Planning Commission Blindsides Breans.

commission meetingI am still dumbfounded. With Chairman McGrade at the helm, carefully steering the Planning Commission towards an all too obvious destination, there was no hint of addressing the larger issues.

As people gathered for last night’s meeting, Director of Community Development David Crabtree was asked how he expected things would go. He smiled and responded, “It’s in the Commission’s hands now.”

Where did that confidence come from? What might he have known that the rest of us, on pins and needles, failed to understand?

My opinion? He knew the Commission had been prepped that process issues were not their responsibility, but Council’s. I think Commissioners realized that if they challenged process issues the City Attorney would have interjected and shut them down.

Consequently, there wasn’t a whisper about document destruction, the Records Retention schedule, arbitrary limitation of what the Commission was allowed to see or using an addendum to restrict public input.

Also my opinion, Chairman McGrade began his path to orchestrating the flow of discussion last night in January 2016, when he interjected himself into the selection process for Vice Chair.

Coincidently, this occurred at the exact same time that Planning Staff was rejecting the ICF proposal, deleting it from public record and moving forward with the addendum to the 2003 General Plan EIR.

Back to the meeting.

Dejected but still hopeful, a half dozen folks addressed the Commission during Matters from the Audience. They restated their concerns over density, building mass, traffic and parking — the big four.

The standout comments came from Dwight Manley. He shared a legal opinion from an environmental attorney clearly pointing out the gross error in using a General Plan EIR, which is a program level document, to assess a specific project… 14 years after the fact.

Right as rain, Dwight’s comments fell on deaf ears and Chairman McGrade moved on, without comment, and opened deliberation.

First to speak, Chairman McGrade set the tone by establishing his support for the project and his belief that everything was above board and legal.

Next up, Commissioner Schlotterbeck who went to great lengths to share the impressive extent of her due diligence. She reviewed thousands upon thousands of pages of highly technical and legal documents.

She also remarked that the public, whom she cared deeply about, had only a very limited understanding of CEQA. She cited specifics from the California Public Resource Code that proved there was nothing in the Hines project that violated law.

She also suggested that the project only complied with about 80% of the General Plan but failed to offer how to mitigate that shortfall. That’s like a transplant surgeon telling you that your new heart will work really well 80% of the time.

There are two solutions. Amend the General plan to accommodate the project so it is 100% in compliance or alter the project. Neither was done or even suggested last night.

Commissioner Schlotterbeck also raised the possibility that building “B” on the north lot might best be changed to condo/townhome product to lower density and add a very needed type of housing to Brea’s inventory. Other than weak applause from a few residents, the idea went nowhere. Why?

I’m wondering if changing from apartments to single family homes would trigger the need to change the zoning from Mixed Use to Residential. Such being the case, a new EIR would be automatically required. Not what Staff or Hines wanted.

Commission hits an impasse.

Chairman McGrade suggested a short break for Hines to discuss what options they were comfortable with moving forward. With Building “A” and the Hotel apparently in the bag, all that remained was to fix the density complaint for Building “B”.

Interjection: There is no way in hell Building “A” and the Hotel should have been given a free ride at this point! Everything should have remained on the table 

The likelihood that a creative solution could be instantly designed when it took the better part of a year and a half to get to this point was nonsense.

During the break I asked one Commissioner, if none of them cared about the breakdown in process and the look I received in return said it all. There was clearly the presence of a sad inevitability in their eyes. Their shoulders shrugged and they plodded, dejectedly, back to their seat.

For weeks, if not months… Hines, their attorneys, architects, engineers and consultant, John Koos, hunkered down in a conference room playing “what if” with every scenario Koos might imagine.

Over the break, all they did was find the right page in their playbook.

They didn’t even mention the condo/townhome option but jumped straight to a mashup of 3 and 4 stories reducing the density from 285 units to 228 units, leaving the total number of project units at 690.

This reduced the “B” building by this mystical magic number of 20% but something markedly less is true for the entire project. Neither the massive Building “A” on the corner or the Hotel across the street has been touched.

Back to deliberations.

As they did earlier, Vice Chair Willis and Commissioners Fox and Grosse added little to the discussion… all echoing concerns for density, building mass, traffic and parking — reaffirming their lack of support for the project as proposed.

Armed with this get-out-of-jail-free card, all that remained was to morph Brea Place into something different than what was currently proposed. The Commission moved on with a single minded determination.

I was reminded of the used car salesman eye-to-eye with the first prospect of the day… “What will it take for me to put you in this little jewel today?”

No interest in whether the heap of junk was even close to meeting the prospect’s needs, let alone their dream of a new car. No concern that the rattling valves and acrid smoke coming from the tailpipe were clear signs of a car on it’s last legs. Unworried that the greater expense of maintenance would likely crush the prospect later.

It was all about closing the sale.

The people of Brea got steamrolled last night. Staff knows it. The Commission knows it. Hines, their consultant, attorney, architect, traffic engineer… they know it.

The last to realize the unthinkable had occurred were the folks with the red buttons and the high hopes.

Will there be an appeal when, inevitably, the project with it’s crushing density, easily foreseeable flood of traffic and long list of overlooked negative impacts is approved?

Maybe, maybe not.

