The upcoming meeting is of significant importance, as it will address crucial urban planning and zoning issues. The detailed agenda can be accessed here: https://fullerton.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx
There are three items on the agenda, but the first item (#11) is regarding zoning for tattoo parlors, which will be continued until November 19. Item #12 establishes a preservation zone in the area roughly between Woods and Richman north of Chapman. The last on the agenda and the primary focus of the meeting will be the decision regarding the Walk on Wilshire. This decision, whether to delay the closure, open the street to cars, close it permanently, or conduct further studies, could have a significant impact on the area. The uncertainty surrounding this decision underscores its importance.
The concern is that the closure negatively impacts businesses, although no data supports this claim because no study of the area has been done. The city has not had car counts since before the closure or on parallel streets like Amerige. Although Amerige has parking lots on both sides, the number of cars driving the first block off Harbor would be much higher.
The opening of the street is perceived to have a minimal positive impact on the businesses located on the currently open part of the street. Even before it was closed, delivery vehicles often impeded westbound traffic. Traffic is also lessened now, presumably by the traffic circles to the west on the Bike Boulevard (at least that was the intent). The few businesses on the street probably do not or would not benefit from drive-by traffic. However, businesses may be hurt by having at least 9 of the 21 diagonal parking spaces restricted to 15-20 minutes as they are currently. That is hardly enough time to sit and have a cup of coffee. Some of those spaces were useful when a dry cleaner was on the block, but that business is long gone.
The closure is a small step in making the downtown pedestrian-friendly and user-friendly, ultimately attracting more business to the area. There will no doubt be many speakers, making for a long meeting. Mayor Dunlap has recused himself on this issue in the past since his father is a partner in the Villa de Sol complex. Councilmember Jung has been a strong opponent of WOW, consistently siding with his good friend Tony Bushala (a local businessperson). Whitaker seems to side with the businesses; if enough businesses advocate for it, he may be swayed. While he is termed out on the Council, his wife is campaigning for his seat, which could change the amount of support for WOW on the Council. Councilmembers Charles and Zahra support WOW, but keeping it will take three votes. Given the way the issue is framed, a tie vote will kill it and result in the end of WoW. Will it still be called Walk on Wilshire?
Share this:
Discover more from Fullerton Observer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Downtown, Election, Elections, Local Business, Local Government, local history
It’s the same day, Mike. Same morning, even. There was no news of charges based on a signature gathering violation yesterday, and now this morning there’s news about it. Less than an hour later based on the article I could find, you’re here alleging “silence.”
Shame on you, Mike. Way to go making your “narrow world view” clear. You’re just here to tactically troll the paper based on your viewpoint, just like a handful of others that I’m sure will pile on.
“I’ve been failing to get these Observers to observe the story”
Which story? Today, there’s a new story because the DA says there is evidence of a violation of law. Exactly what you never provided and probably why you were rightfully ignored.
Am I wrong? Did you claim what the DA charged Markowitz with? The story yesterday was about his trumpy candidate statement and Democrats signing his nomination. Today it’s about a violation of law. You have to see how those are different things.
Taking that as a no. What you were demanding the Observer report on was not about evidence or fact of a crime in signature gathering.
You were raising the issue of *who* he was as in what he believes, and *who* was backing him. Not about formalities of signature gathering or perjury regarding signature gathering. Your complaint was independent of any crime, he could have followed the law and your complaint would have been the same regardless.
As to 3 years in Chino, I don’t know. That’s the worst case for him. It is not good any way you look at it, but there was a similar case with a big fine.
Bad, life changing choice, if proven.
“Will it still be called Walk on Wilshire?” No, it will be called West Wilshire Ave., as it has been for well over a century.
How about an objective story about the council agenda that doesn’t turn into an editorial three paragraphs into it?