Loading...
21 (26)Public Comment From: Rick Pollgreen < Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 11:10 AM To: Public Comment Subject: Re: For Appeal of DEV2019-00172 Attachments: My-appeal-speech.docx Oops! my speech did not attach! Try again. Here is my speech now! 9 Rick From: Rick Pollgreen Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 202111:07 AM To: publiccomment@anaheim.net <publiccomment@anaheim.net> Subject: For Appeal of DEV2019-00172 Hello, please see attached. I have my Appellant speech attached. Along with our collection of 764 signatures from the surrounding neighbors all in OPPOSITION to this project. We have 403 electronic signatures as well as 361 door-to-door handwritten ones. See you tonight! Thanks, Rick Pollgreen Good evening Mr. Mayor and City council members. My name is Rick Pollgreen and I am here to appeal the Planning Commission's decision of May 24, 2021 to approve Item 5 on that agenda. That item was titled "CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 2020-05144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019- 00172) ". I first want to thank each of you for your service to our city. It must be such a thankless job at times, and one that not many are willing to take on personally. I am glad to see the "In God We Trust" words on the seal at the front of the chamber. I sure hope you will make a decision tonight that you really feel is right and just. Possibly, not the easy decision, but the one that is honorable and represents what your voters and residents want and not what some speculator, Alliance, wants. I sure hope that each of you read the May 24 Planning Commission (PC) minutes or listened to the audio records. I think you would be amazed at the detailed complaints that were raised by the 35 residents that spoke against the project. And hopefully, some of their concerns might concern you as well. They did not seem to be listened to by the Planning Commission except for Steve White and Dave Vadodaria. This was deeply troubling for those of us at the meeting. We had thought that the Planning Commission would actually listen to us and consider our objections as having some value. But to be dismissed out of hand, as we were, was pretty disheartening to watch. I know I have been warned that talking about loss of view and privacy will only alienate the council since apparently, they do not have these things. And they think those things are not protected or guaranteed. Even though the City of Anaheim's General Plan for this area is to "Encourage the preservation of scenic vistas and views through Green Element Policies and Zoning Code development standards." But let me tell you my story and maybe you could be sympathetic to it, at least. In 2016, my wife, Sandy and I, purchased this house in Anaheim Hills. We bought it because it was close to our 7 grandkids, and it is a single -story house. I did not want to do stairs anymore since I had both knees replaced. Well, as you are aware in real estate, location, location, location is the mantra! And it is also the driving force in pricing obviously. So, we paid a premium price for this house that has expansive wide-open views to the East as it overlooks the church parking lot. But, besides this view, we have peace and quiet. We have owls, peregrine falcons, hawks and parrots that routinely land in the trees in the church parking lot, all which will be cut down to make room for this huge building. We spent over a year completely renovating and remodeling this property, inside and out. We literally redid everything! We spent a large chunk of our lifetime savings to buy and renovate this house, expecting it to be our forever home. But now, we discuss daily being forced to sell and get out of here because of this project! It is a travesty. So, I am sure, the developer is saying "it is only 12 houses who are really impacted, so what is the big deal?" Well, put yourselves in our shoes. If you were one of those 12, 1 think you would care. And I think you would be fighting this project as we have been. Already, one of those 12 neighbors chose to sell and move out as they could not imagine living with this; both the monstrosity, after it is built, and the 20 months of construction that would occur to build it. As I have been laser focused on OPPOSING this project, I have not had time to worry about Page 1 of 8 this 20 -month construction plan. Can you imagine the DIRT, NOISE, DIRT and NOISE that this project will impose onto the houses immediately surrounding the property? From 7:00 am until 7:00 pm possibly 7 days a week, FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS! And then just imagine the DIRT AND NOISE again! For 20 LONG MONTHS! And especially due to the strong winds in this area as well. It is tough to envision that scenario and I sure hope it never comes to reality! Let me say up front that I think you all are missing the biggest key with this project. There were 2 churches that bid on this property. They made full -priced offers and more. But they got outbid by this MONSTER COMPANY Alliance! Now, if either of these churches were to have bought the property, they are just ready to occupy it as -is! They love the campus and need it desperately. Sure, they might do some interior remodeling, but the basic footprint and buildings would remain the same. No need to raze them all and start over like this speculator Alliance is doing. Pastor Brian from Orange Hills Assembly will be speaking later on about this. Please listen to what he has to say. For the speculator Alliance to say they have "community involvement" or "support" or whatever