State Senate Bill Introduced to Expand Chino Hills State Park in Carbon Canyon

As reported by the Orange County Register, State Senator Ling-Ling Chang, who was elected to replace the recalled Josh Newman, proposed a bill on 20 February that would "require the {State Parks] department to seek opportunities for acquiring land to expand open space for Chino Hills State Park," to quote the wording of her Senate Bill 404.

There are four properties targeted for acquisition and inclusion in the park, including the Lamb and Eastbridge parcels in south Chino Hills at the east end of the park and comprising 1,600 acres.  The others are immediately adjacent to Carbon Canyon and include an 11-acre tract and the 369-acre parcel that was slated for 162 houses as the Madrona development.

This latter, approved by the Brea City Council despite the proposal being counter to the city's own ordinances, was rejected by the Orange County Superior Court after a suit was filed by Hills for Everyone, which was a major player in establishing the state park in the early 1980s, and partners.  The lower court's ruling was upheld by a state appellate court and the California Supreme Court.

If everything works out, just south of 2,000 acres would be added to the park, which would be about a 14% increase in the size of the 14,000 acres now within it.  Chang was quoted as saying:

I believe the best use of this land is to keep it open and accessible to the community.  Southern California is so heavily urbanized, it becomes almost impossible to find an area to provide tranquility, solitude and relief from hectic urban life.

The Chino Hills tracts, if purchased, would protect valuable ridgelines from intrusion to park visitors of houses, while the Brea parcels will facilitate wildlife movement between the park and Tonner Canyon to the north.

Speaking of Tonner Canyon, the synchronicity of what might transpire under Senator Chang's legislation and the recent news of an agreement by City of Industry, Chino Hills and Diamond Bar to share ownership and management of the 2,500-acre Tres Hermanos Ranch in Tonner Canyon is notable.

Claire Schlotterbeck, executive director of Hills for Everyone and who had a significant role in the establishment of the state park along with State Senator Ross Johnson, a Republican, who died recently, told the paper "we finally have willing sellers.  We've been waiting 40 years."

The cost of acquisition could easily go into the tens of millions of dollars, given that prices per acre can be up to about $10,000, but there is support for the plan in Brea and Chino Hills.  So, as news develops, updates will be made here.

Madrona Request for State Supreme Court Review Denied

This just doesn't happen very often, but the proposed Madrona housing project, which would have brought 162 houses to the north side of Carbon Canyon between Olinda Village and Sleepy Hollow, is now officially revoked.

Old Standard Life Insurance Company, through its conservator in bankruptcy, the State of Idaho, sought a review by the California Supreme Court of the superior court ruling denying the project and the state appeals court order upholding the lower court decision.

The high court, however, denied that request on Friday.  Now the Superior Court in Orange County will revoke all the approvals given by the City of Brea in June 2014.

Given the ease with which housing projects are routinely approved and upheld in court, this is a signal milestone.  Hills for Everyone, along with other partners, has shepherded this process through, at great financial cost and the time of dedicated volunteers and legal staff.

The Superior Court victory was secured in November 2015, followed by a win at the Appellate Court last October.  Friday's denial by the Supreme Court capped a 17-year effort by HFE and many others to fight this egregious project.

For more on this momentous victory, check out this HFE page.

Madrona Appeal Rehearing Denied

Yesterday, judges from the fourth district of the California Appeals Court issued a ruling denying the petition of a rehearing before the court of the decision rendered in mid-October substantially upholding the superior court verdict in the Madrona case.

This matter involved a proposed 162-unit development in Carbon Canyon between Sleepy Hollow and Olinda Village in Brea and the trial court ruled for Hills for Everyone and fellow plaintiffs who alleged that the City of Brea failed to follow its own ordinances in approving the project.

Old Standard Life Insurance Company, a bankrupt Idaho company in state receivership, appealed, through its OSLIC Holdings, LLC variant, and then lost in the decision rendered about three weeks ago.  Yesterday's action ends the matter at the appellate court level and OSLIC and the State of Idaho now have to determine whether to take the issue to the California Supreme Court.

So, stay tuned for whether this matter moves to the state's high court.

Hillcrest Model Grand Opening in Carbon Canyon on Saturday

Hillcrest, a gated community of 76 houses spanning from about 3,500 to over 5,000 square feet, located north of Carbon Canyon Road at Canyon Hills Road just east of Sleepy Hollow, has its model grand opening this Saturday.

The property, which was a Jewish camp from 1928 to 1958 and then a series of resorts for some years after, including the strange, short-lived Ski Villa, which had a plastic needle-covered ski slope, was given a negative declaration in the mid-1980s, exempting it from environmental impact reports and basically allowing development in lieu of blight.

Conditions relative to traffic, water, diminishing habitat and fire risk have changed a great deal since then, but the project was not subject to any substantive review.  Now, as our region is mired in a historic drought, as we continue to lose open land to development, as climate change brings bigger and more damaging fires, and as traffic worsens on Carbon Canyon Road, as anyone who uses it can attest even within the last few months . . . here are 76 more homes.

