Madrona Lawsuit's Two New Plaintiffs Announced!

A press release issued by Hills for Everyone, the main plaintiff in the July lawsuit filed with the Orange County Superior Court against the Madrona project, approved by the City of Brea's council in early June for 152 luxury houses on exposed hilltop terrain on the north side of Carbon Canyon, announces that there are two new additional plaintiffs (along with HFE and Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks, an Orange County support organization for the county department, joining the suit.

The public interest groups signing on to the suit are the Sierra Club and the California Native Plant Society.  Eric Johnson, a Brea resident and Chair of the Sierra Club's Puente Hills Task Force, commented that, "when dangerous land use decisions are made that will destroy natural lands, waste our precious drinking water, and put people at risk, those decisions must be challenged."

Celia Kutcher, who serves as the California Native Plant Society's Orange County chapter chair, expressed dismay over the loss of 1,400 oak and walnut trees and the habitat that exists with them by noting that, "we've found that pursuit of this lawsuit is necessary and proper in order to protect the legal rights of its [the Society's] members" which are tied to the organization's mission and goals.

This blog has often discussed the myriad problems raised by this terrible project, which was nearly fifteen years in the pipeline and only remained there because of an inadvisable legal agreement signed by a skittish city afraid of being sued by the developer.  In fact, the project wouldn't even get past the application stage under current codes.

Impacts of traffic on an already heavily-traveled Carbon Canyon Road, which cannot be widened; public safety concerns with a property that has burned four times in thirty years; massive grading; five times the water usage of an average Brea home at a time of increasing water scarcity; and the loss of rapidly-diminishing oak and walnut woodland habitat are the main concerns.

Though the matter now goes to the courts, there is much support interested citizens can make—mainly, by supporting the lawsuit with donations offered to Hills for Everyone.  For more information on the project and how to help fight it, log on here.

Madrona Lawsuit Fundraiser This Saturday

It's still remarkable how far Brea's city council, excepting the lone dissenter Marty Simonoff, was wiling to accomodate and approve, in early June, the Madrona project, which would't even be allowed to be processed now under current city ordinances.

Even more flummoxing (love that word) is that, with the news filled with drought-related items concerning low reservoir levels, farmland drying up and going unplanted, a $2.2 billion loss on agriculture for this year, and now a first-ever statewide mandatory water rationing plan being implemented and likely to be more stringent in 2015--is how local governments like Brea can even approve water-wasting projects like Madrona, which will use several times the average water level of current city residences.

However, despite the council approval a little more than a month ago, the fight is far from over.  Changes were introduced to the Madrona project that were not fully disclosed to the appellants and which can very well require an amended environmental impact report.  Hills for Everyone, along with the Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks, a support group for public county recreational facilities, has filed suit in Orange County Superior Court, challenging the approval on those and other grounds.

To date, Hills for Everyone has raised tens of thousands of dollars from grassroots support to use toward the litigation.  Part of the fundraising program is an event Saturday evening, 19 July, at an Olinda Village residence that will include a silent auction, as well as food, drink and great conversation with a lot of dedicated, organized and forward-thinking folks.  Held from 4-6 p.m. at 275 Verbena Lane, Brea, the event is $30 per person of $50 for two by advance sales and $10 more for each set at the door.

You don't have to live in Olinda Village or Carbon Canyon to go out and lend your support.  If you care about the direction of development in our region, about the issues of water, traffic, loss of vanishing habitat, and others that are involved in the Madrona project, and about the preservation of the little remaining hillside land left in this area, go out, support the cause, and have a great time.

For more information on Saturday's event, please click here.

Madrona Lawsuit Filed

A few days ago, Hills for Everyone, which has actively campaigned against the Madrona housing project, approved a month ago by the Brea City Council, proposing 152 homes on 367 acres in Carbon Canyon from Olinda Village east to the Orange/San Bernardino counties line, and Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks, a volunteer support group for county recreational facilities, filed a lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court challenging the council's decision.

A press release announcing the suit quoted former Brea council member and mayor Bev Perry, who is also secretary/treasurer of Hills for Everyone, as observing that, "we had four City Council members sell out the people they were elected to represent, and they threw out Brea's long-standing values of good planning and hillside protection."  Noting the prolonged severe drought that has wracked the region, Perry criticized the council decision "to approve a project that uses five times the amount of drinking water of an average Brea household in order to permanently irrigate huge fire fuel modification zones."

Specifically, the suit alleges that the approved Madrona project violates "state planning laws mandating consistency between general and specific plans and the California Environmental Quality Act for failing to disclose the project's true impacts on traffic and environment in the EIR."

Seeking donations for their cause, Hills for Everyone has already received some $20,000 in the last few weeks and the organization is hosting an upcoming fundraiser.

The Wine and Cheese Fundraiser to fight Madrona is being held Saturday, 19 July from 4 to 6 p.m. at the home of Duane and Luz Thompson in Olinda Village.  A silent auction is being offered as part of the festivities, which cost $30 per person or $50 for a pair, with the at-the-door price $10 higher.  For more information, including advance ticket information, please click here for the StopMadrona.org Web site and direct links to the event.

It will be interesting to see what the lawsuit will entail and what it can do to bring attention to some of the irregularities involved in the decision-making process, especially some last-minute changes and invitations to the applicants to present additional information without prior notification to the appellants and changes to required documents (such as the approved tract map and amendments to the Environmental Impact Report.)

Stay tuned here for more!

Madrona Approved by Brea City Council, 4-1

Well, after fifteen years, the housing project first called Canyon Crest and now known as Madrona for what is now described as 152 (down from 162) units on 367 acres on the north side of Carbon Canyon in Brea has finally been approved.

At tonight's city council meeting, the vote was 4-1 to approve a resolution denying the appeal of the 2008 planning commission approval of Canyon Crest and to entitle the project with a map.  This now leads to an increase in the value of the property, which its bankrupt owner, Old Standard Life Insurance Company, under receivership with the State of Idaho can now sell to try and realize some profit for its creditors.

As for new standards, the city has, for the first time, approved a housing project that had three statements of overriding consideration from significant adverse unavoidable impacts as identified in the environmental impact report.  This sets a precedent that could make it hard for this or future councils to deny other projects in sensitive areas (which is mainly what is left in terms of little undeveloped space in the city.)

Notably, though, the council hardly gave a second thought to the statements--which were really supposed to support the decision to approve--in favor of the dozen conditions of approval drafted by Mayor Brett Murdock and Mayor pro-term Christine Marick, all of which, in final form, were agreed to by the applicant. 

Old Standard obviously knew that these two were the swing votes (with Marty Simonoff always being against the project and Ron Garcia and Roy Moore always in favor.) 

It was telling that Moore was the one, just moments before casting his "yea" vote, who expressed surprise that the council did not address the statements of overriding consideration, instead hanging their collective hats (while many in the audience hung their heads) on the conditions of approval.

Unabashedly, Murdock, who was, oddly, speaking for Marick this evening, excepting a minor comment on correcting a statement that she did make, stated that their goal was to "tip the scales" to make the project favorable to them, based on what the mayor opined was finding a balance for the concerns of both sides. 

Murdock also tried to claim that he and Marick were against the project as presented before their conditions of approval were offered (that being so, why did they feel the need, as staff obviously did, to go the extra mile [or dollar] to make the development palatable?) 

Oh, yes, balance.

Truly, however, he and Marick weren't looking for balance--they were seeking a way to get the project approved for the applicant by squeezing concessions (some not well received by Old Standard), give the appearance of equal consideration to both sides, look to blunt the force of a lawsuit by Old Standard and who knows what else.

This observer walked in just prior to the council getting ready to offer comments before a vote.  Simonoff spent some time addressing why he thought the project should be rejected, beseeching his colleagues to explain to those who elected them and those whom they represented just why they felt the project's benefits outweighed the concerns, offering "substantive evidence." 

Again, Simonoff took the public safety issue as his linchpin for voting no and was also unhappy with much of the money offered as being "one-time" payments that would not help in the long run with the financial costs of the project.  He also noted this was the first development project he'd ever opposed in years of being on the council. 

Simonoff then offered a motion to vote on approving the appeal, which was conspicuously ignored by Mayor Murdock and the remainder of the council.