words they used in the commission meeting is a huge misrepresentation and outright lie! They claimed "Overall, the community response to Holden Anaheim Hills has been in the majority, positive." That is just plain BULLSHIT! Just because they handed out flyers to 6 houses and then setup a website and email address, that means nothing really. They ABSOLUTELY HAVE NO NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT! Every neighbor is OPPOSED! They were supposed to notify ALL RESIDENTS WITHIN 300 feet of the property and that would include those on Honeywood (both sides) and Rural Ridge, Westridge neighborhoods, North and South. The fact that they only notified the 6 owners on the West side of the project shows you that they were deceptive from the start with the residents. And this should give you an indication of the people you are dealing with here. I have emailed and spoken on the phone with Zeshaan Younus since December 2019 on this project. I thought he was listening and working with me, but in the end, he was deceptive and inflexible. I also thought I was speaking with the developer as that is who he claimed to be. When in fact, he works for the big and powerful lobbyist firm Curt Pringle and Associates. Evidently, I have been duped. Every step of the way I fought with him on the size and height of the project. He told me many times that it would be 25 feet above THE CURRENT GRADE behind my backyard! Well, that is just not true! They are starting at the south end on the highest point on that lot, and then they are making it 25 feet tall there. The property slopes about 7-12 feet down going north and so they intend on backfilling that to maintain that same height. Therefore, at the north end of the building, the height will be more like 32-37 feet ABOVE THE CURRENT GRADE! And the city Planning department says THIS IS FINE! Ridiculous! I asked him about possibly excavating down a bit to lower the pad elevation at the South end, which would then reduce the overall height and he told me the city would not allow that. I Page 2 of 8 then contacted the city and got an email back from Scott stating that is just not true. They are able to excavate it if they want. It just comes down to the cost of doing that. And they apparently did not want to spend the money for that. Let's start with the most obvious mistake being made here. This property is zoned RH-3! That means low density residential. It means 10,000 sq foot minimum lots. 4 single family residences per acre. And at almost 3 acres, that means 12 houses can go there! But no apartments, no condos, and certainly NO BIG BUSINESSES can go there! 118 beds are not low-density housing! If you want to attempt to put such a project there, then I just ask that you follow the rules! Don't try to slide this in under a CUP. That is just fraudulent, illegal and purposefully deceptive. Ask for a re -zone of the property. At least if they did that, it would not be deceitful and shady as it is today. With a re -zoning a bunch of reports and studies would need to be done. Lots of Meetings and reviews. A costly Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required. This will be fought in court if the city continues to ignore the zoning laws that were put in place to protect all of us! And we are confident that the court will be on our side. Now let's talk about the CUP itself. Here is some data from the Anaheim Municipal Code on when a CUP is allowed. I will not read it all, but provide it to you instead. Hand them the cards! Section .020 alone is all that we need to defeat this and that is pretty obvious in that it ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE ADJOINING LAND USES! So, it does not meet the requirements since it needs to meet ALL the above conditions. This project is also not consistent with the Anaheim General Plan nor the RH-3 applicable zoning designation. The property is less than five acres, but is surrounded by suburban uses, not urban uses. The trees on the property provide habitats for owls, rare peregrine falcons and other birds. There will be significant negative effects related to privacy, traffic, noise and air quality. The City of Anaheim's "General Plan — Land Use" has designated the area that includes the site at issue as being one of low density. This designation includes a maximum of 6.5 dwelling units per acre, which the surrounding area is well below. The HOLDEN PROJECT seeks to place 118 units on 2.99 acres. That is the equivalent of 39.5 dwellings per acre! The HOLDEN PROJECT does not conform to the low-density area and is woefully out of place in this area of our city. Privacy: The privacy of the surrounding neighbors should be protected. The height of the HOLDEN PROJECT is staggering. It is a two-story project that will be 37 feet high in the northeast portion of the project. Individuals will be able to look out the windows into the neighboring swimming pools and backyards. Do we really want our children and grandchildren playing in their bathing suits while people are spying down on them? And understand that whether they are watching or not, we, the neighbors, have no way of knowing Page 3 of 8 and so it is just creepy. The original design and methodology by the city planners would NOT have allowed this! Traffic: I find the traffic study laughable. The current Mormon church met once a week on Sunday mornings. So, their impact on traffic was pretty small. Almost nil, if you will. Yet, the traffic study claims "that the existing/entitled church use is forecast to generate 120 daily trips...". So, this alone should make you question the validity of the traffic study in total! So, since that is just flat out wrong, let's just focus on is how many ADDED TRIPS this new project will add. If I can believe the study, they claim that this project will add 330 trips per day. I think that 330 TRIPS PER DAY is pretty significant! So, I would claim the exact opposite of their study! The proposed Project will significantly impact the surrounding transportation system! Light Pollution: Zeshaan said that the lighting on the new project would be very similar to what is there today! Well, that is a lie! If you look at the proposed lighting plan attached, you will see it is WAY MORE LIGHTING! And then the building lighting is even added onto this. This will disrupt the dark skies and solitude the current residents now enjoy! S:E Vii::iLP.