.
.
.
This could almost be a sequel to my recent article about something very similar happening in the City of Orange. I’d been waiting for one of our Fullerton Fringer Friends to chime in about this. But there seems to be a division over at that blog – between those (like Tony) who value retaining the town’s few remaining wild open spaces, and those (like Chris Thompson and our brilliant webmaster Travis) who are religiously dedicated to unlimited private property rights.
To these latter I say: Give me a break. If the 20th century taught us anything, it’s that every ideology has its limits. Not allowing a multi-national, hell-of-polluting, Nigerian-slaughtering, multibillion-dollar corporation to develop your town’s last remaining wild space IS NOT THE SLIPPERY SLOPE to letting Curt Pringle pave over your front yard and run a train across it. Assuming neither of you guys are angling for a job flacking for Chevron, their interests are not the same as yours. Chevron’s bosses are not going to have to live in a town with no remaining wild open spaces, forever.
Okay, here’s an aerial photo of what we’re discussing. The smooth spot toward the left without any buildings all over it is West Coyote Hills, the last remaining natural open space for MILES around:
Brief Background
Oil’s been drilled from the Coyote Hills since the 1890’s – although extraction has long since ceased. At this point it’s estimated that there are 450 covered-up wells, although Chevron doesn’t know where nearly half of them are any more! So at some point recently somebody at Chevron looked at their balance sheets and noticed no profit was being made from this plot, and decided to get the remaining 510 acres zoned residential so they could, through their subsidiary “Pacific Homes,” build 760 homes on it. A few problems, noted by the Save West Coyote Hills folks:
- The 510-acre West Coyote Hills is one of North Orange County’s last remaining natural open spaces. It is a sensitive habitat to endangered and threatened animals.
- We need more parks, not more homes. Orange County is the second most dense county in the state of California, with North Orange County being even more dense than South.
- Chevron’s development proposal will add 9,300 more daily car-trips to our already congested streets.
- Building homes on hundreds of abandoned oil wells (some locations are not even exactly known) is just unsafe.
- The site is right on top of the Puente Hills Blind Thrust Fault, a known earthquake fault.
- Development will mean years of dust and pollution to the community.
- Once it’s gone, it’s gone forever!
When the Fullerton City Council first voted on the question in June of last year, they turned Chevron’s request down 3-2. Tea partier and then-Supervisorial candidate Shawn Nelson surprised many observers by siding with the two liberal environmentalists on Council, Pam Keller and Sharon Quirk-Silva, in rejecting the deal. Shawn’s stated reason for the vote was so convoluted (he claimed to feel Chevron was offering the city too many perks or something) that it left most of us puzzled; but still his “no” vote was so popular it probably helped him win his Supervisorial seat.
And Chevron’s reaction to this rejection was to sue the City of Fullerton for… ONE – MILLION – DOLLARS!
(Of course suing a city like Fullerton ain’t no thing for Chevron – remember, they are in the middle of trying to destroy the entire COUNTRY of ECUADOR, for Ecuador’s temerity in trying to make Chevron pay for some of the mind-boggling environmental damage they created sucking up oil from that country over the decades.)
So, under the threat of a million-dollar lawsuit, and with Shawn and Pam replaced by tea-partier Bruce Whitaker and garden-variety Repuglican Pat McKinley, the Council voted 4-1 on July 12 to give Chevron what they wanted, ignoring all Sharon Quirk-Silva’s ideas of compromises. Chevron has always resisted any compromises anyway, just like John Martin’s Ridgeline Properties in Orange; for over thirty years now they’ve stubbornly refused all public offers to purchase the property (back when we could have afforded it – some contend we still can.) This company really doesn’t deserve much deference or sympathy from the court or the public.
And so now, the People of Fullerton have had to step up.
And I wish you all the best of luck in your popular referendum to halt this development and save the land for our children and grandchildren. The rest of this post is taken from the excellent site http://sites.google.com/site/savewestcoyotehills/referendum:
A Primer on Our Referendum
This is an exciting opportunity for us to Save West Coyote Hills. To read more about the referendum process, please click here.
1. What is a referendum?
It is the submission of a proposed public measure or statute for a public vote. Referendum’s can result in a new law/ordinance. It can be used to recall elected officials and to overturn a decision made by a legislative body such as a city council.
2. What are you hoping to accomplish with this referendum?
The Fullerton City Council voted on July 12, 2011 to allow Chevron to develop 760 homes and a commercial area on the 510-acre West Coyote Hills open space. This was a complete reversal of the council’s denial of the same flawed development proposal about a year ago.
