Thanks to a federal grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) our city government is being presented with almost $3,000,000 to hire 12 new sworn fire department personnel and subsidize the new employees for three years to the tune of 75%, 75%, and 35%. The new hires will consist of three “Fire fighters,” three “Fire engineers,” and three “Fire Captains.” The City’s obligatory “matching” contribution is $1.8 million for those three years.
Another fire truck will be re-activated at Fire Station 6, requiring promotions of existing FFD underlings to take the vehicle to emergencies. This part of the item is not covered by FEMA.
It’s Item #14 on tomorrow night’s council meeting agenda.
If you want to read about it, here, you’ll see that the staff report is a virtual shell game of verbiage and is based on the notion that savings from the operation of the ambulance service hijacked by the FFD will cover the City’s new expenses; of course these “savings” are speculative – most likely the wishful thinking that goes along with empire building. There is not a single utterance about budget impacts now or in the out years.
Never a fire fighter around when you need one…
Sustainability? It would be nice to know what happens to these 12 positions after the three years are up and there is no longer any federal subsidy. Will these worthy folks be discharged in the name of budgetary constraint? Will they be kept on courtesy of cuts elsewhere? The new jobs will have to have pension costs now, and of course in the future which jack up our required payments to the good folks at CalPERS. On these issues the staff report is silent as a tomb.
There it goes…some might come back. Less overhead!
It’s long been a tenet of conservative principles that these dispensations of largesse from Washington and Sacramento are sort of like a pusher getting his junkies reliant on his dope. Here, specifically I have to wonder why FEMA is even in the business of increasing fire department sizes and budgets and the obligations that go along with that augmentation.
Obviously the agency that is known for helping communities’ response to big crises, mostly of the natural disaster kind, now has a remit and a budget to hand out money without reference to any disaster at all. And that budget most be pretty damn big if Fullerton can get a $2.8 million commitment.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the federal revenue that pays for this were kept at home, in the hands of the taxpayers and their local representatives, in the first place.
Friends can file this story under a number of different categories: political puppetry, gross hypocrisy, unmitigated gall, comical self-righteousness, offense is the best defense; pick any one you like.
Pay no attention to the overdue bills…
At last Tuesday’s Fullerton City Council meeting we were treated to another diatribe by a guy named Oliver Montecristo attacking Fred Jung, Nick Dunlap and Jamie Valencia. We have already met Oliver, here. Oliver wants everyone to believe that Jung and his colleagues are anti-small business, a new line of attack by Ahmad Zahra and Shana Charles, two muppets who have never run a business in their lives.
I sometimes fight for transparency!
It’s pretty clear that Oliver is one of the minions in Zahra’s stable of impressionable young fellas. His other protégé, lively young Elijah Manassero, has taken up the myth of the City’s persecution of Olly’s mom, and the family restaurant, Les Amis. The rents on City property are so darn high! The Kennedy Sisters at the Fullerton Observer have also taken up the Les Amis cause.
The only problem is that the Montecristo clan led by mom, Jinan, have a notorious record of not paying their bills, and encroaching on public property without authorization or permits. Check it out:
Feb 2011 Jinan Montecristo d.b.a. Les Amis Restaurant & Lounge (Jinan) applied for an outdoor dining encroachment agreement.
Aug 2011 After several reviews of the site plan, staff provided a draft encroachment agreement to Jinan for consideration
Sept 2011 Jinan issued a letter to staff challenging the lease rates. Les Amis installed fencing and started operating within the public right-of-way without executed agreement (south patio).
Dec 2011 Staff send revised encroachment agreement for consideration
June 2012 Jinan was issued an Administrative Restaurant Use Permit (ARUP), which included an ancillary outdoor patio. Among other things, the conditions of the ARUP required a valid encroachment agreement pursuant to the Outdoor Dining Guidelines established by the City Council.
July 2012 Staff send revised encroachment agreement for consideration
Dec 2015 Jinan submitted building permit to expand into the north portion of the building.
Feb 2016 Staff inform Jinan that she owed $28,659.60 for use of the public right-of-way of private benefit (9/2011 – 2/2016).
