Category Archives: Housing

Property Rights

The following is a guest post by Judith Kaluzny, a divorce lawyer and mediator in Fullerton.

Private property rights, like free speech rights, have limitations. Some Fullertonians are bleating about the alleged rights of a very prosperous multinational corporation to a zoning change to permit residential dwellings for affluent people upon a hazardous land area.

Meantime, the city is at work to remove private property rights from Larry Klees, the owner of a small downtown residential property where he provides low income housing for six people. April 19 the city council in a closed session authorized the law firm of Jones & Mayer to take whatever action is necessary to place the property at 138 West Malvern Avenue into receivership.

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.”

Fine print on the pages of the deed seem to indicate that it also applies to other Chevron property including West Coyote Hills.

In addition, the Coyote Hills map in the EIR geology section shows two landslide zones where houses are to be built, actually the densest–attached–housing is in one of these. Also a liquifaction zone is there. The soils are the same friable soils that are across Euclid from CH, where the path is permanently closed and the hillside is eroding away. As also in La Habra, same soil structure, and severe erosion on properties there. It is also the bull’s eye of the Puente Hills Blind Thrust Fault which, if there is a moderately severe quake, is project by the USGS to be the worst economic disaster in the history of the USA. See USGS comments on the 2006 EIR.

The Klees property is not attractive in appearance. Described by one person, “I think its a unique property that is truly so evocative it could be used for film locations. It appears to be some type of worker or bracero housing and the property runs down to the barranca.

And there is a complaint by a “citizen” October 12, 2010, to code enforcement but the lines for investigative notes are entirely blank. The allegations relate to interior conditions in one unit not specified. But Klees had no notice that the city wanted to take over his private property and redevelop it at his expense.

Klees said one of his cottage rental units had been severely damaged by a tenant he was evicting six months ago. The tenant attacked him; he called the police November 3, 2010. Klees believes it was this disgruntled tenant who made the latest complaint to code enforcement, now known as community preservation.

But the Klees property will give no one cancer or birth defects nor slide down a hill. But he does not get the respect for private property that it seems some people think the city owes Chevron.

Question: does the city knowing these risks on the Chevron property become liable for the harm to the future residents if the council approves this land for residential purposes?

———-

Editor’s note: If you’re interested in writing a guest post on the proposed development of West Coyote Hills or on any other topic that would be of interest to residents in and near the hills, email me at CindyCotter@gmail.com

Advertisements

7 Comments

Filed under development, Housing, Uncategorized, West Coyote Hills

West Coyote Hills Hearing Postponed

5/11/2011
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE PRESS RELEASE #09511
Subject : West Coyote Hills public hearing postponed
Contact : Joan Wolff, Planning Consultant, Community Development Department    (714) 738-6837
Sylvia Palmer Mudrick, Public Information Coordinator, Fullerton City Manager’s Office    (714) 738-6317

The planned Tuesday, May 17, public hearing before the Fullerton City Council on the proposed West Coyote Hills project is being postponed until July.

The new date for the hearing will be Tuesday, July 12.  The meeting will be held at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber of Fullerton City Hall, 303 W. Commonwealth Ave. The request to postpone the hearing was made by the applicant, Pacific Coast Homes. Al Zelinka, community development director for the city, said the reason for the request is that the applicant and city staff “identified a procedural oversight pertaining to review of the proposed project by the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission.” The 510-acre West Coyote Hills site is bounded on the north by La Habra, on the east by Euclid Street, on the west by the Hawks Pointe development, and on the south by Rosecrans Avenue.  Gilbert Street divides the property from north to south. Pacific Coast Homes proposes to build a maximum of 760 housing units in an approximate 180-acre portion of that area.  Other components of the project include a 5.2-acre neighborhood commercial development, and approximately 283 acres of open space and recreational uses, including the 72-acre Robert E. Ward Nature Preserve.    Further information about the public hearing or the project may be obtained by calling Joan Wolff, planning consultant for the city’s Community Development Department, at (714) 738-6837. Persons requiring special accommodations to attend the July 12 meeting are asked to notify the Fullerton City Clerk’s Office at (714) 738-6350 prior to that date.