Moore responded that he'd made all of his relevant comments in earlier meetings and didn't see the need to elaborate on them, though he offered to reiterate them--to which some audience members vociferously said "no."  He did say that he felt that most comments by the appellant team and audience in opposition were fair and he thanked those persons for offering them.  Later, as noted above, Moore expressed some unease about the lack of attention paid to the statements of overriding consideration--but, then again, his vote was always known to be pro-Madrona anyway.

Garcia similarly stated that his position had been previously given and that Moore's comments covered most of his concerns.  After averring how difficult the process was, he offered some remarkable statements. 

One was that the council relied upon professional city staff, contractors and vendors, while he was quick to then say that the council had to make its own determination, though more in the vein of seeking verification of trust in what these professionals were stating. 

More telling, however, in response to Simonoff's request for public statements of why they were approving the project and its conditions of approval, was Garcia's claim that his offer of meeting with concerned residents one-on-one in his office was not taken up by opponents.

Why might that be?

Well, it could be that talking with an elected official privately in their office without witness or documentation might not be the best way for concerned citizens to express themselves, nor would it be the most desirable way for the citizenry of Brea to know what their elected officials think.  Privatizing a public issue seems highly questionable, at best. 

Then again, Garcia made a special point of noting that there were people who were in favor of Madrona.  What he didn't say (and this is on record in council meeting minutes) is that the vast majority of these pro-Madrona folks were chamber of commerce allies of John Koos, the former planning commissioner who voted to approve the project, as Canyon Crest, in 2008 and then resigned a few years later to be the P.R. front person for Madrona.

Murdock, speaking essentially for Marick, then said a few words about not liking the project as presented and then discussing the importance of offering the conditions of approval.  Remarkably, he then invited applicant attorney John Erskine to address the council under a flimsy guise of a question.  Even more notable was that Erskine had prepared remarks--hardly indicative of a spur-of-the-moment question as the situation called for.

Erskine has had a penchant for offering mildly honeyed praise for the appellants milliseconds before throwing a jab.  First, he, again, set the table for a legal response in court by reminiscing about a time when he was a mayor and council member (this being in Huntington Beach) and how a lawsuit was handled by his city. 

Then, he employed a fancy bit of alliteration in noting that the suit referred to "hypercritical hypertechnical hyperbole," a term he used in modified form to describe the Madrona appellants--while assuring all in the room that the jousting between the two factions was respectful. 

It was also during his remarks that he mentioned 152 units, not the 162 that have been part of the plan for the last five years of so.  He also went on to remark that the eleven conditions were an extraordinary concession for Old Standard to make (but not, presumably, too much to get those
Murdock/Marick swing votes) and spent some time cataloging the most significant and the financial windfall that would result for the city.

Turning Simonoff's "substantive evidence" phrase against him, Erskine coolly pointed to sections in the staff report that showed the Old Standard's offerings were just that and dismissed the appellant's "hypercritical hyperbole" as anything but such evidence.

Murdock invited the applicants to make further statements (again, as thinly veiled questioning) about certain features, like reclaiming water and the nature of a minimum of sixteen custom lots of a half-acre that would be major concessions.

Around this time, appellant head Bev Perry, a former council member and mayor, fairly bounded down the stairs to city attorney Jim Markman, who then approached city planner David Crabtree.  It turned out that Perry was more than upset about a lack of disclosure and notification about some of the changes brought out verbally at the meeting.

Specifically, there was an applicant letter received from the city and not forwarded to the appellants, as well as the statements made about the so-called "Madrona Heights" and its sixteen half-acre custom lots and other modifications that would clearly require a revised map.

Procedurally, this was unfair to the appellants, who were not given the opportunity to be notified of these adjustments and then given adequate time to address them.  This oversight, however, might be useful in a lawsuit.

In fact, Simonoff then took the opportunity to protest that, with the applicant getting a platform to make what were, in essence, further arguments despite the closure of the public hearing (again, behind a tissue of vague questions offered by Murdock), some opportunity should be afforded the appellant to address particular issues.  His question was basically about some statements made by the applicant and staff about "green code" issues relating to how close some of the concessions would get the project to an unprecedented level of certification for energy efficiency and the like.

Appellant team member Eric Johnson had protested from his seat about a statement made by planning director Crabtree about this issue and, on Simonoff's question on that point, came down and forcefully stated that the planner's interpretation was plainly false.

From the baffling to the bizarre, the proceedings lurched toward the inevitable.  Marick made her mild and somewhat unnecessary qualification about some factual aspect to the conditions of approval and expressed her view that the process was heard with great concern for both sides, with fairness and balance and so forth and so on.

After some further commentary by a few members of the council with replies from staff on some questions, principally about projected revenues from property taxes, fire protection, sales taxes and other matters which, in the scheme of things, seemed somewhat incidental, Murdock called for a motion, which was quickly offered and seconded. 

The mayor then asked for a roll call vote and, when Moore was first invited to offer his, he stopped and inquired about the wording--was a "yes" vote for or against the appeal.  After attorney Markman clarified that an affirmative was for the resolution denying the appeal, Moore offered his "yes," followed in short order by Marick, Murdock and Garcia, with Simonoff emphatically stating his opposition.

So, it was done.  Except for occasional guffaws; sighs; exclamations of surprise, frustration and incredulity; and a pointed statements about the upcoming November elections (Moore, Garcia and Murdock being up for reelection then), the proceedings were fairly sedate and ended generally quietly. 

The two-dozen or so opponents of Madrona (who knows how many supporters of the project were there from the community) filed out and made their way to their cars, marveling at many aspects of the process and the fact that, after a decade and a half, the vote finally had happened.

Perhaps, it was inevitable, though a few (present company included) harbored hopes for a 3-2 vote for the appeal and against the project.

There were almost certainly be a lawsuit and some of the irregular, if not downright unlawful, actions at this meeting will be central.  Changes to the project scope and map without proper notification for the appellant, for example, might lead a judge to order another recirculated environmental impact report.

In any case, any prospect of building at Madrona is years away and economic considerations, the next major fire or earthquake and other conditions could change matters. 

Meanwhile, Old Standard will be looking to sell the property as soon as possible.  The rising value of the land will make it hard, though not impossible, for a purchase to preserve the property as open space and, perhaps, a future addition to Chino Hills State Park.  Or, another developer with a better portfolio than the last two owners could acquire it and seek the permits to get Madrona or whatever it would be called down the road built.

At a February speaking engagement, this blogger was talking to a group of audience members afterward.  One of them was a former city staffer who told another individual that Madrona wasn't going to be financially feasible because of the nature of the land and the difficulties inherent in building there.  This is someone who had years of experience with the city and its planning apparatus.

Who knows what is feasible, realistic and achievable with Madrona?

Theoretically, however, the city has probably opened a veritable Pandora's box, giving the green light to a project with an unprecedented three statements of overriding consideration and a dozen conditions of approval; in a "hazardous fire area" as noted on new CalTrans signs along Carbon Canyon Road; next to a road with growing traffic volume and slowing commuter times; in an era and an area of decreasing water supplies, growing fire risk and increasing drought; and concerning in other ways, including the loss of diminishing oak and walnut woodland habitat.

If the city can go this far to give a developer like Old Standard a theoretically or practically developable project, what are the new standards?  What will be the basis of denial for any project in sensitive areas in the city that remain the main locations of future development?  How can the city continue to argue against Shell-Aera's massive proposal for housing in the Puente Hills northwest of Brea given what they've done with Madrona?

Let's not forget, meanwhile, that the City of Chino Hills has already approved 100 houses on its side of Carbon Canyon, with another 102 in the early application stage, but which appear to be entitled.  Those 202 potential units with the 152 (or 162 or whatever Madrona is at the moment), puts the possible total of over 350 houses and some 1,500 or more persons and many more cars.  What will Carbon Canyon become if most or all of these are actually built--though it could be a decade away?

The Madrona saga is not over, but the Rubicon has been crossed.  Will this decision come back to haunt the City of Brea in future years or not?

A short Orange County Register article on last night's proceedings can be found here.

Madrona Appeal Hearing Delayed Two Weeks

The appeal hearing before the Brea City Council for the proposed 162-home Madrona project between Olinda Village and the Orange/San Bernardino counties line on the north side of Carbon Canyon has been delayed once again.

