Parking Failures Archives - Friends For Fullerton's Future

December 10, 2024December 10, 2024Ahmad Zahra

HIOZ It Going, Fullerton?

A special meeting of Fullerton’s City Council is taking place tonight. Why? To address the so-called 6th Cycle of the Housing Element of the General Plan and the concomitant Housing Incentive Overlay Zone, or HIOZ, for those who prefer government acronyms.

The City Council has already postponed rubber stamping this twice which is odd, because they usually clean their plates like good little boys and girl.

Friends may recall that City staff proposed the opportunity overlay to construct as many as 30,000 new units with almost zero City control. This, even though the Sacramento houseacrats only demanded 13,000. I say “only” even though this lower number would still add twenty to thirty thousand new residents to Fullerton with new, massive apartment blocks on re-zoned commercial and industrial property.

I previously opined that the 30,000 number was just a dodge, to give the City Council the appearance of having fought a tough fight to “save” Fullerton, while quietly acquiescing on the destructive 13,000 mandate. This would be of particular benefit to the 2026 re-election chances of Shana Charles and Ahmad Zahra, both of whom are ardent lefties and both of whom would love to see those 13,000 units without regard for the damage dome to the City’s schools, roads, infrastructure and neighborhood cohesion.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see a roll-out of the usual suspects singing hosannas to the Council for acceding to the 13,000 units.

And that hypothesis seems right on. The Council has already directed staff to remove the Chapman and Commonwealth “corridors” from the HIOZ plan where the application would have been the most damaging and controversial. And paring back the scale of the disingenuous plan gives a victory to the Save Fullerton crowd who may have actually believed the 30,000 units was an authentic proposal. That group includes some our friends at the Fullerton Observer who will happily embrace the 13,000 as a wonderful compromise.

Why all these meetings? Maybe it’s a necessary part of this Kabuki to give the façade of public review to something that was always a foregone conclusion – satisfying the knuckle headed legislators and the faceless bureaucrats in Sacramento; and their running buddies in the Southern California Association of Governments, and the California League of Cities.

And why a Special Meeting, other than to instill a sense of Heap Big Emergency about bowing to the diktats of an out-of-control legislature?

November 11, 2024Ahmad Zahra

Got Headache?

by Mr. Peabody12 Comments

If not, and if for some perverse reason you want one, I recommend watching the final hour of the September 25th Planning Commission meeting.

The Commission’s job was to make recommendations to the City Council about the City’s plan to placate the State of California’s Department of Housing and Community Development’s demand to plan for the inclusion of 13,000 new housing units in a city that is effectively built out. The housing numbers are ejaculated by the Southern California Association of Governments – an unelected body run by bureaucrats – and adopted by the State. And cities can just sit down up and shut the fuck up. The numbers are appalling and would mean another 25,000 residents with the attendant traffic, parking and burden on schools and infrastructure.

Amazingly, California being California, the environmental impacts are brushed aside with a bureaucratic flick.

The specific agenda of the evening was to review the new Housing Element of the General Plan, and the pertinent Zone Code Amendment that adds a “Housing Incentive Overlay Zone” or (HIOZ) to hundreds of commercial and industrially zoned parcels of land.

I have never seen five people so confused and so fundamentally incapable of dealing with the business in front of them in my life. Motions were made; substitute motions were moved; secondary substitute motions were made. Some were opaque; some were vague; some disappeared altogether; some were retracted. Some blossomed into nonsense. Some issues were bifurcated. Confused discussion was interlarded into motions without seconds. Staff was dragged into the motion process.

The Chairman, poor Peter Gambino lost control of the meeting, try as he might.

One Planning Commissioner, Arnell Dino, seemed particularly adept at muddling everything up; another, Doug Cox, seemed to want to run the meeting, and kept interjecting and interrupting out of order, and kept asking for repetition after repetition of proposed motions; Commissioner Patricia Tutor seemed just as befuddled as the rest, trying to connect motions to the three resolutions proposed by staff. Commissioner Arif Mansouri, who unfortunately oversimplifies his pronouns and drops definite articles at least stuck to his motions, all most to the end; his goal was to removed the Chapman and Commonwealth corridors from the proposed housing overlay incentive zone that could put high density housing up against low density, single family neighborhoods.