No doubt, the models are beautiful, the views stunning, and the development will sell quick as buyers seek executive homes in a tight and pricey market.

Undoubtedly, the glossy brochures, well-rehearsed sales pitches, and other marketing and public relations endeavors will look past the fire threat, water scarcity, traffic issues and so on and buyers will find out sooner or later what all of these mean.

Coming soon, most probably, will be application for over 100 more houses right across Carbon Canyon Road on the so-called Hidden Oaks property (well, hidden might apply to the 2,000 oak trees butchered by a developer who then abandoned their plans years ago.)  The development plan requires a zoning change which city staff are more than happy to accommodate for the owners.

Further east, the Stonefield property, with approval for 28 houses, is for sale below the S-curve and near the Western Hills Golf Course.

So, do the math and see that are possible 200+ homes that could be in the works on the Chino Hills part of the canyon alone.

In Brea, there is an appeal pending on an Orange County Superior Court ruling overturning the city's approval of the Madrona project of 162 houses between Sleepy Hollow and Olinda Village.  The State of Idaho, which holds the property in receivership, is pursuing the appeal.  That's why a fundraiser is being held this weekend--a post just a few days ago here gives a link for more info on that.

Hills for Everyone September Shindig Next Saturday

Hills for Everyone, the non-profit organization that was a major force behind the creation of Chino Hills State Park and which has been working to preserve remaining open space in the area, is poised to go to court once again over the Madrona project, which would include over 160 houses on 367 acres on the northern edge of Carbon Canyon in Brea between Olinda Village and Sleepy Hollow.

An Orange County Superior Court ruling last year determined that the City of Brea did not follow its own ordinances in voting to approve the project, which was a tremendous victory for HFE and others opposed to Madrona, but the property owner, the State of Idaho (through receivership for the bankrupt Old Standard Life Insurance Company), has taken the matter to a state appeals court.

Obviously, while Idaho can use taxpayer money to foot the bills for its legal maneuverings, Hills for Everyone has to fundraise to be able to continue the fight.  So, next Saturday is a "September Shindig" so that organization can marshal its resources and carry the legal campaign forward to the next level.

The flyer for the event, with the all the information, is here.

A Ramble Through the Chino Hills North of Carbon Canyon

A nice shaded section of the route on this afternoon's trek.  Click on any photo to see them in enlarged views in separate windows.

This being a few days into spring and a beautiful one, a jaunt into the Chino Hills about 1 1/2 miles or so north of Carbon Canyon seemed like a great idea and it was a nice ramble along access roads parallelling the TRTP towers recently installed along a west-to-east corridor.

Looking south towards Carbon Canyon, with a bit of the graded Hillcrest housing project just left of center.

This was a walk that was taken along the same route some months ago, but with a significant difference.

One of the behemoth 198-foot TRTP towers striding across the hills from west to east.

The massive 198-foot towers did not yet have the several strands of wire strung from one to the next, but now they, and the multicolored balls that alert aircraft of their presence, are now a very conspicuous presence.  Some of the fine views obtained along the way are now compromised by having the wires in the line of sight.

A spray of purple wildflowers along the route.

Still, depending on where you are on the trek, the towers and wires may be on one side or the other, so there are still plenty of excellent vantage points looking in all directions.

Sunflowers also sprouting along the trail's edge.

For example, a glance to the north or the west can take in Tres Hermanos Ranch, Tonner Canyon, and the Boy Scouts of America camp, recently purchased by the City of Industry.

Looking towards the southeast and to Carbon Canyon and beyond.

Beyond are the towering peaks of the San Gabriel Mountains, the San Jose Hills from Pomona and San Dimas to Walnut and West Covina and the Puente Hills from Rowland Heights over towards Whittier.

This view looks southwest towards Brea and Orange County.

To the south and the east are more of the Chino Hills, large areas bordering Carbon Canyon from the summit in Chino Hills out toward Olinda Village in Brea.

To the northwest and Diamond Bar, the Puente Hills and the San Gabriel Valley.

In the distance are the Santa Ana Mountains and further out can be seen the San Joaquin Hills near Irvine and Newport Beach and, on clearer days than this, the Pacific Ocean.

Looking out to Tres Hermanos Ranch in Tonner Canyon and the San Gabriel range in the distance.

A clear view can be seen from points along the hike of the St. Joseph's Hill of Hope religious community in Lion's Canyon just above Carbon Canyon to the south of the trail, while to the north and west are camp sites, shooting ranges and other facilities from the Boy Scouts reservation.

Another view to the south and towards Carbon Canyon.

Given that some of these latter facilities are not in Tonner Canyon but are in adjacent canyons and locations, it may be that, although Industry has purchased more of the Scouts property, some of the sites may still be used by the scouting organization.

It is said that Industry is looking to convert much of Tonner Canyon to water storage for city needs, but how much of an impact that could have on other uses of the reservation is not known.

A lengthy section of the winding trail is captured here.