A proposed set of "Conditions of Approval" offered by council members Brett Murdock and Christine Marick, nine of eleven of which were agreed to by property owner Old Standard Life Insurance Company via its owner in receivership, The State of Idaho, were reviewed and further suggestions made by members of the appellant team.

Old Standard has requested two weeks to review the latest iteration of the COAs, meaning that the matter will rematerialize before the council at its meeting on Tuesday, 3 June at 7 p.m., pending any further delays.

With Old Standard accepting most of the conditions suggested by Murdock and Marick, it appears that the two of them, who are true swing votes here with Marty Simonoff signaling his intention to uphold the appeal while Ron Garcia and Roy Moore have been on the record as voting to deny the appeal, stand ready to vote against the appeal and for Madrona.

However, the further suggestions by the appellants regarding these COAs could have an impact on what Old Standard will agree to and how Murdock and Marick, who, not incidentally, are far younger than their colleagues, symbolizing, perhaps, Brea's future, will vote.

Speaking of the future, it bears remembering that, in addition to legitimate issues concerning fire risk (especially given the recent blazes in San Diego County, including the destruction of a home seemingly built to withstand fire with its concrete and steel construction), future water supply, traffic and others, the prospect of the council approving, for the first time for a housing development, a project requiring three (3) statements of overriding consideration for unavoidable significant adverse impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act is very significant for precedent.

In other words, if the council were to issue the 3 SOCs for Madrona on approval of the project, the precedent would be set so that anything else proposed in the city in the future would basically have to be given like consideration. 

The only available land for major homebuilding left in the city is on Olinda oil field properties that are slowly being phased out (removal of wells has been ongoing in the vicinity of Lambert Road and Valencia Avenue) and in the hills at the north end of town.

Among these is the Shell-Aera parcel (click here and here for more), about which the city has, in the past, expressed concern.  A minority, about 10% of the proposed developable area, is within Brea's sphere of influence in the Orange County section and the remaining 90% is in Los Angeles County within the Diamond Bar sphere of influence.

Yet, if Madrona was to be approved with 3 SOCs, how would Brea be able to maintain that level of concern with Shell-Aera?  Or, any future projects proposed within Brea's city limits and/or sphere of influence?

At any rate, it remains to be seen what is done at the 3 June Brea city council meeting and if Madrona will be approved and a new precedent set.

San Diego County Fires, Madrona and Carbon Canyon

Added to both ends of the Brea portion of Carbon Canyon along Carbon Canyon Road by CalTrans District 12, these signs are unambiguous about the real threat posed by wildfires in Carbon Canyon.  This is what future buyers of 162 houses in the proposed Madrona subdivision will drive by on their way to the site, if it is approved (as early as next Tuesday) and if it is actually built.  Why should the Brea City Council take the chance of approving something that could be at the flashpoint of a catastrophic wildfire?

Given the continuing drought and the increasing frequency lately of hot, dry, Santa Ana conditions, the fires raging through northern San Diego County, which has been hit with major blazes several times in the last decade or so, are another reminder, if any were needed, of the danger that Carbon Canyon, and like areas, faces.

This remains an essential issue as the deliberations over the proposed 162-unit Madrona housing development in the Brea portion of the canyon comes closer to a deciding point—perhaps as early as next Tuesday, the 20th when the Brea City Council takes up the matter again.

Old Standard Life Insurance Company, the owner of the Madrona property, has indicated that it will accept 9 of the 11 Conditions of Approval offered by council members Brett Murdock and Christine Marick as a way to wring further concessions from the OSLIC.  This would, presumably, sway enough of the council to vote for the project and deny its appeal, filed back in 2008 just before the Freeway Complex Fire burned the Madrona site and most of the Brea side of Carbon Canyon.

The San Diego County conflagrations, however, should be another obvious indication that all of the promises of fire mitigation and all of the projections of abundant water supply, orderly evacuation strategies, and other aspects, may just not be sufficient to counter the devastation that can be wrought by a wildfire of the proportions that we're seeing in that county and which we witnessed here 5 1/2 years ago--and will again.

The portion of the canyon where Madrona is proposed has steep canyon walls and wind-swept ridgelines that are, according to any expert analysis such as the US Geological Survey's new video, "Living With Fire," flashpoints for developing and moving fire rapidly through those areas.  The mitigation efforts proposed for the development look fine on paper, or on computer screens via 3-D simulations and other modeling, but the unpredictability of fire and human emotions and reactions in real time is an entirely different matter.

Madrona is just a microcosm of a bigger issue--the continuing encroachment and intrusion of development in wildland areas, as we are coming to terms (well, some people) with the effects of climate change, enduring drought, dwindling water supply, and other factors.

Madrona is emblematic of outdated and timeworn thinking, at a time when we need innovation, adaptation and forward-thinking leadership and management.

Madrona is symptomatic of a broad problem of not coming to terms with a changing world, but this isn't just theoretical posturing.  The prospect of having 162 houses in the middle of a raging wildfire--which even the fire consultants for the project admit will happen again (and again)--takes this beyond the conceptual into the real (or the realistic, in terms of probability.)

Does the Brea City Council (or those that may still be around when and if such an event occurs) really want to be responsible for that probability?

SATURDAY, 17 MAY: Today's front page of the "LATEXTRA" section of the Los Angeles Times has a photo of an Escondido home that, despite being built of concrete and steel, was destroyed by the intense heat of one of the many San Diego County fires.  It is worth noting that, as with the Madrona site, the location was on a hilltop, prone to high winds.

Moore on Madrona

In the wake of Tuesday's Brea City Council hearing on the Madrona housing project proposing 162 houses on the north side of Carbon Canyon between Olinda Village and the Chino Hills border, council member Roy Moore issued his e-newsletter to residents called "Brea Net," devoting the latest edition to the hearing and his take on the project.

As noted last entry, Moore expressed his support for the project, but here are his own words on it with annotations by yours truly:

Last night’s City Council meeting was another lengthy public hearing on the Madrona project.  The hearing was finally closed and the council began deliberating the issues.  Council member Simonoff opposed the development while council members Garcia and Moore approved it.  Mayor Murdock and Mayor Pro Tem Marick could not approve the development without further concessions from the developer.  Here is the list of additional conditions they want imposed in order to gain their approval.

1.  Madrona should not be a gated community.
2.  Other than for emergency uses, Olinda Place will never be used by Madrona residents for daily use.
3.  A system should be included in the development to collect and recycle water runoff.
4.  Each home should have the capability to collect and recycle “gray” water.
5.  The developer should procure water shares in Cal Domestic for the City.
6.  The future buyers should have the option to include solar panels on their home.
7.  The development should contain 10% of the homes as true custom homes on minimum one-half acre lots.
8.  At least one of the pocket parks should contain amenities such as a tot lot.
9.  Provide back up generators for the two water pumping stations on Carbon Canyon Road.
10. Get Cal Trans approval to the ingress and egress to the tract before beginning any excavation.
11.  Increase projected school fees.
12.  Increase projected transportation fees.

 
As you can see many are relatively harmless with minimum cost impact.  Others are major and may be hard for the developer to comply.  The Council approved a motion (3-2, Moore, Simonoff dissenting) to ask staff to develop a draft of the above conditions for approval of the Madrona development.  The Madrona saga continues on May 6.

I have included below my statement on the reasons I approve the Madrona project.  Your comments are welcomed.

Moore next time,    Roy

 

On the following statement, this blogger's commentary is added in bold.  It should be noted that these comments are not intended to criticize Moore as a person, but address his public comments about this project.

Over the past couple of months I have read hundreds of pages, listened to hours of public testimony, asked staff and consultants many questions and hiked the development site all pertaining to the proposed Madrona development of 162 homes in Carbon Canyon.  I must admit struggling with my emotions as I listened to the appellant’s articulate and persuasive arguments against this project.  Give council member Moore credit for acknowledging the excellent job a cadre of volunteers did in mounting an excellent defense.

I would like to share with you my conclusions on this controversial project.  I will start with the three unmitigatable findings requiring overriding consideration for its approval:

First, traffic on Carbon Canyon Road.  This state highway has been graded F for many years.  Certainly more homes in the canyon will add to the traffic.  The City’s traffic consultant’s analysis, based on the assumption that 9.75 car trips/day/house would result in an increase of AM west bound peak period traffic of 77 cars and PM eastbound peak period traffic of 87 cars.  Assuming a one hour peak period, in the opinion of the traffic consultant, this would lengthen a trip through the canyon by 2-3 minutes.  If the peak period is two hours, this would increase the travel time to under two minutes.  This, I believe is insignificant.

