Archives for posts with tag: Coyote Hills
Coyote Hills Vista

The Fullerton City Council wants the state’s $ 15 million, but not if it means saving the whole park.

Angela Lindstrom

Reprinted from the Early September Edition of the Fullerton Observer

In the August 2017 issue of the Fullerton Observer, I wrote a somewhat tongue-in-cheek piece titled “I’m All for Saving Coyote Hills… Unless It Can Actually Be Done”. This was in response to the Orange County Register’s misinformed editorial criticizing a couple of pending state legislations to help fund the acquisition of West Coyote Hills for a public park and preserve.

AB 510 and SB 714 legislations as currently proposed by Assemblywoman Quirk-Silva and Senator Newman would set up a multi-year funding program through a Coyote Hills Conservancy to save all of Coyote Hills as a park and preserve for our park poor region of North Orange County. This is consistent with Fullerton voters’ 2012 Measure W referendum that rejected the development of West Coyote Hills.

Sadly, the majority of the Fullerton City Council lived up to my “expectation” by rejecting AB 510 and SB 714 at its August 1st City Council meeting. It’s not that they don’t want the state funds. They want the money to go directly to the City so they can implement what they call the “Path Forward”, a euphemism for the development of West Coyote Hills as proposed by Chevron-Pacific Coast Homes.

This is the “local control” (another euphemism) they want so they can circumvent the conservancy oversight of park funds. Under this path forward to development, the City can purchase a couple of pieces of land at the highest entitled price. But even if that is successful, most of the 760 houses and shopping center will still be built on the remaining land.

Wait, millions of our tax dollars will be paid to Chevron-PCH and we have to live with all the negative impacts of their development: 10,000 additional daily car-trips on our streets, air and dust pollution, houses built on polluted oil wells and an earthquake fault, and overcrowded schools?

Councilwoman Fitzgerald followed up this Council meeting by slamming AB 510 and SB 714 in the OC Register, borrowing the famous words (not infamous as she wrote) of Ronald Reagan: “The most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government, I’m here to help.’” We should be more terrified of the lack ofcitizen local control over our own local government.

But it gets worse. At the August 29th Special Council meeting, Councilwoman Fitzgerald insisted on discussing an un-agendized item to re-write SB714.  She proposed language to poison and weaken SB 714 to enable the development of Coyote Hills.

Fitzgerald Coyote Hills 714

Fullerton City Councilmember Jennifer Fitzgerald introduces language to modify SB 714 during a joint study session about the Fox Block.

SB 714 as proposed by Senator Josh Newman would gather funds to save all 510 acres of Coyote Hills for a public park and preserve. Councilwoman Fitzgerald wants to add language to legitimize the Council’s 2015 approval of Chevron’s Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM), with all of its terms and conditions, including the Environmental Impact Report as the only plan for Coyote Hills (development).

The legitimacy of this VTTM the Fullerton City Council approved by ignoring the people’s 2012 Measure W vote is the very subject of a lawsuit led by the Friends of Coyote Hills, Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks, and the Center for Biodiversity.

If you support saving Coyote Hills and don’t want to lose this funding opportunity, write or call the Fullerton City Council and tell them to support AB 510 and SB 714 as proposed by Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva and State Senator Josh Newman. Stop trying to confuse the public with the path forward to development.

Fullerton City Council

303 W. Commonwealth Avenue | Fullerton, CA 92832

(714) 738-6311

Email: council@cityoffullerton.com

 

Angela Lindstrom is the President of the Friends of Coyote Hills coyotehills.org

pringle-facebook-pageMatthew Leslie

The Rag recently reminded readers that Fullerton’s appointed Mayor Jennifer Fitzgerald has not responded to calls for her to release a list of clients of her employer Curt Pringle. Ms. Fitzgerald is listed as a Vice President of Curt Pringle & Associates on the “public relations” firm’s website, but no clients are to be found there. Strange for a PR website to have no list of clients…