May 2016 Modification of an Amended ARUP was approved, expanding existing restaurant into adjacent tenant space. Jinan executed an encroachment agreement for outdoor dining (south patio only; $510/month; $6,120 annually). The agreement also required payment for 12-month prior occupancy ($6,120; negotiated down from $28,659.60).
Aug 2016 Jinan issues a letter to staff indicated they are “unable to fulfill financial obligations” due to “hardship”.
April 2017 Jinan was issued a letter from the City attorney to pay outstanding balance on account.
May 2017 Encroachment Agreement expired.
Aug 2017 Les Amis expanded into the north patio area without a permit/agreement for outdoor dining.
Nov 2018 Jinan was issued a letter from the City attorney, indicating they are in violation of their ARUP, failed to pay the lease outlined in the executed agreement, and are required to remove encroachments (north and south patio) by Dec. 14, 2018. Jinan subsequently expressed interest in continued use of both patios. Outstanding balance was $24,643.70 at the time.
Dec 2018 Jinan signed resolution of breach of outdoor dining encroachment agreement and FMC. Resolution waived outstanding balance on Patio 2 (north patio; $5,263.70), resulting in $19,380 of remaining account balance.
Jan 2019 Staff sent two encroachment agreement(s) for consideration. Jinan expressed interest in removing Patio 1 (south patio) and expanding Patio 2 (north patio)
March 2019 Jinan executed Encroachment Agreement for new north patio only. New Agreement was for $913.75/month ($510 for north patio; $403.75 for prior occupancy fee ($19,300 amortized over 48 months))
Permit was issued for removal of fencing around south patio and installation for north patio expansion per executed agreement.
May 2020 City Council paused collecting lease revenue from all outdoor dining encroachments due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Outstanding balance for all outdoor dining agreements was also waived. Les Amis waived balance was approximately $13,647.50.
June 2022 Council approved new lease rates for outdoor dining on public property.
Aug 2022 Les Amis reinstalled south patio without permits and/or an agreement.
Sept 2022 Jinan submitted application to reinstall south patio.
Aug 2023 Staff reinitiated collecting lease from all existing agreements.
Oct 2024 Jinan defaulted on payments from August 2023 to October 2024, accumulating a dept of $13,468.71. Jinan signed an agreement for a 12-month payment plan to pay the outstanding debt of $13,468.71.
NOTE: this did not include prior occupancy for the reinstalled south patio.
Nov 2024 Jinan executed two superseding encroachment agreements for outdoor dining with the new lease areas and rates.
April 2025 Jinan defaulted on payments, accumulating an outstanding balance of $26,650.96. Staff terminated the agreements, cancelled the payment plan, issued several notices of violations, and required removal of all encroachments. Jinan expressed financial hardship and requested the City revisit the lease rate. Jinan also paid $1,200 toward the payment plan and expressed interest in purchasing the property. The city paused removal to explore options.
July 2025 Jinan was once again requested to remove all unpermitted encroachments. Jinan paid $3,900 toward the payment plan. City Manager agree to extend the time for compliance or a change in the Outdoor Dining policy for 60 days. To date, Jinan has an outstanding balance of $31,185.10 ($5,494.06 payment plan; $25,691.04 encroachment agreements)
Yikes! What a history of screwing the taxpayers. Almost 15 years worth. Poor, small-businessman Oliver was in fourth grade when it started.
Not paying your debts to the public is the best way to become a Sharon Quirk Woman of the Year!
Over the years Jinan has deliberately dodged paying many tens of thousands of dollars in rent to the people of Fullerton. She has illegally encroached onto public property without agreements or permits in place on numerous occasions. The record is abundantly clear: the City has bent over backward for years and years to accommodate this woman; rather than evicting Janin from the City’s property and taking her to court for the rent due she has effectively stolen, they kept giving her more opportunities to rip us off. Pathetic, really.
Found another victim!
Well, Oliver may think the documentation of his family stiffing the public is all nonsense and that somehow he and mommy are victims, doncha know; however, no one except the inordinately stupid would believe it.
The cynical manipulators like Doc Zahra don’t believe it either, but Zahra won’t miss a chance to get some eager fool to stand up and harass the people who haven’t, and won’t make him Mayor.
It could be worse. It could be Speed Metal! Wait. It is!