An hour of everybody’s time was completely wasted as the sinking Commissioners struggled mightily to grasp a hold of any plausible object that appeared to float.

Ironically, at the end of the meeting a self-exhausted Planning Commission just rubber stamped everything that was put in front of it and passed it along to the City Council for approval.

In the end some of the participants actually seemed to be laughing in a mirthless sort of way. What the audience thought of this clownish death march is best left to the imagination.

Some zoning details were kicked to a Special PC Meeting that was be held last Wednesday. I declined to watch fearing for my sanity.

The issue is coming to the City Council on November 19th and we can be sure of two things. Ahmad Zahra and Shana Charles will push hard for the maximum urbanization of Fullerton, and clarity will be the first casualty of the hearing.

October 23, 2024October 24, 2024Ahmad Zahra

Waste on Wilshire Wilts & Ahmad Zahra Has a “Day Job”

by The Fullerton Harpoon15 Comments

Last week the wretched waste known as “Walk-on-Wilshire” was extended another three months – to the end of January, 2025.

At the City Council meeting a cavalcade of comedy ended with a fun twist. More on that in a bit.

Right out of the gate we learned from Ahmad Zahra that he had to jet away that very evening for parts unknown because of his “day job” as a “producer.” He didn’t elaborate on what he produces; or where or how or what. But he also says he’s a doctor and the faithful believe. Cynical people think that his plagiarizing gig at the OC Water District was his first paying job.

Any how he admonished the crowd he helped manipulated to be there, to exercise brevity. They didn’t.

Of course Fullerton BooHoo was fully mobilized to defend the idiotic and continue spilling disinformation all over downtown. Listening to these uninformed nitwits you’d get the idea that a botanical garden had sprung up in the 100 block of West Wilshire, a veritable garden spot in an endless plain of burning sulphur.

It was brutal to listen to the whole damn thing. Jesus H. Christ, what utter nonsense.

It was fun the hear our old pal Diane Vena pontificate; I would have been hard pressed not to ask her about her role in the Scott Markowitz perjury conviction, but that’s another story.

In the end Shana Charles, the boobish mastermind behind this boondoggle made a motion – the usual temporizing – more study needed to make the Wilt of Wilshire permanent; and also to apply the same study to the rest of the block – all the way to Malden Avenue.

Then the fun started. The Mayor-pro-tem, Fred Jung intervened with a “friendly” amendment to the motion. Half-measures were wrong if Fullerton was going to do this thing, said Jung, and he proposed dumping the existing couple hundred feet as part of future study and go for the whole enchilada – the other 400 feet to Malden.

Doctor Charles got giddy. And greedy. In her haste to promote her hobby horse, the PhD of Public Health agreed and the motion passed 3-1, Whitaker voting no and Dunlap abstaining. Some Fullerton boohoos rejoiced, but they rejoiced too soon. Why?

Because now staff has direction to address only the entire block as relevant.

Closing the entire 100 block of West Wilshire block is a much different animal than the keeping the existing 200 feet that the City has nursed along with temporary extensions and the comical phrase “pilot program.” Much different indeed. Closing the street would entail cutting off a dozen commercial businesses on the south side of the street from direct auto access; another half dozen offices on the north side would be cut off, too.

The Villa del Sol parking lot, and the east end of the Promenade parking structure could only be reached via a narrow alley off of Whiting, itself a traffic restricted street at Harbor Booulevard.

At least 35 parking spaces would be lost or made useless.

Some businesses would actually no longer have useful street addresses if the street were to disappear.

In short, the Jung Amendment was a non-starter, a rather creative effort to stall the issue, and force a new council majority, if there is one, to start over again in February.

It was entertaining to see Charles go for this. Perhaps she could see the Jungian end run and decided that she needed the three votes to keep it alive, so she went along with it. If so she must be counting on Vivian Jaramillo to win in District 4.

July 31, 2024Behind Closed Doors

Public Gathering

by Mr. Peabody41 Comments

It’s funny how, one by one, the advocates for the idiotic “Walk on Wilshire” determinedly reject common sense arguments against it’s continuance.

The concept has been a money loser for the City. Who cares?

Created and perpetuated by “economic development” City employees as make-work for themselves, the thing is an economic sinkhole, just like the rest of downtown Fullerton, while the City suffers from a massive tsunami of red ink. Who cares?

