Should Fullerton Become a Charter City?

•Item 14: Charter City Comparison & Process

Chambers were full during the regular business section of the March 4, 2025. Fullerton City Council meeting. Most attendees had come to respond to agenda Item 14, a proposal to study transitioning Fullerton from a General Law city to a Charter city.

City Clerk Lucinda Williams made a short presentation.
There are two kinds of municipal governance: General Law (like Fullerton) or Charter City. 121 of 482 California cities have charters.

General Law Cities – are governed by California Government Code which covers municipal affairs (zoning, elections, personnel, taxation) established by the state.
Benefits include simplified governance, predictability, lower legal costs.
Cons include limited autonomy, restricted revenue options, and state policies that may not address local needs.

Charter Cities – are governed by a city charter can set local regulations on municipal matters (zoning, elections, personnel, taxation) that do not conflict with the state constitution.
Benefits include more local control, ability to establish local taxes, local preference policies, and alternative bidding processes.
Cons include complex governance and potential legal conflicts, any change in a charter has to go through a legal vote which could take up to two years.

If the council decides to enter the process of becoming a charter city the council must select a charter committee, and then a ballot measure to accept the charter must be adopted by a simple majority of voters in a general election.

PUBLIC COMMENT

(Note: Comments  below are  summarized. Please see the video of the March  4, 2025 meeting on the city website for more information.)

•Misty Omar, a 20-year Fullertonian, urged council to step back and consider the negative consequences of changing to a charter city. She said a benefit of staying with the general law system was that it operates under state law providing clear consistent guidelines that insure accountability, fairness and a level playing field. By shifting to a charter city we risk granting disproportionate power to local officials and losing the protections we currently have. Local Control sounds great on the surface but can easily become an ambiguous term that instead of serving all residents could be taken advantage of by special interests or those with the biggest pocket books. Without the guardrails provided by state law future councils. could enact policies not in the aligning with the needs or desires of local residents. In addition I am concerned with the transparency of this process. Shifts like this should not be decided quickly or rushed through without extensive public engagement. The people of this city deserve clear and honest communication about why this change is being considered. Who stands to benefit and what potential risks are being weighed? We must also ask “Why now?” What are the problems with our current system that justifies such a drastic shift and more importantly what safeguards will be put in place to prevent the misuse of this new authority. Until these questions are answered I urge you to reconsider moving forward with this transition. As representatives of this city you have a duty to ensure all voices are heard not just those with political influence or financial power but the hardworking residents who make this city what it is. I respectfully ask you to slow down – if this change is truly necessary then prove it to us with facts.”

•David Getts, a resident of District 5 which he said “has been denied the honor of mayoral representation.” He said he was opposed to the proposal to transition to a charter city. He said it was not in the interest of residents especially those living in minority districts and questioned the lack of transparency by those pushing the change. He. Said it was a waste of financial resources and staff time. “Let’s allocate those limited resources on all the many projects around town that do need our attention and investment,” he said.

•Karen Loreda said she was surprised to see this on the agenda. “With so many other pressing issues in our city it hardly seems like the time to consider changing the city structure.” She pointed out that charter cities have higher costs such as legal costs giving the example of Huntington Beach; higher election costs with the mayor being elected separately. She said charter cities tend to consolidate power in the mayor’s office. “Do we really want a lifetime mayor?” She said a charter favors special interests and may alter bidding processes which can again result in legal challenges. She said becoming a charter city may make sense for a city with a large tax base but makes no sense for a city like Fullerton. She asked the council to not waste staff time on such a frivolous request.

•Former Mayor Molly McClanahan asked each councilmember considering supporting the proposal to “tell the public tonight what you want to accomplish that you cannot now do under a General Law city. The public deservers a response with specificity.”
“We now operate under a Council/City Manager form of government,” she said. “Envision an hour glass – at the top are the voters who elect their respective councilmember. The neck of the hour glass is the city manager who is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the city and oversees the department heads who in turn are responsible to the appointed city manager [and responsible for the staff of their departments].
“The city manager follows the policy directions that come from the council majority.
Under a General Law system a city has required elements in the General Plan – land use is most important – plus public safety. New elements can be added to reflect a city’s unique qualities such as Historic Preservation.
We also have a Library Board of Trustees that for decades has operated under CA General Law with greater independence. There are very important historic reasons for this.”
“Anytime a city’s charter needs amending it is required that the change be voted one by the public – that requirement adds a cumbersome aspect to the whole issue. One particular concern is that the city would no longer be required to follow the legal framework for how bids are awarded for contracts. This is a very important safeguard for competition.
A charter exploration is unwieldy and unnecessary. If these reasons don’t get your attention perhaps the costs estimated for going this route will – cost of an election, cost of an attorney, etc.
The motion sounds innocuous and simple. The policy statement “Fiscal and organizational stability” is vague – and provides no reasons or clarity of direction
The current organization as a whole General Law city has proven itself in “fiscal and organizational stability. For over 100 years and has served this city well. I recommend no action on this item.”
(Her microphone was cut off in mid sentence)

