Loading...
21 (27)Public Comment From: Matthew Brady < Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 12:13 PM To: Jennifer L. Hall; Public Comment Cc: Tim Graham; Courtney Brady Subject: Written Opposition in Support of Appeal to Deny Holden Project (DEV2019-00172) Attachments: Opposition to Holden Project - City Council.docx; Declaration of Rick Pollgreen[Sig ned].PDF; 3.pdf Good afternoon, Please find attached our written opposition in support of our appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the proposed Holden Project to be located at 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road in Anaheim, California. We have attached the declaration of Rick Pollgreen in support of our request that Councilman Jordan Brandman recuse himself from voting on this matter. We have also attached a page from the WQMP report showing that the property is located in a high risk landslide area that should require a full CEQA analysis. Unfortunately, we will not be able to be at tonight's City Council meeting, but Tim Graham will be speaking on our behalf. Sincerely, Matthew and Courtney Brady ANAHEIM HILLS RESIDENTS' APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISION'S APPROVAL OF THE HOLDEN PROJECT'S REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, AND SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL AT 5275 EAST NOHL RANCH ROAD PROPERTY Dear City of Anaheim City Council: The planned Holden Project ("HOLDEN PROJECT") at 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road in Anaheim, California, will have a substantial negative impact on the community and safety of Anaheim Hills, if it is allowed to be built. The project fails to comply with numerous governmental statutes regarding zoning, traffic, environmental impact, safety, and the City of Anaheim's ("City") General Plan. Therefore, we appeal the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim's Resolution No. PC2021-020 approving this plan (No. DEV2019-00172) and the applications for a Conditional Use Permit (No. 2019-06048), Variance (No. 2020-05144), and Specimen Tree Removal (No. 2021-00001). L CEQA/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Planning Commission's Resolution No. PC2021-020 must be overturned because it failed to properly investigate the property at issue for unusual circumstances that justified removing the HOLDEN PROJECT property from being California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") exempt; thus requiring an Environment Impact Report ("EIR"). The Planning Commission and the developer wrongly claim that the HOLDEN PROJECT is exempt from CEQA's requirement for an EIR pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15332. The Planning Commission's decision wholly fails to consider the unusual circumstances of the HOLDEN PROJECT which render it not exempt from the EIR Requirement. Section 15300.2 states, "A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstance." There are reasonable possibilities of a significant environmental impact due to the unusual circumstances on the property. However, an EIR Report was never conducted. It has come to our attention that there the property is located in "an area of landslide hazard risk" (per FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC.'s March 12, 2020 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared for Alliance Realty Partners, LLC; see page 10 of said report). Building in "an area of landslide hazard risk" is irresponsible and begs the question: why is the safety of Anaheim's citizens being disregarded in the HOLDEN PROJECT at every opportunity? We also understand that there are underground rivers, aquifers and/or streams running through the property. Similar to those that have caused homes to be destroyed in nearby landslides. Furthermore, it is unclear if any of the groundwater at this site is potable or drinking water. It is also unclear as to what toxins are present, naturally occurring or otherwise, at the site that could be hazardous to human health. Clearly, there are unusual circumstances on the property that require a detailed CEQA analysis. The HOLDEN PROJECT should not be considered CEQA exempt and our appeal of the Planning Commission's resolution must be granted on that basis alone. CEQA Guidelines section 15332 requires: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designations and regulations (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project site has no value, as a habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. As discussed in detail below, the project is 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 rare peregrine falcons and other birds. There will be significant negative effects related to traffic, noise and air quality as noted below. The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City ofBakersfzeld (2004) 124 Cal.AppAth 1184, 1214 (Bakersfield Citizens); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.AppAth 903, 927. The EIR is an "environmental `alarm bell' whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return." Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.AppAth at 1220. The EIR also functions as a "document of accountability," intended to "demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action." Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392. The EIR process "protects not only the environment but also informed self- government." Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.AppAth at 927. It is troubling that the Planning Commission did not take into account the unusual circumstances present at this site and denied the public the information it is entitled to within an EIR. As such, the City did not meet the "substantial evidence" standard required by CEQA Guidelines section 15332. This site should not be considered exempt from CEQA as there are potential unusual circumstances at the site. The Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and Specimen Tree Removal applications submitted by the HOLDEN PROJECT must all be denied. Unusual circumstances are present at the site which render the HOLDEN PROJECT not exempt from CEQA and require the preparation of an EIR so that the public and local government may be informed regarding the potential damage to our environment. IL FIRE DANGER — LIVES WILL BE AT RISK! The subject property is located in a "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone" and near the end of the evacuation route for Anaheim Hills. California Government Code section 51178 requires the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to identify "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones" using consistent statewide criteria. (See CAL FIRE's Orange County map at https://www.ocgov.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=8755) A close-up view of the map is below: �Illlii IIli11������ kfl California Government Code Section 51182 requires occupied structures to "maintain defensible space of 100 feet from each side and from the front and rear of the structure." While this requirement is extinguished at the property line, a roaring wildfire will not magically extinguish itself at the property line. The HOLDEN PROJECT building is less than 90 feet from other properties located within the "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone." It does not meet the 100 feet setback recommended by CAL FIRE. The HOLDEN PROJECT will dramatically increase density in the area and risk people's lives during wildfires. It creates a serious potential problem with clogging an important evacuation route. During the wildfires a few years ago traffic on East Nohl Ranch Road was gridlocked and residents of the area were unable to leave the area to comply with evacuation orders. Many residents, including us, tried to return home to pick up children from the local schools and/or family members to ensure their safety. Vehicles were left in the middle of the road and folks could not evacuate the area. Many of our neighbors lost their homes. The disaster would have been exponentially worse if not for the winds shifting. The City claims that a new emergency plan that includes signs along East Nohl Ranch Road noting that it is the "evacuation route" will magically alleviate the gridlock are unrealistic. Here is a photo from the last wildfires where traffic was gridlocked up the evacuation route more than a mile before where the HOLDEN PROJECT would risk an epic disaster. 4 Police officers attempting to direct traffic and Caltrans potentially keeping the 91 freeway open (subject to the whim of a roaring wildfire) will not meaningfully improve the situation. Placing the HOLDEN PROJECT at the end of the evacuation route will only create worse gridlock as the customers' family members and emergency vehicles attempt to evacuate the customers. (Photo of the "evacuation route" sign on East Nohl Ranch Road) The Planning Commission was obligated make a finding of fact per Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.66.060 et seq. that the evidence presented, including the written objections and all oral objections made at the Planning Commission Hearing on May 24, 2021, and any such hearings regarding the PROJECT PLAN thereafter that each of the following conditions exist: .010 That the proposed use is properly one for which a minor conditional use permit or a conditional use permit is authorized by this code, or is an unlisted use as defined in subsection .030 (Unlisted Uses Permitted) of Section 18.66.040 (Approval Authority); .020 That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located; .030 That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety; .040 That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and .050 That the granting of the minor conditional use permit or conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. [emphasis added] If the HOLDEN PROJECT were built, there would be hundreds to thousands of seniors in the area's rest home facilities without transportation as the vast majority of the residents are prohibited from owning vehicles. They would all need to be evacuated by emergency vehicles which would break the emergency evacuation system. Horrendous decisions of who would be saved and who would be left to the wildfires would have to be made. Allowing this development will put many lives in danger due to extreme congestion in an area designed for low density when the next wildfires occur. Granting the proposed conditional use permit is not reasonably necessary to safeguard and protect the public health and safety. It will only serve to make the area more dangerous due to increased traffic, stress, noise, environmental