Last night the Fullerton City Council, at long last, approved a noise-related addition to the Municipal Code. The vote was 3-2: Jung, Dunlap, and Valencia for, Charles and Zahra voting no.
This effort has been going on for over ten years, has been diddled with by more than ten City Councilpersons (Flory twice), and five City Managers, acting and permanent.
The ordinance is pretty tame really, with decibel levels I think are way too high, but at least gauged at the property line where the goofy and distracting issue of “ambient noise” can be better put to rest. Hours of outdoor music have been addressed with common sense and respect for neighboring inhabitants.
Fines for violators are in place, and about time, too.
For the business…
It was amusing to watch Zahra and Charles pretend to be “pro-business.” We know the performance was disingenuous because of their cavalier attitude to non-bar businesses on Wilshire Avenue that suffered when that pair closed the street for their absurd “Walk on Wilshire.” They ignored the fact that downtown Fullerton runs in the red and is subsidized by the rest of us. Really their act was about voting against what they characterized as the wishes of “one businessman” regardless of the need for reform.
In what surely must be the dumbest thing said in recent years at a council meeting, Ahmad Zahra claimed as a fact that the “downtown is dying,” a really weird and irresponsible thing to utter. The Dismal Damascus Doctor offered exactly zero facts to support his stupid utterance.
Transparency, uber alles!
Naturally, our friend sweet young Elijah Manassero popped up to inform the council that most of the bar owners were already non-compliant with the new rules. His logic led him to conclude that therefore the new regulations were ill-advised. It didn’t seem to occur to the tender sprout that the continual bar-owner abuse of existing law was precisely why the new ordinance was needed. I have no idea what they’re teaching the young folk these days, but thinking doesn’t seem to be in the bundle, although I’m sure callow Elijah has loads and loads of self esteem.
Now it will be time to see if the City Code Enforcement operation will employ the willingness and the competence to enforce the law. They have stubbornly refused to do so in the past, partly because councilmembers were running interference for the scofflaws. And part of the reason for staff’s reluctance might be because enforcement implies some sort of fault or failure, and in City Hall the decades long mess they made out of downtown Fullerton, has been characterized as a stunning and inarguable success.
You know when last week’s volunteer proposal to put public employees in ambulances popped up, I had to smile, just a little. The whole thing was so shaky, so duplicitous, so-ill conceived that you had to admire how the Heroes were able to so easily put up a hollow con job that a little kid, unlike our City Council, would question.
Of course the interests of the Fire Department and its employees jumped ahead of the interests of the citizenry.
And then it struck me. There are all sorts of ways our elected officials put others’ welfare ahead of the public, and nowhere is this better seen than in the way massive development projects that overwhelm Fullerton’s landscape. There is never any dissent. The councilpeople fall all over themselves to approve giant cliff dwellings for no discernable reason other than someone wants to do something to make a shitpile of money, and City staff gets to charge hours against fees and permits.
In short: no one is looking out for the interests of the people as the infrastructure gets taxed, neighborhoods get overwhelmed, and parking deficiencies are assumed by everybody – except the developer – who comes up with the best tale about why his project doesn’t need cars.
Which brings me, finally to the god-awful monstrosity going up on Chapman Avenue. I think it’s called “The Hub” a pathetic marketing tag that the developer hopes will generate buzz among the crowd that can afford a $3000 per month one bedroom apartment.
Just look at this hideous cliff-dwelling, which must now be the tallest residential building in Fullerton. Seven stories, eight stories? Forget about how this project was completely deficient in parking and how it’s going to impact traffic for everybody who uses the Chapman corridor. Think about the thousands of toilet flushes into the City’s sewers every day; think about the stress on Fullerton’s antique water transmission system needed to bathe these new residents and wash their clothes. Just think about the poor bastards who live across the street and will get to ponder this ponderous pile of overbearing, overbuilt, over-dense, under thought-out mess – for the rest of their lives.
Monster
Remember, Friends, this project, just like so many before it was a voluntary erection on the part of the City, rubber stamped by the people we elected. Nobody forced anyone to vote yes on this, but they all did, and they would all do so again. And they looked the other way as the burden of environmental impacts were shifted to the public. This project required General Plan Amendments and zone changes. These government entitlements are worth a fortune to a developer and that benefit reflects the shift of negative externalities to everybody else. What did the people of Fullerton get for the entitlements giveaways?