As to the still-abundant swaths of oak and walnut woodland habitat, it is nice to see some amount of greenery, even though this winter has brought only a fraction (about 5 inches) of the deluges predicted because of the El Niño storm system.

It looks like there is a chance for some showers from Tuesday to Thursday in the coming week, but how much greener our hills will get is certainly not clear.

Just one of many old, spreading and majestic oaks in our local hills.

Of course, with the Hillcrest housing development of 76 units in process just north of Carbon Canyon east of Sleepy Hollow and with the specter of other projects looking including the Stonecrest property of 28 approved units near the summit in the Chino Hills portion, the pending hearings for the 107-unit Hidden Oaks south of the Canyon, and the appeal of the 162-unit Madrona project north of the canyon between Sleepy Hollow and Olinda Village, the long-term prognosis for the area is still very much in dispute.

An outstanding example of a grove of oaks along the trail.

For the time being, we should enjoy the beauty of what remains in Carbon Canyon while we still have what is still here.

Madrona Appeal: Good News, Bad News

It has been reported that the City of Brea has decided not to appeal the ruling against the Madrona development, which proposed 162 houses on over 350 acres on the north side of Carbon Canyon between Sleepy Hollow and Olinda Village in Brea.

That's the good news.

However, the property owner, Old Standard Life Insurance Company, which is in receivership with the State of Idaho, has decided to pursue an appeal.

There's your bad news.

It may be about 18 months before a hearing actually takes place before the appellate court.  Hopefully, that court will uphold the lower (Superior) court ruling, based on the very thorough examination of the facts in evidence that comprised that decision, including the casual violation of the city's own ordinances relating to the matter.

In the meantime, lead plaintiff, Hills for Everyone, which has led the lengthy battle against this poorly-conceived and potentially-destructive development, will be needing help raise funds to continue the fight.  Stay tuned here or check out the HFE Web site here for more.

But, we will see when that time comes!

Carbon Canyon Housing Project Editorial

This view looks east from near Olinda Village in Brea across the hills on the north edge of Carbon Canyon, including the proposed Madrona project site (162 units, recently denied by an Orange County judge) and, at the right further in the distance, the 76-unit Hillcrest development, now under construction.

Here is the text of a letter to the editor which appeared in the Champion's current edition concerning pending housing developments in Carbon Canyon:

Concerning the “Chino Hills planners bless Canyon project architecture” article from January 9, planning commissioner Karen Bristow’s comment about Carbon Canyon residents not welcoming the Hillcrest community “because it was the beginning of subdivisions which they are not used to” may apply to some people, but here’s another reason. 

This project was not only approved by the county in 1989, but under a negative declaration engineered by then-Supervisor Robert O. Townsend.  This meant the project did not have an environmental impact report, because the declaration determined one was not needed.  

However, not only have conditions in the last 27 years changed enormously in the Canyon, with respect to traffic volume, fire risk, and loss of habitat, but our general water supply and other environmental conditions have transformed, as well.  No development should get this type of protection for decades.  

Significantly, Chino Hills appears ready to approve a zoning variance for another project, the 107-unit Hidden Oaks development, just across Carbon Canyon Road—this can’t be blamed on “the county days.”  The Hidden Oaks area was zoned under the city’s general plan with plenty of due consideration for legitimate reasons.  A change to benefit the developer at the expense of zoning appropriate for the canyon will compound the wrong perpetrated with Hillcrest decades ago.

We already have other projects in the pipeline on the Chino Hills side of the canyon that will potentially add nearly 250 houses.  The 162-unit Madrona project just over the county line on the Brea side was dealt a rare court defeat recently, but will probably be appealed.   Can we really see a viable future with what could be over 400 new homes in Carbon Canyon?  Conditions have changed, but accommodations for developers evidently have not.

The Hidden Oaks project will likely be coming before the Chino Hills Planning Commission soon, after which, pending approval by that body, the matter goes to the city council.

Anyone concerned about the effects and ramifications of another large-scale (over 100 units) development coming to the canyon, on the heels of the 76-unit Hillcrest development, now under construction, and the 28-unit Stonefield tract, now up for sale, and a couple of other smaller pending projects, should be ready to express their views when the time comes.

A Ramble in the Hills Above Carbon Canyon: Black Friday Edition

One the many trails and access roads along the route of today's trek--this one close to Olinda Village.

While eager shoppers swarmed stores this morning, this blogger and a longtime Carbon Canyon resident swarmed the hills above Carbon Canyon enjoying the gorgeous weather, staggering views, and natural beauty found in this remarkable, but threatened, oasis amid the urban sprawl.

A glance towards Orange County, where shoppers were thronging malls and stores in search of great bargains.  Others, meantime, were in search of the exact opposite.

The three-plus hour walk was in the regions north of the canyon from Brea to Chino Hills and included a concluding climb up to see the hot springs that, for decades, fed the historic La Vida Mineral Springs resort.

