Yesterday we ran a post on the duplicitous way the City started the ball rolling behind closed doors on a big housing project that promises CEQA impacts on its neighbors. In fact decisions are already being taken that should have been done under the illumination of a public hearing.
The project even has a name, “Euclid Commons” that makes us wish to make a quick pit stop at the West Harbor Alley Improvement Project vomitorium. A couple of comments provided descriptions of what was being proposed that seemed to differ considerably and so we provide la tabula rasa for our Friends to chime in and see if any clarifications are forthcoming.
The issue of starting negotiations is being addressed tonight (Aug 4th) behind closed doors since the public can’t be trusted to even know that a project is now officially (if secretly) sanctioned by the City Council. There will be “reporting out” but no public comment. Really, what have they got to hide?
Here’s an item on tomorrow’s agenda to be addressed by the City Council behind closed doors:
2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Property: 626 & 700 S. Euclid Street
Agency Negotiator: Rob Zur Schmiede
Negotiating Parties: Paul Kott, Pierre J. Nicolas Trust
Under Negotiations: Price and terms
This is a big deal. Where's the public hearing?
Let’s get this straight. The Redevelopment staff (aka Rob Zur Schmiede) is asking for council permission to begin negotiations for a huge piece of property off Euclid, presumably to build low income housing. He’s trying to do it behind closed doors under the cover of the “closed session” where he can get the ball rolling on a project that has NEVER been authorized by anybody. The key phrase here is “price and terms” which justifies the secrecy but that in reality is being used as a fig leaf to hide the fact that the council is giving tacit approval to a project that has never been offically authorized by them, in public – even in concept. In fact the very nature of the request is the first in what will be a long series of incremental approvals. In fact, this process is called incrementalization for that very reason.
Well, WE object to these shennanigans even though it happens all the time. Authorization to negotiate price and terms is premature, and at this juncture issues that are not covered by under Brown Act exclusions are already occuring. What is involved is a secret commencement of the process that will lead to land use entitlements and rezoning. This is wrong, wrong wrong. This is obviously going to be a major project with major policy and CEQA implications.
The City Council should agendize this issue for a public hearing immediately with proper notification to all the neighbors. If they choose to go ahead with this (likely monstrosity), THEN they can schedule their “price and terms” meeting in the cozy confines of the backroom!
Former Mayor Clesceri does a walk & talk at a Chamber of Commerce/State of City Luncheon, of course sponsored by the City of Fullerton
What associations and organizations does the City of Fullerton support financially that should be cut before cutting a librarian, a police officer or a life guard? How much money does the city spend every year on contracts with lobbyists?
Hopefully, saying “yes” to something means you understand what you are saying yes to. How many times have we said “yes” when we really have no idea what the results of that “yes” really meant? Hopefully not many.
How many times has our city council said “yes” when they really had no idea what they were saying “yes” to.
Fullerton or Toontown?
When is “No” better than “Yes”? Always, when you don’t know what you are talking about.
How to kill a Fox
When is it too late to be smart? Never.
Remember, it’s never too late to be smart. Just say “no” when you are not 100% sure about the results of what you are saying “yes” to.
Urban Futures has no idea about Fullerton's Future
Voting “yes” may comfort insecure or uninformed politicians, but it inevitably leads to disaster.
While watching the youtube clip of David Espinosa tee off on the Union Pacific Park and the comment by City Manager Chris Meyer that the park was being shut down, we got to thinking. The Mayor was clearly not told by anybody that the park was being closed down – observe the standard “we’ll fix it, thanks, move along” comment by Bankhead followed by Meyer’s explanation.
Meyer went on to say that the problem of what to do with this “park” was being passed to the Community Services Commission for ponderment.
And we say: who in Hell gave Chris Meyer the authority to shut down a public park? Why wasn’t the Council asked to make this decision and how come they were never even told about it before the apparent revelation at the council meeting? Who gave Meyer the authority to assign this problem to anybody, let alone a lower committee without even informing the Council of his plans? Why wasn’t this issue agendized and discussed, in public, by the City Council?
These are mostly rhetorical questions, of course. The City’s staff wants to sweep this acute embarrassment under the municipal rug and the only way to do that is not to tell anybody. Even their bosses.
It also makes us wonder how much else in Fullerton has being undertaken by the City Manager on his own hook. It’s one thing to execute policy laid down by elected officials; it’s quite another thing to start taking on major policy decisions, and worse still, not tell anybody. Unfortunately this situation is symptomatic of two long-standing problems in Fullerton, two problems that fit together like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle.
