styles. To NIMBYs, the loophole exists to highlight and preserve architectural examples for a particular era but keep a districtʻs relationship between buildings and grounds intact. They also seek to prevent, what in their eyes are behemoths or buildings or features not to their taste from being built. What teeth does AB 2580 have if a city runs afoul? It remains to be seen.
AB 2580 was approved by Quirk-Silva and Newman, with solid support from both parties.

BANG BANG: AND THEN A JUDGE CHIMED IN

To the YIMBYs dismay, SB 9 was declared unconstitutional by a Los Angeles judge in 2024. While SB 9 made way for increased housing, it had no provisions for affordable housing as required by the state constitution. The judge ruled in favor of the 5 cities who sued the state: Redondo Beach, Carson, Torrance, Whittier and Del Mar, who no longer must abide by the rules of SB 9.  For now, SB 9 is still in force and could be amended to reflect the same wording in the California constitution. But it has led Fullerton to consider morphing into something different.

A few weeks ago a guy named Matthew Ali wrote a post for the Fullerton Observer about the issue of the prohibition of non-government materials from City property. I wrote about it, here.

Okay, so the Kennedy Sisters found somebody to pitch their usual brand of editorial drivel masquerading as of news – fodder for the sheep that consider the Observer indispensable reading, and nothing new.

But the story doesn’t end there. Let’s let Matthew Ali tell it in his own words, in an email sent to people he talked to in developing his article:

Hello, this is Matthew Ali

If you are receiving this email, it is because you were interviewed for my article that appeared in the early May issue of the Fullerton Observer. First and foremost, I need to apologize for what was published under my byline. The words printed with my name attached were not the same as what I wrote. Multiple things were changed, and those changes were made without my knowledge or consent. Some things were taken out of context and changed into an attack on some of the people I interviewed.

In my estimation, the article as printed is not journalism. Nor is the published version something I can stand by. As of Monday, I have removed myself from the publication and will no longer be contributing to the Observer. This is entirely because of the liberties that were taken with my article. If what was printed read as an attack, that was never my intention.

Attached you will find an earlier draft that more closely aligns with what the article was supposed to be. It’s a bit rough and lacks the benefit of editing. But I am sending this to you without changes so my actual intent and what I wrote can be seen and the difference can be understood.

Again, I apologize for what was published under my name. If any of you have questions or would like to chat about the article, please do not hesitate to reach out.

With warm regards,

Matthew Ali

Who to believe? Pretty easy. Sankia Kennedy has no credibility and has been known to modify submissions to suit her editorial preferences. And this email suggests irresponsible editorial license.

I don’t think we’ll be reading anymore articles or blog posts by Matthew Ali for the Fullerton Observer. Let’s chalk this up to yet another excellent reason why the Fullerton Observer doesn’t belong on City property.

Reading the staff report for the May 20th Trail to Nowhere© rehash I came across this little nugget:

Early in the design phase, the construction cost was estimated at $4million. Because of City Council direction to keep within the estimate, staff simplified the trail crossing at Richman Avenue, and simplified the connection at Independence Park to reduce the total estimated cost prior to putting out to bid.

$4,000,000?! How on earth did staff get to that number for construction? Who knows? And how did it become $1,800,000? The following sentence shines the light on staff’s desire to look like they waged a ruthless war of economy – only listing a couple of minor items that don’t add up to millions. But boy they sure were trying hard to follow “City Council Direction” to keep within the estimate, whatever that was.

But of course they failed. And the new City’s share for this boondoggle rose 91% to $630,000.

Even more disturbing to me is what I believe is an artificially low-bid, made to fit exactly the so-called “Engineer’s Estimate” provided to bidders – $1,845,776. How that number relates to a $4,000,000 the “early design” estimate I’ll ignore.

The real issue to me is whether the contractor wrote off their profit and overhead to get this job. The median bid for this project was $2,286,000 – $440,000 and 24% more than the low bid. I think somebody kept sharpening their pencil ’til there was nothing left but wood shavings and graphite dust. Either that or they bungled the bid. If that’s the case we may definitely expect change orders to help bolster the contractor’s motivation for the job. The consequences are the same.