So take a drive along Chapman one of these days and see if you think our City Council is working for you…or somebody else.
On Tuesday George A. Bushala returned to the Fullerton City Council Chambers to address the the issue of Ahmad Zahra’s Marriage Fraud to gain permanent residency status. That was entertaining as Zahra got into a huff, interrupted, cried, got up and left the room. Then Bushala expanded on his thesis, noting that Zahra gets away with his behavior thanks the connivance of the fake news Fullerton Observer, a self-styled newspaper that is incompetent, always prejudiced, and that has gone out of it’s way to insinuate libels against people just like him.
In a high state of pique the Kennedy Sisters published their usual blog recap of public comments; but they let their self-righteous hosannas get the better of them.
First they recount an entire dialog between Zahra, Fred Jung and the City Attorney – none of which actually occurred.
A sense of irony being nothing if not completely missed by the Kennedy Sisters, Bushala’s speech is followed by one of those obnoxious “Editor” notes that are the hallmark of the Observer. This one is so faint it’s almost impossible to read, but really it’s just a lame daisy chain of excuses, self-righteousness and pro-Zahra bullshit that ends with an accusation that Bushala spreads falsehoods and she (which ever sister scribbled this) won’t tolerate it!
The Observer is “news of the people by the people,” donchaknow, the activist Mother that begat all sorts of save this and thats. They strive to get the truth out, so long as “truth” is compatible with their own warped, worldview. We all saw how mightily the Kennedy Sisters avoided the the story of the fake Markowitz candidacy. In fact Sharon seemed to involve herself in the cover-up by coaching the hapless Diane Vena.
And thus the circle is closed as the Kennedys perform yet again the very thing of which George Bushala accused them.
The facts are clear. There are no falsehoods related about Zahra. Everything Bushala said was a matter of fact, and FFFF has copies of the documents to prove it. If one wishes to question Zahra’s motives for running down to Little Rock, Arkansas to marry a female citizen, one is not spreading falsehoods, but rather is positing the most likely scenario.
The Kennedys believe “Dr.” Zahra is honorable and transparent – despite all the evidence to the contrary. This utterly slavish devotion renders them incapable to see their own culpable participation in Zahra’s lies. From his assault and battery case, to his Observer-enabled plagiarism they’ve been in lockstep with this Middle Eastern miscreant.
Tomorrow night’s council meeting promises to be a big affair. Once again the Kennedy Sisters will be ringing the tocsin – calling all Boohoos – oppose a policy creating ban on free, non-governmental materials in City property. The inevitable crying and hand wringing will be amusing to watch.
And there may be some of our Fire Heroes, and their families there, too. How come?
Because the Fire Department is proposing to take over the driving, washing, and maintaining their new fleet of sole source “coaches” and figuring out how use their new fleet of gurneys,
Of course Giant Savings are forecast. But do you believe them?
The comparison “study” is at such a high level that no details are shared – big problem. The City knows the current private operators numbers because they gave them to Fullerton under the contract. How about those of the Fire Department. No.
One of many downsides is that the “in-house” option budgets have a high degree of speculation.
Are all of true costs known? One would have to be pretty well-convinced (or gullible) to believe that newly unionized and pensioned ambulance drivers could be cheaper, and cheaper by a lot.
If these drivers leave town after they are vested, who picks up the CalPERS check, for say, the next 30 years?
The City assumes full liability. Are insurance premiums for this new FFD scope expansion forecast in the budgets presented budgets? I wonder.
And finally I come to the biggest problem. Accountability. From soup to nuts. No accountability for the forecast budget’s accuracy, no accountability for anything else. There would be no contract with which to enforce performance and delivery – especially bad performance.
No doubt the heroes will proclaim a local control, budgetary and public safety victory. Will it be? I think the public should be made aware of the details that back up the simple chart in the agenda.
True, the current system is ridiculous. An FFD paramedic takes a trip to St, Judes with the ambulance. The an entire crew with a fire engine follows to the hospital. Not to look at the bad art on the lobby walls, but to pick up their compadre and return to the fire station.