„.PwSFcr =F niE-.s W, Ln: �01.F U. NG�1iNG LONGER- - � ....a........o u.�'11� ex�Gcucirtmc tFcs+G �C O 6 a S �} O O Parking issue. I find it funny that the developer would use the other nearby facilities as a rationale for why they should be able to get a variance for about 50% less parking than the city requires. But what I find even funnier is that the city would actually approve this variance request. If you ask almost anyone familiar with those other nearby facilities that were granted similar parking variances, they will tell you it has been a disaster. At Meridian, the nearby medical facility was forced to put up gates on its lot to keep the Meridian spillover parking Page 4 of 8 from filling its lot! And the other sites referenced have large commercial parking spaces fairly close -by that their visitors regularly use. Now that we know those parking studies are bogus, why approve another variance based upon one? This one is way worse since there are no nearby facilities to spillover onto. There are just 3 residential streets that are the most obvious places these people will resort to when not enough parking is on-site. Once again, we the residents are the ones paying the price for poor controls at the city level. If you approve this project, we will have to live with this decision of yours for years to come, not you! This is just not fair. I doubt you would do that to your own neighborhood wherever it is located. I request you to not approve their variance and require more parking spaces on the project! Now let's talk about MONEY! The city claims that money is not in the decision-making process here! I beg to differ. A city finance clerk, who will remain anonymous, was all over the social media app Next Door acting as if he was a supporter for this project. He never disclosed he worked for the city and therefore had lots to gain from this. But he did make it clear the city finances are in a poor state due to COVID and that this project would bring many dollars to the city coffers! So, you really want me to believe you are looking out for me and my neighbors? It sure doesn't seem like it from my vantage. I understand a church provides NO REVENUE to the city due to its tax-exempt status. And I can do simple math too. 118 beds times $8000 per month is $944,000 per month in income. So, I can assume the city would be getting a fair amount of money if this project were to be approved and built. So, I sure hope that this data is not being taken into account when you vote as I was told by the city. Now, I implore you to listen to my fellow neighbors who follow me tonight with requests of you to OPPOSE this project. This is NOT a case of "Not In My BackYard (NIMBY)" as I hear it get called. A large majority of the nearby community is opposed to it! We have over 800 local residents/VOTERS in our OPPOSITION group. And for many good and valid reasons. I just ask you listen to them before you make up your minds, please. Thank you! Page 5 of 8 REBUTTAL 10 minutes! - Just wing it? Add in anything I think of during hearing At this time, I would like to address each of you on the council individually. Mr. Mayor: I am sorry sir that you were unable to come walk the site with us as you live literally just down the street. I think that by seeing the enormity of this project and what it will do to the neighborhood you would be inclined to vote against it. So, perhaps that is why you would not meet us there. As this project is of NO BENEFIT to the current residents, I see no point in approving it. It will only negatively impact ALL of the surrounding neighbors lives forevermore. I urge you to grant our appeal and deny the HOLDEN PROJECT. Trevor O'Neill (District 6): You met with us on site. And you facilitated a meeting between the developers and us as well. And I thank you for that. I sure hope you remember that you are our District 6 representative. If we can't trust you to fight for our rights, then who can we look to? You should set the bar for being forthright and honest and vote NO on this project. By doing so, that would show your fellow councilmen that you are serious and they then should follow suit. I am pretty certain you would care about this project if it was proposed in your backyard! Can you imagine that? Really? I am asking you to grant our appeal and deny the HOLDEN PROJECT. Jose Diaz (District 1): We really appreciated your taking a meeting with us and then with coming out to the site to see it first-hand. On a Sunday, the 4t" of July, no less! Thank You! Hopefully, that gave you an appreciation for how out of character this project is with the neighborhood. I urge you to vote NO on this project. Jose Moreno (District 3): You came out to the site and met with us. And then came back again. And then came back with the developer as well. And we really appreciate that. Surely