Over 21,000 cars travel this route daily.  At least 19,000 originate from Chino Hills and Chino. These are communities that continue to build houses in far greater quantities than the 162 Madrona homes.  I suggest Cal Trans convert Highway 142 to a toll road at the county line and give a free pass to Brea residents.

 

Council member Moore makes some truly unfortunate comments here.  First, the traffic study was done several years ago and does not reflect current conditions.  In addition, there are further projects approved within Chino Hills that are not being taken into account here.  Moreover, the suggestion that 19,000 car trips are from Chino Hills and Chino is mistaken--these are trips that are emanating from those growing cities but also other points east and south. 

 

People are using Carbon Canyon as an alternative to the 60/57 and 91 freeway routes.  More disappointing is the assumption that, because most of the traffic is from outside the city, Brea shouldn't feel bad about adding a measly 1,600 car trips and that a couple more minutes to a lousy commute is no big deal. 

 

Finally, as others do, Moore chooses to isolate and compartmentalize the three unavoidable significant adverse impacts--they are a package and need to be dealt with that way if SOCs are to be issued.  Those won't be done for only one--it has to be for the trio.

 

As for the suggestion that CalTrans make Carbon Canyon Road a toll road through Brea only and allow the city's residents free access--well, what can you say about something that is a truly strange non-starter?  It's one thing if it comes from Joe or Jane Citizen, but from an elected city leader of 16 years standing?

The second finding is the removal of 1400 oak and walnut trees.  The City’s biologist states that they would be replaced by a ratio of  3:1 or 2:1 depending on the specie and in groupings from actual trees down to acorns to assure greater levels of success in establishing new woodland areas.  The replacement trees are to be planted in the dedicated open space and provided with a temporary overhead watering system.  The program is to be monitored by a certified biologist for five years or longer if needed.  Assuming success, eventually there will be an overall increase in the number of trees.

 

Invariably, these replacement programs read well on paper, look great on PowerPoint presentations, and sound excellent when presented by a developer-hired arborist.  In the real world, the ratios almost never wind up delivering what was promised.  Mature trees cannot be seen as the same as seedlings.  And, who's going to make sure the certified monitoring for five years (or longer) is being done?  And, what if water supplies become further restricted and rationing ensues, which is a feasible scenario?  More on water below.

The third finding is the pollution generated during the construction period.  Both the approved Blackstone and La Floresta developments are or were anticipated to generate more pollution than Madrona.  It would seem if we approved Blackstone and La Floresta how can we apply a different standard to Madrona?

 

This one is typical, but is truly misapplied logic.  Yes, Blackstone and La Floresta would generate as much or more pollution than Madrona, but not in a canyon setting with steep walls that trap particulates (which, by the way, damage trees and other plant material, as well as people and animals.)  More importantly, Moore should know full well that we are talking about three unavoidable significant adverse impacts at Madrona, which was not the case at La Floresta or Blackstone.  That is why this is a bigger deal at Madrona and not at the others.

 

It should also be pointed out again that the City of Brea has never approved three Statements of Overriding Consideration for a housing project.  Madrona would be the first and, as precedent setting, would not be the last.  In fact, the city would really have to approve any development by lowering the bar in issuing three SOCs for Madrona.

There are also subsidiary issues:

Do we deny approval if the homes are to be built in a high fire environment or in the vicinity of prior known landslides?  Home sites are to be located away from known landslide areas and are to be constructed to very strict building and fire codes.  The development is to contain radiant heat fencing, fuel modification zones, sprinkler systems in the houses, street lengths and widths will accommodate emergency vehicles, street grades, with one exception, will not exceed 10% and water resources are adequate.

 

The answer to Moore's question is, yes and yes.  CalTrans has just placed yellow (as in "warning") signs on Carbon Canyon Road at both ends of the Brea side warning that drivers are entering an extreme fire zone.  Not moderate, extreme.  Landslides, as found with our little 5.1 earthquake last month, are going to happen, even if those areas that are supposedly "engineered."  It is not just street grades, we're talking about steep grades throughout the project.

 

All of the promised "enhancements" to Madrona can't account for what residents may do to their homes and landscaping and the fact that sparks and embers can travel in the air up to a mile or more, which radiant heat fencing cannot stop.

 

What Moore doesn't mention is that there are two ways in and out and only to a Carbon Canyon Road that can be packed if a fire requires emergency response and evacuation at a given time--moreover, the evacuation plan would actually ask Madrona residents to wait for others in the canyon to leave first.  Emergency access gets more problematic in Carbon Canyon the more we add houses and cars to a road that cannot be widened.

 

Water resources are adequate?  For how long?  And under what guarantee?  Our region is mired in a long-term drought--there should probably be a moratorium on any large-scale project anywhere until water supplies are better.

Approval of Madrona does not assume liability if built under the above requirements.  Future buyers should understand the circumstances under which they purchase a home.

 

If Moore means strictly legal financial liability on the part of the city, maybe, but that doesn't mean there won't be lawsuits that won't be settled as cheaper than going to court, which would still cost the city money (and which is not accounted before in the list of financial benefits below.) 

 

To assume that homebuyers are either 1) be given complete full disclosure on the dangers of living in an extreme fire zone prone to slides and other potential issues and 2) be fully cognizant of what that means, were that disclosure to be made (which a cynic would question) is operating on a heightened level of suspension of belief.

The Brea Water Master Plan (WMP) has assumed water use for the Madrona site to be 486,780 gallons/day.  The estimated usage is 65,000 gallons/day for private use and common slope landscaping and 240,600 gallons/day for the replacement trees.  This totals 305,600 gallons/day which is less than the WMP assumption.

 

This constitutes obscuring of the fact that Madrona is still going to guzzle several times more water than the average Brea home.  And, again, we are in a historic drought that is part of a long-term pattern gripping the western U.S.  This kind of consumption is not sustainable.  Note the term "assumption."  This applies to a lot of the purported benefits of this project juxtaposed with its demands and usage.

The Madrona development was compared to approximately 300 elements within Brea’s General Plan and the Carbon Canyon Specific Plan and Madrona was found consistent with every element except two pertaining to the removal of 1400 trees discussed earlier.

 

This question of consistency to the city's general plan and the Carbon Canyon Specific Plan is very much in debate.  Indeed, what Moore does not mention here is that the only reason Madrona got to this stage is because of an ill-advised legal agreement that allowed it to be applied for under a grandfathered arrangement.  In other words, if the same plan was to be offered tomorrow, it would not even be able to go to the application stage.

 
Last there is the issue of private property rights.  Does the property owner have the right to develop his property if he does so while complying with existing city codes and ordinances, building codes, fire codes and the General Plan?  If you wish to add an addition to your house under these requirements do your neighbors have the right to prevent you from building because your house will be too large, or you will block your neighbor’s view or they don’t like your architecture?

Again, Madrona would not even be permitted to go to the application level if proposed today.  Private property rights are to be respected when it squares with the broader public interest.  That is the matter at hand.  But, bringing up an unrelated example like home additions, size, view or architectural style have nothing to do with the question at hand.

It is also a lot easier to sympathize with a property owner when it is not a bankrupt insurance company that drove itself to that condition by poor management (and perhaps more) and which has not real intention or ability to build the wonderful estate homes it has proposed.  This is because Old Standard Life Insurance Company is only (repeat, only) seeking approval because it will increase the value of land for sale to provide some compensation to its creditors.

Does the Madrona development provide enough benefits to over ride the three considerations?  Here are the suggested benefits and the values assigned by the city staff:

• Fills the need for hillside estate housing Note the word "need."  This should actually read "want."  Besides, Blackstone is now advertising "luxury housing."  But, this appears to not be sufficient, a point bluntly delivered by former Brea planning commissioner John Koos, who just happened to have voted for Madrona's predecessor, Canyon Crest, in 2008, and now represents Madrona, when he stated that executives are forced (yes, forced) to live elsewhere because Brea lacks the large residences they demand.
• Property taxes ($472,000 annually)
• Sales taxes ($40,000 annually)
• Auto license fees ($108,000 annually)
• School fees ($2.0 million)
• Park in-lieu fees ($1.6 million)
• Affordable housing in-lieu fees ($3.6 million)
• Art in Public Places ($1,231,200)
• Water infrastructure fees ($3,417,552)
• Transportation fees ($319,788)
• Cal Trans sign
• Possible CFD

 

Again, none of this money is going to be delivered to the city under the current Madrona plan, because Old Standard Life is only in this to sell the land at an appreciated value with an approved map.  Someone else is going to have to do this and who knows when that will be, what conditions will be like, how much change there'll be, and whether these monies would be adequate for that future scenario. This is why approved tract maps that can be good for many years are a bad idea--too much can change in a period of time that makes what seemed like a good project in 2014 seem a lot less so in, say, 2024.