However the correct response is not to take over the ambulance driving, but to follow the lead of Placentia and privatize the damn paramedic job! Their results in Placentia have been fine and they’re saving money.
A couple months ago FFFFs attorney, Kelly Aviles sent a letter to the Fullerton City Manager announcing our intention to begin a paper edition of our humble blog, and requesting that the City permit distribution of that publication on City property – places like the lobby of City Hall and the Community Center.
You’ve got mail!
Dear Mr. Levitt:
I hope this finds you well. I am writing to you on behalf of my client, Fullerton’s Future, who’s in the process of launching a new newspaper publication to serve the residents of Fullerton. As part of the marketing and distribution efforts, my client seeks to place a newspaper rack in the lobby of City Hall, similar to the arrangements that have been made with other local newspapers.
We respectfully request the City Council grant approval for my Client to install a newspaper rack in the lobby of City Hall. My Client has secured a financial commitment from a local businessman for a significant amount of private financing to launch this new business endeavor committed to contributing to the local community by providing important local news, restaurant reviews, business advertisements, and information that reflects the diverse interests of our city’s residents and their needs for alternative news sources. In addition, an application to form a new 501-c4 will soon be filed with the IRS for this venture.
Please let me know if there are any specific procedures or requirements that need to be followed to facilitate this request or if the Council has any preferences regarding the placement of such a news rack at City Hall. We are eager to comply with any guidelines you may have.
Thank you for your time and consideration and we look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Kelly Aviles
FFFF hasn’t been particularly forgiving of all the murder, mayhem, misbehaving, and costly mistakes our highly paid employees have made over the years with the blessings of boobish city council members; the City has even gone so far as to sue FFFF contributors for mistakes made by employees and our City Attorney; therefore we figured our chance of getting our voice heard in City Hall was nil.
If you check out next Tuesday’s council agenda you’ll notice Item #14. It’s a Resolution establishing a policy that keeps FFFF off City property and limits the presence of non-governmental communications to the Main Library “community corkboard” – at the discretion of the Librarian.
Wow, there’s steaming pile of bureaucratic jargon – enough to satisfy anybody who admires that sort of gobbledygook. My favorite sentence is “The policy emphasizes that all City facilities remain non-public forums.” Wouldn’t want a public forum in City Hall, now would we? That space is reserved for government propaganda.
Stick it where it will do the most god…
I don’t believe this would be on the agenda at all without previous agreement in closed session, hidden away from prying eyes under the deceitful cloak of “potential litigation.” I wonder if they can legally enforce this policy.
We may have to start printing selected copy from our greatest hits and push pin them onto that community corkboard!
Starting out as a boutique hotel, a dumb idea took on a bloated, lumbering life of its own and has been kept alive through bureaucratic inertia and predictable metastasis.
Hostert
Now there’s a new twist. Word on the street is that the family of the guy with the original brainstorm, Craig Hostert of Westpark Development, is suing the current “developers” TA Partners. You may recall that Hostert is dead. His relatives seem to think that his money men, Johnny Lu and Larry Liu of TA Partners, pushed Craig out of his interest in the project. Johnny and Larry are said to be counter suing.
That can’t be good…
Parenthetically, I might add that Johnny and Larry are no strangers to the legal system, having left a trail of bankruptcies, foreclosures, and fraud in their wake. Fullerton being Fullerton.
Enhanced with genuine brick veneer!
I don’t know what the lawsuits might entail, legally, but due to the incompetent actions of Councilmembers Bruce Whitaker, Shana Charles, and Ahmad Zahra in upzoning the property, there could be a lot at stake. Remember, the City sold Westpark/TA almost two acres of land for $1.4 million (less demolition costs) while making it worth ten times that amount by abusing the allowable density in the Transportation Center Specific Plan.
Right now the City Hall silence remains deafening. We do know the council met in closed session about this awhile back, and still the public remains in the dark. Why hasn’t the City kicked Johnny Lu and Larry Liu to the curb long ago? They were supposed to have performed all sorts of stuff by now. Here are Johnny and Larry’s milestone obligations per the Development and Disposition Agreement, approved at the end of December, 2022.