Looking northeast towards the San Gabriel Mountains and the triple peaks of San Antonio (Baldy), Ontario and Cucamonga on a gorgeous, clear day.

Beginning from Olinda Village at about 9:15, the scramble ascended the top of the hills at the northeast of that community and past the water tanks that service that area.

A beautiful and quite old oak spreading its limbs for ample shade along the route.

Portions of the hike took in areas that have been slated for the Madrona development, 162 houses proposed on 367 acres, but which have been granted a reprieve, thanks to a recent Orange County Superior Court ruling that overturned the City of Brea's approval of the project.

This action shot captured a doe scampering across a road in the Firestone Boy Scouts Reservation.

More than likely, the property owner, the State of Idaho, as conservator of the failed Old Standard Life Insurance Company, a Spokane, Washington firm that took possession of the land after a 2009 bankruptcy involving the Shopoff Group, will appeal the case to the state appellate court.

The aforementioned deer and her friend heading up the slope for foraging away from strange, prying eyes.

Heading north and east from there, the walk skirted the western edge of the St. Joseph's Hill of Hope property, which is well-fenced and signed, and then descended down into a portion of the Firestone Boy Scouts Reservation at the lower end of Tonner Canyon.

One of many excellent views of Tres Hermanos Ranch in Tonner Canyon, which has been the site of much speculation regarding its future.

A brief bypass through a couple of campgrounds, including a shooting range, also led to the easement and access road for the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP).

A view south towards the widespread hinterlands of Lion's Canyon.

Segments of this project lead eastward from Diamond Bar through Chino Hills to points east.  The 200-foot towers that span the hills then terminate to the portal leading the route underground just beyond Oak Tree Downs near Eucalyptus Avenue.

 A remarkable natural feature found on the jaunt was this oak tree growing out of an outcropping of sandstone along a ridge.

This portion of the project was the subject of great controversy and a stunning reversal by the California Public Utilities Commission, which ordered the 500 KV lines placed below ground--the first such system attempted in the United States.

It's hard to comprehend the massiveness of these 200-foot tall towers installed for the TRTP project unless you have a view like this.

The route then proceeded down into Oak Tree Downs and from there included the additional scramble up to the source of La Vida's hot springs.

Eyed by this blogger's fellow traveler, this monkey flower doesn't normally (whatever that means these days) bloom until the Spring. 

At this location, not far from Carbon Canyon Road, a chain-link enclosure with razor wire on it was constructed fairly recently around the well and pipe that still emits a decent flow of hot water from the springs--though the door is open to the enclosure.

Here are the last two above-ground 200' TRTP towers before the segment moves to an underground route at a 12-acre transfer station being carved into a hill near the western end of Eucalyptus Avenue in Chino Hills.

A few feet away, another pipe emerges from the ground and a smaller, cooler flow emanates from there.  The water then descends the steep gully down to where the remains of the old La Vida tanks sit at the base of the hill.

Another example of an early flowering plant, this California Fuchsia would, like the Monkey Flower shown above, not usally be in flower at this time of the year.

It is certainly strange to see water emerging from the springs and then flow down hill.  On the ascent and descent, the gurgling of water through the narrow defile is especially odd, given the horrific drought our region has experienced for several years.

A beautification project underway at the historic La Vida Mineral Springs property in Brea, where a highly-invasive stand of tamarisk plants provides useful cover for the illegal dumping of trash.

Unfortunately, trash and debris are piled near the pipes at the springs, indications of what may have been a homeless encampment or perhaps some "farming" activity.  At the bottom, near the path that leads from the state highway to the tanks, people have taken advantange of the easy access to dump all kinds of trash near a stand of highly-invasive tamarisk plants.

The source of the hot mineral water that fed, from the 1910s to the 1980s, the La Vida Mineral Springs resort.

The property owner, who lives in Japan and has local representatives, is either unaware of or is uninterested in what has been going on, though it has been stated to this blogger that a local Japanese-language newspaper article back in the Spring reported that the owner has talked of spending $35 million to reestablish a hot springs resort at the site.

Another pipe emitting mineral water as it flows into a narrow channel heading down a steep defile towards the La Vida property.  Unfortunately, trash has piled up in this area, as well.

About 12:30, the day's adventure ended with tremendous regret that the time wasn't better spent at the mall instead of in the outdoors enjoying the fabulous weather, million-dollar views, the spotting of a couple of deer, and the enjoyment of solitude and the canyon's natural beauty.

Despite the crumbling portion at the foreground right, this historic tank structure, dating to the 1920s, is still perched on the hill at the western end of the La Vida Mineral Springs property.

Hikes like this are a true cause for thanksgiving.

A Thunderous Decision: Madrona Is Struck Down!

It seems entirely appropriate that, as these words are being typed, dark clouds are descending on Carbon Canyon, a refreshing rain is falling, and lightning and thunder have been seen and heard in the area.

Is this a sign from above?  Or, is it just a sign from Santa Ana?  Either way, a lot of people are thunderstruck over what has been a lightning rod of controversy for decades.