The public doesn’t even get to see the plan for the job. I suspect the Council hasn’t seen a final design either, even though they’re expected to approve it. One thing the agenda item does include “are a few elevations “3D renderings” (above) of the trail at four points. There are lots of happy, recreating people shown, verdant flower beds and mature trees. There’s nothing that looks like the forlorn neglect of Phase I. No drug deals, no graffiti and no homeless.

Something else is missing, too. For some reason the renderings ignore the clear 10ft buffer zones required by the Council back in January, 2024. Maybe these views are just holdovers from before the thing was approved. If so, that’s just sloppy and lazy.

Ironically, Trail to Nowhere© advocates are getting shortchanged and don’t even know it. The original bike trail was supposed to be concrete and is now just cheaper asphalt. The 10,560 shrubs described in the grant application are now just 600. But it’s all great. City Hall is giving “them” something good.

Our friend Joshua Ferguson has done Fullerton a solid, taking the time to create a video of the notorious Trail to Nowhere© site. He starts at the west and heads east documenting the dilapidation, gang graffiti, trash, and general unhealthy and unsafe nature of the environment on and next to the proposed trail.

A couple of things to remember that City staff steadfastly refuses to acknowledge:

1. Phase II does not connect to Phase I
2. Phase I is a design failure, a total maintenance disaster, and is unused by anybody
3. The existing Phase I “trail” ends at the fenced off Poisoned Park. The original “trail” went through the park and ended at the old UP bridge over Harbor Blvd. After that it just turns into a regular sidewalk, not a recreation trail.

Here’s the video. It’s well worth watching.

Fullerton’s Union Pacific Trail Betrayal – YouTube

I sure hope Dunlap, Valencia and Jung get the opportunity to see this video and realize that this “project” was never more than a bundle of lies, misinformation, omitted facts, and constant pressure from people who didn’t and don’t know what they’re talking about.

There are no potential users, there is no connectivity, there is no money for maintenance; there is a history of failure, a hollow, patronizing gesture by lefties, make-work for City employees, and nonsense-talk from a handful of locals manipulated by Ahmad Zahra. And oh, yeah, an ever-escalating cost to the citizens of Fullerton, that has quadrupled in five years.

Part 2 of an essay sent in to FFFF.

Caught in a culture war
When self determination and neighborhood
trust are at stake

The End of Single Family Housing Zoning
Shortly after the Eaton Fires, I saw posts on forums where people anticipated rebuilding, “anything but single family housing.” Even though R 1 zoning has been the California dream, it has been phased out, first with the introduction of Accessory Dwelling Units in 2016, then later, Jr-ADUs. ADUs offer a quick way to add housing and gain property taxes, potentially doubling a neighborhood population. However, the utility infrastructure stays the same, while a greater demand is foisted onto first responders. Cities are left to assume the expenses and resource demands of more people. R1 zoning is deemed by the YIMBYs as wasteful and selfish, and limits availability of housing choices. NIMBYs point to a harmonious life of space, predictability and security. But the YIMBY’s weren’t done dismantling R1 zoning, so they introduced a new tactic: SB 9.

The Problematical SB 9

To add more firepower to the ridding of R 1 zoning, YIMBYs backed SB 9 in 2021 to allow lot “splitting” but only in R 1 neighborhoods. Lots must be a minimum of 2400sq ft. They can be divided 60/40 or 50/50 with up to two units on each new lot that meet the setback and height requirements. According to the City of Fullerton, the structures may not be more than 800 sq. ft. For lot splits, one unit must be owner occupied for three years. For two unit projects, all units can be rented. Housing that has been occupied by a tenant for the last 3 years, may not be torn down. The reality is 2-4 units are not going to make a fast enough difference in reaching 13,206 units. Since no requirements in the bill specify affordable housing, there are no public funds available for these projects. Because of the high per-unit cost of building and a lower ROI, in the first two years only 75 lot splits were approved across California, as opposed the approval of 8800 ADUs. Confusing? Attempting just to describe it is fodder for mistakes. But ideological wars are both heated and have many twists and turns. This is an attempt to solve a housing shortage with a culture war pushing it from behind.