Since the Council voted this time under the shadow of a lawsuit by Chevron, and made the wrong decision for our community, we wish to call for a ballot measure so the public can vote on this issue.
3. What am I committing to by signing the petitions?
You are merely agreeing to allow Fullerton voters to decide for themselves whether the Chevron development is what the community needs. You are not voting on the ballot measure itself by signing the petition. There will be a future election for the actual ballot measure vote.
4. What do you have to do to qualify the referendum for a ballot measure?
We have to collect signatures from a minimum of 10% of registered Fullerton voters within 30 days of the City certifying the approval resolutions/ordinances of July 12, 2011. These signatures must be turned into the Fullerton City Clerk’s office within the 30 days to be counted. The signatures will then be verified by the Registrar of Voters’ office.
5. What exactly are you trying to referend?
The City approved 6 resolutions/ordinances on July 12. In order to put together a “bullet-proof” referendum and subsequent ballot measure, we have been advised by our very smart lawyers to submit 4 referendums. As a result, we are asking the public to sign 4 separate petitions. These are: 1) General Plan Amendment, 2) Specific Plan Amendment, 3) Zoning Change, and 4) the Development Agreement.
6. Can someone just sign 1 of the 4 petition?
Yes they can, but we would really like to ask supporters to remember to sign all 4 petitions. We need to come up with the required number of signatures for each petition (8,800 signatures each). Remember that we need to come up with “bullet-proof” ballot measures that will soundly overturn the City Council’s approval of Chevron’s development plan. To not do so jeopardizes our entire campaign. So please, please, please sign all 4 petitions and no more than once per petition.
7. At the 7/16/11 Referendum Kickoff, you only had 2 petitions for us to sign. Where are the other 2 petitions?
Administratively, the City must have two separate City Council readings of the “ordinance” approvals, so we have to wait until after 7/19/11 before we may begin to collect signatures for petitions #3- Zoning Change, and #4- Development Agreement. The 30-day clock on these petitions began on 7/20/11.
Just to reiterate, we are circulating a total of four petitions for our referendum drive. That’s because we want to “bullet-proof” the results. The July 12 Fullerton City Council approval of Chevron’s development plan included six resolutions and ordinances. We are aiming to overturn the four most important of those:
|
Updates to the City’s land use policies and concepts considering the Chevron development plan. Note this includes impacts to policies/information about traffic, open space, bikeway and trail maps. |
|
Detailed information about the development; implements the concept in the General Plan. |
|
Change from Oil and Gas to Specific Plan District (which includes Residential zoning). |
|
List of perks Chevron will give City for allowing them to develop West Coyote Hills. |
Unfortunately these petitions were not available at the same time due to the City certifying the resolutions/ordinances at about a week apart. Petitions #1 and 2 were certified last week (7/13/11), and petitions #3 and 4 this week (7/20/11). This means the signature deadlines for them are also different (see countdown clock to the left).
This is a package deal, so please remember to sign all four petitions. To sign any of the petitions, drop by during our daily office hours.
8. Who can sign the petition?
Only registered voters of Fullerton (with a current Fullerton address) may sign the petition. If someone is not a registered Fullerton voter, but qualifies to be (US Citizen over 18 years old, legal resident of Fullerton, California), you may have them complete a voter registration card and then sign the petition. Please hang on to the voter registration card to turn into the petition organizer to mail. Do not make any notes or marks of any kind on the petition itself.
9. Who can circulate the petition?
A registered California voter or someone who is qualified to be a California voter (US Citizen over 18 years old, resident of California)
10. Where and when can I go to sign the petitions?
Look for us around shopping centers and events, but if you don’t find us there, you can find us at one of the below locations and times. We’d love it if you dropped by. [UPDATE – Click here to find a calendar of what days the petition takers will be at certain locations around Fullerton, or go by their offices
Please check our website regularly for our updated office hours and locations. If you have questions, please call (714) 870-9777 or email information@coyotehills.org. Please see this page for our office location/schedules.
Please turn in your petition books as soon as you have completed gathering signatures. If you have not completed the entire sheet of signatures, but will not be able to work on them anymore, it’s OK to turn them in without the complete 50 or 100 signatures. We are more interested in turning in what we have by the deadline, and whatever you have is better than nothing. Do not share your petition with anyone else to gather signatures. Only one person may circulate a petition.
Garden-variety Repuglican.
Too funny. Too true. But repuglican ain’t capitalized.