This morning, Orange County Superior Court Judge Robert J. Moss issued a ruling in the lawsuit of Hills for Everyone vs. City of Brea over the latter's approval last year for the 162-unit Madrona project on the north side of Carbon Canyon between Olinda Village and the county line in the Brea portion of the canyon.

The order from the bench just after 9:30 this morning is clear, concise and utterly damning of the way that the City of Brea ignored its own ordinances to get approval for this project, which was first proposed a-way back in the 1980s.

Here are the highlights in Judge Moss' findings:

• Brea's Hillside Management Ordinance is applicable to the project "and therefore precludes project approval"
• Madrona is not consistent with the city's own general plan and the Carbon Canyon Specific Plan "as admitted by the City"
• The project does not comply with woodland preservation policies "as admitted by the City"
• Madrona is not exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under a specific section, 65457, which is excerpted here:

Any residential development project, including any subdivision, or any zoning change that is undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific plan for which an environmental impact report has been certified after January 1, 1980, is exempt from the requirements of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. 

However, if after adoption of the specific plan, an event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code occurs, the exemption provided by this subdivision does not apply unless and until a supplemental environmental impact report for the specific plan is prepared and certified in accordance with the provisions of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. After a supplemental environmental impact report is certified, the exemption specified in this subdivision applies to projects undertaken pursuant to the specific plan.

An action or proceeding alleging that a public agency has approved a project pursuant to a specific plan without having previously certified a supplemental environmental impact report for the specific plan, where required by subdivision (a), shall be commenced within 30 days of the public agency's decision to carry out or approve the project.

• That the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) "is otherwise inadequate, as it fails to analyze the consistency with the specific plan's" guidelines on grading, climate change impacts, and impacts on recreation.
• Otherwise, the judge did rule that "the petition is denied on all other issues raised."

For those who got the point and don't feel inclined to read details on the ruling, they can stop here and celebrate (or, if there are any of you out there, mourn) the ruling of Judge Moss.  

Otherwise, feel free to read on.

It was a dark day for the City of Brea and the State of Idaho and a bright, shining moment for Hills for Everyone and its partners as Judge Robert J. Moss issued a writ of mandate this morning concerning the Madrona project proposed for the Brea portion of Carbon Canyon.  The photo was taken this afternoon a little before 4 p.m.

In further explaining, his ruling, Judge Moss offerred some highly pointed criticism of the city.  For example he states that, relating to the applicability of the Hillside Management Ordinance, he noted that "the statute could not be any clearer, so the issue is not one of ambiguity."  Moreover, he continued, "the City's shifting approach with respect to the ordinance does not allow this court the option to defer to the City on the issue."

Going on, the judge added that "the City's historical position has been anything but clear and consistent" and went on that "the City actually took the exact opposite position, from that which it is taking now, in 2001 and 2004."

Notably, there was an argument made that inconsistencies between this ordinance and the city's specific plan invalidated the HMO and there could have been plausbility, the judge observed, "had the City made that finding," but it did not do so.

Conversely, as to the petitioner's claim that the HMO is consistent with the specific plan, the court agreed, noting, "the ordinance advances several of the goals of the specific plan and does not obstruct the obtainment of those goals."

Critically, Judge Moss stated that

The developer can comply with both [the Hillside Management Ordinance and the specific plan] without violating either.

He concluded that

This brings us to the end result that as the ordinance applies to the project, the project is barred, and neither the City nor the real party in interest has argued otherwise.  The petition must be granted for this reason alone.   

As admitted by the City, Madrona is inconsistent with the Brea General Plan and the Carbon Canyon Specific Plan, further reason for the Petition to be granted.   

Moss did rule that the petitioner's claim that the project was anathema to the open space policy of the specific plan was not valid and he did side with the city on the issue.

Concerning the applicabililty to CEQA under the aforementioned section, 65457, of the government code, the judge stated that the project is not exempt because of Brea's admission that the project did not comply with the city's general plan and the Carbon Canyon Specific Plan "and the exemption cannot apply when such inconsistencies exist."

On grading standard inconsistency, Judge Moss wrote that, of the three documents submitted for Madrona, "two of the documents do not analyze the current project, but a former project, and the third . . . [is a] self-serving analysis submitted after the approval of the final EIR, and therefore not within the EIR itself.  That is insufficient."

With respect to climate change impacts, the court ruled that the city's use of South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds for emissions "has not been consistent and no substantial evidence shows otherwise."  In addition, there was nothing offered "which supports applying different standards to each individual project."

Judge Moss did strike down one of the petitioner's claims about greenhouse gas reduction plans "based on case law that is not any longer citable and the argument therefore fails."  But, on the matter of conflicts with a regional transportation plan, "the City incorrectly finds the strategies promulgated there do not apply to the project."  Noting that "Madrona is plainly inconsistent with the Plan's key strategies," the jurist observed that "there is no citation to support this bald assertion, and the argument therefore fails."