Read. Weep.
Westpark/TA Partners are clearly in default. Plans submission was supposed to take place in December 2023 – fifteen months ago. Permits were required to be obtained fourteen months ago. Grading was supposed to start eleven months ago. Above ground construction was supposed to start by the end of last October – five months ago. See a pattern?
For some reason TA Partners was given some wiggle room in the actual verbiage of the contract for plans submittal – 240 days which would have been February of 2024, still thirteen months ago, and still a massive default.
Was there an “Unavoidable Delay?” Who gets to know? Why would the City fail to exercise its right retake the property? If you see a councilperson, please be sure to ask. Of course you won’t get an answer as the whole thing is shrouded in Closed Session secrecy. Without any action on the part of Fullerton, the two fly-by-nighters are still in possession of entitlements worth a pile ‘o cash – enough to excite the pecuniary envy of Mr. Hostert’s heirs and assigns.
I get the strange feeling that this latest legal entanglement might have repercussions for any case Fullerton might have in getting rid of Johnny and Larry. It shouldn’t, but it might be cause for staff to continue to string this thing out since it has been such a lucrative toy for Fullerton’s crack “economic development” employees.
Fullerton parks managers have a long and standout history of making things up, pursuing projects of benefit to themselves (programming), and of discounting real public input. I scanned old posts of FFFF to get a sense of the Parks Department players. Two of the leading prevaricators, Hugo Curiel and Alice Loya are gone; but a new face has emerged in this long tradition. And that face belongs to a guy named Edgar Rosales.
As Friends know, FFFF has been inquiring about the status of the deplorable Trail to Nowhere, noting that that two principal milestones have been completely missed – namely design submittal to the State and start of construction. These milestones are currently 8 months behind schedule. Mr. Peabody wondered aloud if it were even possible to meet the October ’25 completion deadline, and whether anybody even cared.
It turns out that the wheels of progress at City Hall may grind slow, but they do grind, especially if somebody else’s money is being wasted.
A sharp-eyed Friend noticed this item from the minutes of the January 13, 2025 Parks Commission meeting.
Enter Edgar Rosales, the new Alice Loya, Junior Grade. During his explanation of the Trail to Nowhere, Rosales started lying too; and misleading the Commission so blatantly, that it really was something to behold. His presentation was infuriatingly dishonest. But first, Edgar’s Transparent California dossier.
The price of prevarication…
The first Rosales lie to the Parks Commission was the assertion that the project was on schedule. Of course it isn’t. Here are the contract schedule milestones.
No, not on schedule. Check the dates, Eddie…
FFFF has already shown that the contractual milestones are completely blown out of the water. Submission for final plans to the State was supposed to happen last June. Mr. Rosales didn’t bother to inform the Commission that this milestone still hasn’t been met eight months later. No. Instead he told them that preliminary designs were submitted last June, ostensibly to make it look like the schedule was met – just in case any of the Commissioners thought to inquire. They didn’t, of course, because they didn’t know.
Well, well, well…
Then Rosales volunteered that last August soils testing was done, again a statement crafted to look like the something meaningful had occurred – to look like the maybe even the construction start milestone had been met. Soils testing isn’t construction. That milestone is obviously blown open, too since it follows design, bid and award. The statements is not only a deliberate obfuscation of the true schedule delay, it begs the question of why the City told the State the land was clean in the grant application when they obviously didn’t know and didn’t care. That lie has been propagated endlessly by Trail supporters like the Kennedy Sisters.
Giving honesty the middle finger…
The grant application fraudulently described the site as environmentally “shovel ready“ a lie that FFFF exposed long ago, and a lie now unintentionally confirmed by Rosales’ rosy recital of the project history. In the contract this intentional fraud is grounds for revocation/repayment of the grant – not that anybody at the State cares, either.
FFFF discovered through a Public Records Act request that there has been no written communication between the City and the State agency awarding the trail grant. If any contract extensions were made, they must have been verbal; and if any exist Edgar didn’t bother mentioning them.
As to the budget, why, that was looking good too! No mention by Rosales to the Commission that the grant budget failed to include soils testing, soils remediation and removal, water lines, storm drainage, or toxic monitoring well modifications; nor did he bother to remind the Commission about the rampant inflation that has taken place in the past five years since the grant application budget was submitted.