“Leadership is disappointing your constituents in increments they can absorb.”

This O’Donnellism, this longstanding municipal mantra, once again proved prophetic. I’m not fond at all of the fatalist’ mentality, but this feels a lot like, “Game over.” 

I’m unwilling to give up. How about you? Are you ready to roll over or will you take some time out of your busy day to become part of the solution?

Markman & Flower

15 thoughts on “Planning Commission Blindsides Breans.

  1. To put all of this in a perspective that we can actually see, everyone should visit La Floresta this week and look at the monolithic structure bordering the parking lot to the east.

    Drive around it, look up at it, and then multiply what you have just seen by 4 and you will then have an idea of what is proposed for the central axis point of Brea.

  2. Rick,

    So what are our best options now? What can we do as outraged citizens, who want to let the leaders of this city know that they will be held accountable for this action if it continues on its current course? Unfortunately, many of these people are in appointed positions. Who do we contact and what can we do to reverse this course the city has taken with this project?

    • Tom… There are two parallel issues unfolding at the same time.

      On one hand we have the egregious behavior of some City Staff who seem to believe they’re above the law and a damn sight smarter than Brea folks. They’re neither. They’re public employees and subject to disciplinary action. Council is not in the personnel loop other than negotiating with bargaining units and senior staff. Email your concerns to the City Manager, Bill Gallardo ( ).

      The other half is having an impact on the Hines project’s final form and though it seems to be a runaway train, there are options. Continue to drive your message home with the Planning Commissioners. Challenge them when they deserve it, encourage them when they’ve earned it as well.

  3. When did 80% of 743 become 56? My calculator says 80% is 594 units.

    Chairman McGrade had no intentions of doing anything to help the citizens of Brea. It is time we revisit the General Plan and give better instructions to to Planning if they are going to use it for Precise Projects and not Process.

    Sad day for the citizens of Brea.

    • Christie… Yeah, pretty funny math. Applying the 80:20 is such a bogus notion, where did that come from? I’ll tell you.

      Melanie commented that the project was 80% in compliance with the General Plan. Someone grabbed that number and decided reducing density by 20% would bring the project into compliance. Nope.

      Revisiting the General Plan is stalled while Brea Envisions is completed… which is already 6 months behind schedule. They’ve announced today yet another survey and “workshop” later in May because they’re nowhere close to haveing a projectable data set.

      Common denominator? Oversight of the Hines Project and Brea Envisions are both the responsibility of City Planner Jennifer Lilley. Infer what you will.

  4. Isn’t the 150 room hotel part of the 100%? Wouldn’t the 20% reduction in size to comport with the general plan apply to ALL components? Would not the 16,500′ of retail space also need to be reduced by 20% to adhere to commissioner Schlotterbeck’s interpretation of the general plan compliance?

    Sadly , this is what happens when the “process” is corrupted. All of these discussions should have been taking place in study sessions, AFTER the city SHOULD HAVE produced a new “project-level” CEQA document in order to analyze the specific impacts of the project. The commission has glaringly looked past this in proclaiming a full EIR was not required, which may or may not be correct, but I assure you what I said above IS LEGALLY REQUIRED.

    • Dwight… Yup, right on all counts. The unchallenged approval of Building “A” and the Hotel was complete BS. We need to make that abundantly clear at the May meeting and demand all elements of the project be put back on the table!

  5. It was almost like the chairman was reading from a script. There was a mechanical style in his delivery, flat and unemotional. I think most of what we all witnessed Tuesday night was a calculated and condescending dismissal of public opinion.

    I sat there wanting to channel my best Howard Beale (Peter Finch) and scream, “I’m mad as hell and won’t take it anymore!”

    • Ruth… I can’t think of a more perfect analogy. And, your assessment of Chairman McGrade’s “performance” is more accurate than you may realize. City Planner Jennifer Lilley prepares a script for the Chair every month.

    • Hah! Busted! I thought the same thing, it was like watching a robot or something. Willis, Grosse and Fox didn’t seem to have their heart into it. Schlotterbeck was a standout.

  6. Why did Brea Buzz take your FB post down? Just curious, these are the kinds of commentaries we need to stay informed.

    • Jacquie… Hadn’t realized it was taken down. I can’t answer that, but if you message Jasmine McCarthy who manages the group maybe she will be forthcoming. I believe Jason Kraft also moderates that group as well.

    • Jacquie… Just rechecked Brea Buzz and the post is still there. A new comment was added a few minutes ago. Try scrolling down, I don’t think it bumps to the top with new comments.

  7. For those wishing to make your feelings known to the Planning Commission, Council and senior City Staff:

    Planning Commission:
    James McGrade, Chairman:
    Art Willis, Vice Chair:
    Pat Fox:
    Jim Grosse:
    Melanie Schlotterbeck:

    City Council:
    Cecilia Hupp, Mayor:
    Glenn Parker, Mayor Pro Tem:
    Marty Simonoff:
    Christine Marick:
    Steve Vargas:

    Senior Staff:
    Bill Gallardo, City Manager:
    David Crabtree, Community Development Director:
    Jennifer Lilley, City Planner:
    Lillian Harris-Neal, City Clerk:

Comments are closed.