A sustainability plan from 2012 was also a core component of this line of argument and the court ruled that the petitioner's claim that the EIR did not take this into account "is correct."  He went on to note that, "the plan was well on its way to coming to fruition, and certainly within the City's purview.  It was the City's own Plan, and it should have been considered."

On assessing trip rates for traffic in the area, "the City offers no effective explanation for its failure" to properly apply calculations for Madrona than it did for those used for hillside residences.

Judge Moss did reject the petitioner's claims about property analysis in the EIR for fire impacts, ruling that the document "was sufficient and supported by substantial evidence" and that "mitigation measures are also adequate."

Concluding his ruling, the judge stated that the recreation impacts were not properly identified in the EIR baseline, specifically that there are existing trails as a "significant physical environmental feature."

Allowing that there were a few rejections of arguments made by the petitioners, this sum total of this decision was a clear and resounding defeat handed to the city and to the State of Idaho, identified as a "real party in interest" in the document.  The judge obviously was dismissive of the city's gross inconsistencies in applying its own ordinances and in failing to have an adequate Environmental Impact Report.

However . . . there is always the possibility (probability) of an appeal by the City of Brea and the State of Idaho.  So, stay tuned for any further developments along those lines, should they arise.

Meantime, this is a resounding victory for a model of grass-roots community organiztion and activism of the highest order.  Hills for Everyone, its co-petitoners, the citizens of Brea's portion of Carbon Canyon, the law firms which ably represented its clients and everyone else involved!

Hidden Oaks Housing Development Public Meeting on 23 September

The Hidden Oaks project, planning for 107 houses on 537 acres of hilltop and hillside land directly across from the in-process 76-unit Canyon Hills development, south of Carbon Canyon Road between Sleepy Hollow and Mountain View Estates, is moving to the next stage.

On Wednesday, 23 September from 4-5:30 p.m. and 6:30-8 p.m., a "scoping meeting" will be held at the McCoy Equestrian Center on Peyton Drive across from Ayala High School and next to the Chino Hills Community Center.

The purpose, according to an article in tomorrow's Champion is for the public "to provide input on the effects of the project" based on the environmental impact report (EIR) now being completed.  Further "input" in the form of public comment to the draft EIR will be accepted by the city until Wednesday, 14 October.

The estate-sized homes will be on minimum 5-acre lots, according to the article, yet the piece also states that the structures will be clustered "onto a flat area," with 427 acres, or almost 80% of the property, consisting of open space.

Clearly, the lots will not be five acres, but probably under an acre apiece, especially with proposed amenities like a 4-acre park, clubhouse, and trails.  More significantly is the somewhat misleading use of "a flat area" to describe where the clustered residences would go.

The property is actually hilly, with some relatively flat sections along the tops of the hills.  Obviously, a goodly amount of cut-and-fill, scraping, and other "manicuring" of the natural landscape will make the parcel seem a lot flatter.

These, however, are areas that will not only receive more wind gusts, because of their elevation, but will also be subject to funnelling from gullies and small canyons around the project site.  Why this matters is because wildfires travel much faster when aided by hilltop winds, as well as carried more quickly when ascending and descending canyons and gullies.

Needless to say, our chronic drought condition leads to another question about water for "estate-sized" residences and their landscaping.

A third major question, aside from wildfire risk and water, is, naturally, the addition of more vehicles, some 1,100 daily car trips, on a Carbon Canyon Road that is increasingly seeing more commuter hours use.  Anyone who has driven the road in the last couple of weeks since school has opened for the year has noticed that the backup in the mornings is greater than in past years.  Even earlier hours, such as before 6:30, have included more westbound traffic in the last couple of years.

This doesn't include the effects of Hidden Oaks along with the other approved projects in the canyon--Madrona at 162, Canyon Hills with 76, and Stonefield totaling 28 units--and the approximately 1,500 more residents and nearly 4,000 car trips a day the quartet of projects will bring.

The history of the project is also outlined in the piece, starting with approval of 114 houses on the site by San Bernardino County in 1989 when there seemed to be all the water needed, Carbon Canyon Road was lightly traveled compared to now, and there were no wildfires in the canyon . . . oops, actually there was one in 1978 and another in 1990 and so on.

In that first iteration, "hundreds of removed trees were placed in buckets along Carbon Canyon Road and left to die," the article continued.

Then, in 1998, as the housing market recovered after the bubble of the late 80s/early 90s was ancient history, a new plan was offered for 341 houses was put forward.  Measure U, passed the following year in large measure (!) to the new proposal's density, put a damper on that plan because voters now have to approve such requests.  But, that project died before anything was done--well, except for the fact that the owner butchered 523 oak trees before abandoning the idea.

The Champion article observes that the city did require the unnamed developer to "address impacts to slopes, ridgelines, and biological resources" and notes that Chino Hills "worked with the developer to create a specific plan."