In Lieu Of Cows, Create A New Preservation Zone
Because this is politics, there are loopholes, places where SB 9 does not apply: Farms, hazardous waste sites, high fire risk zones, ecological conservation areas, and historic preservation zones. Short of adding cattle or flooding city lots, NIMBYs stepped up to blanket entire neighborhoods as “historic preservation zones.”
 YIMBYs believe that this is an abuse by impassioned locals to “weaponize preservation.” They claim NIMBYs don’t want to preserve as much as they want to keep state-mandated multi-family and affordable housing out under the guise of “homey” and “charming.”

But SB 9 can intentionally be used to get people to side with Preservation zoning, as happened at a community meeting held for the purposes of finding out about this proposal. All anyone had to do was say the word, “Fourplex” without understanding nuances of the bill, along with the many restrictions that make the implementation of this both costly and difficult.

FFFF was sent a well-written and thought provoking essay regarding the issue of historic preservation, zoning used to defy Sacramento mandates, and of course freedom of expression. Apparently somebody is making a another attempt to establish a historic district in one of Fullerton’s older neighbor hoods.

This piece is pretty lengthy so I’m presenting it in installments.

Caught in a culture war;
When self determination and neighborhood
trust are at stake

The question of whether or not to approve a historic preservation layer over a neighborhood isn’t one that is new. This is the third fight, which in the past has included protests with pink lawn flamingos. Hells bells and all out, I didn’t mind wading into new waters to gain an understanding of this current push to put several neighborhoods under preservation layers, and how three new laws are shaping our city and its neighborhoods.

NIMBYs and YIMBYs

This is a culture war is between NIMBYs and YIMBYs (Not in My Backyard and Yes in My Backyard). Both are adept at crafting legislation that echo their ideologies. The struggle is between those don’t want any changes in their neighborhoods, and those who insist that the California Dream needs to evolve and that zoning needs to be changed in order to accommodate the needs of cities today. The foot soldiers for this war are embodied by the California Senate and the Assembly. Most of us wouldn’t self-identify as either a NIMBY or a YIMBY, but prefer the term neighbors. Culture wars start with a problem: Californiaʻs population of 39.4 million has resulted in a housing shortage. There aren’t enough places to rent, and the median price for housing in Orange County alone, is well beyond the reach of many. In Sacramento, new laws have been created, the bulk of them are partisan bills introduced and passed in the Newsom era. To make way for building, these new laws override existing municipal zoning combining egalitarian ideals with capitalism.

Re-zoning On Steroids: SB 330

The result of one side of the culture wars is marked by the emergence of high rise apartments, not only in Fullerton, but everywhere. These developments help cities meet a state-assigned number of new units to fulfill its Housing Element (Fullertonʻs HE has been set to 13,206). The law, SB 330, super charges the approval process and prevents cities from adopting new zoning laws that could serve as a barrier to development. Laws like SB 330 are part of the ʻBuilders Remedy,ʻ which applies to a section of the California code for cities who have yet to meet their quota. Present zoning regulations are moot, and developments for housing are planned. These projects get help from Federal economic stimulus plans intended to revitalize cities because they include affordable housing. Programs that provide funding and tax breaks to build new housing are applied for by developers, while cities get development fees and increased tax revenues. Since land is scarce, former commercial, freeway and railroad adjacent lands and urban infill are being developed. With a lower per-unit cost, and a higher ROI, high rises and new subdivisions that cover city blocks are being built for buyers, renters, and includes affordable and low income housing. Thereʻs a lot riding on this. The state is trying to create housing for all, help people avoid homelessness, fuel the economy with the creation of jobs, renew cities, and keep employers in California by producing affordable housing. Housing, jobs, and renewing cities are ways of affirming humanity.

Government agencies always love to talk about their transparency and how hard they work providing services to the folk who pay their salaries. But let’s not forget that secrecy is the unspoken watchword of all bureaucracies of whatever type.