Sean Paden, a member of Fullerton’s Design Review Committee and a former city council candidate, is asking the rest of us for help in assembling as complete a list of CP& Associates’ clients as possible. Troubled, like many others, by the prospect of Ms. Fitzgerald casting votes that might affect clients of CP & Associates whose identities we would have no way of knowing, Mr. Paden carefully logged any mention of clients on the firm’s Facebook page during the past two years, following the announcement of Ms. Fitzgerald’s hiring by the Curt Pringle. He combined this list with the one that used to be found on Curt Pringle & Associates’ website, archived as a screen capture by the Fullerton Rag over two years ago. He’s added any references he’s been able to find anywhere else, like the L.A. Times, or other online references to the Pringle firm’s list of clients.

This is almost certainly incomplete, however, which is why your help is needed. Can you provide information about additional clients of Curt Pringle & Associates? Let us know!

The Orange Juice Blog’s Vern Nelson interviewed Mr. Paden about his efforts to help bring transparency to the troubling tenure of Jennifer Fitzgerald. You can read Vern’s excellent story here,

http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2016/08/pringles-trough-the-oc-uber-lobbyists-partial-client-list-as-assembled-by-sean-paden/

where Mr. Paden points out that Ms. Fitzgerald’s vote on the Coyote Hills development was problematic because Chevron appears on the list below. (A commenter on the OJ Blog story pointed out the Yamaha had not done business with Curt Pringle for many years, reminding us that the list is no doubt outdated in some ways. We can only note that Jennifer Fitzgerald could clear up things up easily by providing a current list).

Meanwhile, we thank Sean Paden for his diligence and ingenuity and hope more good citizens will add more clients to the list. Of course, it would be much simpler if Mayor Jennnifer Fitzgerald, who is running for re-election to Fullerton’s City Council this year, would just release a list herself in order to ensure that she is not violating any laws or the public trust while representing us.

Here is as list of all clients found by Mr. Paden, along with dates on which they mentioned:

