Discussions with Media

Here is the unabridged conversation between BRA PAC President Ted Gribble, and Terri Daxon, owner of Daxon Marketing Communications and freelance writer who publishes her views on Brea twice per month. https://www.ocregister.com/author/terri-daxon/

Brea Plaza Project

10 messages

Terri Daxon <daxoncomm@gmail.com>

Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM

To: tedgribble@gmail.com

Hi Ted,

Now that the Brea Plaza Mixed-Use Project is gone, will your group be concentrating on any other Brea proposed housing projects, like Brea 265?

How many people were collecting signatures for the referendum?

Are you and the group concerned about 1700 Greenbriar Lane, or Mercury Insurance? Do you have any idea what will go in there after Mercury is long gone?

Do you and group have concerns that whatever goes in that spot impact the Glenbrook neighborhood?

I guess that’s enough questions - for now.

Regards,

Terri Daxon

OC Journalist/Columnist

Ted Gribble <tedgribble@gmail.com>

Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 3:47 PM

To: Terri Daxon <daxoncomm@gmail.com>

Hi Terri,

Will you be using this for an article?

As of right now the Brea Resident Advocacy PAC is not concentrated on any other Brea proposed housing project. The goal of the PAC is not to oppose housing projects. The goal of the PAC is to ensure that the voices of Brea residents are heard and respected by our elected officials and city government. Brea 265 is roughly 10 times the size of the Brea Plaza Mixed-Use Project, and has had multiple public hearings at both the Planning Commission and City Council. Despite the scale, there was very little public opposition to the project during the public hearings. The main sticking point for the few residents that did attend or submit comments was Rose Dr south of Vesuvius, and how it constricts and will cause traffic jams. This is a valid issue and it appears both the city and developer are working diligently Yorba Linda and Placentia to develop a mitigation plan. Brea 265 is an example of a project where the developer has provided offsets to the impacts and earned the broad support of the residents of the city.

With respect to 1700 Greenbriar Lane, I don't think anyone knows what will go in there. As far as I know, the property is not even sold yet. Once it sells, the new owner will have to propose a project to the city unless they intend to make very few modifications and/or build within their existing zoning. However, it would be a good bet that a housing project will be proposed there. I've said on record that I think that property would make more sense for residential than the Plaza. For one, it's currently totally vacant and generates no traffic/parking stress, whereas the Brea Plaza is very busy. The Brea Plaza project, in the end, was proposing a project that was essentially 75 units per acre (155 units on a 2.2 acre footprint) - essentially it was very dense. Even though this is over what the proposed Mixed Use zoning allowed, the city and developer justified it by spreading the 155 units across the entire ~13 acre Brea Plaza parcel, sort of ignoring the fact that the rest of the parcel is already being used for other things. As a comparison, Brea 265 has a proposed density of just 4.2 units per acre (1100 units, 265 acres). I'm not saying there is a specific density number that would be OK at the Mercury site, just that there are some projects which are generally more tolerable to the residents of Brea than others. For me, the devil will be in the details. I will review the hypothetical proposal and supporting studies the same way I reviewed the Brea Plaza proposal. I will provide comments highlighting inconsistencies and errors, and I will present them to the City. If the city does not treat other residents/commenters and I with respect and seriously consider our comments, I will leverage the PAC again to remind them that that is not acceptable.

Lastly I would just like to state that I am not the anti-housing NIMBY that I've been made out to be by some folks including the Brea Plaza project developer. Certainly some of the people who signed the referendum petition fit that billing, but I do not. I am keenly aware of the housing crisis in this state, and I am supportive of projects that will provide affordable housing options (as a note, this project had just 15 affordable units, the rest were to be market rate, or essentially "unaffordable"). I do not, however, think that projects should be built at any cost and at any location. The residents of this city had serious and legitimate concerns about this project, and the city did not work to resolve those concerns to their satisfaction. There were a lot of circumstances about this project that led me to believe the city and our elected officials are pandering to developers without regard for the residents of this city, and that is ultimately what motivated me to do this.