Here’s a prime example of a dodge to a Public Act Records request. Somebody wants information about the low bidder on the infamous Trail to Nowhere©. The low bidder exactly matched the City’s “Engineer’s Estimate” to within five cents. Disclosure: this request was not made by FFFF,

The information requested is really specific. Just the sort of thing that avoids rejection based on over generalization or on requiring an onerous collection effort.

Uh, oh. The requestor made a BIG mistake.

He/she made his/her request on April 30th, 8 days after the bid. But the contract had not yet been awarded. Therefore, technically, there was no information to disclose because there was no awardee.

The requestor may or may not have known there was no award yet, and assumed there was. Or maybe he/she should have said “low bidder.” Now, you might say that the City’s Engineering Department are not mind readers, and so honestly said there were no records. And yet all of the information requested about low-bidder KASA Construction is known by the City, and that is obviously what the requestor wanted. Now, when (and if) the award is made the requestor will never get his request answered because it already has been.

I notice how this request was closed on the very morning the contract was expected to be approved by the City Council. Now, the City might have waited until the next day when they believed the question could be answerable. But no. Never answer a question you can avoid. Done and done.

There is a moral to this story, and that is that the City, even if they are capable of competently responding to a PRA request (wait for my next post), will never release information that it deems sensitive if it can help it, and you need to craft your request in a way that is specific enough and that contemplates the subtleties of the English language. And you will not get an explanation of how you failed.

Last night the City Council voted 3-2 to move ahead with a study of a Charter City status for Fullerton. Jung, Dunlap and Valencia voted to look into it. Zahra and Charles voted no.

It was painful to sit through comments, most of which were obviously scripted to attack the motives of Mayor Fred Jung, and were all full of nonsensical misinformation about staggering financial costs, legal entanglements, and of course the old standby cliché: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

These Fullerton Boohoo worthies were obviously coached- and coached sloppily – by Zahra and Charles, and maybe even by reading the opinions of Sanskia Kennedy in the reliable Fullerton Observer – reliable to make stuff up if it helps the narrative. All of the excuses had been debunked, but that doesn’t matter. Commonsense is a not a common commodity among these folks.

Old grievances were aired of course, mostly the money pit Waste on Wilshire, and the Trail to Nowhere© redux in which “the people” have spoken – a few dozen out of a City of 160,000.

My favorite line of attack that was parroted by several speakers was that Fullerton has bigger problems – a fiscal precipice, and horrible roads. The fact that these disasters developed under General Law City status made their “argument” comically ironic. Is it or ain’t it broke?

Joshua Ferguson was on hand to deliver a hard, cold slap to the commentary by pointing out that the citizenry can become more involved in Fullerton affairs in the Charter process, not less. He was interrupted by boos from the faithful.

A Mr. Matt Leslie called in to support a study, and to admonish the speakers who had said (insultingly) that it would be too complicated to figure out and people would just vote yes (because they are so dumb), the typical top-down patronization of ordinary people by liberals. “The people want (fill in the blank)” doesn’t apply to a possible majority regular voters – only the claque of 12 or so who show up to harangue the council majority on a regular basis.

Another zoom caller expressed astonishment that so many adults, especially old ones, were so scared of the monster under the bed.

Which brings me (at last) to the real issue of charter status, expressed without bias. The proverbial devil is in the details. A charter can be as simple or as complex as people want. True the final charter version will be put on the ballot by the City Council, but lots of smart people will be able to scrutinize the text long before an election to approve or reject it. Don’t like it? Mount an anti-charter campaign. Zahra and Charles must have lots of campaign money lying around. Put it to work and get voters to just vote no.

I would be remiss if I failed to point out the noxious presence at the meeting of our old friend, Vivian Jaramillo, still very bitter about losing in last fall’s election, and then being rejected as a planning commissioner. Her “argument” was that a charter would make “Little Dictator” Fred Jung able to give all the City’s construction jobs to the Bushala Brothers, a claim based on her own long standing vendetta with the Bushalas, not any facts in evidence.