Do these mitigations include where to find more water . . . or, deal with walls of flame forty feet high like those seen in the November 2008 fire, as well as manage an orderly evacuation of residents in the canyon  . . . or, how to deal with traffic on a two-lane road that cannot be widened other than have a traffic signal that will only slow down everyone on Carbon Canyon Road during those commuter hours . . .  or, how all of this will maintain a high quality of living in a canyon that already has three approved projects totaling 266 houses plus the 107 proposed at Hidden Oaks for a grand total of 373 units?

Maybe those questions will be addressed on the 23rd . . . or not.

Saturday's Stop Madrona Shindig a Shining Success

Saturday evening's wine tasting fundraiser by Hills for Everyone for its lawsuit to stop the Madrona housing project on the Brea portion of Carbon Canyon was a fun and successful evening for about fifty to sixty persons.

Held at the Oak Tree Downs home of Don and Suzanne Hodson in the Chino Hills section of the canyon, the event featured a silent auction for such offerings as stays at Big Bear and Catalina Island, a remarkable original painting by Chino Hills resident Dawn Secord, and a day of sailing, as well as the tasting, in which several wines from Ascension Cellars, based in Paso Robles and co-owned by Eric Allen, an Olinda Village resident.

The latter paired hors d'oeuvres, prepared and served by Hills for Everyone members and Carbon Canyon residents, with several wines from Ascension, including Rhone and Bordeaux-style offerings such as rosé, viognier, a GSM (grenache, syrah and mourvédre), a proprietary Bordeaux-style blend aptly called the "Soul Shaker", and a port.  Allen provided interesting introductions for his wines and mistress of ceremonies, HFE board member and ex-Brea council member Bev Perry kept the evening moving.

Perry presented a list of six notable achievements of Hills for Everyone over the decades, including the creation of Chino Hills State Park, saving land in the Puente Hills for open space and recreation, preventing housing projects in other hills locations, and working to develop a crucial wildlife corridor under the 91 Freeway between the Chino Hills and the Santa Ana Mountains.

It was a night of fine wine, fun conversation, excellent food, and a beautiful setting in the hills above Carbon Canyon.  As the lawsuit on Madrona goes to trial for opening arguments at the end of August, let's hope a goodly amount of money was raised for this worthy cause.

Hills for Everyone Stop Madrona Winetasting Fundraiser

As part of its continuing efforts to halt the 162-unit Madrona housing project, approved last summer for 367 acres on the north side of Carbon Canyon between Olinda Village and the county line in Brea, Hills for Everyone, which has spearheaded the movement, is hosting a winetasting fundraiser.

The event is being held on Saturday, 25 July from 5:00-8:30 p.m. at the home of Don and Suzanne Hodson in the Oak Tree Downs community in the Chino Hills section of Carbon Canyon.  Ascension Cellars of Paso Robles will be there to pour wine and guests can also purchase from Ascension at the event.

In fact, here's an excellent description of the event from Eric Johnson, Olinda Village resident and a key player in the fight against Madrona:

Ascension Cellars (of Paso Robles) will pour a variety of wines, which will be paired with carefully selected foods.  Sit back, relax, and enjoy the oak dotted hillsides, the fabulous wine, and the great company.  Be sure to bring your wallet as there will be a small silent auction and an opportunity to buy the wine directly from Ascension Cellars.

Tickets are $50 per person or $80 per couple through this Saturday the 18th.  After that date, prices increase to $70 per person or $100 per couple.

Paid reservations are required, so to order online using PayPal, please click here.   Instructions for paying by check are also available through the link, which provides background, as well, on Ascension Cellars.

Once tickets are ordered, an e-mail will provide all the information needed to get to the event.

The lawsuit filed by Hills for Everyone, the California Native Plant Society, the Sierra Club, and the Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks, is now in process at Orange County Superior Court and the fundraiser will help provide support for that effort.

Stop Madrona Garden Tour Fundraiser This Sunday!

Hills for Everyone, the local organization that has done so much to preserve badly-needed open space in our area, and its litigation partners Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks, the California Native Plant Society, and the Sierra Club, filed on 19 March its latest brief in their lawsuit to halt the poorly-conceived Madrona housing project, which would consist of 162 houses on 367 acres on the north side of Carbon Canyon between Olinda Village and Sleepy Hollow.

The hearing is scheduled for July and so Hills for Everyone is holding a fundraiser next Sunday, 25 April from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. that consists of a Garden Tour of houses in Brea that highlight the beauty of residential landscape.  Most of the properties utilize water wise practices, as well.

Early bird registration is $30 per ticket (per car) with same day registration being $40 per ticket (per car.)  Those who buy tickets early will have instructions e-mailed to them, while purchasers on the day of the tour should call (714) 906-3430.  There are two starting locations: one in central Brea and the other at Olinda Village in Carbon Canyon.

Proceeds from the tour go toward the ongoing battle to overturn the City of Brea's lamentable decision to approve Madrona despite planning tools like the Carbon Canyon Specific Plan and Hillside Management Ordinance that were designed to prevent this kind of project.

To buy tickets and get more information, click here.

