Union Pacific Trail Rendering
Union Pacific Trail Phase 2 entrance on the left, completed Phase 1 on the right.
As the Union Pacific Trail development moves forward, concerns from the community are increasing, particularly regarding adjacent properties owned by Bushala Brothers Inc. Allegations suggest that the company, a major local developer, may have ulterior motives concerning the land surrounding the proposed trail. This speculation is heightened by Bushala’s significant campaign contributions to Councilmembers Jung, Dunlap, and Valencia, raising fears of potential conflicts of interest, especially as the company publicly opposes the trail’s construction.
The proposed trail route runs alongside commercial properties on Walnut and Truslow Streets, including a 70,972-square-foot building leased by Bon Suisse at 392 W. Walnut, which borders South Richman and the upcoming trail. At the other end, the Elephant Packing House at 201 W. Truslow is also owned by the company. Other Bushala-owned properties (not a complete list) include: 110 E. Walnut, 112 E. Walnut, 210 E. Walnut, 310 E. Walnut, and 410 E. Walnut.
Efforts to clarify these concerns through media inquiries directed at Tony Bushala have gone unanswered, leaving community members unsettled about the motivations behind the opposition.
Highland entrance to Union Pacific Trail as of February 2025.
The City Manager has submitted a comprehensive report recommending the allocation of $330,000 from Park Dwelling Funds to complement $1.78 million in state funding for the Union Pacific Trail project, resulting in a total project budget of $2.11 million. As planning for the Union Pacific Trail continues, city officials disclosed that the initial construction costs are projected to range between $2.2 million and $2.5 million. KASA Construction, Inc. has submitted the lowest bid at $1,845,775.95; however, city staff have requested an additional $300,000 from Park Dwelling Funds to cover essential construction management expenses, bringing the revised budget to $2,475,775. This total includes all anticipated costs, such as contingencies and engineering services during construction. Importantly, the project will be financed entirely through Park Dwelling Funds and grants, ensuring no impact on the city’s General Fund.
As community members continue to voice concerns regarding the development, city officials are preparing to revisit the project’s future in the coming weeks. Following the city’s Priority Policy Statement regarding infrastructure and city assets, staff recommended awarding the construction contract for the Union Pacific Trail – Phase II Project to KASA Construction. The Fiscal Year 2024-25 Adopted Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget reflects $330,000 from Park Dwelling Funds and a $1,777,200 grant from the California Natural Resources Agency’s Urban Greening Program designated for this initiative. A proposed $300,000 budget transfer from Fund 39 aims to support the project’s needs, with any unspent funds reverting to the Park Dwelling fund balance at the project’s conclusion.
In 2020, the Parks and Recreation Department secured a $1.78 million grant to fund components of the Phase II project, including landscaping and the planting of 176 trees. The grant agreement was executed in May 2022.
The Union Pacific Trail project aims to establish a new public recreational trail on a former railroad spur, linking Independence Park to the existing Phase I segment at Highland Avenue. Planned improvements include a paved multi-use trail, a decomposed granite pedestrian path, landscaping and irrigation systems, solar lighting, fencing, and a trail crossing at Richman Avenue. This expansion is expected to connect the Fullerton Train Station and Transportation Center with Independence Park’s amenities, enhancing public accessibility to recreational spaces.
Following city council approval of an updated concept in January 2024, discussions around the project reinforced the importance of creating ten-foot-wide buffers for potential commercial developments along the trail. Throughout the design process, staff consulted with landscape architects and adhered to grant requirements while implementing value engineering to keep costs manageable. Initial cost estimates exceeded $4 million, prompting staff to simplify aspects of the design to align the figures with fiscal expectations. Following a competitive bidding process, KASA Construction’s bid was found to be approximately 23% lower than initial estimates, validating the city’s approach.
Construction is tentatively set to begin in late June 2025, with anticipated completion in October or November. As the project progresses, city officials remain committed to monitoring community feedback and addressing the development challenges associated with this significant infrastructure initiative.
The future of the trail returns to council at its Tuesday, May 20 meeting at 5:30pm at city hall where residents may attend and speak up in person, or call into the session or write letters to the council on the subject.