•Kaiko Suda, a District 2 resident and parent, said “What’s being proposed is a really big shift in the way our city is governed.” She said she had concerns that were brought up by previous speakers – 1) about intent and transparency – who put it on the agenda and why? 2) concerns about its purpose being to get around state laws including state sanctuary laws, affordable housing requirements. “It feels like an attempt to consolidate power of this body in a needless and inappropriate way,” she said. “I hope there will be a robust process to get the details of this proposal and feedback from the community – perhaps a dedicated public hearing.” She said she did not see in the presentation what the costs of the change would be and asked the council to slow down and make sure there are safeguards in place and a public input process.

•Juan Ha, a Fullerton College student with transfer plans to CSUF, said he wanted to echo the questions brought up by the rest of the speakers. “Why must we make this change at this time? – especially during the current political climate on a national scale.” He said both colleges are very diverse and “a lot of my friends seeing what’s happening out there – in attempts to infringe upon rights of students – are concerned. Some are afraid to attend classes – and I tell them Fullerton is a General Law city so at least we enjoy some protections. – but still they are afraid. We see what a lack of transparency can do to the minds and hearts of people especially on a national scale – so I ask you Why? What is the point of this? – especially right now.” He asked council to rethink and abandon this proposal to change to the charter city system.

•Vanessa Estrella, a trustee for the Fullerton School District, said, “I take my responsibility to our families, students and educators seriously.” She said “Our District recently passed a resolution reaffirming our commitment to Equity, Transparency and Inclusion – ensuring every student and family feels safe in the school district. We are working hard to support our families and programs that serve our diverse community. That’s why I am deeply concerned with the push for Fullerton to become a charter city. This change could shift power away from the people and into the hands of a few making it easier to weaken protections for families, alter the election process, change the sanctuary city status and reduce public oversight. I have seen how cities that have become charter cities struggle with transparency and accountability often at the expense of the very families we work to support. Here, for example, our current council majority is known for not listening to the majority of its constituents making this a significant issue for our Fullerton community. The school district is working everyday to uplift students and provide them with opportunities and we need a city government that does the same – One that listens to the people, protects public resources, and ensures that every family has a voice. We must ensure that the rights and interests of all residents here in Fullerton are protected.” She urged everyone to “stay informed on this issue and ask questions, demand transparency, and be part of the conversation because decisions like this – becoming a charter city – have longterm consequences for our schools, our families and our future.”

•Diane Vena said “I want to speak against becoming a charter city for lots of reasons – but first I want transparency. We used to know who put things on the agenda – we no longer do.” She reminded Mayor Jung that he had directed residents with comments to directly contact councilmembers before meetings – “but I don’t know who put this on the agenda – so could not do that,” she said. “Lack of transparency really leads to mistrust. I do not trust this process now,” she said pointing out there was no reason given as to why this item was put on the agenda. She objected to the cost of becoming a charter city and the added power that kind of system gives to a mayor, as well as ongoing costs related to elections that must be held before any changes are made in a charter system. “If this council rotated the mayor position as it is laid out in city policy – every district would have the power of a mayor every so often. It is not just a title – the mayor can put things on the agenda, controls the meetings, for example – putting public comments at the end” which she objected to saying people had come to make comments but were unlikely to stay to the end of a long meeting to do so. She asked council to drop the idea of becoming a charter city.