This is just too funny, but I couldn’t figure out a way to work it into the story. But I don’t want it to disappear into the mists of history. It is Fullerton gallery owner Jesse LaTour’s description of a contentious Council meeting shortly before the June 2010 vote, and passed along by Gustavo:
Went to a Fullerton City Council meeting last night (May 11), to decide the fate of Coyote Hills, one of the last large open spaces left in North Orange County, not yet covered with tract homes and shopping centers. The massive Chevron Corporation wants to develop the land. There were dozens of Fullerton residents standing outside with signs and buttons that said, “Save Coyote Hills.”
I sat through that four hour meeting, which was half full of residents who actually live in Fullerton, mainly against the development. The other half was paid Chevron cronies, scientists and “experts” meant to give reasons why it would be in the community’s best interest to have another sprawling housing development: a geologist, a wildlife specialist, a non-profit conservation group, an architect from UCI–scientists and scholars who have whored themselves out to this major corporation that doesn’t give two shits about the community they will damage.
I sat next to one of these cronies, who I swear to God looked EXACTLY like James Lipton, host of “Inside the Actor’s Studio.” I thought for a moment, did Chevron hire James Lipton? Maybe he could coach the other cronies on acting techniques. Like, how to fake sincerity and integrity.
Number of Chevron cronies with goatees: 5
And then the Fullerton City Council. Richard “Dick” Jones looks and sounds like Boss Hog from “The Dukes of Hazard.” He even has this wheezy, high-pitched voice that is almost endearing. He makes several jokes that are not really jokes, and laughs at them.
Don Bankhead, our illustrious mayor, looked like he was falling asleep. He accidentally adjourned the meeting halfway though. A City Planner had to respectfully tell the mayor that the meeting was not finished. Don looked frustrated.
Don Bankhead looks and sounds, and kind of behaves, like the villain from Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey. Enough said.
The only voices of reason on the Council were the two women: Sharon Quirk-Silva and Pam Keller, who asked the developers real, relevant questions.
Interestingly enough, the best questions were asked by the public, citiing pollution and water use problems that would result from the development project, and pointing out the fact that the proposed plan includes NO affordable housing. It’s all high-priced. Really high priced.
The attitude of the Main Chevron Cronie changed from “false sincerity” to “smart-ass” as the evening wore on. He seemed put off that he had to actually answer questions from the community.
After the meeting, I asked Council Member Shawn Nelson about his campaign contributions. I pointed out that development and construction companies donated thousands of dollars to his last campaign (I got copies of his campaign finance reports from the City Clerk). I asked him if this will influence his decision on this issue. He says, “No. It will not.”
We’ll see, Shawn…
[Click on the link anyway, for all the comments…]
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2010/05/hibbleton_gallery_owner_on_coy.php
So Tony, are you you in favor or opposed to the Chevron development? Are you in favor of allowing a company to to develop its private property? Or are you with the NIMBYs who want a public park on the dime of a private property owner?
You’ve been awfully quiet on this issue.
While we wait for Tony to notice / respond to your baiting, let me ask you:
Do you private property absolutists favor abolishing all zoning powers of the public and our elected representatives? Is that what you would like? Is zoning itself an abomination?
And is your
religionideology so strong that you need to go to the mat for the property rights of the world’s 9th richest corporation ($204 Billion revenue) that has destroyed countries across the globe in their quest for more … the same way you or I would defend a beloved Mom-and-Pop store or cultural landmark?Let’s just give LaHabra, Brea, Buena Park and Fullerton to LA County and be done with them. This would help cleanse Orange County of old, decadent and otherwise unsightly urban sprawl and blight and give us less that we would have to put up with, though we would still be stuck with Garden Grove and Santa Ana..
NO!! I like most of those towns. Especially Fullerton.
Suppose the petition drive succeeds and the vote goes against Chevron. That doesn’t prevent Chevron from going before the Council again, does it? So the referendum is a stalling tactic. Perhaps a necessary tactic, but certainly not a solution.
My gripe in this whole affair is that from the beginning of the rezoning effort the only thing anyone has been able to vote on is whether they approve Chevron’s plan. Friends of Coyote Hills say they want a park, but a park has never been up for vote.
I also find it disturbing that no housing advocates have argued for low-to-middle income housing. Lucy Dunn says Orange County has so little affordable housing that young people will move elsewhere, making it harder to hire. I was told by someone at Fullerton High that the school already has that problem when recruiting. A decision about this much land in the middle of the city should involve more than saying yes or no to Chevron.