At the last city council meeting I made a comment that was misconstrued by the Mayor as an accusation that she and the other council members were "bought". I simply said I hoped the $1000+ that the Brea Plaza developer donated to their election campaigns wasn't a payment for their vote, for I could not understand why they would vote to approve a project that had such clear public opposition. In her response to my comment, the Mayor stated that she nor any of the other council members had taken that kind of money from the developer, and that the Form 460's that they file would prove it. I have no idea why she would say this, since obviously I used the Form 460s to find out about the donations in the first place (see attached). The project had been in the works since 2016, and in 2018 and 2020, all of the sitting council members except Marty Siminoff accepted a donation of at least $1000 from Waad Nadhir in their elections. Marty took $500 in his 2016 campaign. Is $1000 enough to buy a vote? I hope not, but I'm sure Mr. Nadhir didn't donate it out of the kindness of his heart. If the Mayor and council do not like the insinuation that they may be in the developers' pockets, they should simply not accept campaign donations from developers - especially those that they know will be seeking their approval of a project in the near future.

That's enough rant - for now. Please let me know how you intend to use this. I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to review any copy prior to publication to ensure my comments and positions are correctly articulated.

Ted Gribble

President, Brea Resident Advocacy PAC

Brea Resident

5 attachments

Vargas 2018 460 - 2nd Pre-election.pdf

383K

Simonoff 2016 460 - 1st Pre-election Receipt Committee Campaign Statement_Redacted.pdf

5852K

Hupp 2018 460 - 1st Pre-Election.pdf

4831K

Parker 2018 460 - 2nd Pre election.pdf

4328K

Marick 2020 460 - Pre Election_Redacted.pdf

9317K

Terri Daxon <daxoncomm@gmail.com>

Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 4:29 PM

To: Ted Gribble <tedgribble@gmail.com>

Hi Ted,

That’s quite a comprehensive response.Thanks. I’m not sure yet what I will use. One thing, I don’t think many people knew about the public hearings for Brea 265. I don’t think many people in Eagle Hills are aware of the project that will be in their back yard. I went on a tour of the Brea 265 project with Brea Chamber members - most 20-30 somethings Gen Y, I think - and they were all in favor of the project. But the Chamber was also in favor of the Brea Plaza project.

Terri

Ted Gribble <tedgribble@gmail.com>

Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 5:10 PM

To: Terri Daxon <daxoncomm@gmail.com>

My opinion of the Brea Chamber is not very favorable. I do not believe them to be an objective body at all, since their clients are literally the developers who are proposing these projects. While I appreciated their enthusiasm, the "young professionals" are easily persuaded. I am 36 years old so not sure if I qualify as "young" anymore, but I think one should live in the community and have some skin in the game before forming an opinion. The Chamber was very supportive of the Plaza project, but had no response when I presented them with evidence about how 40% of US shoppers avoid going to centers where parking is a challenge. Led me to believe their position wasn't exactly well researched.

265 has been talked about for a long time. The city could definitely do a better job at informing the public about upcoming hearings. I did post about the hearings on Brea Buzz, which probably reached a whole lot more people than the city's efforts did. There weren't a ton of good concerns posted as a reply there either though. I can't be the squeaky wheel for the entire city, but I will help grease that wheel if the city doesn't. If people are/were truly concerned about the project, the expectation has to be that they will make those concerns known during the EIR process or public hearing process. Again, very few public comments were submitted to the EIR. Aera Energy also presented statistics about the outreach they performed which reached a significant number of people (~4000 if I remember correctly), and that like 98% was favorable. The proponent of Brea Plaza never could have got those numbers. Do you know if Eagle Hills has an HOA? I wonder if they have discussed it there.

Thanks

Ted

Terri Daxon <daxoncomm@gmail.com>

Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 10:21 AM

To: Ted Gribble <tedgribble@gmail.com>

The Brea Young Professionals are up to age 40 or so.

Most people don’t pay attention to proposed developments until it is late in the process. Eve when construction begins, someone always says, “I never heard anything about this!” How many residents do you think take the time to read an EIR? How about zero.

Before you came to Brea, Brea 265 was known as an Aera project. I haven’t heard if they’ve held a meeting with Eagle Hills residents, who do not have an HOA.

Terri

Ted Gribble <tedgribble@gmail.com>

Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 5:57 PM

To: Terri Daxon <daxoncomm@gmail.com>

Well, I read the DEIR for Brea Plaza and for Brea 265/Aera, though I only skimmed some of the sections of the latter. I will agree the public input process is not easy, but it is there, and we used it for the Brea Plaza project. If people dont show strong opposition to a project, you can't blame city council for approving projects that will bring significant benefit to the city (including meeting close to 1/2 of the projected housing need). That said, if there still is significant opposition to Brea 265 - and I'm talking about real unmitigated issues, more than just the pure NIMBY sentiment which I will admit does exist in Brea - I would be open to leveraging the PAC to try to resolve them, but again I am just not seeing it and not sure how I would know that this sentiment exists. Fortunately I believe the Aera folks are much more amenable to constructive conversation than was the developer of Brea Plaza. I believe it is already too late for a referendum though - there are strict timelines in the state law governing referendums.

