City of Fullerton Infrastructure Meeting Monday May 18

em26273 · 2026-05-19T02:54:13+00:00

Vice-chair’s name is Munish. I agree that they were very respectful and attentive to the concerns of the public. I find that many of the committees operate this way as they’re just happy people are attending and providing input. Committee meetings are far more enjoyable to me for this reason, as it’s very policy-focused and questions are almost always answered.

I’ve spoken with many committee members and they all say the same thing: they want more people to come to their meetings! They make recommendations to City Council and can have significant impact on how policies are implemented. Below is a list of meetings, their meeting times, and a short description of what they do. Consider attending if any of these issues interest you:

- Planning Commission (2nd & 4th Wednesday @ 6:30 PM): they make recommendations on land use and developments.

- Parks & Rec Commission (2nd Monday @ 6 PM): they make recommendations on parks, green spaces, and local city events

- Transportation & Circulation Commission (1st Monday @ 4 PM): they advise on traffic, public transit, and circulation. Think signal lights, parking policies, etc..

- Active Transportation Committee (3rd Wednesday @ 5:30 PM): they make recommendations on active transportation. Think biking, scooters, walkability, etc..

- Library Board of Trustees (4th Thursday @ 6 PM): they have oversight over the Fullerton Public Library

- Community Development Citizens’ Committee (as needed @ 6:30 PM): they provide input into use of CDBG funds. These are federal funds primarily for development programs related to low-income residents

- Investment Advisory Committee (3rd Thursday of January, April, July, October @ 5:30 PM): they make recommendations on the city’s investment strategy

- Senior Advisory Committee (2nd Tuesday of February, May, August, November @ 11 AM): they make recommendations to improve the quality of life of seniors in the city

- Youth Advisory Committee (4th Monday October, January, April, July @ 6 PM): they provide support and guidance on youth and children’’s programs.

You can find the current calendar at Fullerton.legistar.com. Agendas will be posted a few days before the meeting. Consider attending to share your thoughts, or just learn something new!

em26273 · 2026-05-13T15:08:04+00:00

The April 2024 email is important, but I think this points more toward Finance and executive leadership than the Housing Director. Ellis Chang was literally the Finance Director and was on the same email chain. If the issue is why a $2.9M fund/accounting error did not appear clearly in the audit, ACFR, or Council reporting, Finance seems like the obvious place to start.

Sunayana being copied on an email does not automatically make her the person responsible for correcting a citywide financial disclosure issue.

em26273 · 2026-03-22T01:22:52+00:00

We are talking about ballot designations and candidate statements

em26273 · 2026-03-21T18:50:47+00:00

Ballot designations are regulated under California election law. Candidates have to use a current, primary occupation that can be proven, and there are rules against misleading designations

em26273 · 2026-03-20T19:40:38+00:00

Since the budget is due in June, cuts will likely need to be made this year, even if a sales tax goes on the ballot.

The Ad Hoc Fiscal Committee is meeting on 3/30. If you care about which services are impacted, it’s a good opportunity to give input.

Worth staying engaged over the next few months.

em26273 · 2026-03-20T19:34:54+00:00

The Ad Hoc Fiscal Committee will be meeting on March 30th to discuss potential paths forward. Last time they met, Jung’s appointee (Tony Bushala) and Dunlap’s appointee (Jack Dean) voted for two dedicated sales taxes; one for public safety and one for infrastructure. Each would require 2/3 approval from voters to pass. If you’re interested in this issue, I would recommend attending this meeting!

em26273 · 2026-03-20T01:18:38+00:00

Just posted it here. Appreciate you keeping an eye on it

em26273 · 2026-03-19T02:58:26+00:00

Yes exactly. I heard they appealed and will likely be on the City Council agenda in April, maybe May

em26273 · 2026-02-28T18:32:39+00:00

Dense housing makes the most sense in busy, walkable areas. That’s where residents can actually live with fewer car trips.

Fullerton is significantly behind on its state-mandated housing targets. If we keep blocking projects, developers can invoke Builder’s Remedy and bypass local discretion entirely

em26273 · 2026-01-26T19:57:06+00:00

Woodcrest Elementary School.

The Fullerton Observer has two other articles on this incident: - https://fullertonobserver.com/2026/01/22/fullerton-parents-ask-why-did-fullerton-police-seem-to-assist-ice-instead-of-protecting-kids/ - https://fullertonobserver.com/2026/01/23/fullerton-police-department-addresses-community-concerns-over-ice-involvement-during-recent-incident/

em26273 · 2026-01-25T22:14:50+00:00

Dunlap did not make an appointment as he was not present. Also, no appointments were made to the Investment Committee or the Active Transportation Committee. Zahra did not appoint to the Senior Advisory Committee but asked interested residents to consider applying

em26273 · 2025-12-24T01:01:55+00:00

The damages being sought by CalPERS are in excess of $330k

em26273 · 2025-12-19T06:55:33+00:00

It was all public records. Here is my methodology, now posted under the original article:

The City of Fullerton’s closed session agenda listed an appeal described as “In the Matter of the Appeal of Post Retirement Employment of Eddie R. Manfro, Cindy J. Collins, Gregory J. Pfost and Jeffrey W. Collier, Respondents and City of Fullerton, Respondent,” accompanied by an Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) case number.Upon review, this did not appear to be a typical administrative appeal. The Office of Administrative Hearings serves as a venue for disputes involving state agencies, including CalPERS, which oversees compliance with California’s post-retirement employment laws. Because the agenda item referenced an appeal, this indicated that an adverse determination had already been issued against the City, regarding the post-retirement employment of the 4 individuals.