•Lauren Klatsker, a Fullerton Joint Union High School District Trustee, said though she was a very engaged resident she was just hearing about the proposed change now and was worried about all the residents who were not as engaged not hearing about this at all. She pointed out that becoming a charter city required a vote of the public and questioned council’s lack of transparency and its responsibility to educate residents on the consequences of changing to a charter system or remaining a general law city. “The public needs to be aware…and council members have an obligation to engage the public who put them in these chairs – and to the democratic processes that we teach our children – so they can make informed decisions about their city,” she said.

•Josh Ferguson said he was in favor of the change pointing out that several speakers had complained about what was happening under the general law system as reason to not switch to a charter city system – and that brining up democracy as a reason to not have more democracy didn’t make sense. “So if you can’t trust the five members of council and possibly an elected mayor to listen to the voters but we can expect 39 state senators who don’t represent our city and 79 state assembly members who don’t represent our city to care about what’s best for our city. No offense, but we have a Mayor Protem who likes to talk about her credentials all the time and one of them is MPP (Masters of Public Policy) which means, based on your credentials, your an expert in doing this very thing – so you should be in favor of decentralized control. A lot of people coupling about being a charter city are pointing to the idea that we would have less attonomy to follow state mandates and something about the federal government doing something bad so we have to follow what the state does? – Yeah that’s decentralization – if you don’t believe a local government should be able to push back against a bigger government then you should be against everything Gavin Newsom’s doing to push back against Trump because more power equals better – right? – like less decentralization – you should want localized control, localized power because if one of the councilmembers does something bad you can vote them out. If 39 senators and 79 assembly members vote against Fullerton we can’t do anything about those people at all. That’s less democracy – worse for the people. That’s less local control. The only reason people are against it is that they like what the state’s doing. If the state turned republican tomorrow everyone who was just complaining would be on the opposite side of the issue. California is so great at managing things that’s why they lost $24 billion on homelessness – that’s why we passed the bond to build reservoirs that we never built, that’s why we have a $100 billion high speed rail system that’s never going to be high speed rail. California is so good at caring about where our tax money goes. If we become a charter city we can throw people out when they don’t do what we want. Actually the argument about Councilman Zahra not being mayor – the city could vote on that – instead of a policy being violated under a general law city…” He recommended council vote to study the issue and select the option of “an elected committee to choose what the charter looks like as opposed to a council approved charter,” which would, he said, “put more democracy into the hands of the voters – because that seems to be what everyone is complaining about while trying to subvert democracy.”

•Todd Harrison said “What we are doing right now is the democracy. We are here now speaking on this to seek transparency and to have our opinion heard and to try to make our votes count. Let’s start with transparency – this popped up mysteriously on the agenda – We will get a little bit of transparency at the end when we see who votes to move ahead and who votes to receive and file. Who is lurking behind this sudden need to go through the very expensive process in both badly underfunded city funds and badly overworked city staff? What is the great emergency to do this now? It will take money from homeless, from street repair, from all the other desperate issues we have – all the cries of a budget shortage – and keeping good staff – and not overloading them. To bring up an old engineering term “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it” – particularly if the fix is vague, mysterious, and highly expensive.” He mentioned the problems occurring in several nearby charter cities: “Anaheim with all of the corruption issues – mayor, council, city manager – keeping the inner workings hidden from the public. For decades Disney and other businesses owned Anaheim made possible in great part because they were a charter city. Look at what’s been going on between Huntington Beach and the state with lawsuits, all the issues in Santa Ana. We don’t need to be a charter city – we don’t need to go down this road to make it easier for business to own the city council.”

•Curtis Gamble said he supported the item because he said he knew the council majority was going to vote for it and he wanted to be on the winning side. However he went on to list charter cities in Orange County including Anaheim, Buena Park, Irvine, Los Alamitos, Placentia, Santa Ana and Huntington Beach and said he didn’t see what was so great about any of them. He did note that Anaheim had updated its municipal code on homeless issues and he offered to help Fullerton do the same – since it is very out of date.