First is the perfect willingness of our elected city council persons to abdicate their own policy-making responsibility and simply show up for the meetings, the Rotary lunches, the Chamber mixers, and the ribbon cuttings; second is the perfect willingness of the city managers to step into the authority void and run the show any damn way they please. It’s a perverse symbiosis.
This has got to stop. The results have been amply catalogued on the pages of this blog. And they aren’t very pretty.
If you don't like our sound you don't have to listen
On Tuesday night, July 7, 2009 the Fullerton City Council finally concluded the issue of Live Outdoor Amplified Noise. With a 4-1 vote (Pam Keller in opposition for some reason), council members decided that our current sound ordinance will suffice, moving forward into the future. Currently, acoustic music is allowed outside and louder live amplified music is not. Jones, Bankhead, Quirk and Nelson all voting that the outdoor use of acoustical instrumentation (without amplification) is A-OK, but the use of louder live amplified noise on downtown private patios on a regular basis is not the best thing for Downtown Fullerton.
It was stated in the sound study that was produced for the city at a cost of $16K that it is very unusual for cities to allow loud live amplified music outdoors on a regular basis. This obviously doesn’t include special events which are permitted under the current city code. It’s so unheard of that only 3 cities in the whole country where cited as allowing some kind of routine outdoor noise, 2 of them out-of-state. The vast majority of cities allow acoustic (non-amplified) music outdoors while the loud music belongs inside. What a great idea!
We do our best work indoors...
Cheers for the Council for making a wise decision and preserving the peace in Downtown!
Cheers for the Council for having the foresight to see that over the long run this will encourage positive development in the downtown and promote a healthy business climate for all types of diverse shops and residential dwellings to thrive in downtown.
If you think about it, some types of music just aren’t conducive to being peace and quiet, yet others are. So by sticking with the current ordinance, acoustic music like folk, jazz and blues are encouraged outside while the louder harder stuff is only allowed indoors.
Residents witnessed another rousing victory for FFFF last night as Councilwoman Sharon Quirk wisely reversed direction on Fullerton’s famous $6 million dollar burger deal that would give away a brand new McDonald’s restaurant at taxpayers’ expense. Pam Keller sensed the inevitable failure of this project and also changed course, sending this turkey down in a 4-1 vote. Nelson and Jones had it right from the beginning, but Bankhead rode this one all the way to the grave.
No thanks, we're not hungry anymore
Now that the taxpayer-funded McDonald’s move is dead, there isn’t much hope for the massive Fox Block redevelopment scheme – and that’s fine by us. The Fox Block had little to do with the popular restoration of the historic Fox Theatre and there was plenty of doubt the that the block would be financially viable even with millions in taxpayer subsidies. Throw in a little public deception about the height of the buildings, and it’s clear that this project needed to be flushed.
Even if you don’t approve of our approach here at FFFF, it’s hard to deny positive results. It’s good to see our representatives fix bad decisions and move forward. We know it’s tough to admit when you are wrong, but that’s part of responsible governance. Thank you, Quirk and Keller, for doing the right thing.
After years of passionate debate, the development of West Coyote Hills seems to be moving forward. If all goes according to plan, a series of public hearings before various commissions will lead up to a final approval by City Council in October.
Nearly a decade of intense activism has paid off, and the group Friends of Coyote Hills has forced some serious compromises from the development plans of Pacific Coast Homes (a subsidiary of Chevron). The plan has been reduced to 760 homes with 352 acres set aside as “open space,” including the 72-acre Robert E. Ward Nature Preserve on the east end.
Where does "The Preserve" end and the "Robert E Ward Nature Preserve" begin? What's the difference?
The Friends of Coyote Hills still aren’t happy, but it is doubtful that they will be able to accomplish their ultimate goal – using the heavy hand of government to devalue the property and then spending tax dollars to buy the entire 510 acres and set it aside as a park and preserve. A lack of funds and the commercial wheels of progress have run over that idea, whether it was righteous or not.
Of course, any group of concerned citizens would be wise to pore over every last detail in the volumes of documents submitted for this project. History shows that city staff, commissioners and council are incapable of conducting enough forward-looking due diligence on their own, especially on a project of this scale. Any and every question should be brought up to the relevant commissions. Ambiguous answers should not be accepted from anyone. Decision-makers must be held accountable for ensuring that expensive surprises do not hit taxpayer wallets down the road.