Only one restaurant has deemed it worthwhile to fully participate in this financial disaster. Who cares?

The rights and interests of business owners elsewhere on Wilshire Avenue have been intentionally denied. Who cares?

The ability of motorists to use a public street bought and paid for by the public has been denied them. Who cares?

At the July 16th City Council meeting we learned what was valuable according to the advocates of this moronic scheme. It wasn’t really about “economic development,” because there isn’t any. It was all about the squishy, feel-good goal of a communal gathering space, as if this silly, blocked off space provided any better communal experience than private dining on the inside of a restaurant, or on the sidewalk.

The fact the that the Fullerton Observer has dedicated itself to defending this ludicrous scheme should be sufficient evidence of its idiocy. The real goal of this gaggle is to deny auto access to a public street; it’s the first small step to a utopia where everybody is poor, riding bikes and wearing Mao jackets. But that’s too nutsy even for them to propound openly. So they advocate for a “public gathering space” even though the “Walk on Wilshire” is not really open to the general populace at all.

What these people don’t acknowledge is that there is already a large public space in downtown Fullerton.

It’s called the Downtown Plaza, an acre of open space that already exists, and that can be used without any cost for those interested in the orgasmic experience of New Urban public gathering. There’s even a little parklet across the way. Here it is:

There is absolutely nothing from keeping the City opening this huge space to public dining and permitting ALL the restaurants in Fullerton to cater their wares here directly, or through an on line application. There’s trees, green grass and blue sky overhead.

Of course this would require almost no City involvement, and no project our economic development employees could put on their time cards. It was built a long time ago and, except for a few events goes mostly unused. But there it is. String some solar light in the trees, put out some tables and you’re good to go. There’s even a handy parking structure across the street.

How about this as a “pilot” program: use the existing open space for that “al fresco” dining experience so beloved by Bruce Whitaker, and open up Wilshire Avenue to the people who want to drive on it, and for the businesses on Wilshire that need it for convenient access and parking.

Does this idea seem ridiculous? Why? At the very least it demonstrates the shallowness of the alleged arguments in favor of keeping Wilshire closed: the City doesn’t intelligently used the communal gathering space it already has.

And why not restrict outside dining to the sidewalks, where it belongs?

Our City staff, and at least two of our City Councilpersons, maybe three if you count Bruce Whitaker, would rather shut down a public street to our detriment, but to their benefit.

June 11, 2024June 11, 2024Behind Closed Doors

Chapman Parking Structure Deeded to City

by The Fullerton Harpoon16 Comments

A while back FFFF noticed a item forecast on the June 4th Agenda dealing with the property bounded by Whiting, Chapman, Pomona and Lemon – a parking structure built about 30 years ago for reasons still unknown. Curiously, the staff report calls it a “parking lot,” ignoring the fact that it’s actually an elevated parking structure – an asset that cost several million to build. The accompanying Quitclaim Deed only refers to parcels of land on the original Townsite Map, but doesn’t describe improvements on said lots.

According to staff it was built by the downtown Fullerton Parking Authority – which isn’t quite true because the parking district didn’t have any money. It was built by the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency which raised lots of money to waste on stuff like this.

Anyhow, the agendized item turns out to be a paperwork issue to deed miscellaneous portions of the site to the City from the now dead “Parking Authority.” The item was dutifully approved by our City Council.

Obviously, nobody caught the omission when the parking agency expired (another Jones and Mayer success story), but now the timing may suggest that the “opportunity site” as identified in the otherwise unrelated and never-ending “Fox Block” fiasco has attracted the attention of City Hall’s Monopoly-playing, “economic development” bureaucrats.

May 15, 2024May 16, 2024Behind Closed Doors

The Opportunity Site

by Disillusioned Ex-Hippy8 Comments

A few days back I shared a couple of upcoming agenda items that the City Manager had forecast for the May 21st Fullerton City Council meeting.

I observed the reference to a development agreement with some entity called “Frontier” and also to an item simply called “Fox Block.” The two are related, but oddly, not listed together. Fullerton being Fullerton.

What I didn’t notice at the time was another item called “Chapman Parking Lease” another non-descriptive term, possibly not meant to attract attention.

A helpful Friend point out my oversight and got me thinking. Chapman parking? What the Hell is that? Then the other shoe dropped. There is a city-owned parking structure on the south side of Chapman Avenue, between Lemon and Pomona. It was built by the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency back in the ’90s the heyday of Fullerton Redevelopment, when they had so much money they could build parking structures that nobody even needed. Could this be what the cryptic agenda item referred to? Supposedly the facility was meant to help out Fullerton JC and maybe this is the entity with whom a lease was worked out.

The Junior College District has now built parking structures of its own, using our property tax increases to do it. Maybe the Chapman structure is now superfluous.

Could be. Check this out:

This satellite image has been used to accompany information/propaganda relating to the development known as the “Fox Block.” And the violet shape over in the lower left side of the image is the parking structure.

Hmm. Can this possibly be the site of yet another butt-ugly, monstrously overbuilt, under-parked housing project? Why not? It would be the only part of a Fox Block fiasco that could be worth anything to anybody. And since the City can no longer hand over piles of cash to “developers,” they can certainly hand over free land, enriched by the necessary zone changes.

I’m sure it’s all a big secret now. But in a couple days the May 21st agenda will be posted and maybe we can find out what “Frontier,” whatever that is, might be getting gratis from the people of Fullerton.

May 14, 2024May 15, 2024Ahmad Zahra

No Solution in Search of a Problem

by Mr. Peabody25 Comments

Back on its May 7th meeting the Fullerton City Council had a hearing about street sweeping ticketing. It was such a super-critical issue that the Voice of OC wrote about it here. The author is none other than Mr. Hossam Elattar, the same boob who missed the Trail to Nowhere scam.

Reading the Voice article you get the idea that the ticketing was a great social injustice, affecting the lives of what the author charmingly calls the “working class” in overcrowded parts of town. This is the editorial narrative the Voice of OC always deploys in its “news” – the oppression of the underserved.

Of course at the meeting, this same tack was immediately propounded by Councilmember Ahmad Zarha, who would go on to conflate this parking issue with the principle one affecting neighborhoods with too many cars: overnight parking bans. But a hero needs a problem to fix for the “poorer part of town” as he put it. The two issues are quite different since cars of the “working class” are used, presumably, to take those people to work and are gone when the sweeper rolls by. Oops.

The sweeping problem is that regular street sweeping keeps our trash out of the Pacific Ocean and instead goes to a big hole in a Brea hillside. The storm water system is regulated by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. The age-old practice of allowing cars to park on street sweeping days is no longer a thing.

Good Lord, what a to do over a non-problem.

Staff, to their credit, recommended to keep things the way they are – weekly sweeping of each side of each street, and tickets for those vehicles that haven’t been relocated.

Three proposed “options” added significant costs for more complicated logistics and signage, or a violation of the NPDES permit. Whether these costs were legitimate or just jacked up to undermine the options is open to cynical speculation. Obviously, the violation option was just an obvious non-starter made to look like a choice. And with our latest budget crisis nobody is going to waste hundreds of thousands down this rathole.

Our city council (Fullerton, being Fullerton) hemmed and hawed and finally decided the current system was flawed and requested new options. Our Mayor, Nick Dunlap was not happy with the “one size fits all” approach and found an ally in Ahmad Zahra who again pitched the issue as a discriminatory one since the most ticketing took place in south Fullerton. Fred Jung didn’t say much except to say he wanted something better, or to leave the status quo. All so helpful. Dunlap even proposed possible refunds to ticket receivers.

So just as with the downtown noise fiasco this issue will be kicked around some more. I’m surprised it wasn’t sent to the Traffic and Circulation Commission for lengthy cogitation.

No one really bothered to ask what the big deal was and how come people can’t get off their asses and move their cars. Yes, multiple-hour windows of time are used for sweeping, but in reality the sweeping schedule is an extremely predictable period of time, easily planned for. No tickets are handed out after the sweeper passes. While it’s true people may forget to attend to their vehicles, the cost of a ticket is educative, as I well know. Also, my street is a few blocks away from an overcrowded collection of 1950s apartments with too many cars. And yet, on street sweeping days these good folk are astute enough to relocate their vehicles by the time the sweeper rolls through. And after it does the streets slowly fill up with cars again.

I’m left wondering how this item was even agendized in the first place. Staff didn’t want it, obviously, so it must have been done at the behest of councilmembers looking for an issue to waste their time and our money on.