Cindy, this is private property. While Chevron has no RIGHT to develop unless approved by the City Council (unless the referendum succeeds), they certainly will NEVER have the obligation to use their property as a park or anything else. If someone were to suggest turning your house into a park, you would howl to the moon.
The city has the legal right to rezone the land however it wishes. You may not think it should, but that’s another issue. Yes, I’d be upset if the city rezoned the land on which my house sits, but a closer parallel to the issue we’re discussing would be me moving to a nice house somewhere else and then requesting a zoning change so I could open a board-and-care in my old house. If the neighbors object, then what? (I don’t think that’s a very close comparison, but it’s not as far off as your scenario.)
It is toxic private property. A recorded grant deed for former oil field property in Huntington Beach sold by Pacific Coast Homes/Chevron Land & Development Company contains a final paragraph as follows: “Grantee acknowledges that the real property has been used by former owners for oil field production operations and/or as oil storage tank farm for the storage of crude oil and petroleum products; that residual contamination is commonly found on properties that have been in such use; and that these residual substances include chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.”
A notation on this deed indicates it also apples to Fullerton West Coyote Hills.
Question: does the city knowing this risk become liable for the harm to the future residents if the council approves this land for residential purposes? This says, “known to cause cancer,” not “maybe.”
Hey Vern, why don’t you organize an effort to buy the land for a park?
By my estimate it would only cost around $4,000 per Fullerton family to purchase the land. Insurance and upkeep might cost a little more.
Who’s in?
From what I’ve heard, Chevron has refused to sell it for the last thirty years, even where there were options to do so. The best we can do right now is this referendum to stop the new housing.
I was also reading that the OCTA along with some other agencies might be able to afford it if they wanted to sell, but I’m not sure if that’s true or not.
have you looked at opencoyotehills.com for fact based information or are you simply regurgitating (it looks awful familiar) from the ‘Friends of Coyote hills’? It appears to be the later.
I love it when folks think they’re experts in landuse law.
I’ll check out your site. Always glad to have some new facts, if I can verify them, or correct my old mistakes. And I never said I was an expert in landuse law.
But I’ll come at any new facts with my own set of biases – namely, the desire to save Orange County’s remaining open spaces by any means necessary, and a lack of sympathy toward the interests of a rapacious multinational like Chevron.
Thanks for taking a look to see what the Open Coyote Hills are saying!
are the new houses going to be on leasehold land, or are they going to sell it?
Are they going to sell the new houses or sit on them for another 39 years?
A quick look at the approvals indicate that they are selling the land to the individual homeowners
The amount of time that they have to develop is determined by the development agreement (which I have not seen) and can allow them up to 20 years to develop.
… and they retain the mineral rights. That means that should they wish, they can do slant drilling. Sort of like having your cake and eating it too.
I don’t necessarily oppose Chevron’s plan, I just wish that a decision of such weight and public concern were being made in a way that gives serious consideration to alternatives. Instead, even in the face of considerable public opposition, we have continued thumbs up-thumbs down votes on Chevron’s proposal, take it or leave it. This doesn’t seem to me like a sensible way to do city planning.
I have an idea. Propose the hills be leveled to create an international aiport. This will create a local firestorm of oppostion and the antidote can be to propose a great park – thus partially satisfying the claim by the older cities in the county that they do not have their fair share of park land. The Fullerton Great Park! How to pay for it is the next nut to crack – maybe Fullerton could hire a world renowned consultant to help with that – someone like Larry Agran! First, let’s talk airport – is Cynthia Coad still around?
*Let’s see now….you lease land to oil companies for 100 years. They get the oil,
the city gets a mess to clean up. They let weeds grow, stop drilling and then call the land an unimproved park. Developers come in…ask that the oil companies limit the number of pumpers and take the rest of the land for commercial and residential mixed up property. They throw in a few roads…..rip the city off for almost cost free land and then take the oil depletion allowance for the next 100 years. Ain’t local government great. Those that vote for the proposal all get campaign re-election funds for the next two terms….no problem!
Aw…come on now folks….this is just plain old fashioned politics isn’t it?
I didn’t notice that Travis or Chris Thompson said anything about private property rights when the city in closed session April 19 authorized a receivership on the private property in the 100 block of west Malvern in Fullerton. The city can redevelop this place, a home and several rental units, in any way they want and charge the owner the cost.
You may read the details in an article I wrote, published on the good guys westcoyotehills.org blog as Property rights.
Judy, I remember reading your article, but it conflated two complex and largely unrelated issues: Coyote Hills and code enforcement issue on a residential property near downtown.
In other words, you lost me.
Can you explain what happened to the property?