It’s Baaaaaaack!


Jeez, lookit them prices. That was the good 'ol days!

Last night the Fullerton City Council voted 4-1 to settle its lawsuit with Chevron in a deal that essentially man-dates approval of the development plan for West Coyote Hills that includes 760 houses, and that was denied 3-2. Last year Shawn Nelson, Pam Keller, and Sharon Quirk-Silva voted no. With Nelson and Keller having moved on, only Quirk-Silva remained to opposed the settlement.

Widely misunderstood.

As always, share your thoughts in the comments thread.

Email This Post To A Friend Email This Post To A Friend

  1. #1 by HeeHaw on April 20, 2011

    It’s a man-date!

  2. #2 by Anonymous on April 20, 2011

    I support the Coyote Hills development, but I think mayor Dick Jones is a farking bully and an asshole, and he runs meetings like a goddamn tyrant.

    • #3 by F. Pantoja on April 21, 2011

      Ditto that. He is a bully and a farking a-hole.

  3. #4 by Anonymous on April 20, 2011

    Meanwhile our downtown is about to expand and our water bills are going up. But we get pretty new signs. Oh yippy skippy

  4. #5 by Hee-Haw on April 20, 2011

    JUST SHUT UP SHARRON. YOU AINT NOTHIN BUT A SCHOOL TEACHER. YOU CAN’T TALK BOUT THE DATE O THE NEXT MEETIN CAUSE I SAYS SO. GO POUND SAND LITTLE LADY.

  5. #6 by Simon on April 20, 2011

    At last the voters will may prevail. In the last Council election, the anti-West Coyote Hills candidates comprised of Levinson, Chaffee and LaTour all lost be significant margins. Pro-development candidates won. The small group of angry elitists in Sunny Hills should have studied civics, learned majority rule and the role of representative government.

    • #7 by Rat's Ass on April 21, 2011

      Chaffee did not lose by a “significant margin”. If you will recall, he was actually ahead at the end of election day, but lost in the eventual counting of absentee ballots. Majority rule may yet prevail.

  6. #8 by Rudy on April 20, 2011

    If the project is approved, maybe areas of the City, other than Sunny Hills, can benefit. It’s curious that the parks in Sunny Hills and north Fullerton always are better kept than in South and West Fullerton. Only the streets are equally bad throughout the City.

  7. #9 by PantheraLeo on April 20, 2011

    Interesting topics for community thought.

  8. #10 by PantheraLeo on April 20, 2011

    Hey, where can I get me some of the $3.47 gas!

  9. #11 by just a guy on April 20, 2011

    Game. Set. Match. Now the three geriatrics will approve Coyote Hills because they already agreed to do it in the settlement.

    Sorry, no-growthers. You’ll have to enjoy the generous helping of protected space that comes with the project approval.

    You can’t always get what you want.

    • #12 by Anonymous on April 20, 2011

      Why do you say 3? It was 4 to 1.

  10. #13 by Coyote on April 20, 2011

    But if you try sometimes you just might find you get what you need.

  11. #14 by Who Cares on April 20, 2011

    I’m not sure what sadder, that the ball less jackass’ on the city council would actually consider an ultimatum like this, or the clowns here who will willingly take it up the ass from Chevron and think it’s okay for Chevron to blackmail the city. I mean really, why bother voting or bother having a city council. Just turn the damn city over to Chevron and let them run it. Oh wait. I guess that happened in the last “election”.

  12. #15 by nipsey on April 21, 2011

    Ah yes the voters will. By voting for these feeble fools The Voters were saying loud and clear that Coyote Hills should be developed. How could it be construed any other way.

    The Voters must also have been mandating pensions gone wild, and water rate increases and rivers of piss downtown. How could it be construed any other way.

  13. #16 by nipsey on April 21, 2011

    Also, part of the settlement is that it is void if the citizenry should challenge it on the ballot via referendum, no?

    Funny that the City could bargain with something that’s not theirs to give away. Or maybe The Voters wanted that too.

  14. #17 by Dummy on April 21, 2011

    Could someone dumb this down for me? All i’m reading is mumbo jumbo. Blame Fullerton High school and the lack of money my parents had.
    So does this pretty much mean their gonna build on coyote hills?

    • #18 by Travis on April 21, 2011

      Jack Dean explained it pretty well:

      • #19 by Craig Slist on April 21, 2011

        Lot of empty seats. Was this meeting advertised?

        • #20 by just a guy on April 21, 2011

          It was the front page article in the Observer. Guess nobody reads it.

      • #21 by nipsey on April 21, 2011

        Oh yes, ol’ Papa Doc complimented Mr. Dean profusely so you know it has to be a good and sensible summary.

        I will admit to being ignorant of property rights, if by that you mean in the parallel universe where demanding a zone change from oil extraction to residential development — or more precisely, demanding to allow residential development on oil fields which you retain all future rights to extract from — constitutes a property right.