B265 is interesting. The land was already designated for future residential use in prior General Plans, and is pretty much vacant except for the oil activity which will be decommissioned. I would be interested what the Eagle Hills residents thought/hoped would go in that space or if it would just be oil production/empty forever. La Floresta and Olinda Ranch neighborhoods will also have new neighbors. Only Vesuvius showed up at the public hearings, and their concern was pretty clear, and is being addressed.

Ted

Terri Daxon <daxoncomm@gmail.com>

Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 9:25 AM

To: Ted Gribble <tedgribble@gmail.com>

I’m pretty sure most people in Eagle Hills know little about B265, and like a lot of people who signed your petitions, they don’t want any more housing in Brea.

The owner of Brea Plaza has held meetings with Glenbrook residents for at least 30 years, informed them of their previous renovation plans. I attended one meeting regarding the mixed-use project and it was civilized, people asking reasonable questions.

Terri Daxon <daxoncomm@gmail.com>

Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 4:12 PM

To: Ted Gribble <tedgribble@gmail.com>

Hi Ted,

Since you were concerned about Brea Plaza’s project not having more affordable units, did you not know Avalon Bay has 653 units and NONE are affordable? Were you aware of that?

Terri

Ted Gribble <tedgribble@gmail.com>

Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 10:19 PM

To: Terri Daxon <daxoncomm@gmail.com>

I wasn’t aware of that, and I didn’t live here when that project was going through the approval process. I believe the city has a 10% minimum requirement, but the developer can pay in-lieu-of fees.

Ted Gribble <tedgribble@gmail.com>

Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 11:04 PM

To: Terri Daxon <daxoncomm@gmail.com>

I think most people who signed the petition were more against high rise apartment buildings than they were housing in general. Many were specifically against the project in that location due to how busy it is there already. I had many lengthy conversations with staunch housing advocates while going door to door. I was able to convince most of them to sign the petition anyway out of respect for the democratic process. Just trying to illustrate that the petition signees were diverse in many aspects.

I got a nice flyer in the mail about B265, and I’m sure most if not all people in Eagle Hills got one too. At least, not sure why I would get one in Glenbrook and they wouldn’t. The flyer had info about the project, info about an open house Aera hosted, and I think even city approval process info. I don’t want to be too rude but if people couldn’t be bothered enough enough to learn about the project, it sort of feels like they have less ground to stand on if they complain about it at this point. There was a lengthy approval process for this huge project, the public hearings alone lasted for a couple of months.

I attended the meetings with Brea Plaza owner, I even defended him against some of the more outlandish claims/concerns that Glenbrook residents brought up. For example one guy swore the project was going to block his satellite dish reception. Until recently I had nothing against Waad. He was just trying to squeeze more $ out of his property which is his right to do. I would have supported the project if it were more appropriately sized, and suggested several times on record that the EIR’s “environmentally superior alternative” would make more sense or at least be a less egregious overbuild of the property from a parking and traffic perspective. That alternative was roughly half the size of the 8 story, 189 unit proposal.

I only lost respect for Waad after he harassed a senior citizen petition volunteer while chasing him off his property and then proceeded to talk trash on me at city council meetings I wasn’t even at. After that I had no problem returning the favor. Not once since the Glenbrook meeting did he reach out to me directly. He had his lawyers send all kinds of legal threats to the city and to the Glenbrook HOA board to try to throw me off. Problem is it was never about him, and only a little bit about his project. It was always about the city not respecting the voices of its citizens. Citizens who, in this case, raised their concerns in a timely and respectful manner. We exhausted all administrative options - and were left only with the referendum option or an expensive legal challenge.

For Eagle Hills residents (or anyone), if they are truly opposed to this project, the legal challenge option is the only viable route at this point. There are likely errors in the extensive EIR for the project, or in the city’s due diligence, that a land use attorney could use to at least delay the project. Maybe some changes could be made, or more mayve Aera will offer more voluntary concessions. Ultimately I think the chances of stopping a housing project on that land and keeping it vacant forever is virtually zero.