•Ruthie Hanchet , an FSD Trustee, said she wanted to raise a few questions on how changing to a charter city would affect families. From her research she found that “it looks like it allows a lot of power to the city and allows a lot of flexibility to the city to not follow state laws and regulations. According to a briefing by Berkeley Law many of the jurisdictions that have transitioned to charter city system are consumed by costly and time consuming lawsuits. My concern is whether we can afford to wait and see how this would change our city and how it would affect our families in Fullerton. Right now the presidential administration has changed a lot of things and it has brought a lot of fear to our communities. Despite their right to a free public education many of our kids are afraid to go to school. They are afraid that if they go they won’t see their family when they return. The best defense we have for this is our state laws which have created a sanctuary state for us. This prevents our local police from working with federal immigration enforcement. We at Fullerton School District are working really hard to make sure our kids know that schools are safe places and that in our community the police are here to protect them. We have had the Fullerton Police at our meetings to say that they are there to protect families, to make sure kids are protected from crimes. My concern is that if we change this and move to a charter city I am not sure that those legal protections of safety and defense afforded to us by the state will still be there. I want to make sure that when our Fullerton police made those promises to our community and our kids that they won’t be involved in enforcing federal immigration and that they are there to keep them safe that will continue to be the case here in Fullerton. I also want to raise the concern that this would have to go before voters at a cost to our city. We recently passed Measure N that cost our district over $150,000 to have Fullertonians vote on the ballot measure. It was worth it and we are grateful for the valuable funding for our schools – but anything like this [charter city change] would have aditional cost – so I encourage you to see what the cost might be to put this before the voters as well.”

•Zee, “This caught me off guard. I know who brought this forward – it’s the people who want to gain power and have since December city council meeting. Even though this idea of having more autonomy as a city and that we could vote somebody out – as witnessed in this last election money talks.” He said his District 4 Councilmember Jamie Valencia is not representing him at all. “And with $300,000 in the coffer I know who can run for mayor for the next ten years. You can persuade voters by running negative ads. As one of the wise previous speakers said earlier – file it and take no action. Good luck if you change to a charter it’s going to be a hell of a mess.”

• Anjali Tapadila, said she also opposed the proposal to investigate becoming a charter city. She agreed with previous speakers about the lack of transparency. “I’m going to take it a step further,” she said, “and lay out what I think is going on. The elephant in the room. I think the person who is able to set the agenda put this on the agenda. And it is the same person who has long opposed state mandates for various items…and I think that’s clear from the way this is proposed. Mr. Jung, I know that you’re going to be pushing back against a lot of the comments here – you’re probably thinking people are over-reacting – they’re having a knee-jerk reaction to something. But in their calls for transparency I urge you to take those to heart because it is something your constituents truly feel is necessary. I fear this will be passed and of course Mr. Jung will support it, Ms. Valenciia will support it because Mr. Jung supports it, Mr. Dunlap will fall in line and it will get passed. Then there will be a long drawn out process behind the scenes in which a committee will be formed. A campaign donor will be appointed to that committee to help investigate it. It will drag along over a long time until the voters forget about it but at least the city can claim it was examined by a committee. And then when everyone least expects it will show back up and be passed. Then we will have both more consolidated power and less transparency than we do now. Unfortunately, I don’t think the calls of constituents who have spoken here tonight won’t be heeded. But please, I beg you to prove me wrong.”

•Curt Johnston, said it was an interesting concept because he liked a lot of the cities that are charter cities like Huntington Beach and Newport Beach. “What we need is balance and what we have up in Sacramento is not balance,” he said. “I think it’s good for cities to have some way to fight back against the imbalance.” He said both sides have good ideas and blamed Sacramento for what he said was changes in voting procedures that take too long. “Used to be you just vote on the one night.” He said he would like the city to have more control and claimed incorrectly that “because the Housing Element has not been passed contractors have more control to do whatever they want.”

•Karemi, asked who put the item on the agenda and whether people could gather signatures on a petition to see if people agree with it. “What are the obligations of the councilmembers to tell residents about this?” she asked. “Are you required to have forums in every part of town?” She said she was representing the people in her community that couldn’t come to council because they are moms or working “but, if this continues,” she said “I will make sure everyone comes with their kids to make comments,” which could take a lot of time. She asked that the city lawyer answer if it is legal for a campaign donor (behind this push) to be appointed by the recipient of that contribution to the committee to investigate the issue. Speaking to all councilmembers she said “If you decide to go through with this I would appreciate it if you come to our community and explain why.” She also said she was concerned about what happened in Newport Beach.

Zoom Callers:

•Jack Dean, said he was for the proposal because it would give more flexibility especially for planning and zoning issues.