Madrona Lawsuit Openng Brief Filed

Just before Christmas, an opening brief, prepared by the San Francisco law firm of Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger, LLP, was filed by Hills for Everyone, Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks, California Native Plant Society and the Sierra Club in the lawsuit against the City of Brea and OSLIC (Old Standard Life Insurance Company) Holdings over the Madrona housing project of 162 units approved by the city in July 2014.

The forty-three page brief has all of the complex legal language expected in a court filing, but suffice to say that the brief outlines the many reasons why the plaintiffs believe the approval of Madrona was unlawful.  In essence, these are that the project:

• violates Brea's Hillside Management Ordinance by 
• its extensive grading; 
• lack of process via a specific plan; 
• and violation of the Carbon Canyon Specific Plan;
• contains acknowledged "fatal inconsistencies with its own plans," with respect to 
• the lack of protection for woodland habitat, and 
• the failure to provide open space within the project site, yet was still approved;
• and violated the California Environmental Quality Act with the city's certification of the project's Environmental Impact Report with respect to 
• the failure to apply the city specific plan's grading standards; 
• a failure to analyze climate-related impacts; 
• inconsistency with and too high of a threshold for standards relating to greenhouse gas emissions; 
• emissions calculations from car trip estimates that were elsewhere discredited in the document; 
• inadequate analysis and mitigation of fire impacts, and 
• an incorrect baseline in assessing impacts on open space and recreation

The document's conclusion concisely and succinctly summarizes the plaintiffs' position on the Madrona project's approval by the city:

The record before this Court establishes that the City knew it was being asked to approve a project it could not legally approve. But instead of acting as law required, the City bobbed and weaved, using its EIR and findings to try to explain how Madrona could nevertheless go forward. Petitioners have demonstrated that these attempts must fail. The City's approval of the Project is invalid under its own Hillside Management Ordinance and Carbon Canyon Specific Plan, as well as state planning law. And its certification of the EIR and approval of Madrona on the basis of that flawed EIR are both invalid under CEQA.

Consequently, the brief ends with:

Petitioners therefore respectfully request that this Court grant their petition for writ of mandate and set aside the City's approval of the vesting tentative tract map and development review application for Madrona and its certification of the EIR.

Looking from one ill-conceived housing project to another--this photo was taken from the Canyon Hills site, now under (de)grading, towards the Madrona project location in the hills in the distance.

Notably, the attorneys who crafted the brief rightly point out that "for decades the City crafted land use plans and ordinances to protect its residents" from hazards that are inherent to the steep, exposed hillsides of the project site, which sits on the north flank of Carbon Canyon between Olinda Village and Sleepy Hollow.

Another relevant statement for our entire region is embodied in the simply expressed observation that, "developers first looked to the flatter lands [of Brea] but as accessible land grew scarce, their gaze gradually extended to the hills."  These hilly areas involve a great many challenges and risks that have to be given far more scrutiny than those flatter areas developed over decades.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Brea enacted the Carbon Canyon Specific Plan and Hillside Management Ordinance in order to provide adequate safeguards against precisely the ill-conceived type of project Madrona completely embodies.

Further, in an ill-advised concession on the basis of the threat of a lawsuit, the city agreed to process Madrona (under its previous Canyon Crest incarnation) under old rules, which did not mean that the city had to approve the project under old plans and ordinances.

Yet, it chose to do just that and the extraordinary concessions made by city council members, including Brett Murdock, who was subsequently voted off the council in the recent elections, added to the shocking lack of foresight of the city in its approval.

Now, the matter is with the Orange County Superior Court for a ruling on the request for the writ of mandate and we'll see, hopefully relatively soon, what the decision is on the future of this project which would forever transform Carbon Canyon.

Stop the Madness of Madrona, Italian Style

This is the title of the next fundraising event to support the lawsuit filed in Orange County Superior Court against the City of Brea's approval of the Madrona project of 162 houses on the north side of Carbon Canyon between Olinda Village and Sleepy Hollow at the city/county line.

This past summer, The City Council rejected an appeal of the Planning Commission's 2008 approval of the project, having gone to extraordinary lengths to accommodate the project despite having the issue three Statements of Overriding Consideration to counter significant adverse impacts identified in the Environmental Impact Report--a number of SOCs never before issued to a housing project in the city (and which, therefore, sets a new precedent, favoring development, for the city.)

Hills for Everyone and other partners filed their suit challenging this decision and fundraising has been ongoing to assist in paying the legal fees for this endeavor.

So, next Saturday, 8 November from 3 to 6 p.m., there will be a dinner and auction in Olinda Village as part of the fundraising effort.  An Italian dinner, including vegetarian options, will be served at 4:30 and there will also be a silent auction, a perfect time to do some early holiday shopping, and cash, checks and credit cards are happily accepted.

The cost is $50 per person or $75 for two for advance tickets or $60 per person and $85 per couple at the door.  Each ticket is for a meal and two drinks with one additional drink ticket available for $5. Being an outdoor event, dress is casual and comfortable.

For more information, please click here.

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.