Leave a comment

Filed under development, Housing, Uncategorized, West Coyote Hills

Big Oil, Small Bird, and a Pipe Dream

Helen Higgins leads a group of protesters (file photo fom Feb. 2010 by Cindy Cotter)

Back to basics

The wrangling over Chevron’s proposed development of West Coyote Hills has become a morass of plans, objections, revisions, studies, claims, counterclaims, group allegiances and legal entanglement. It’s easy to lose sight of the core issue. Let’s get back to basics.

The land belongs to Chevron and is zoned for oil and gas. They’re asking the city of Fullerton to rezone so they can build. Opponents of development would prefer to restore and preserve the remaining oil property — coastal sage scrub, a diminishing habitat unique to southern California.

Community activists have challenged every chink in Chevron’s plans, leading to studies, reports, and expert testimony on earthquake hazards, noxious gases, water supply, traffic, air pollution, overcrowded schools, and endangered species. This approach has stymied Chevron’s efforts so far, but there’s a flaw.

You can win the battle and lose the war

Chevron has methodically responded to every challenge. Most recently they have brokered a deal to supply Fullerton with additional water at no price increase if needed. The water deal is merely the latest in a list of compromises, amendments and adaptations with which Chevron has countered anti-development arguments.

But a kinder, gentler development isn’t what most activists are after. Underneath their barrage of objections lies one obdurate goal that is not being met: A significant number of passionate people want to preserve the land wild and natural. It isn’t about minimizing the impact of development, it’s about stopping it cold. It’s about restoring and preserving a fragile habitat.

Who cares about gnatcatchers?

Take the controversy over a small bird, the California gnatcatcher. It’s a threatened species known to live in the hills. Opponents of development have used the gnatcatcher as a reason to oppose development. Chevron says they will leave enough open space to accommodate the birds. A biologist testifying for Chevron even said that the number of gnatcatchers rose after development in the adjacent property of Hawks Point.

An increase in the number of threatened birds would be good news if the point of protecting gnatcatchers were merely to protect the bird, but that’s not it. If you’ve ever wondered why anyone cares so much about a tiny bird most of us wouldn’t recognize, here’s why: The gnatcatcher is being used as an umbrella species — an indicator of the health of a habitat that you wish to protect.

Here’s the reasoning: To survive in the wild, plants and animals must have enough space to support a whole ecology. A hawk needs prey. A rabbit needs room to forage. A toad needs at least a temporary body of water. Insects feed on certain kinds of plants. And a species needs a large enough population to prevent inbreeding. But how much space is needed? How do you decide when you’ve got enough land for a healthy habitat? And how do you make that kind of decision in a fair and objective way when a developer is facing off against an environmental group?

That’s where the umbrella species comes in. An environmental group will pick a charismatic and threatened plant or animal that depends on a certain habitat for its existence, then launch a campaign to save that species by saving a large enough chunk of the land on which it depends to keep the habitat functioning as a self-sustaining ecological system.

Saving the gnatcatcher was never the real issue, and ensuring that development leaves room for the birds to survive even though their original habitat is gone doesn’t solve the problem. None of Chevron’s many concessions and compromises will satisfy those who want all the land intact as scrub.

Confronting the real issue head-on

Chevron has argued in a suit against Fullerton that the city has not negotiated in good faith. The landowner has done its level best to meet every objection and yet the city voted against their plan. I see Chevron’s point.

Here’s the crux. Anyone wishing to preserve the hills as open space must be able to deal with that issue, preservation. Instead the question is always framed in such a way that the only way to stop development is to poke holes in Chevron’s plan. Opponents of development talk about keeping water prices down or mitgating traffic, but those are distractions from the real issue.  The City of Fullerton determined in 1977, when the question first arose, that they couldn’t afford to buy the land, but has there been no serious consideration of that possibility since then.

I hear frequently from one side that there is money available from more than one source to buy and preserve all the land, but Chevron won’t sell. I hear from the other side that there isn’t enough money available, it’s just wishful thinking. That’s an important question. It should be confronted head on.