•Jose Trinidad Castenada said he had experience in operating in the charter city of Buena Park. “A charter city is a good move for Fullerton.” He said it was much faster to innovate and make changes in legislation, land use, tax revenue under the charter city system than in a general law city. He said good oversight was needed from a profoundly competent trusted council and a local paper of record for accountability. “You can undo some of the backwards segregation kind of laws that were previously implemented,” he said. “You have to put your bias aside.” He said people could vote on all the things they have been wanting for the town. “I agree with “Josh Ferguson, a rare time, that there should be a separate independent commission to draft a charter,” he said.

•Jose Taggle, listed benefits of charter cities to have more control to make land use, tax decisions without state interference and greater community involvement. Unfunded state mandates and strict environmental regulations put pressure on city budgets while public safety laws make it hard to manage crime. By becoming a charter city Fullerton could attract businesses, “take back control and make policies that work better for all of us.”

•Matt Leslie, “I think there are some very good reasons to adopt a charter but don’t know if it is the best thing to do for Fullerton.” He said he was generally in favor of exploring it further with the caveat that someone explain how the item appeared on the agenda without any introduction as it could be the most dramatic change in our local government since Fullerton’s founding. He said if it is adopted that he would like to see an independent group develop the charter and for them to hold public meetings in big rooms around town. One possible benefit of going to the charter system he said could be the ability to adopt ranked choice voting.

•Maureen Milton, “Everyone deserves to know who. brought this up and why and what is the opinion of each councilmember,” she said. She agreed with previous speakers that there should be public meetings to explain the pros and cons.

•Dominic, “This came out of left field,” he said he grew up in Palm Springs under a charter city system. He said he agreed with the idea of a mayor elected at large “since this council just likes to override the fair rotation policy and flat out disrespect the poor districts.” He said he wanted to hear the pros and cons of a charter city and agreed there should be public meetings. “We need more transparency.”

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

•Mayor Jung, “I asked that the item be put on the agenda. I am over the state’s over-reaching and demanding that local government do things at their beck and call. We need opportunities to push back when we don’t agree with the state RHNA (Regional housing Needs Assessment) numbers that are completely inflated and asinine and there is no way for us to push back. Going to a charter affords us the opportunity to give back local control to all of you. Fact is that people have this misinformation that a charter city is an elected mayor – you don’t have to do that to go to a charter city.” He asked City Clerk Williams, “We can have an elected mayor now without going to a charter city, right?” She answered, “I believe you can.” He gave examples of charter cities that have a rotation mayor system like Palm Springs and general law cities that have elected mayors like Garden Grove.

Going to a charter city system affords the public the opportunity to control what the city constitution looks like, he said. The charter city decision has to go before the general public in a general election – the voters have to decide. That is the benefit of a charter – that voters decide the fate of how the city is run. “And, indeed, if you don’t agree with three of us here – or four of us here. – you have the opportunity to vote on that,” he said. “We’re not going to be able to craft ordinances that define your life without your approval…So you don’t have a rogue council or rogue state” making decisions. “I didn’t vote for a representative of mine to spend $50 million on Trump-proofing the state – which is a ridiculous thing,” said Jung – “and yet that was done. And I don’t see anyone here calling into Sacramento complaining about that.” He said “if you want to talk about representative government charter city does that the quickest,” making sure the voice of the public is heard.

•Mayor Protem Charles, thanked mayor Jung for the clarity the public was asking for. She said there were “a few more questions brought up by the commenters that needed answers,” such as the implications of local taxes.

Attorney Scott Porter answered that the California Constitution requirements relating to taxes still apply under charter city systems with the exception that charter cities, with voter approval, can affect real estate transfer taxes (where under state law there is a maximum).

Charles asked “if charter cities are able to opt out of the sanctuary state law?” Attorney Porter answered that there are charter cities opting out of SB54 but whether they can or not is now going through the courts and has not yet been decided.

Charles asked about how the RHNA numbers and affordable housing requirements could be affected by changing to the charter city system. She said according to the news charter city Huntington Beach has not been successful at its attempts to remove those state requirements.
Attorney Porter answered “that is a matter for courts to decide. As a general rule housing laws are a matter of statewide concern rather than local control. So as a general rule charter cities can not get out of housing law,” though he said there are some exceptions. He said “there will always be litigation about charter cities.”