        Will Mr. Dean have my back when I buy the house next to his and build a motocross track there? Awesome.

        • #22 by Anonymous on April 21, 2011

          nipsey : Will Mr. Dean have my back when I buy the house next to his and build a motocross track there? Awesome.

          I would, if you can figure out how to keep your motocross noise off of my property.

          • #23 by nipsey on April 21, 2011

            Sorry, spillover effects are just a consequence of my property right of zone change so you’ll just have to suck it up.

          • #24 by Anonymous on April 21, 2011

            See nuisance laws.

  15. #25 by Joe Rhyolite on April 21, 2011

    HeeHaw’s been pulling this “we’re gonna get suuuuuuuuuuuued! Horse shit for 14 years. 35 grand? Hell that wouldn’t even pay for the fried chicken Jones eats in closed session.

    Chevron had no case. Zero. Let ‘em sue. This little puppet show allows the germs on the council to back into a deal they evidently don’t have to guts to approve outright.

    Once the entitlements are approved they can’t be retracted without a huge cost to the City. A referendum would end up costing the taxpayers millions.

    • #26 by Fullerton Rudy on April 21, 2011

      Joe, you’re being a little unfair. in order to approve the entitlements they first have to make the lawsuit go away, right?

      Still, I have to agree with your assessment of Jones. The guy started his career chickening out of a hollow lawsuit and it look like nothing has changed.

    • #27 by Johnny Donut on April 21, 2011

      He didn’t seem too concerned about getting sued when he voted for the illegal redevelopment expansion.

  16. #28 by No Surprise on April 21, 2011

    Let’s hear it for the Coyote (#13), well said, my friend! And Jack Dean presented the most articulate message, short and to the point. Thanks for posting, Travis. It’s time to Open Coyote Hills. Something for everyone, including those that have been in opposition. They too, will enjoy the open space, once it’s OPEN.

  17. #29 by No hope on April 21, 2011

    Again. No hope for our country. No majority voice is heard. Sad. In their defence the city agreed on this in 1977? They say. Where is Bruce on this?

    • #30 by Who Cares on April 21, 2011

      Bruce? Counting his money from Chevron.

      • #31 by SaltyDog on April 21, 2011

        The caliber of the responses here in general and this one in particular is stunning.

        Bruce is a very principled individual. To make such an accusation is, well, disgusting. Very similar to the ‘friends’. When all else fails throw unfounded accusations that play on emotion.

        Well done, ‘ who cares’. Your avatar does you justice!!!!! You demonstrate your ‘caring’ (or distinct lack thereof) for reasoned discussion very well.

        Just goes to show what my grandpappy taught me. He said “Son, just listen to people, they can’t help but tell you ‘who’ they are”.

        • #32 by Who Cares on April 21, 2011

          If Bruce is principled he will tell us how much money he has taken from Chevron and recuse himself from the vote from conflict of interest.. But guess what? Won’t happen will it. He has been humping this thing so hard from the planning commission days, other people are getting off over it.
          Frankly I don’t care if you are disgusted. You should be disgusted by what is going on. Chevron spent lots of money to get three people elected to this council and now they are coming to collect the bill, through blackmail. This goes way beyond if you are for a park or against it. A principled man would have voted no this particular issue.
          If you find this accusation unfounded, prove me wrong. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong and will apologize.

          • #33 by just a guy on April 21, 2011

            What’s it like on the funny farm?

          • #34 by SaltyDog on April 22, 2011

            Bruce has disclosed amounts AND that has been reported by numerous sources. It is illegal to do otherwise.

            Why is a recusal called for? Are you alleging that what he is doing is somehow illegal? If it were and or ethically challenged don’t you think the City Attorney would have said something?

            Was there a second shooter on the grassy knoll?

          • #35 by HOW MUCH IS TOO MUCH on April 22, 2011

            Who Cares, “If you find this accusation unfounded, prove me wrong. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong and will apologize.” That’s not something you hear (read) very often…..someone who’s willing to admit error.

            Are there rules (city ordinance) in place that dictate when a city councilperson “recusal” him/herself if they have accepted “too” much doe-ray-me?

          • #36 by The Gap Between Your Ears on April 22, 2011

            Who Cares has a gross misunderstanding of conflict of interest laws and campaign financing. All candidates took political donations from businesses and residents all over Fullerton. If they had to recuse themselves then none of them would ever be able to vote on anything.

            Conflict of interest laws deal with income, not campaign funding.

            Anyway, I think you have the cause and effect backwards. It’s likley that Chevron noticed that Whitaker supported Coyote Hills when he was on the Planning Commission and decided to give him a few bucks for his city council campaign a year later. You can’t buy a vote that’s already going your way.

  18. #37 by No Surprise on April 21, 2011

    If Joe Rhyolite were right, then the entitlements that were approved in 1977 wouldn’t have been retracted. Everyone wants to forget about what was previously approved (and for many more housing units!). The cost has not been to the City, but to Chevron. Regardless of what you think about Chevron, get the facts straight! This project was already approved in 1977 and the City renigged and found ways to weasel out of the agreement that they approved.

    • #38 by admin on April 21, 2011

      If that were true why did Chevron ever have to come back to the City Council?

      • #39 by The Gap Between Your Ears on April 22, 2011

        A contractual promise to change the zoning in the future would be a seperate action from the actual execution a zone change years later. I have no idea if that’s how it happened here, but I’m just sayin’.

  19. #42 by just a guy on April 21, 2011

    nipsey : I will admit to being ignorant of property rights, if by that you mean in the parallel universe where demanding a zone change from oil extraction to residential development — or more precisely, demanding to allow residential development on oil fields which you retain all future rights to extract from — constitutes a property right.

    Zone changes may not be a right in your eyes, but due process is a right. And the process works like this: Convince three out of five to change your zone, and it’s a done deal.

  20. #43 by nipsey on April 21, 2011

    Anonymous :
    See nuisance laws.

    Nuisance Shmuisance, those infringe on my god given right to do anything I please with my property and then do something else with it later if I want to, or maybe even both. Also, apparently I am only three Costco sized bottles of Geritol away from buying three votes on the council at which point anything goes.

  21. #44 by Barry Levinson on April 21, 2011

    I have a a great deal of respect and admiration for Jack Dean. I met him early on in my campaign for city council. And based on past conversations I have had with him, I know that I strongly agree with him on most issues facing this city. West Coyote Hills is one issue we definitely disagree on.

    I do not share his opinion on the merits of this lawsuit. In fact, the council hardly discussed the merits of the lawsuit, only its cost. If in fact this zoning change from oil and gas to residential or to describe it more accurately from oil and gas to oil and gas and residential was in fact contractually agreed upon by the city back in 1977, a majority vote by the council to approve of the zoning change would not have been necessary.

    If PCH had no objection when the city put this zoning change on the city council agenda for an up or down vote by the council early last year, how can they now claim that the council’s action of voting it down is cause for a lawsuit. Obviously, they had no legal argument with the process, they just did not like the result.

    Getting back to Mr. Dean’s comments last night, he stated that a vote for the settement would just put this back the same way as it was as of last May. I beg to differ for last May the city was not facing a lawsuit if and when it did not agree 100% to last year’s proposed agreement by June 2010.

    In fact right after the vote a representative for PCH asked the council if PCH could come back to the council right away with a modified development proposal. Now any changes to the deal will face a lawsuit. I am afraid this is not quite the same as last year’s positions.

    As Councilmember Quirk-Silva stated, PCH could have come back to the council 6 months after the May 25th 2010 vote and refiled for this project. They chose not to follow this lawful process as spelled out by the city.

    • #45 by just a guy on April 21, 2011

      Barry, I don’t think there’s a 1977 agreement that guarantees a zone change either, but none of that matters since 4 out of 5 council members WANT the project anyway.

      If PCH is forced to start over, it will cost EVERYONE more money AND Chevron will likely give up even less for the city since they’ve got almost the entire city council locked.

  22. #46 by compton on April 21, 2011

    its about damn time, thank god nelson and his job killing, NIMBY accomadating ways are over in Fullerton. The county better watch out.

  23. #47 by Hollis Dugan on April 21, 2011

    You tell ‘em compton. Soon all of Fullerton will no doubt see their fortunes change due to the immediate construction of all the homes slated for Chevron’s property. Good bye recession forever. compton has spoken.

    It has to be so. Otherwise, compton is just an idiot with a bizarre mancrush on Shawn Nelson.

  24. #48 by SaltyDog on April 22, 2011

    Barry Levinson :
    s
    I do not share his opinion on the merits of this lawsuit. In fact, the council hardly discussed the merits of the lawsuit, only its cost. .

    Consider how discussing the merits of a lawsuit (in realistic terms not calculated rhetoric) might influence settlement between the parties.

    There are specific Brown Act provisions for this sort of matter…………..

  25. #49 by 4SD Observer on April 23, 2011

    The losers here in loserville reveal their double standard.

    Whitaker’s is a principled individual whose contributions from Chevron have no bearing on his votes.

    Yet those not in favor of the loserville crowd were corrupted by union contributions from the local police and firefighters.

    The laughs never end at this place.

    • #50 by Joe Sipowicz on April 23, 2011

      If you actually took the time to read the comments you’ll criticism of Whitaker. See, here at FFFF (unlike you lefty mind-controllers) all comments are accepted. Even idiotic ones like yours.

    • #51 by Hollis Dugan on April 23, 2011

      I am willing to call a spade a spade. Help me 4sd. How much did the Fullerton police spend helping McKinley? As I understand it, and please correct me if I’m wrong, Whitaker received $1500 from Chevron. If the amounts are comparable, you have a good pint. If they are not I will wait for your mea culpa.

Comments are closed.