  • Airpap (CP&A Facebook post, August 4, 2016)
  • AMCAL (CP&A Client List)
  • American Center for Wine Food and Arts (CP&A Client List)
  • American Logistics Company (CP&A Client List)
  • Anaheim Gardenwalk (CP&A Facebook post, February 11, 2016)
  • Anaheim Resort Transportation (CP&A Facebook post, October 16, 2014)
  • Anaheim Transportation Network (CP&A Facebook post, January 13, 2014)
  • Aramark (CP&A Facebook post, October 7, 2015)
  • ARCO (liquisearch.com)
  • Arroyo Pacific Network (CP&A Client List)
  • ARTIC (Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center) (CP&A Facebook post, May 13, 2016)
  • Association of California Recycling Industries (ACRI) (CP&A Facebook post, September 11, 2015)
  • Atlantic Aviation (CP&A Facebook post, January 12, 2016)
  • Atlantic Aviation (CP&A Facebook post, September 4, 2015)
  • Backup Training Corp (CP&A Client List)
  • Big League Dreams (CP&A Client List)
  • Bike Nation (saveanaheim.com)
  • Brookfield Homes (CP&A Client List)
  • Building Industry Association of Orange County (CP&A Facebook post, March 20, 2015/ CP&A Client List)
  • Burger King (CP&A Client List)
  • California Apartment Association – South Coast (CP&A Facebook post, May 27, 2014)
  • California Apartment Association (CP&A Facebook post, July 1, 2015)
  • California Beer and Beverage Distributors Association (CP&A Client List)
  • California Forward (CP&A Client List)
  • California Rx Card (CP&A Client List)
  • California Yellow Cab (CP&A Client List)
  • Carl’s Junior (CP&A Client List)
  • Charles Company (CP&A Client List)
  • Chase Bank (CP&A Client List)
  • Chevron (CP&A Client List)
  • Children and Families Coalition of Orange County (CP&A Facebook post, April 7, 2015)
  • Children and Families Commission (CP&A Facebook post, June 21, 2016)
  • CHOC Children’s Hospital (CP&A Facebook post, June 28, 2016)
  • City of Industry (High Speed Rail Leaders Receive Consulting Fees… by Rich Connell, LA Times, October 31, 2010)
  • City of Newport Beach (liquisearch.com)
  • Citibank (CP&A Client List)
  • Coffee Bean (CP&A Client List)
  • County of Orange (liquisearch.com)
  • CVS Pharmacy (CP&A Client List)
  • Dental Group Practices Association (CP&A Client List)
  • El Pollo Locco (CP&A Client List)
  • Environmental Compliance Solutions (CP&A Client List)
  • Evolve Partners (CP&A Client List)
  • Federal Signal Technologies (Curt Pringle: Still Master of His Universe, by Adam Elmahrek, Voice of OC, April 3, 2012)
  • Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Grocers (CP&A Client List)
  • Foothill Transportation Agency (CP&A Facebook post, April 21, 2016)
  • Forestar Chatsworth LLC (Los Angeles City Ethics Disclosure Commission Report, 2nd Quarter 2015/ 1st Quarter 2016)
  • Gensler (CP&A Client List)
  • GovDelivery (CP&A Client List)
  • Hardin Honda (Voice of OC, December, 2013)
  • In N Out Burger (CP&A Client List)
  • ING/ Aetna Financial Services (CP&A Client List)
  • International Jet Sports Boating Association (CP&A Client List)
  • Irvine Ranch Water District (CP&A Facebook post, March 5, 2016)
  • Jack & the Box (CP&A Client List)
  • Jamboree Housing, Inc. (CP&A Facebook post, March 19, 2014)
  • Juniper Sierra High School (CP&A Client List)
  • Katsuya Restaurants (CP&A Client List)
  • LA Football Club (January 8, 2016)
  • Level 3 Communications (CP&A Client List)
  • McDonalds (CP&A Client List)
  • Memorial Care (CP&A Facebook post, October 14, 2015)
  • Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (CP&A Client List)
  • Mobilite (Los Angeles City Ethics Disclosure Commission Report, 2nd Quarter 2015/ 1st Quarter 2016)
  • Mobilite of Newport Beach (As Thick as Thieves: Ignoring the Revolving Door Law, by Matt Potter, San Diego Reader, August 7, 2016)
  • Northgate Gonzales Markets (July 20, 2016)
  • NRG Energy (January 20, 2014)
  • Orange County Business Council (CP&A Client List)
  • Orange County Produce (CP&A Client List)
  • Orange County Rescue Mission (CP&A Client List)
  • Pacific Yacht Club Challenge (CP&A Client List)
  • Parsons (CP&A Client List)
  • Pieology Pizzaria (CP&A Client List)
  • RNL Designs (CP&A Client List)
  • Saddleback Motorsports Partners (CP&A Client List)
  • Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (CP&A Client List)
  • Santa Margarita Water District(CP&A Facebook post, January 29, 2014)
  • Serrano Water District (CP&A Facebook post, November 13, 2013)
  • Signal Hill Petroleum (CP&A Facebook post, November 10, 2014)
  • Smart City Networks (CP&A Facebook post, January 15, 2015)
  • Southern California Association of Governments (aka SKAG) (CP&A Client List)
  • Space Center (CP&A Client List)
  • Stocker Resources, Inc. (CP&A Client List)
  • Sun Edison (Los Angeles City Ethics Disclosure Commission Report, June 30, 2014)
  • The Corporation for Better Housing (CP&A Client List)
  • The Lab Holdings (CP&A Client List)
  • Transportation Corridor Agencies (CP&A Facebook post, June 22, 2016)
  • United Dominion Real Estate Trust (CP&A Client List)
  • Valley View Medical Center (CP&A Client List)
  • Venture Strategic (CP&A Facebook post, June 22, 2016)
  • Visit Huntington Beach (CP&A Facebook post, February 21, 2014)
  • Vulcan Materials (CP&A Client List)
  • Western States Petroleum Association (CP&A Client List)
  • Witt O’Briens (CP&A Facebook post, January 16, 2014)
  • Yamaha Motor Corporation (CP&A Client List, said to be a past client)
  • York Risk Services Group (CP&A Facebook post, September 15, 2015)
Fitzgerald Lindstrom

Angela Chen Lindstrom (right) patiently attempts to pierce the wall of  mayoral arrogance.