See City Council Meetings
The public can access meetings streamed live online by clicking the video link for the 5/20/25 City Council Meeting at
https://fullerton.legistar.com, or on Spectrum Cable Channel 3 and AT&T U-Verse Channel 99.
Read the Staff Report
Read the staff report on Item 16 in the 5/20/25 City Council agenda at https://fullerton.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx
Item 16. $1,845,775.95 CONTRACT WITH KASA CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR UNION
PACIFIC TRAIL PHASE II (Continued from May 6, 2025)
Proposed Motion:
1. Approve Union Pacific Trail – Phase II Project plans and specifications.
2. Approve $300,000 Park Dwelling Funds (Fund 39) budget transfer and appropriation
from available Fund Balance to Project 54271 Union Pacific Trail – Phase II Project
within the Capital Projects Fund (Fund 74).
3. Award $1,845,775.95 construction contract for Union Pacific Trail – Phase II Project to
KASA Construction, Inc. and authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute and
administer the contract, in a form approved by the City Attorney.
4. Authorize Public Works Director, or designee, to approve construction and
professional engineering construction support services change orders within the
approved project budget.
HOW TO VOICE YOUR OPINION REMOTELY
Call into the meeting: Zoom Meeting Details: http://www.zoom.us/join
Meeting ID: 160 256 5242 Telephone Option: 1-669-254-5252
EMAIL: The public can email City Council regarding agenda items by emailing
CouncilMembers@cityoffullerton.com with the subject line “CITY COUNCIL MEETING CORRESPONDENCE –
ITEM #16 MAY 20, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING UP TRAIL. All correspondence received becomes part of the official record of the meeting and posted online with the supplemental materials for that meeting. Contact the City Clerk’s Office at
cityclerksoffice@cityoffullerton.com or (714)-738-6350 with any questions.
Share this:
Discover more from Fullerton Observer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Community Voices, Local Business, Local Events, Local Government, Local News
This unsigned article above throws around the words “concerns,” “allegations,” and “speculations,” all within its opening paragraph, without once telling the reader who is concerned, who is making allegations, and who is speculating. I am reminded of Donald Trump’s familiar assertions that “people are saying…”
Although I think it is accurate to say that “concerns” have been raised from “the community,” it would be appropriate to specify where and by whom those concerns have been raised. I would cite public comments at council meetings or quote someone from the “community” raising those concerns. If these concerns are evident, these people should be easy to find. This article doesn’t seem to establish how and where these concerns have been increasing, however. I would like to see the allegation of an increased of concerns substantiated in some way, please.
In its opening paragraph the article also states that “Allegations suggest that the company, a major local developer, may have ulterior motives concerning the land surrounding the proposed trail.” Who is making these allegations? And who is this “major local developer?” If it is, in fact, Tony Bushala of Fullerton based Bushala Bros., I would like the Observer to establish that, in fact, that he is a developer. What properties has he “developed” that would show him to be a “major” developer on the scale of those responsible for, say, Amerige Heights, Amplifi, as well as other prominent high rise high density developments like the ones on Harbor near Costco or the student oriented one near CSUF. The “mixed use” apartments south of the tracks downtown? How about the huge commercial space on Raymond, the one that obliterated the last orange grove and denuded the property of pine trees? Was that the Bushala Bros.? (The answer is no, to all of the above). What have the Bushala Bros. actually developed that would justify the Observer calling them “major local developers?”
Bushala Bros Inc spent years buying up the homes south of the railroad tracks and getting entitlements before selling the land to Olson Brothers who built SOCO Walk Apartments across the tracks from the train station. That is a major development. Looks like the same thing may be happening around UP Trail where Bushala owns adjacent land – and opposes the trail but fails to explain why.
Selling land to someone makes them investors, not developers, or, if you like, perhaps would-be developers. Not developing anything doesn’t make one a developer, and misrepresenting someone as such in a story on an online news site and/or printed newspaper is dishonest and irresponsible.
People form opinions on issues based on what they read in the Observer, and if they are being served inaccurate information they cannot have informed opinions.
ED Response: A major part of development is obtaining land and entitlements which Bushala Bros did in the SOCO case.
I do agree with you that accurate information is absolutely essential.
A major part of being a painter is buying art supplies and setting them up to work, but if you don’t actually make a painting you wouldn’t be much of a painter, right?