 

These total $620,000 annually and one time revenues of $12.2 million.  Except that there will be major wildfires with significant costs in response from the city.  If landslides do occur, there will also be expenses there.  There may also be settlement costs for lawsuits.  There will also be response expenses for emergency response for other reasons, such as car accidents caused at the only site entrance, where Carbon Canyon Road curves and dangerous driving will no doubt be unmitigated by law enforcement.  There may be more such matters to account for, as well.

As a 53 year resident of Brea, involved in city activities for over 22 years, 16 on the City Council, I have come to love this community and our hillsides.  This decision has been difficult for me for do I listen to my heart or to my conscience and sense of fairness?  After much thought and prayer I feel I must vote against the appellant and in favor of the Madrona project.

 

For all that's been said here, it would be manifestly unfair to assume that Roy Moore doesn't care for his city and even its hillsides (which, though, are disappearing slowly, but certainly surely).  It must not be easy to be in a position of making difficult decisions and that is not envied.

 

There are, however, some real issues with many of council member Moore's comments, characterizations and contentions (and it isn't just him on the council.)

 

He knows full well that, if Madrona were proposed exactly the same way today, it wouldn't even be allowed to submit an application.  So, all the merits he points out regarding financial benefit and community need mean what in this context?  His assumptions about traffic, water, loss of habitat, fire risk, landslide potential, and pollution are fraught with misunderstandings, misstatements and misapplication (again, he is not alone here.)

 

If Madrona was such a great idea, in terms of significant numbers of estate housing units on a footprint comprised of steep canyons and wind-prone ridgelines with a two-lane highway rated F for much of the time, and so on, this would have been done a long time ago.

 

There's a reason why this project has dragged on for fifteen years.  It is deeply flawed and a poor example of planning for a canyon that is already over-develolped.  That isn't NIMBYism--that's a recognition of limit.

 

Finally, it is always been assumed that Moore was going to vote for Madrona, as was Ron Garcia, just as it has been taken for granted that Marty Simonoff would vote against it.  The swing votes are Brett Murdock and Christine Marick, whose calls for conditions of approval might include ones that are, as Moore says, "relatively harmless with minimum cost impact."  But, as he also states, "others are major and may be hard for the developer to comply [with]."

 

What Moore didn't relay here was that he was visibly upset with Marick and Murdock's proposal and, it has been state, all but accused them of extortion and holding Old Standard Life "hostage" to their demands. 

 

Maybe on reflection, he's softened that view, but Murdock and Marick may well have introduced their laundry list of conditions in the hope that it will drive Old Standard out of the project so that there aren't two direct "no" votes that will make it easier for the developer to pursue the inevitable lawsuit that will come regardless of what the council does.

 

In any case, 6 May is the next round and we'll see what city staff comes back with on the conditions question and how Moore and his colleagues respond.

Madrona: COA not DOA?

YHB was at the city council meeting in Temple City last night and at that city's art commission gathering two weeks ago, so the last two Brea city council meetings including the continuing hearing on the Madrona appeal have been missed.

Apparently, last night's confab was confusing, conflicting, and confounding, at least according to some of those supporting the appeal.  Among the more notable points passed along:

• Mayor Brett Murdock offered the view that there were three possible council votes:  uphold the appeal, deny it, or deny it with conditions of approval (COAs) attached to Madrona.
• Marty Simonoff offered a motion to uphold the appeal, which was clarified by city attorney Jim Markman as a request to city staff to prepare documents for such and then a vote would be taken at the next council meeting.  There wasn't, however, a second on that motion.
• Roy Moore then spoke, giving many reasons why the appeal should be denied, pointing to the staff report (albeit with several errors about what staff recommended) and then divulged that he had turned to a higher power, while also observing that his conscience and sense of fairness (how much were these latter and how much was the prayer?) outweighed considerations of the heart (whatever that might entail).
• Ron Garcia detailed his support for Madrona, capping it off with the observation that 65% of the parcel would remain open space, but that would not necessarily remain the case if a new project was proposed to the city in the future.  The problem with that latter statement is that the city's General Plan wouldn't allow anything more than 50 and probably less because of the city's hillside management ordinance--which, of course, would mean there would actually be far more open space.  Well, 100%, because a project of under 50 houses would be totally infeasible.
• With Garcia and Moore plainly in favor of denying the appeal and Simonoff in support of it, this left the two newcomers, Murdock and Christine Marick as the swing votes.
• Marick started off by allowing that she would uphold the appeal as the project stood and then added the COAs were required to make Madrona worth supporting.  Ideas for additional conditions included water reclamation (given the obvious waste of water the project would create), use of solar panels, having the developer buy a share of the local water company California Domestic, having generators at the water pumping station at the Madrona entry, having some lots combined to create up to 16.5 acre parcels for real "estate" houses, asking for extra money for a gymnasium at the junior high, and additional funds for work on the 57 freeway.  These last two, however, were deemed illegal by attorney Markman.
• For Marick and Murdock's COA pitch, staff would work on a report detailing the options for further council review and applicant perusal to see if Old Standard Life would agree to some or all of the conditions.
• Murdock attempted to get the applicant's representatives to go to the podium to discuss these COAs, but Markman told him repeatedly that the hearing was closed, that an agreement could not be hammered out in that forum and that the Council needed to provide clarity in its directive concerning COAs and then see if the applicant would agree or not.
• Moreover, when Markman repeated his request for specificity, Murdock demurred and then stated that he would support whatever staff came up with.
• In addition, as each item was spelled out by Marick, Murdock tried to get council members to agree on an item-by-item basis.  This didn't go over well with the others, especially Moore who basically said that Murdock and Marick were making unreasonable demands of the developer and, more or less, were extorting and holding it hostage.
• The result is that staff is to draft a document of approval based on the COA items offered by Marick and Murdock, who clearly worked closely together to fashion this alternative.  Markman indicated that there was a possibility of further CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review with some of the suggested conditions.
• On the motion for this further process of COA drafting, the vote was 3-2 with Garcia, Marick and Murdock voting yes and Simonoff (because he wants to uphold the appeal) and Moore (because he wants to deny the appeal and approve Madrona with COAs) voting no.

Whatever the merits of some of the proposed COAs, there was concern expressed among onlookers that the majority of the council was heedless of the three significant adverse environmental impacts that require Statements of Overriding Considerations (SOCs) for approval.  Moreover, fundamental issues of resident safety did not seem to be thoughtfully considered.

Moreover, a cynic might wonder if the conditions offered by Murdock and Marick came out of a calculated decision to put forward ideas that would either be unacceptable or considered infeasible by the applicant.

Calling for water reclamation and use of solar panels sounds very environmentally-friendly and an attempt to address the gross use of water, a point hammered home by project opponents.

The idea of a generator at the pumping station was brought out, obviously, to address concerns about a power failure during a fire that would prevent adequate water made available up hill to fight a blaze.

The idea of creating bigger lots seems to be a way to address concerns about density while buttressing the developer's claims of the "luxury executive housing" that would fill a "need" within the city.

It just seems impossible to believe, however, that this or maybe any other developer would agree to such COAs, given the cost of planning and execution this would involve.

And, that might have been the point of introducing the proposed conditions in the first place.

Why vote against a project and guarantee a lawsuit, when the project could be less palatable by insisting on COAs (even if a lawsuit is almost certain regardless)?  At least, some of the council could claim they weren't "against" Madrona, but needed to ensure the project's quality and sensitivity to the canyon and the city by requiring the conditions.

So, this is how matters stand until the next meeting, which would be on Tuesday, 6 May.  Stay tuned as this strange saga stumbles towards some resolution!