Charles said she was not aware of that this issue had been put on the agenda until Thursday before the meeting. She said looking. At the list of charter cities provided by the city clerk in the agenda backup (available online) she saw many cities that she has argued Fullerton should be more like such as Carlsbad and Culver City and others like Irvine which has been back and forward. She said she would not be opposed to staff giving more information about what this would cost. About the “Why now” question she said for her it was about “our $9 million budget deficit.” She said the Fiscal Sustainability Committee she proposed and council approved “is right now looking into the options of how to raise revenue for the city…and what I am seeing is that they might have more tools in their toolbox if we go to a charter… so I am willing to investigate.”

•Mayor Jung, asked the city manager to clarify what the cost was of putting the charter city question on the general election ballot, as is required.
CM Levitt said about $8,500 in addition to the general cost of the election.

•Councilmember Zahra, asked the city attorney about the timeline. City Attorney Jones did not know but City Clerk Williams said “if the charter city question goes on the 2026 ballot it would have to be approved by council in July or early August 2026.” He questioned the total amount the process of becoming a charter city would cost over the $8,500 to put the question on the ballot. “In addition to the $8,500 – we are going to be paying a bunch of lawyers – who would obviously love this,” he said. He questioned relying on the council to draw up a charter, “Do you really trust this council, whether you like me or like them?” He asked the audience. “And then – to hold a citywide election to elect people for a committee will cost also…and that’s not on the general election” he said. The people who win those five seats will be those backed by special interests not ordinary citizens willing to serve the public, he said pointing to the $120,000 he had to raise to compete with hundred thousand spent against him in special interest money in his city council race.

“They are going to tell you this is about local control – it’s not – the only local control is the special interests that want to control this council,” he said. Among implications of switching to a charter system include removing council term limits set by the voters, quorum rules for voting, little changes that prevent or discourage public participation, changing the state prevailing wage rules. “What does giving contracts to companies that don’t pay prevailing wage do to the quality of work in our city?” Changes in land use and zoning – who benefits from that? he asked – Developers who are buying properties and benefiting from a council that gives them whatever they want because the bidding is changed without state protective regulations. He pointed out that charter city “Huntington Beach is in lawsuit after lawsuit with the state over housing and they are losing.” The safety regulation mentioned was not forced by the state legislature it was a voter approved ballot measure – that is not going to change by becoming a charter city. “What this is about is land use and control of this council by a handful of people with money and influence,” he said.

“I have no political ambitions,” said Zahra, “I came here to serve the public because our district used to be awful – no one cared about anyone in south Fullerton.” He suggested “instead of bringing things like this better priorities would be fixing our roads – because 60% of our roads are still not fixed despite the promises to fix them. Let’s stop the BS. Let’s fix our roads, fix our parks, solve homelessness. This is a power grab nothing more and they are going to tell you whatever they think you want to hear.”

•Councilmember Dunlap’s incorrect claim that Zahra had voted against road repair multiple times met with correction from both Zahra and audience members while Councilmember Dunlap’s comment to Zahra – “Enough of the hysterics and dramatics,” and Councilmember Valencia’s comment to Zahra, “Nobody interrupted you. Your Academy Award will come one day,” was met with boos from the audience.
Dunlap continued saying that “a lot of people are very negative on the implications and have concerns about vague initial discussions and stuff. I think there are a lot of people who have no vision for our city. It is difficult for me, someone who watches what is going on in Sacramento – it’s hard to not want to insulate our community from that. All this is is moving forward to discuss and discover what could potentially be with our city going to a charter city. So from that standpoint I think going to a study session is really harmless – we can get all the feedback – all the questions answered. We can hear from the folks here tonight and also from folks who seem to be proponents of it…“

•Councilmember Valencia said as a newly elected official she was open to all the options to better help our city. “What’s working right now kinda seems a little like its not working, if you know what I mean, so maybe we need to look at other options and see what we can do to help our city on a broader spectrum,” she said. “I’m curious about why the school board is here saying no” and said she would like to have an open discussion to understand what they are worried about.

The Vote:

Mayor Jung, and Councilmembers Valencia and Dunlap voted to move forward with a study session. Counciilmember Zahra voted no. Mayor Protem Charles, though initially ok with a study session, changed her mind and voted no after turning to Councilmember Zahra and saying, “those were some very moving remarks.”

see video of this meeting at www.cityofullerton.com

Support our advertisers click an ad below.