Twisted Sisters

A few days a go a woman was hit by a car in the middle of Orangethorpe Avenue. She died at the scene. Here’s the dispassionate police department version of events.

Notice that there is mention of a bicycle, however, the now deceased woman wasn’t riding it, but walking it across the street for some reason, presumably to get to the other side.

Now here’s how the same press release appeared in the Kennedy Sister’s Fullerton Observer, purveyors of independent “journalism.”

Notice how the FPD is credited with verbiage that isn’t in their press release. It has obviously been re-written. But by whom?

The dead woman is identified in the Observer headline as a bicyclist even though she wasn’t riding it when killed. We can already see where this is going, since we know that her possession of a bike at the time of her death is irrelevant regarding the facts of the incident.

Why write about news when you can try to make your own! (Photo by Julie Leopo/Voice of OC)

This is the way of the Kennedy Sisters. Start off with your own narrative then create “facts” to fit it.

Take a jaywalker and turn her into a bicyclist-martyr. Then project the “tragedy” and the “grief” into a policy objective that fulfills your narrative. It’s twisted. And embarrassing when it becomes obvious you are oblivious to real facts.

And, being the Observer, the comments are part of the inevitable plot development.

Phil M.

That is usually the case and there were also bike lanes here too. The person in question was not going anywhere else but going to the other side of Orangethorpe. It is a foolish risky mistake lots of jaywalkers and “jaybikers” make without using an intersection with traffic lights.

EDITOR NOTE: According to police the bicyclist was walking her bike in the number one eastbound lane which is a designated bike lane when she was hit by the car.

Responding to a previous commenter, Phil M reminds us that there are bike lanes in Orangethorpe and addresses the jaywalking issue. the unnamed “Editor Note” says the victim was in the “designated bike lane” when hit.

So Phil M. responds with some facts and addresses some obviously erroneous conclusions made by “Editor.”

Phil M.

TO THE EDITOR: The number 1 lane is the lane closest to the center of the street. The lane for bicyclists is the ‘bike lane’ obviously, which the one closest to the sidewalk. Are you telling me that this person was riding their bicycle in the center of the street for travel?

EDITOR: Oh! You are absolutely right about that. The number one lane is the one closest to centerline. Thank you for that correction. So she was walking her bike across Orangethorpe when the car and truck hit her.

So “Editor” has finally clued in to the facts of the situation, (or is pretending to) but of course “Editor” will not observe that this is not a bike safety issue at all.

But in the meantime, Sharon Kennedy has chimed in by name, with the usual handwringing, still unaware, that as usual, she doesn’t know what the Hell she’s talking about.

The track record was poor…

Sharon K

Condolences to her family for this tragic loss.
This is another good reason to make a dedicated bike lane all across Orangethorpe. Reduce cars to the other three lanes. Let’s name the new bike lane after her. Other cities are creating safe bike lanes – why can’t we?

Reply

  • Phil M.If you look on Google Maps in Street View, there are in fact bike lanes on both sides of Orangethorpe in that section. The person who crossed the street was NOT using the bike line to go east to west or west to east. They were crossing at a place without traffic lights get to the other side of Orangethorpe. Lots of people foolishly risk their lives to jaywalk and “jaybike” all the time in places like these quite often.

As we see, Phil M. is now well-aware of what he is dealing with – an emotional, fact-creating ideologue, and he feels constrained to point out real facts to Kennedy.

Yep. Already there…

There are dedicated bike lanes on both sides of Orangethorpe already. There is no need for a “new” one and even less reason to name it after somebody who wasn’t riding a bike or even obeying traffic laws when she died. It would make just as much sense to name it after the poor guy from Westminster who gets to carry this avoidable death with him for life.

And of course there is the perfect comment by one of the few people still permitted or interested in commenting on the Observer blog: “Amy.”

Amy

This is absolutely horrible and I am so saddened for this person and their family. No one deserves to die in such a senseless way. Please Fullerton, let’s build proper bike infrastructure so this never has to happen again.

Poor Amy had reflexively swallowed the bait the morning of the post, to pursue the obvious bike propaganda slant. Needless to say, she hasn’t yet returned to explain how this “senseless” accident could have been avoided by building “proper” bike infrastructure.

They Did What?

Get used to more!

I have to admit I haven’t been paying much attention to the development of Fullerton’s “6th Cycle” General Plan Housing Element. I figured it to be a fruitless paper chase in which a consultant got paid a bunch of money to produce umpteen pages of incomprehensible gobbledygook. Turns out I was right about that.

If the paper fits, push it!