Madrona Site Video Reveals Project Impacts

A video, a little under 6 minutes long, put together by opponents of the Madrona housing project, proposing 162 houses on the north side of Carbon Canyon in Brea between Olinda Village and the Chino Hills border, starkly and powerfully shows the major impacts this ill-conceived plan would wreak on the area.

As shown, the project would require removing 8-10 feet of steep hillside on the southern side of Carbon Canyon Road and then take 16 feet of area on the northern side of the state highway to accommodate the proposed entrance.  This entrance, in turn, would ascend a steep, narrow canyon, subject to landslides (the Canyon's vulnerability to slides was amply demonstrated after the recent earthquake) and rapid spread of fire (also fully illustrated by the 2008 wildfires) to lead to the home sites.

Extensive grading, the leveling of three hillsides, the removal of mature trees (which would be replaced by new trees, most of which will not survive--making "replacement" absurd) and other extraordinarily invasive measures are well illustrated in the video.

Produced by a Chino Hills company using a drone to capture the aerial and panoramic footage, the presentation aptly illustrates the perils and problems of this poorly-planned project in a realistic way.  This is unlike the 3-D animated presentations put forward by the developer--projections that mislead in perspective and downplay the results.

Meanwhile, the Brea City Council meets again tonight at 7 p.m. at City Hall, at the corner of Birch and Randolph streets, to continue its hearing on the appeal of the Madrona project and the council might very well vote tonight.  Those concerned about this project are encouraged to attend and make your presence known.

To see this extraordinary video, please click here.

Madrona Hearing Tonight Was One-Sided

Literally.

YHB showed up at about 9:00, expecting to be in time for the applicant's rebuttal of the appellant's rebuttal to the previous hearing statements made by the developers of the Madrona project.

From the admittedly anti-Madrona contingent, the earlier presentations this evening by Anne Summers, who spoke with great authority and conviction about the issues of supplying water in a cost-effective manner as well as about the enormous levels of use projected for the development, and former Brea council member Bev Perry, who summarized the multi-varied positions against the project, continued the level of professionalism, striking visuals, attention to factual detail, and well-reasoned argument that has marked the appellant's case all along.

As YHB walked up from the parking lot and stopped at the TV monitor in the plaza outside the council chambers, it was observed that Mayor Brett Murdock was polling his fellow council members about adjourning the hearing to the 1st of April (an auspicious date, maybe?).

Well, what happened to the hearing?

Moments later, after the meeting adjourned and folks streamed out of the chambers into the cool evening air, the surprise was revealed.  The applicant's attorney merely walked to the podium and curtly offered that there was no further rebuttal, effectively ending the public hearing and leaving it to the council to move on to the next stage.

Was this a concession to defeat or a simple acknowledgement that the applicant, Old Standard Life Insurance Company, simply had nothing further to say, having made its case, but, more importantly, laid the groundwork for its arguments in the inevitable lawsuit that would follow the council's decision either way?

Obviously, the applicants did not have a prepared rebuttal only to slink away from it in the face of what was a strong showing by the appellants.  They never intended to offer anything, but not necessarily in supreme confidence of prevailing in the appeal.  More likely, the assertions that older city general and Carbon Canyon Specific plans were sufficient for approval, as well as the argument that the project was exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (at least two ways, that is, that the applicant could make a case in court) provided the strategy in the event that the council was disposed to uphold the appeal.

Not that tonight implies that a victory for Perry, et. al., is assured either.  Whatever might have been read into facial expressions, body language, note taking, whispered comments and so forth by council members, there really is no reason to assume that there is a clear-cut path staked out either direction.

Now, come April Fools' Day, the kinds of questions asked by council may give some clues, or not, regarding leanings.   It is also not likely that the questions will be few and the answers short and that, therefore, a decision is forthcoming on that date.  There will probably be at least one more meeting for that to take place.

And, a lot can happen during that time, as the council works to understand the issues, process the arguments by both sides and so on.

Still, there's no denying that it was a bit of a shock to many observers present at tonight's meeting and, perhaps, to most of the council, that the applicant decided to rest their case without further rebuttal. 

What was not surprising, though, was another stellar presentation by the appellants, who have relied on the issues, rather than emotion; concentrated on broader issues relating to Brea, rather than specifically the canyon; and used an array of compelling visual images and equally evocative statements, rather than broad generalities and misleading graphics, such as the applicant's flawed representations of the project site.

Whatever people may think or say about the applicants regarding NIMBYism, anyone looking at this in a reasonable way would have to admit that the argument on the issues of water, fire, traffic and loss of walnut and oak woodland habitat is not NIMBYism, at all, but simply a recognition that there are valid arguments that this project is bad for the Canyon and for Brea. 

The applicants have presented themselves in about as responsible and professional a manner as anyone could expect and, hopefully, the Council recognizes this and is appreciative of just how important this is.  It's easy to scream and yell, wave banners, blow whistles, shout, jeer or boo at meetings and rely on theatrics, political spectacle and raw emotion.  That happens in lots of cities. 

Here, though, the appellants have been very reasonable.  And, in truth, the applicants have done their jobs as would be expected and have been cordial to the opposing side (and vice-versa.)  No one can blame receiver Jackie Muro for doing what she is mandated by court order to do--improve the value of an asset for a bankrupt firm (one that drove itself there, however) seeking to satisfy creditors to the extent that it can.

Both sides have made their respective cases--it's now up to the council to ask questions, take in answers, process what has been argued and use their discretion to make the decision they feel is in the best interests of their city.

Sometime in April, it may be April Fools' Day or it may be Tax Day (either has its ironies) or maybe some other, that decision will come down.  Whatever the ruling is, this blogger can sincerely say that the appellants have mounted a masterful defense, no small achievement from a group that is doing this from community activism, not as a professional obligation or duty.

To them, a salute for a job extremely well done!

Madrona Hearing Continues Tomorrow Night

The next phase of the hearing by the Brea City Council on the appeal of the Madrona (formerly known as Canyon Crest) housing project of 162 houses on the north side of Carbon Canyon between Olinda Village and Sleepy Hollow continues tomorrow evening, 18 March at 7:00 p.m. at the council chambers in the civic center at the corner of Birch and Randolph streets.

The hearing tomorrow night will consist of rebuttals offered by the appellant, former mayor and council member Bev Perry, and her team of those rebuttals given by the applicant, the bankrupt firm Old Standard Life Insurance Company of Spokane, Washington, now under court-mandated receivership in Idaho. 

While it is quite obvious the OSL has no intention or ability to follow through with an actual project, what it really desires, but cannot express publicly, is an entitled tract map that will increase the value of the property so that it can be sold to satisfy the company's many creditors.  Still, it has to go through the motions of pretending that it is going to work with a developer to build the project and promise all manner of benefits to the community.

The appellants, meanwhile, argue that those benefits are overstated and do not outweigh the risks and negatives of building a large-scale development in a wildland interface that has a long history of devastation by fire; that adds to already heavy traffic on an overburdened Carbon Canyon Road; consumes far more water than is wise in our drought-stricken region; among other reasons.

The council will, once rebuttals are completed, begin their deliberations on the fate of the appeal and of the project.  While it is generally believed that the vote may go 3-2 either way, who knows what effects the arguments by both sides could have?  Moreover, a public presence at these meetings does have the potential to affect the outcome.

So, those concerned about the potential addition of 162 houses to the canyon, which already has 100 approved units on the Chino Hills side and a pending application for over 100 more there, should turn out tomorrow night at 7:00 p.m. at the Brea Civic Center.

Madrona Plan Appeal: A Cynical Take on the Applicant's Rebuttal

Returning just now from Brea, where the city council heard rebuttals from both the appellant and the applicant in the matter of Madrona Plan appeal for a proposed Carbon Canyon residential project, it was apt, perhaps, that, while heading downhill eastbound from Olinda Village on Carbon Canyon Road, this blogger was passed by a large white F-series Ford pickup.  The crime?  Driving only eight miles over the speed limit, at 11:30 at night, on a canyon road, near housing.

Apt, perhaps, because tonight's rebuttal by the applicant in the Madrona hearing made a point, repeated throughout of selectively offering commentary that might have addressed an argument advanced by the appellant, superficially did so, completely misrepresented such, or, often as not, failed to so rebut.