Maybe that accounts for his assertion that the City Council had appropriated $300K to $500K of Park Dwelling Funds as the City’s share of project cost. No, the City’s share was budgeted at $300K only, but that extra $200K sure will be needed.
And the hits kept coming.
Rosales repeated the lie that “Phase 1” starts at the Transportation Center. It doesn’t. It starts at the ass-back end of the still closed Poison Park. There is no eastern trail connectivity to anything.
Rosales deliberately refused to acknowledge that Phase 2 doesn’t even line up with Phase 1, glossing over the alignment mismatch at Highland Avenue where no at-grade crossing exists.
Rosales repeated the oft cited future connectivity at the west end, not a lie exactly, but a hope so delusional that it can pass as one.
So it appears that here is finally a “90%”design, although it has not yet gone trough City plan check or come to the City Council for ratification; and so far it isn’t listed as a tentative item for March meetings. Thereafter follows bid and contract award.
But Edgar is optimistic alright, as one with nothing to lose might well be. He believes the project will be done in October or November. If pigs grow wings that might happen. But there is even less chance of meeting the “plant establishment” milestone by October which necessarily follows planting by some period of time – sometimes months.
I note that Assistant City Manager Daisey Perez was present for this presentation and we should assume that both she and her boss, the boneless Eric Levitt are in on the promulgation of misinformation about this project.
Speaking of Levitt, no one here can remember an award for design services for the trail being approved by the City Council last year. A search of Council meetings in 2024 provides no information. So maybe the City Manager alone decided that a firm called KTUA – a San Diego landscape designer – got the job.
The City Council meeting agenda for March 4th has some interesting “Closed Session” items on it. For those who don’t know, Closed Session is a private meeting of the Council when legal, personnel or real estate issues are involved. The City Attorney attends the session, too, in our case the hapless buffoons of The I Can’t Believe It’s a Law Firm of Jones and Mayer.
Here’s the line up of issues.
Number 1 is about something up at the City Owned golf course – one of the too little scrutinized assets of the City of Fullerton. This has been a source of embarrassment for City staff and FFFF instruction in the past.
Ferguson and Curlee. The easy winners…
Our Friend David Curlee ran afoul of City Staff when he uncovered the rank incompetence of Alice Loya and Hugo Curiel as well as the misappropriation of Brea Dam Enterprise funds. And that’s likely the reason they dragged him into the FFFF/Joshua Ferguson lawsuit.
Why is Johnny smiling?
Number 2 is about the idiotic “boutique” hotel fiasco in which the City up-zoned the Hell out our property and then virtually gave it away to “Westpark/TA” an operation run by a couple crooks whose prior record was never disclosed to the City Council or the public. Well we found out all about it, even if our highly paid “professionals” in City Hall didn’t bother.
Any reasonable representatives of the people would have shit-canned this deal on Day 1. Not Fullerton, of course. What in the world could they be negotiating? TA hasn’t met any of its deadlines, got caught recording a phony deed, etc. TA should have been dumped a long, long time ago and their purchase amount forfeited. Interestingly the City seems to have brought in Best, Best and Krieger to do represent the City. At least it isn’t Jones and Mayer. Still, I wonder why.
Zahra Congratulates Marovic for his lawsuit…against us.
Number 3 is about our old friend Mario “Bump Out” Marovic, the scofflaw who took over from the Florentine Family in ripping off the public. He’s still illegally occupying the space he was supposed to have demolished two goddamn years ago.
Forgotten but not quite gone…
He is obviously in default of that agreement – a deal that moronically permitted him to open up his businesses and profit off our building on our sidewalk. Our indifferent City staff and Council doesn’t seem to have the stomach to give this weasel notice that he has been trespassing and that they were going to demolish the building add-on and restore the sidewalk themselves.
No, we don’t have to say shit…
Number 4 is one of those “anticipated litigation/significant exposure to litigation” items in which secrets can be withheld from potential litigants – like Friends for Fullerton Future – based on the squishy definition of the word “significant,” and self-serving public servant who happens to be defining it. Could this item be related to FFFF’s request for presence on City property? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised.