I suppose it’s just a pipe dream, but…

What would happen if the city council made any zoning change contingent upon Chevron first agreeing to let an objective third party name a reasonable price for the land? The city or any other party wishing to preserve the land would be given time to raise that money and present an alternate proposal. Then the city council would choose between the two (or more) plans, with Chevron agreeing to sell should their plan lose. That would finally put the real choices, development vs. preservation, in direct competition. I wonder.

——-

Here’s an interesting article from the Spring 2001 issue of Conservation Magazine on the concept of umbrella species. The authors explain what an umbrella species is, why they’re used, and why they’re not always a great way to protect a habitat. They mention the gnatcatcher in particular.

7 Comments

Filed under development, Flora and Fauna, Housing, Politics, Uncategorized

Chevron Gets a Do-Over

In a 4:1 decision, the Fullerton City Council voted last night to reconsider Pacific Coast Homes’ proposal for a residential development in West Coyote Hills. Sharon Quirk-Silva cast the only dissenting vote.

It was only a matter of time before the matter came before the council again after having been voted down last May, after several months of public meetings and many years of contention. That decision temporarily stopped development, but it left open the question of what would happen to the land. Pacific Coast Homes, a subsidiary of Chevron, is unlikely to let it sit idle indefinitely.

Some expected the company to bring a new proposal to the council, which is likely to be more favorably inclined after several members were replaced in last November’s elections. Two of the three members who voted against the plan are no longer on the council.

But instead of starting the whole process over, Pacific Coast Homes (PCH) responded to their defeat by filing a suit against the city then offering to drop it if the council reversed its decision in a new vote.

PCH may bring a new proposal before the city at any time — the 6-month waiting period set in city code has already expired — but that would likely be the beginning of another protracted struggle. Last night’s settlement means that the council will vote on exactly the same plan that they denied last May. If the city introduces any new conditions, the settlement is void, though, according to Jeff Oderman of Rutan and Tucker, the law firm representing the city in the dispute with Pacific Coast Homes, the suit will not be renewed if the council votes in favor of development and then development is stymied by a third party.

“Anybody … that doesn’t agree with a decision that the council has made just sues the city and then they get, like, do-overs?” — Fullerton resident Elaine Mitchell, during public comments

“At any point PCH could bring this back through the regular process,” said council member Sharon Quirk-Silva, “and there’s a reason that they don’t want to bring it back through the regular process — and that’s because then you would have to go out and start the process again. I understand. That’s time, it’s money. It means many, many public engagements, it means re-looking at the EIR (Environmental Impact Report). I understand why they do not want to do that… But a decision was made… If you’ve seen council members up here over the years, you’re gonna know that we get on the soap box for something, and mine has been process, process, process. And that is something that I won’t waver on, it’s something that I believe in… Chevron certainly has the right to bring it forward, but under the threat of litigation is something that I do not support and I will not support this tonight.”

Pacific Coast Homes has spent years in negotiations with the city to build on their depleted oil fields in West Coyote Hills. In 1977 the city adopted the West Coyote Hills Master (Specific) Plan to guide the development of 1000 acres of oil fields in anticipation of Chevron’s decision to stop pumping oil. Since then about 420 acres have been developed. The plan in contention now is for the remaining 580 acres.

To move forward with the plan, the council would have to agree to rezone the land, which is now zoned for oil and gas. Rezoning has been opposed by those who wish to restore and preserve the land as one of the few remaining examples of coastal sage scrub.

In July of 2009, the city launched a series of meetings intended to involve the public in a decision-making process culminating in a vote of the council the following May.

July 8, 2009 – Informational meeting

July 27, 2009 – Parks and Recreation Commission

July 29, 2009 – Energy and Resource Management Committee

August 3, 2009 – Traffic and Circulation Commission

March 10, 2010 – Planning Commission – meeting one

March 18, 2010 – Planning Commission – meeting two

May 11, 2010 – City Council – meeting one

May 25, 2010 – City Council – not-s0-final decision

Pacific Coast Homes’ argument is that they have negotiated in good faith, modifying their plans to meet all objections, and the city council voted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, violating the 1977 agreement. Opponents to the plan insist the 1977 agreement was not binding and that the land is part of a diminishing habitat that should be preserved.