At least it was consistent with the applicant's opening statement, which similarly lacked substance, heft, weight and other synonyms for having a "there there."

Among the highlights:  applicant John Erskine showing a photograph of the project entrance north of Carbon Canyon Road, east of the La Vida Mineral Springs site, and then opining (as opposed to rebutting) that the spot didn't look "beautiful."  So much for the "eye of the beholder."  Alas, when an imaginative rendering of the project entrance with its wide stone bridge, Mediterranean-style guard house and profusion of trees and plant material (and, where was the fire management?) appeared, well, then, man-made beauty in all its glory manifested itself in full flower.

Another beauty was the traffic engineer, who contributed another mind-numbing presentation thick with industry terminology and references which, to his credit, did seek to rebut statements made by a traffic engineer hired by the appellant.  He was also not nearly as long, and, therefore, as ponderous as his last appearance.  Then, again, he spoke later.  Tellingly, Erskine rose from his seat and gently made his way closer to said engineer--an obvious indication that said engineer needed to wrap it up because it was clear the discussion was not what was needed or desired.

What said engineer did not repeat was his memorable statement from January, when he observed that the 19 car trips over the threshold of a significant unavoidable adverse impact under the California Environmental Quality Act, which then required a statement of overriding consideration as mitigation for an approved project, was not really that many trips.  As if 19 more than lousy ain't still lousy.

Also notable in tonight's presentation was another applicant attorney who made the point that statements about current average water use in Brea were low by about 30-40% and that "conservative" estimates from the Environmental Impact Report that Madrona's homes would use up to 6 times the average were actually overstated by about one-third.  Fine, except that her revised "conservative" figures still came out to this.  The average water use of Brea homes is something like 16-20 units and the average use at Madrona would be 38.6.

Well, that looks like double--and is that really a rebuttal that makes Madrona look better?  The kicker is that attorney Erskine produced a screen shot of a New York Times article (which he then attempted to qualify by stating that, being the New York Times, it couldn't be accused of being conservative, which begged the question--who exactly was accusing?) that contained a single statement by a single scientist at Columbia University that climate change might actually lead to California being wetter or drier over time.  What the article didn't say was--what part of California and where would the water be coming from?

The applicant claims that water use and supply is not a major issue and this article purported to be evidentiary of that, but most of Brea's water comes from a local consortium and another major source is the Metropolitan Water District, which draws much of its water from the Colorado River, which, in turn, draws its sources not from California but from points east.  The other major source:  the State Water Project, which announced this year for the first time in its 54 year history that it could not guarantee delivery of water short term to its customers. 

Another high point came when a civil engineer, who admitted he was not prepared to speak, came to the podium and, well, sounded like he was not ready to speak.  He did opine that the project was well considered from the geotechnical side, but did not actually have much in the way of rebuttal, to which the evening was devoted.

Meantime, the economic analyst, from a Los Angeles firm, spent his time talking about how Brea's retail sales situation was so much superior to neighboring cities, but then failed to connect that to Madrona specifically, even admitting that his numbers were regional in nature.  Meaning, essentially, that the Brea Mall draws revenue from a regional perspective, but there was actually very little said about just how Madrona residents would spend their money, because how can you?

Besides all the figures purporting to show excess of revenues over expenses don't account for what will happen with the next major fire, which the fire consultants (who did not speak tonight) openly acknowledged, as they had to, will be coming, and what the costs to the city will be for that.

To end matters perfectly, "community relations" consultant John Koos, a planning commissioner who voted in 2008 for the Canyon Crest iteration that is now being appealed and which was the precursor to Madrona, finished the "rebuttal" with a short statement that was simply this:  Brea needs Madrona because people who need (want?) luxury executive homes are being forced to buy in Yorba Linda, La Habra Heights, and nicer areas of Fullerton.  Koos cited the examples of his lawyer and doctor (or some such) and other people of the "class" Brea needs, he submitted, to rise to the upper echelons of Orange County's elite enclaves, typically found down south.

Yes, Breans, you are being told by one of your former city officials that your city just isn't good enough when it comes the housing stock and, by logical extension, the human stock found in your poor, benighted city.  Madrona is necessary, Koos concluded, because we need biotech, tech industry, medical and other business executives to rescue and uplift the city from its riff-raff plebeian associations.

Just like the business person, obviously recruited by Koos, who spoke in January and stated, in public mind you, that he was forced to build his custom home in Yorba Linda because there was nothing of like quality in Brea.  As if he was required to build a large custom house (with its attendant higher usages of water, gas, electricity and so on.)  Except that Madrona would only be "semi-custom," so what would said business person do in that case?

The evening concluded with a fanciful bit of 3-D imaging that attempted to show what the applicants are trying to convince everyone Madrona will look like.  Major impressions here:  the sheer amount of landscape along Carbon Canyon Road and the entrance, as well as around the houses.  Yet, fire management would seem to dictate toning that down just a tad.  Plus, no real indication of what the single entrance would look like relative to ingress and egress from Carbon Canyon Road, which winds in tight curves through the area.  Also, one swimming pool among 162 luxury executive houses.  And, to this viewer anyway, a flattening of the landscape and a clever attempt to make it seem that nearby Olinda Village and Madrona were more or less of similar elevations and landscapes, which is largely not true.  Madrona sits mainly atop ridgelines, whereas most of Olinda Village is below that.

Now, it is late, so this is a bit of a stream-of-consciousness, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, glib and irreverent, as well as subjective, summary, to be sure.  Moreover, there is no implication here that all development in Carbon Canyon is bad (smaller projects and single ones seem reasonable for the amount of development the canyon has absorbed in recent decades) or that Madrona is the only project of concern--in fact, there are already two approved projects of over 100 units on the Chino Hills side and a pending application for over 100 more, in addition to Madrona.  In any case, there will be no shortage of larger (if not, luxury executive homes to meet Mr. Koos' high and stringent standards) homes for prospective buyers to peruse in the future.

The problem is that conditions have changed, the fire risk is serious, the water situation is tenuous, the traffic on Carbon Canyon Road is often very poor--the canyon can only absorb so many more homes.

Again, Old Standard Life Insurance Company, despite putting up the necessary appearances, and its development partner are not going to build a single house.  They simply seek an entitled tract map to increase the value of the land for sale to increase revenues to pay off creditors of a company that drove itself into the ground. 

The City of Brea has no legal obligation to approve this project, though Erskine was quite clear in setting the table for litigation should a denial of Madrona be forthcoming from the city council.  Even staff recommendations for approval, constantly put forward by the applicant, is not a mandate for the council.  It can choose to uphold the appeal and, hopefully, city attorney Jim Markman will make that point when the council comes to a vote.

This blogger arrived at the break, having missed what was said to have been a well-coordinated and finely-executed rebuttal by the appellants, but what the applicants offered just seemed lacking in substance almost all the way around.  In fact, compared to the others, the traffic engineer seemed to be the most on-task.  Which highlighted the problem with the presentation as a whole.  Like its project, there just isn't much substantive to it. 

As has been said before, if Madrona and Canyon Crest were such great projects, something would have built on the site by now. 

Madrona Appeal Continues Tomorrow Night

The appeal before the Brea City Council of the Madrona project, the previous iteration of which (Canyon Crest) was approved by the city's planning commission in Fall 2008, continues at the regular meeting of the city council tomorrow Tuesday, 4 March at 7:00 p.m. at the city hall council chambers, corner of Birch and Randolph streets.

Each side has made their opening statements and public comment has also been taken.  Now, the developer and the appellant teams will be presenting their rebuttals.  With other council business on the docket, it is not clear whether both teams will be able to complete their rebuttals tonight or if there will be a continuation to the next council meeting on the 18th.

In any case, anyone concerned about the potential of having 162 houses on the north end of Carbon Canyon between Olinda Village and Sleepy Hollow should seriously consider attending and letting the city know by your presence that this is a matter of great importance.

Recap of Tonight's Madrona Public Hearing

Tonight was the second evening of hearings in the appeal of the Madrona housing development, proposing 162 houses in the Brea portion of Carbon Canyon between Olinda Village and the Chino Hills border and which was approved by the city's planning commission on a narrow 3-2 vote of the predecessor Canyon Crest in 2008 before the outbreak of the Freeway Complex Fire.