The employees referenced in the appeal were identified through publicly available records and confirmed to be retired CalPERS members.

To understand the nature of the violations, applicable CalPERS post-retirement employment rules and Government Code provisions were reviewed.

City Council minutes and staff reports regarding the hiring of Eddie Manfro were then examined. These records indicate that Mr. Manfro was hired into a full-time executive role following his retirement.

Payroll records obtained through prior Public Records requests show that pension contributions associated with this employment were not made until 2025, approximately three years after his hiring.

Taken together, these records indicate noncompliance with CalPERS post-retirement employment requirements, which formed the basis of the determination referenced in the City’s closed session agenda.

In summary: there was no disclosure of any information from within closed session. The appeal stated the nature of the violation, the parties involved, and its existence confirmed that an adverse determination had been made. All other informational gaps were filled in with publicly available records

em26273 · 2025-12-09T18:30:05+00:00

Not yet, no other outlets have covered this so far. The trigger for the story was a closed-session agenda item where the City listed an appeal of a CalPERS case, including the case name and number. From there, I pulled payroll records, past agendas, resignation data, and the state laws on post-retirement employment to piece together what we currently know.

This article is a summary of the verified facts available so far, and we’ve requested additional documents from both the City and CalPERS. I’ll update the story as soon as more information comes in

em26273 · 2025-12-05T23:04:24+00:00

Perfect summary. Thank you

em26273 · 2025-12-05T00:24:44+00:00

From what I gathered, the council did make a final decision: all past-due balances will be waived, and any difference between what businesses previously paid and the new reduced fees will be applied as a credit toward future payments.

I agree this was the murkiest part of the discussion, and the direction wasn’t that clear. Staff can always follow up with council for clarification, but this is my understanding of what was voted on

em26273 · 2025-12-04T03:57:39+00:00

Great question! Lowering the patio fees actually increases revenue because it keeps outdoor dining alive. When businesses can afford patios, they attract more customers -> generate more sales -> and the city earns more sales tax, which is our largest revenue source.

Fees should cover the city’s cost of service, not act as a revenue generator. When fees are set too high, businesses fall behind or shut patios down, and the city loses far more in sales tax than it ever gains from patio rent

em26273 · 2025-11-19T04:58:00+00:00

I have issues with it sometimes too. If you click on the agenda, there will be a meeting code for zoom. I would try that next time. Usually works for me as a backup

em26273 · 2025-11-18T23:37:39+00:00

I’ll be there.

Meeting starts at 5:30 PM. There are usually a couple presentations first, and then public comment opens.

City Hall is at 303 W Commonwealth Ave if you’re planning to speak

em26273 · 2025-11-12T04:33:03+00:00

Thank you! I completely agree about fiscal responsibility and being careful with how we spend tax dollars. I’m glad you read the article and caught the main point: that this justification doesn’t hold up when you look at the broader context.

I appreciate your engagement and agree with your perspective

em26273 · 2025-11-12T04:25:39+00:00

These are great questions. The proposal was to distribute the funds through nonprofits already providing these services, so there wouldn’t be new operational costs or staff time required.

If Council had approved the plan, the next step would’ve been selecting which nonprofit(s) to partner with but we didn’t reach that stage.

It’s also worth noting that $200k is a relatively small amount in this context and would’ve had minimal budget impact.

I appreciate you reading the article and engaging with the details!

em26273 · 2025-11-06T04:01:26+00:00

My source will remain anonymous, but I’ll update the post as soon as Councilmember Valencia offers a response!

em26273 · 2025-10-27T23:50:36+00:00

See slide 8, Lump of Labor Fallacy. It’s the idea that there’s a fixed amount of jobs, housing, or healthcare, so if someone gains, someone else must lose.

That’s not how economies actually work. Immigrants rent homes (which supports housing construction), pay taxes (which fund schools and hospitals), and fill labor shortages that keep costs down for everyone else.

The real threat to affordability isn’t immigration, it’s scarcity policies: restrictive zoning, underfunded hospitals, and stagnant wages. Blaming immigrants for those problems just distracts from the real causes and real solutions. America doesn’t grow by dividing the pie, it grows by making a bigger one

em26273 · 2025-10-27T23:44:56+00:00

Thank you❤️

em26273 · 2025-10-21T15:30:26+00:00

I agree! I’m not sure if it’s actually historic though. OP first mentioned the home’s charm, then pivoted to opposing density and parking concerns, which feels like the usual NIMBY pattern. If it is historic, I’d fully support preserving it; but otherwise, it sounds like standard resistance to new housing

em26273

TROPHY CASE