Members of the public expressed opinions on both sides of the argument, eight for the settlement agreement, eleven against.

Organizations for development:

Open Coyote Hills (This appears to be a coalescence of a group that has long advocated for the opening of the Robert E. Ward Nature Preserve. Ward is a former mayor who negotiated successfully for the donation of a portion of Chevron’s land to be set aside as a preserve, but the city has never had the money to open the preserve to the public. Opening the preserve is one of the conditions of the development.)

Fullerton Chamber of Commerce

Pacific Coast Homes (Jim Pugliese, project manager at Pacific Coast Homes, is on the board of directors of the Chamber of Commerce.)

Organizations opposed to development:

Friends of Coyote Hills

Sierra Club

Sea and Sage – This is the Orange County chapter of the Audubon Society.

The next vote is tentatively set for May 17.

5 Comments

Filed under development, Housing, Politics, Uncategorized, West Coyote Hills

Fullerton Candidate Positions on West Coyote Hills Development

Fullerton’s City Council elections in November could make all the difference in Chevron’s bid to build houses on their oil property in West Coyote Hills.

West Coyote Hills, July 2009 (Photo credit:Cindy Cotter)

On May 25, the Council voted 3-2 against a zoning change that would have made development possible, but now three of the five council seats are open, two because the incumbents’ terms have expired (Don Bankhead and Pam Keller) and one because Councilman Shawn Nelson won a seat on the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Two council members will hold their seats: Sharon Quirk-Silva, who voted against development and F. Richard Jones, who voted for it.

Who’s For and Who’s Against Development

Seven candidates are vying for the two four-year seats for which the terms have expired.

Johnnie Atkinson – AGAINST (FO – Mid-Septemberr)

Don Bankhead – FOR (OCR-9/30) (FO – Mid-September)

Marty Burbank – FOR (OCR-9/30) (FO – Mid-September)

Doug Chaffee – AGAINST (OCR-9/30) (FO – Mid-September)

Jesse LaTour – AGAINST (OCR-9/30) (FO – Mid-September)

Barry Levinson – AGAINST (OCR-9/30) (FO – Mid-September)

Pat McKinley – FOR (OCR-9/30) (FO – Mid-September)

Greg Seborne – FOR (OCR-9/30) (FO – Mid-September)

Four candidates are running in a special election to serve the remaining two years of Shawn Nelson’s open seat:

Roland Chi – FOR provisionally (OCR – 9/30) (FO – Mid-September)

Tony Fonte – AGAINST (OCR – 9/30) (FO – Mid-September)

Aaron Gregg – FOR provisionally (OCR – 9/30) (FO – Mid-September)

Bruce Whitaker – FOR (OCR – 9/30) (FO – Mid-September)

Leave a comment

Filed under Housing, Politics, West Coyote Hills

Planning Commission Recommends Approval of Hills Development

Last night, in what may be the beginning of the end of a thirty-year struggle, the Fullerton Planning Commission sent a proposal for the development of Fullerton’s last sizable open space to the city council with the recommendation that it be approved. In a five-to-one vote, the commission said yes to zoning changes that would allow Pacific Coast Homes, a subsidiary of Chevron, to build houses and commercial property on depleted oil fields in West Coyote Hills. Continue reading

2 Comments

Filed under Housing, Politics, West Coyote Hills

Do We Need Low-Cost Housing in the Hills?

West Coyote Hills, July 2009 (Photo credit:Cindy Cotter)

Finally someone’s asking how — or whether — the proposed development of West Coyote Hills meets Fullerton’s housing needs. The answer is, not very well so far.  Fullerton has an excess of high-end housing and a shortage of affordable homes, yet Planning Commissioner Doug Chaffee says he sees no low-income housing  in this plan to develop the last open space in the city.

Continue reading

4 Comments

Filed under Housing, West Coyote Hills