Matthew Leslie

“No good deed goes unpunished,” said Mayor Jennifer Fitzgerald (who works for a political lobbyist) following a public hearing over the city’s decision to apply for grant funding to purchase less than half of the undeveloped Coyote Hills land for an inflated price based on its inappropriate rezoning for housing. Her smug exasperation was primarily directed at Friends of Coyote Hills (FCH) Chair Angela Chen Lindstrom, who addressed the council to clarify that the position of FCH was to support the city’s grant applications, but that FCH was also suing the city because the council did not follow the proper process in 2015 when it approved Chevron’s plans to develop the site.

The primary issue of contention is the Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) approved by the council late last year without a new development proposal by Chevron, who had their previous plans quashed by the defeat of Measure W in 2012. Angela Chen Lindstrom explained FCH’s position clearly to the council, that Measure W should have overturned that development, and required a full new proposal process before another could be adopted, but to little avail. Mayor Fitzgerald departed from her usual smooth-as-glass demeanor to flaunt her contempt for Ms. Chen Lindstrom and her argument, in an apparent attempt to portray FCH, the only force trying to save all of West Coyote Hills from the bulldozers, as incorrigible malcontents.

Angela Chen Lindstrom’s comments from the March 15 meeting are reprinted below. Her reasoning is compelling. In the future, Mayor Fitzgerald would do better to listen more and dispense with her patronizing antics.

Angela Chen Lindstrom:

“I want to set the record straight on the Friends of Coyote Hills’ position on the West Coyote Hills VTTM and subsequent actions by the City since November 2015. Of course it’s a matter of public record that we along with hundreds of residents protested your approval of the VTTM. Your approval was based on development approvals that should have been overturned by the 2012 Measure W, the people’s referendum on the development of West Coyote Hills.

We were blindsided with your decision to ignore our vote as part of your VTTM approval in October and November last year. All of our cautious optimism on a long awaited  acquisition plan were dashed by your VTTM – almost 2 years of what we thought was good faith collaboration with the City and Chevron on a fair chance to save all of West Coyote as a nature park. Turned out it was a set up for a nosebleed price tag for the land which according to the staff report today is $145M …. to be raised in a year.

The staff report tells a limited story. It sounds great. The City is finally applying for public grants that we have always said were available to buy West Coyote Hills for a nature park. But not by first setting the price as high as possible. Then asking for public monies to be transferred into the hands of a private party. All while ignoring your own voters.

I  want to make it clear … in your staff report, you mention that a lawsuit has been filed against this VTTM. You don’t name who filed the lawsuit. On the last page of your staff report, you mention a $1M matching grant the Friends of Coyote Hills was awarded. We were proactive in fundraising even before the VTTM because of our mission to save all of West Coyote Hills for a park for now and future generations. No one should read your staff report and think we are no longer committed to our supporters and community in that mission and vision. However, no one should read your report and think that we are onboard with your VTTM plan which does not align with our mission. In fact I should point out that your proposed acquisition notice is not a commitment. Even if neighborhoods 1 and 3 are acquired, most of the 760 houses and shopping center originally proposed in the development plan will still be built in West Coyote Hills.

That lawsuit was filed by the Friends of Coyote Hills because we do not support any plan based on ignoring the vote of the people. We do not support enriching a corporation at the cost of that. Yes, Chevron as a landowner deserves to be compensated for their land, but not at the highest possible price when your voters have spoken.”

%d bloggers like this: