Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Texas are holding elections next week. Find out what's on your ballot in our latest report.

User talk:ALindstrom

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

ALindstrom's response to the above questions. There is no single ordinance that approved Chevron-PCH's development plan. There is/was no "city council vote to build the extra homes". There are no "extra homes". The consideration Chevron-Pacific Coast Homes demanded (I say demanded as they threatened the City with a lawsuit if the City did not reconsider the development plan that was rejected in 2010) was the vested right to develop West Coyote Hills with 760 houses and a shopping center. Following that, the 2011 City Council's action to approve Chevron-Pacific Coast Homes' "project" which again is a development of 760 houses and a shopping center consisted of several ordinances 2011-31 General Plan Amendment, 2011-32 Specific Plan Amendment, 2011-3168 Zoning Change, 2011-3169 Development Agreement, 2011-33 Tentative Tract maps. In July and August 2011, the Friends of Coyote Hills circulated 4 petitions to challenge the 2011 City Council approval action, one for each of these ordinances: 2011-31, 2011-32, 2011-3168, 2011-3169. We did not circulate a petition for 2011-33. 2011-31 and 2011-33 fell short of the required signatures to qualify, but 2011-3168 and 2011-3169 did qualify. In fact, in October 2011, the City Council rescinded 2011-3168 Zoning as a result of the referendum qualifying. They sent the other, 2011-3169 Development Agreement referendum to a vote. This is the what Fullerton Voters are voting on with Measure W. So when the City's special attorney retained on this West Coyote Hills development project wrote in the impartial analysis and stated "Those other actions are not the subject of this referendum", he is simply saying Measure W is a referendum on the 2011-3169 Development Agreement ordinance, not a referendum on the 2011-31 General Plan and 2011-32 Specific Plan ordinances. That is not the same as stating the "Friends of Coyote Hills" unsuccessfully circulate a petition to overturn the city council's vote to build the extra homes?", which is a false conclusion and misinterpretation. None of the individual ordinances alone "authorize" new or extra homes. Together they make up the sum of the City approvals needed to move forward with Chevron's development plan.

The information you removed (through reversion)...was it false or wrong? I'm leaving this question on the article's talk page as well, and if you want to discuss, that's the best place to do that. Polycal 09:19, 31 October 2012 (CDT)

I added these questions to the article's talk page:
With respect to who qualified Measure W for the ballot, the version I wrote says, "The group that led the charge to collect the approximately 40,000 signatures needed to put Measure W on the ballot is called the "Friends of Coyote Hills". The group attempted, but failed, to qualify a referendum overturning the City’s approval of Pacific Coast Homes’ plans to build homes on West Coyote Hills." You removed that last sentence. I believe it is the case that "Friends of Coyote Hills" circulated more than one referendum petition. Is that correct? I also believe that only one petition they circulated did qualify for the ballot. Would you agree with that? The one petition that did qualify became Measure W. Did "Friends of Coyote Hills" unsuccessfully circulate a petition to overturn the city council's vote to build the extra homes? I realize that Measure W qualified for the ballot. The question here is about the petitions that did not qualify.
How do you interpret sentence two of Paragraph 5 of the city attorney's analysis of the measure? It seems to say that what you say is the subject of Measure W is not the subject of the measure. Polycal 16:40, 1 November 2012 (CDT)
This discussion page has been protected from further postings.