you see how wrong this project is for this location. Forget about the safety and parking and traffic issues. It is NOT ZONED PROPERLY for this project. At least do us the courtesy of working within the system and not allow the speculator to try and backdoor this project with a CUP. If a re -zoning was requested, as it should by law, then there would be much more scrutiny and visibility into what is being done behind closed doors here. I urge you to grant our appeal and deny the HOLDEN PROJECT. Avelino Valencia (District 4): You met with us and we appreciate that. Before you were elected to your seat, you told a reporter from Anaheim Exclusivo what your main priority would be. "I would like the residents of Anaheim to know that I am dedicating the next four years of my life to improving the quality of life for our residents," you said. "I will be selfless in those endeavors; I will put the residents' needs first." Well sir, this project is NOT improving the quality of life for ANY RESIDENTS, one bit! It is doing the exact opposite! The only people it is improving their quality of life is the speculators (and their wallets), and they are NOT EVEN Anaheim residents! There is no familial connection with this neighborhood at all. Mr. Valencia, I listened to your comments during the Jagerhaus Council Meeting of June 8 and you said you would not be comfortable with approving a project that had "potentially Page 6 of 8 detrimental impacts on adjacent neighbor's properties". You also mentioned "A mortgage is the largest purchase and investments of people's lifetimes.". And I could not agree with you more on both points. Therefore, it is imperative for you to vote against this project. Put yourself in my shoes. As mentioned in the Jagerhaus case, you would not be comfortable with that project in your backyard. And in the same way, who would have ever imagined this monstrosity of a business could be built in my residentially zoned area, adjacent to my back yard! I urge you to grant our appeal and deny the HOLDEN PROJECT. Mayor Pro Tem Stephen Faessel (District 5): Mr. Faessel, you came out and met with myself and my leadership team at the property. And I believe you understand ALL our concerns and issues with this project as currently proposed. I would hope that you would agree the project is wrong for this location and therefore support us in our appeal. There are just too many issues with this project at this location that it needs to be denied. In your words, you stated during the Jagerhaus Council Meeting of June 8 that you would vote what the residents want. Well, it is obvious here tonight what the residents want. Just look around the chamber and replay what you just heard from them all. I am urging you to grant our appeal and please deny the HOLDEN PROJECT. Jordan Brandman (District 2): 1 am going to have to ask you, Jordan, to recuse yourself. This request is based upon an apparent conflict of interest! Specifically, for your phone call to me on June 17, 2021, where you sternly admonished me for my PRA request. You said that I was making myself an enemy to the city council for some reason. And then you went on to tell me that you have a "BUDDY/BUDDY/MENTOR relationship" with Curt Pringle! I find this rather disturbing since I was merely doing my due diligence in asking for data that is perfectly legal for me to ask for. So, please do the right thing here and recuse yourself! Next, I want to discuss the Alliance "I SUPPORT HOLDEN" electronic petition. Most of these people are non -Anaheim residents. Most of them work for Alliance or Curt Pringle or the Traffic study company and the Parking study company. Compared to our signatures which were obtained by walking around and actually meeting the real residents that will be NEGATIVELY impacted by this project FOR YEARS TO COME! I find it comical that they attempt to combat our real signatures with bogus ones obtained the way they did. It shows me that they are perhaps scared by all this opposition and trying their best to fight back! Discuss the Tustin Clearwater Living project. 1 -story, and left many of the mature trees on the property. We suggested to the speculator that they cut this project down in half and make it 1 story. That would make the parking numbers actually work by the way. And of course, they said NO WAY! So, they do not seem too willing to make any concessions. In summary, it would be a real shame if this project gets approved at this location despite all this opposition. We suggest they find a better location for this project near medical facilities, etc. Like the Kaiser hospital property down on Lakeview and Riverdale perhaps. This project will not be allowed to proceed without a huge legal battle. And I am pretty sure I know what most of you all are thinking. Good luck since Alliance is a multi -BILLION (with a B!) dollar Page 7 of 8 company! But hopefully, the courts (outside of Anaheim and Orange County) will see what is the truth and rule against this project at this location! As described above, the proposed conditional use permit must be denied as it violates every applicable zoning code section to this area. The proposed conditional use permit also does not meet every single one of the required conditions and, as such, must be denied. For each of the above-mentioned reasons, I urge you to grant our appeal and deny the HOLDEN PROJECT. God bless all of you and may you really think about what really is the right thing to do here. You really should vote to oppose this development! It is the right thing to do and you know it! Sincerely, Rick Pollgreen Anaheim, CA 92807 Page 8 of 8