There is an informational meeting on the Coyote Hills project at 7:00 pm on July 8th at the Senior Center. Anyone who is interested should attend.
Dear Friends, a few weeks back Friends for Fullerton’s Future filed an appeal of the appalling decision by the Fullerton Planning Commission to grant a bogus “special event” permit to Roscoe’s in order to legitimize the ongoing violation of the City ordinance regarding outdoor live amplified music in the C-3 Zone. The appeal was based on the fact that playing live amplified music outdoors is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons visiting, residing or working in the neighborhood and is injurious to property or improvements in the area.
We are pleased to inform you that as a result of our appeal, Roscoe’s has withdrawn their application, therefore no public hearing on Roscoe’s appeal will be necessary.
Fullerton has terminated a dubious partnership with failing red light camera vendor Nestor Traffic Systems after the contract for operation of the cameras was declared to be illegal by an appeals court last year. It’s a long story, but stick with us as we tell this tale of inept vendor selection and blatant disregard for the law in Fullerton…
The end of an error
A long time ago, Fullerton signed a contract with Nestor Traffic Systems to provide red-light cameras throughout the city in an attempt to increase ticket revenue and reduce accidents at popular intersections. At the time, the contract included a clause that allowed the city’s payment to be negotiated down if ticket issuance was lower than expected.
Just about anyone could see that the vendor now had a financial incentive to keep the number of tickets high — that’s a problem. At the time, case law had already dictated that vendors could not benefit from the number of red light tickets issued. Eventually these rulings would become codified into state law.
When the city inquired about how this new California law might affect the contract, the vendor essentially said “Don’t worry, we’ll change it if we get caught.” Sound familiar? That’s how it goes in Fullerton. So our representatives carelessly signed on the dotted line and the police department kept giving out red light tickets illegally.
It didn’t take long for one angry citizen to file a lawsuit, and in 2008 an appellate court ruled that the tickets were being given out unlawfully. Issuance of red light tickets immediately stopped.
After the city lost the appeal, a whirlwind of suspicious events transpired:
Failure to Appear – The city of Fullerton didn’t even know that they had lost the appeal until the Register called them for the story. It turns out that the city never showed up for the appeal. The city’s crack legal team at Jones and Meyers attempted to have the original ruling overturned by filing a 26-page Writ of Mandate in May. The request claims that the Fullerton PD was never serviced with a notice of an appeal, even though the court docket says otherwise. The PD’s request was denied, and that’s the last we’ve heard of the case.
The Right to Remain Silent – For the council meeting on 2/3/09, the city staff put together an amendment of the Nestor contract to end the city’s lawbreaking ways, as other cities had already done. But when the item came up for discussion, city manager Chris Meyer mysteriously got cold feet and proposed that the item be moved forward “to a date uncertain”. The council instantaneously and unanimously agreed to put this item off without further questioning. In fact, the council moved so quickly that a gentleman named Dr. Arnold Vagts had to demand his right to speak on the issue later that evening. Why were they so quick to sweep this item under the rug? It turns out that Dr. Vagts had sent a series of emails earlier in the day threatening a class action lawsuit against the city, demanding that the city return all illegal ticket revenues to the victims. If not, the city risks “millions of dollars in lawsuits”, according to Vagts.
Last week our Friend at HighwayRobbery.net made a records request to find out how much the city had spent on legal fees to fight this lost case. In a written reply to a direct question, Sgt. Steve Williams said “No legal council (sic) was retained to prosecute the case by the Fullerton police department.” We believe this to be either a blatant misdirection or perhaps an outright lie, since the city’s contract attorney did write the aforementioned 26-page writ for the case. Lawyers don’t work for free.
How much is this legal wrangling costing us? Why is the city spending time and money to fight a lost court case? We suspect that the legal liabilities and risk of expensive lawsuits are piling up while the city tries to keep this issue quiet.
To top it all off, a successful class-action lawsuit against the city would probably leave taxpayers holding the bill for years of red light revenue, as it is unlikely that the city will be able to turn around and sue Nestor for their part in this tragedy. The company has severe financial problems, including a recent descent into receivership and failure to pay subcontractors for the installation of additional cameras in Fullerton.
When we lose a class action lawsuit, who will pay? Will anyone admit error and appologize for wasting our time and money? Stay tuned as more scandelous details come to light.
