Friends For Fullerton's Future

December 17, 2017December 18, 2017Chronic Failure

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

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.

December 16, 2017December 16, 2017Carpetbaggery

LA County Firefighters Back 5th District Resident For 4th District Supervisor

by Mr. Peabody8 Comments

Sounds about right. A “public safety” union is endorsing union boss and massive pension receiver, Coto Joe Kerr for Orange County Supervisor.

What’s really funny is that the union isn’t even from Orange County. It’s actually from Los Angeles County and is hired by the City of La Habra to run around town making paramedic calls and firehouse chili. So I guess it’s appropriate that the out-of-town union is endorsing a candidate who is out-of-town, too.

Who knew “firefighting” paid so well? Well, almost everybody…

As we have amply documented, Joe Kerr lives in a million dollar McMansion in Coto de Caza, a long, long way from our 4th District. In fact it’s just about as far as you can get and still be in The OC. But Joe has concocted a “residence” in Brea and has sworn on his voter registration that that’s where he lives.

Well, I ain’t a-swallerin’ that.

December 9, 2017December 9, 2017Behind Closed Doors

The Waiver

by Mr. Peabody15 Comments

Recently FFFF has been chronicling the goings on at the Fullerton Airport, specifically a lawsuit by a former tenant, AirCombat USA, and the non-aviation commercial use by another tenant, Hangar 21, who is desirous of expanding its party venue. The two issues are only conjoined only because Hangar 21 was recommended by staff to move into the space that CombatUSA was kicked out of.

With enough fuel the party will get off the ground. An aviation use.

On Tuesday, December 5th, the City Council reviewed and approved the selection of Hangar 21 to occupy the space and signaled its intention to change the Zoning Code to legalize what is obviously not permitted under current zoning regulations.

The issue of Federal Aviation Administration approval of hospitality use was raised by Councilman Greg Sebourn. Fullerton Airport Manager Brendan O’Reilly, in a convoluted statement, finally got around to claiming that he had received a “waiver” from the FAA for using the airport for parties. He didn’t produce this document. Maybe we can help.

We know that back in 2014, O’Reilly communicated with the local branch of the FAA seeking advice on establishment of a non-aeronautical use in a hangar at our airport. Who this proposed lessee was we don’t know because we don’t have the attachments described in the written response from an LA FAA dude, David Cushing. It may have been the establishment of a party venue known as Hangar 21 Venue.

Here’s what the FAA had to say:

Well, I don’t know about you, but I can read English pretty darn well. Once you strip away the cross-bureaucracy congratulations and the double-talk, the message is crystal clear: raise money to support the airport, but continue to keep non-aeronautical uses out of aeronautical areas. I don’t know which part of an airport is non-aeronautical, but an airplane hangar ain’t it.

Is O’Reilly’s FAA waiver in reality the Cushing letter of October 2014? I can’t be sure, but that’s what the City provided when asked for documentation of FAA approval. If it is we may be heading for turbulence up ahead.

December 7, 2017Downtown Fullerton

T-REX WANT TO PARTY, TOO

by T-REX2 Comments

T-REX NEED HELP TO DRINK BEER. TINY BOTTLE NO REACH MOUTH.

FULLERTON SPEND NEARLY $100,000 THIS WEEKEND FOR POLICE OFFICERS TO HELP PEOPLE DRINK DOWNTOWN.

POLICE WILL HELP TWO BARS CLOSE THEN REOPEN BECAUSE LINE TOO LONG AT BAR.

POLICE WILL HELP THREE PEOPLE OFF STREET BECAUSE BEER MAKE IT HARD TO DRIVE.

POLICE WILL HELP FOUR PEOPLE TO BED BECAUSE BEER MAKE THEM PASS OUT IN BUSHES.

POLICE WILL HELP FIVE PEOPLE TO CALM DOWN AND NOT FIGHT OVER BAR BILL.

POLICE WILL HELP SIX PEOPLE FIND BAR BECAUSE BEER MADE THEM GET LOST AND DRINK IN PARKING LOT.

POLICE HELP ALL THESE PEOPLE DRINK BEER FOR $5,000,000 EACH YEAR.

WHY POLICE NO BUY T-REX A STRAW?

T-REX WANT TO PARTY, TOO.

December 7, 2017December 7, 2017Chris Norby

New Supervisor Candidate

by Disillusioned Ex-Hippy24 Comments

Rosie addresses the Boys (and girls) in the Back (of the) Room; Will they hear her?

The 2018 4th District County Supervisor race just got a little more interesting with her announcement that La Habra City Councilwoman Rosie Espinoza is joining the fray.

Espinoza ran against Chris Norby in June, 2006 and did poorly. She ran again in June, 2010 and failed badly once again.

She loves him, alright. But not enough to live in icky Brea…

What gives this story a dash of interest is that Rosie is a Democrat and it is well-known that the public employee unions have made a concerted effort to limit the Dem candidates to one, namely Joe Kerr. The shameless union campaign hustle of Kerr, who actually lives with his family in ritzy Coto de Caza, now has a bit of a problem, to wit: a Democrat candidate who actually lives in the 4th district.

The other interesting angle is that Ms. Espinoza will be running against another La Habra councilcreature, Republican Tim Shaw, know best for his underling relationship with Redevelopment prostitute and general scum-sucker Bob Huff (R – Ed Roski). Shaw has probably been counting on being able to carry the northernmost precincts in the district on name recognition – thus making a November runoff and hoping for the best. Oops!

If she’s even paying attention, the news of the Espinoza campaign should be somewhat warmly received by the other repuglican in the race, Young Kim, the utterly unqualified political job-hopper who is looking for another taxpayer-funded gig after having been dethroned by Sharon Quirk-Silva in the 2016 State Assembly election.

December 4, 2017December 4, 2017About Us

FPD Internal Investigation Statistics

by Joe Sipowicz21 Comments

We aren’t very nice, but we sure are expensive…

Hey, since 2012, we’ve fired 11 cops for cause. That’s about 8% of the average number of uniformed cops in Fullerton in any given year. Who they are and how badly they had to behave to get fired as Fullerton cops is a mystery. But based on past behavior FFFF has documented, it must have been pretty damn bad.

12 were suspended for one reason or another. It is not our privilege to who or why.

166 were “reprimanded,” whatever the hell that means. But it amounts to more than the entire sworn employees in any given year. Obviously many of our fine officers received multiple reprimands. Are they still out there peering through our windows at night? Who knows?

Here’s the site where you can peruse the data, such as it is.

And here’s a snapshot:

While statistics for the other categories actually seemed to get better as Danny “Gallahad” Hughes ended his dubious chiefhood the health of prisoners in the Fullerton jail took a major turn for the worse. This statistic is troubling given reports about behavior in the jail, perhaps the most egregious being that of Vince Mater who was too stupid not to get caught destroying evidence after the “suicide” of Dean Gochenour. It’s charming how jail injuries are written off as possible scraped knees. But of course what really happened to these unfortunates is shrouded in mystery.

Of course these are the published statistic and may bear no relationship whatever with actual events. How many cops were permitted to “retire” rather than face the music is something we shall never know, and will never appear in these tables. How many “Citizen Complaints” disappeared down the proverbial rabbit hole never to be heard of again must remain a mater of speculation; speculation about which is a perfectly justifiable pastime so long as the cops shroud their activities in a veil of secrecy.

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.

November 19, 2017November 20, 2017Photo Fun

Suspect Apprehended by FPD

by Mr. Peabody7 Comments

A notorious criminal was nabbed by FPD after giving chase up North Pomona Avenue yesterday afternoon. Reports had been received that Victor J. Testudines had been spotted in the neighborhood.

Testudines was eventually apprehended by officers around 5:45pm by police after a lengthy foot pursuit.

“We had to chase him down and that really pisses us off” said FPD spokesman Jeff Fragnet. Two officers received broken bones in the ensuing scuffle and were taken to St. Jude’s, according to Fragnet. “This is a bad hombre,” he added.