The proceedings were devoted entirely to public comment, with twenty-six persons speaking for up to five minutes over the course of about 2 1/2 hours or so.  Of those who offered remarks, twenty were against the Madrona project and six were in favor. 

Notably, five of these included business members, who must have been there at the behest of former Brea planning commissioner (he was one of those three "yea" votes in '08) and current P.R. consultant for Madrona John Koos and a representative of the Building Industry Association.  The sixth was a resident of Olinda Village who was on a personal quest to belittle Hills for Everyone's Executive Director Claire Schlotterbeck rather than offer much of substance about Madrona's purported merits.

In fact, the others focused on almost purely business issues, such as generated revenue, though a couple had curious commentaries.  One man, for example, who works for an aerospace firm in Brea, indicated that he couldn't find a house in town that worked for his wants, so he was building his custom home in Yorba Linda.  Another offered the view that the "C-class" executives (that is, CFOs, CEOs, etc.) among Brea's businesses would "demand" a Madrona project for the type of clientele that would patronize their firms.

The upshot of these notably narrowed remarks is that someone who could afford "luxury" housing could only be expected to consider such living arrangements and could not deign to look at, say, the executive housing available at Blackstone, some of which are probably not that far under $1 million.  And, that those "C-class" execs are more concerned about the upper-class clientele from a Madrona-type development rather than the yokels, riff-raff and plebeians who only fit the demographic of the $150,000 a year household income living in $600-700,000 houses.

As for the jeremiad against "Hills for Us and No One Else" and Schlotterbeck, it came across like a petty, petulant and, frankly, bizarre rant.  Probably did no favors for the pro-Madrona crowd.

For the most part, those speaking against the project were highly articulate, focused and offered solid reasons for being firmly rooted in opposition.  A number stood out for not only being excellent public speakers, but also going out of their way to praise city leaders for their overall management and direction of what is truly a well-run city, much as Chino Hills is.

One of those who shone brightly resides on the Chino Hills side of Carbon Canyon but was very complimentary of Brea and its many amenities.   Another who is a fairly recent denizen of Olinda Village was effusive in his praise and his belief that the council would make the right decision and was, in this blogger's opinion, the most effective of the twenty-six commenters.

Former council member John Beauman was also excellent at pointing out the differences between constitutional private property protections and the lack of application of these to an out-of-state bankrupt insurance company under receivership.   He made a fine point of noting that "anticipated value" was not a right or expectation that city should have to promote.

Another telling presentation was by a representative of the "Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks" in Orange County, who handed out a chart of fourteen points under the county's sub-regional Sustainable Communities Strategy Policy and how Madrona didn't meet a single one.  His remarks were cogent, well-considered and very timely.

An Olinda Village resident gave a penetrating example of how, some years back, he was part of an investor group in a proposed hillside project in Encino that failed to be approved, while pointing out that the Encino gambit had far more going for it, actually, than Madrona.

An insurance company loss control manager from Silverado Canyon in eastern Orange County didn't come across as well as he could have, but did have a good, pointed question for the council:  namely, could the city reasonably argue to have met a standard of care in its stewardship of the Madrona site relating to future claims in case of a disaster, like a wildfire?

In all, it was a good representation of varying views that pointed out the lack of merit for the project, despite all the grandiose claims by the applicants of revenue streams, fire protection, meeting the "need" for luxury housing and so on.

A month from tonight, then, comes the next phase, in which the applicant first and then the appellant are given time for rebuttals.  It will be interesting, given the results of the 21 January opening hearing, to see what each side has to offer and what effects this might have on a council vote.  It would seem likely, in any case, that the council will take additional time to consider the matter, probably asking for further staff input.

Public comment is now closed, but that is no reason for those concerned about this project to avoid going to future stages of this hearing.  A presence still has some weight, so it would be well for anyone concerned about Madrona's fate to attend the meeting on Tuesday, 4 March at 7:00 p.m. at Brea's city hall council chambers, corner of Birch and Randolph.

Meantime, here is the text of one set of comments, not stated exactly as below but pretty close, offered this evening:

Two weeks ago, we heard from the appellant and applicant teams.  The takeaways for me from each are:  for the appellants, that this project emasculates increasingly diminished oak and walnut woodland habitat;  that it is in a dangerous wildfire area that has burned several times in recent decades and it is too risky to build there; that it uses far too much water, especially as we are mired in drought; and that traffic in Carbon Canyon Road is already too heavy and this project would make it worse.

What the applicants basically said is, this project isn’t CEQA-applicable (I hope we all heard that), but that they welcome it anyway; that this project is in a wildfire zone that will burn again, but that firewalls, sprinklers and other elements will make the homes “survivable”, and that traffic on Carbon Canyon Road has gone down, but that it will go up with this project, and that 19 car trips over the CEQA threshold is, essentially, no big deal.

Note, however, that the applicants said not one word about the massive use of water.

Let’s also remember that the applicant is not capable of developing any housing project anywhere at any time—that Madrona is, fundamentally, a figment of a collective imagination.

Let’s remind ourselves that the property owner is a bankrupt insurance company that put itself there by its own poor decisions and is now under receivership via the State of Idaho.

Let’s be clear that the applicant has only one goal:  entitlement, so that it can sell the land at a higher value and do something for the creditors of Old Standard Life Insurance Company.

That’s it:  these folks, no offense to them, are not here to help Brea and its citizens.  I don’t blame them, that’s not their job. 

Your job, however, is to put the citizens of Brea first.  Not in line behind a bankrupt property owner that cannot possibly deliver on any of its rosy promises.

Now, after the applicants’ arguments, I was envisioning a Madrona sales booklet, not that one will ever be produced, at least not by the applicant.

But, I was imagining what it would say and what it ought to say.  In other words, I was mindful of full disclosure.

Because, full disclosure would require a front cover photograph of the CalTrans signs, put up just a few days before the last meeting, at both ends of the Brea portion of Carbon Canyon—signs that read, “Entering Hazardous Fire Area.”

Full disclosure would involve letting potential buyers know that the destruction of native oak and walnut trees would not simply be remedied by planting new trees and creating so-called “open space” because most new plantings die anyway—plus the inevitable fire would burn off most of the new materials.

Speaking of which, full disclosure would also include what the applicant’s fire consultants said, quite clearly:  “The next big fire is coming.”  Then, after showing what the fire walls and sprinkler systems and other elements would look like, there would be the reassuring catchphrase:  “But, it’s OK, your house would survive” next to a photo of the dessicated landscape after the Freeway Complex Fire of 2008.  And, who would pay the estimated $1.2 million and up for houses that are going to “survive” a wildfire that devastates all the land around the development.  And, what a view that would be!

Full disclosure would then involve showing graphics of how much water this project would use relative to the situation that exists in our state and, in fact, in almost the entire American West—including Idaho, where more than half of the state is in a drought condition.  In California it is nearly two-thirds.

Let’s remind ourselves, in fact, that snowpack is 18% of normal; that reservoirs throughout the state are at critically low levels; that dozens of towns in California have water supplies for only upcoming weeks; that Governor Brown has declared a drought emergency, and, if matters don’t change and fast, we will almost certainly be rationing water next year and probably beyond; that the State Water Project for the first time in 54 years cannot guarantee delivery to customers; and that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has declared portions of 11 western states, including California, as disaster areas due to drought.

Let’s also recollect that, with almost no rainfall for three straight years and water shortages and a year-round wildfire season and with a location that has the optimal conditions of windy ridgetops and steep canyons that speed fire—that Madrona is exactly the type of site this video, put out by the U.S. Geological Survey and called “Living with Fire.”

Let’s remember that Carbon Canyon Road is the only way in and out during a fire emergency and that, otherwise, it is over the CEQA threshold—by the way, 19 units over “terrible” is still “terrible” and that it is a road that experiences regular, unmitigated dangerous driving and accidents.

Finally, let’s remember that, if you approve Madrona, the applicants go home and will speculate, yes speculate, on this land.  Is this the kind of private property right we should empathize with and be supportive of?

If anything gets built there, and it won’t be Madrona as we know it, and a disaster happens, they won’t be liable.  The City of Brea will.

THAT is full disclosure.

Knowing all of this, do the right thing by your citizens, the people you’ve sworn to represent. 

After all, if there was a viable project at this site, it isn’t this one and it isn’t by this applicant, who can’t deliver on what they promise.

Please vote yes on the appeal and no on Madrona.