The other thing that caused indifferent resignation on my part was the housing mandate decreed by the State Housing and Community Development Department, often referred to as “State HCD.” It so happens that their mandate for Fullerton was to create the opportunity for 13,000 new residential units, as determined by yet another faceless bureaucracy, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), whose mission is to do whatever the State wants, regardless of what is good for its constituent members. The 13,000 units are part of SCAG’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA, pronounced ree-nuh). These people sure love them some acronyms.

Where these 13,000 unit opportunities are supposed to go in a built out city is no mystery. It will require re-zoning commercial, office professional, and industrially zoned property to admit new residential use. Lots of it.

Well, that’s bad enough, but our crack Community Development Department saw fit to propose a new zoning overlay that could accommodate 30,000 new units. You read that right. 30,000 units, a sum that could increase Fullerton’s population to near the quarter million mark. Their justification? It’s so they won’t have to do anymore bowing and scraping to State HCD. At least not for a while. Or so they say.

The whole thing is ludicrous. First, the rationale for giving the Sacramento boneheads more than they demand is crazy. It’s like paying a million bucks in ransom when the kidnapers only asked for half a mil with no guarantee they won’t do it again. Then there’s the practical side of this. There would be no new roads, no new sewer and water superstructure added, no new schools built, and sixty thousand new auto trips daily. And don’t forget the inadequate parking. It’s a farce piled on top of another farce. But somehow everything will work out, our six-figure experts tell us..

The mechanism to perform this new housing miracle is the called the Housing Incentive Overlay Zone (you guessed it, there’s an acronym – HIOZ). Staff and their consultants have identified hundreds and hundreds of real estate parcels that would receive the new overlay zone, but they don’t seem to be unduly concerned about the effect to the City of Fullerton of losing land for commercial and industrial purposes. It seems that in the grand bureaucratic scheme of things, satisfying other bureaucrats in Sacramento is even more important than losing that sales tax revenue they’re always hunting around for like rabid wolverines.

Pantomime…

Well, fear not, Friends. In reality the 30,000 units was likely just Kabuki theater meant to look like a good faith effort to outdo even the demands of anonymous paper-pushers at SCAG. The City Council discussed this issue last week and there’s no way any of them are going to give the State more than it wants.

Of course, there’s another possibility, too. A political one. The utterly incompetent Ahmad Zahra and Shana Charles, Fullerton City Council’s two ultra-liberals, are up for re-election in 2026, and, cynic that I am, I have to wonder if they both won’t use this silver-platter opportunity to campaign on how they defended Fullerton’s quality of life by fighting hard against 17,000 apartments that were never going to happen anyway. Now that would be cynical, wouldn’t it?

Got Headache?

Reading it again won’t help!

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.

The Opportunity Site

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.

Council Ponders Parking Puzzle Pilot Program

Lots of people have lots of cars. And the on-site parking plans of the 50s, 60, and 70s multi-family housing just don’t work anymore. We all know that. Even single-family neighborhoods suffer from the same issue – adults’ cars, their kids’ cars, and a garage full of crap.

In 2023 the Fullerton City Council directed staff to consider the issue of early morning parking prohibition, a device to keep people from parking on the streets overnight. The current situation is that certain streets with multi-family housing or old, pre-1940 houses have been granted a waiver. An applicant’s address could also get a one-year “hardship” permit with an extensive review process and a $250 permit fee.

After an 11 month gestation period, staff labored hard and gave birth to a “pilot plan” proposal that would keep existing street and individual waivers/permits, but that would make it easier, supposedly, to get a one year permit – with four one-year options.

The issue is Item #7 on the 3/19/24 Agenda consent calendar.

The staff report provides the usual entertaining history of a Fullerton topic, like downtown nuisance noise, that never seems to get fixed.

As usual there are options presented that are really just non-starters to make the desired option look better. Option 1 is to do away with overnight parking altogether – a surefire recipe for political disaster. Option 2 is to get rid of street/block waivers and also hardship permits, and let anybody apply for an overnight permit – another sure loser.

And so Option 3 (as described above) gets the brass ring, with the proviso that it be a 2-year pilot program to see what happens. As noted, staff is proposing a streamlined process, online portal, etc., etc., with one goal being to help disadvantaged neighborhoods (of course “disadvantaged,” like “underserved” is code in City Hall for Latino, so that’s an interesting use of the word). This option begs the question: if the permit process could be streamlined why wasn’t it – a long time ago? There is no mention of the new permit fee amount.

The staff report contains a long list of possible additions that could be made, presumably to help a City Council that can’t be trusted to come up with its own.

What I think is really interesting is that there is no option for doing nothing. Not every snake or green-glowing rock needs to picked up and examined, and I get the impression that there is a political undercurrent here. Commonsense suggests that adopting a revision for the purpose of allowing more cars to park overnight will still annoy some residents who may not like others parking in front of their house all night – especially in the vicinity of under-parked, older apartments.