pollution, light pollution and clogging an important evacuation route. Of note, the traffic generated by the HOLDEN PROJECT will include many large delivery trucks traveling on the streets that are specifically not designed to carry them in direct violation of Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.66.060.040. See photograph below of street sign on East Nohl Ranch Road prohibiting trucks weighing more than 6,000 pounds. C.1 * The Planning Commission's findings of fact in this area are shockingly deficient and do not support the approval of the HOLDEN PROJECT. III. THE CITY OF ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE PROHIBITS THE PROJECT PLAN'S REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Simply put, the HOLDEN PROJECT violates the intent of Anaheim's RH-3 Zoning, which states: Single -Family Hillside Residential. The intent of the "RH-3" Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment in keeping with the natural amenities and scenic resources of the area, with single-family dwelling units on a 7 minimum lot size of ten thousand (10,000) square feet. This zone implements the Low Density Residential land use designation in the General Plan. (Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.04.020.030) The HOLDEN PROJECT is the antithesis of every single element of RH-3 Zoning. The HOLDEN PROJECT is a monstrosity of a building that would be more than 30 times larger than the largest structure in the neighborhood (equivalent to the size of an average Walmart; that can't possibly be considered "attractive"); will decrease safety; will decrease the health of the environment via diesel fumes emitted by numerous emergency vehicles, constant sirens, noxious smells, and more; looks unnatural and nothing like the surrounding neighborhood; and will block existing views destroying the scenic resources of the area. Most importantly in regards to zoning, the HOLDEN PROJECT is not for single-family dwelling units on a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. It is described in their own prospecting marketing materials as a "resort." In fact, turnover is greater than 50% just like any large resort hotel. The HOLDEN PROJECT flagrantly violates the intent of the neighborhood's RH-3 Zoning and should be denied without further consideration. Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.04.030 Table 4-A identifies the permissible uses, prohibited uses, and those that require a conditional use permit. The HOLDEN PROJECT indicates that Holden Community will be what amounts to a convalescent and rest home that will have 31 beds in "memory care dwelling units." Convalescent and rest homes are expressly_ prohibited in Anaheim's RH-3 Zone. Merriam -Webster Dictionary defines a rest home as "an establishment that provides housing and general care for the aged or the convalescent. (https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/rest%20home) Holden's own website FAQs for the proposed development states "Residents will receive help with activities of daily living, including: bathing, dressing, grooming, medication management, assistance with ambulation... and 24 hour monitoring." Those are the services for the most able-bodied proposed residents. The memory care patients will be placed in "a secured wing for those impacted by dementia and dementia related diseases." (holdenanaheimhills.com/faQ) The HOLDEN PROJECT's engineering consultants, EcoTierra Consulting, Inc., prepared a May 2021 CEQA exemption analysis for Andy Uk, Associate Planner for the City of Anaheim. The analysis concludes that "The Project qualifies as a project listed as a `Convalescent & Rest Homes,' which considered based on State of California and City of Anaheim criteria." The analysis does not address the fact that convalescent and rest homes are specifically prohibited in Anaheim's RH-3 Zone. The HOLDEN PROJECT's own engineers from Linscott, Law & Greenspan (LLG) have determined that this is a rest convalescent or rest home. In a November 18, 2020 LLG Technical Memorandum to Michael Wilborn of Alliance Realty Partners, it was stated that the HOLDEN PROJECT is "One of the uses included in the list is `Convalescent & Rest Homes', which this Project is considered based on State of California and City of Anaheim criteria." (See attached LLG Technical Memorandum dated November 18, 2020) The HOLDEN PROJECT is clearly a convalescent and rest home; any other interpretation is disingenuous. H If the City Council concludes that this is a Senior Living Facility (Large), the applications should still be denied. The classification of uses that a Senior Living Facility (Large) would fall under is controlled by Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.36.020 which requires "uses that have similar functional characteristics or impacts upon the surrounding area." In this case, a Senior Living Facility (Large) IS DESIGNATED AS A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE under Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.36.040.190. There are zero Senior Living Facility (Large) businesses located in RH-3 zones as a result. A non-residential business use should not be built smack dab in the middle of one of the nicest residential -only areas in Orange County. For context, this designation would fall under the same code section as a self -storage facility, sports arena or a sex club. No matter what nomenclature the HOLDEN PROJECT uses to attempt to fool the City with, there can be no doubt that a 118 - unit gigantic complex on less than three acres does not have similar functional characteristics or impacts upon the surrounding area that is surrounded by single family homes with real property lots that measure 10,000 square feet to multiple acres. A. THE SITE IS IN A PROTECTED LOW DENSITY AREA 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. B. ANAHEIM'S VIEWS MUST BE PRESERVED The first goal of the City of Anaheim's General Plan — Land Use for the area where the site is located is to "Encourage the preservation of scenic vistas and views through Green Element Policies and Zoning Code development standards." Allowing the PROJECT PLAN will be in direct contradiction to the City of Anaheim's General Plan to preserve views. Any argument that views are not protected in this area of Anaheim Hills is simply false and misleading. The City staff's recommendation states "neither the City's Code nor the General Plan provide for view protection or preservation standards; as such, private view is not a protected feature in the City." Incorrect. The first goal of the City of Anaheim's General Plan — Land Use Element for the area where the site is located, is to "Encourage the preservation of scenic vistas and views." The HOLDEN PROJECT does the opposite. It destroys the scenic vistas and views. Further, the General Plan for the Hill and Canyon Area of Anaheim Hills, where the site is located, includes "Scenic views, well-planned residential development, access to a variety of natural, scenic and recreational resources like the Santa Ana River, Deer Canyon Park Preserve and the Anaheim Hills Golf Course, all contribute to the sense of pride felt by area residents. The General Plan seeks to preserve those characteristics." The General Plan can easily be followed by preserving the current scenic views and denying the HOLDEN PROJECT. E As the City of Anaheim recognizes in its overall General Plan: Since the 1960s, the Hill and Canyon Area has become home to thousands of hillside residents and one of Orange County's most desired communities. Scenic views, well-planned residential development, access to a variety of natural, scenic and recreational resources like the Santa Ana River, Deer Canyon Park Preserve and the Anaheim Hills Golf Course, all contribute to the sense of pride felt by area residents. The General Plan seeks to preserve those characteristics that make the Hill and Canyon Area a special place and to provide current and future residents with adequate community services and facilities. It is further intended to encourage and maintain living areas which preserve the amenities of hillside living and retain the overall lower density, semi -rural, uncongested character of the Santa Ana Canyon Area. Careful planning and protection of the area's scenic views, lower density, and uncongested character are what makes this area of Anaheim Hills one of Orange County's most desired communities. Allowing the HOLDEN PROJECT will irreparably harm all of the qualities that make the area so desirable. IV. TRAFFIC WILL BE DANGEROUS! The HOLDEN PROJECT will further exacerbate the significant traffic problems in the area. Our community witnesses numerous traffic collisions often and near -collisions on a daily basis at the intersection of East Nohl Ranch Road and South Royal Oak Road. Vehicles frequently run the stoplight at this intersection at high speeds. City Traffic staff reported at the Planning Commission meeting that no deliveries should be made via the driveway on South Royal Oak Road. However, the HOLDEN PROJECT calls for all deliveries and utilities to use the South Royal Oak Road driveway. Additionally, a massive business of this size will need large delivery trucks to make their deliveries of food, goods, supplemental oxygen, etc. These trucks are not permitted on the local roads with very limited exceptions. The proposed HOLDEN PROJECT will only create more traffic on a dangerous stretch of road through an increased number of vehicles on the road due to employees, medical service providers, emergency vehicles, delivery vehicles, entertainment and visitors. The prospecting developer has provided a traffic study that does not accurately reflect the true conditions of the area. The traffic study was conducted in early March 2020 when the world was quite literally shutting down. The study does not take into account for the numerous emergency vehicles that will come to the site on an hourly basis, nor additional medical care needed for dialysis and other care. Here is a photo of a tractor trailer (big rig) truck making a delivery to the Meridian senior complex, which is in a commercial zoned area. This truck drove through oncoming traffic lanes on East Nohl Ranch Road as it left the facility. Thankfully, no vehicles were traveling in the 10 opposite direction at the time otherwise a horrific collision would have taken place. Allowing the HOLDEN PROJECT will permit similar near -misses and potential catastrophes. V. PARKING WILL SPILL ONTO NEIGHBORING STREETS AND CREATE DANGEROUS CONDITIONS — THE PARKING STUDY IS FLAWED Since the HOLDEN PROJECT does not comply with the City of Anaheim General Plan nor its Municipal Zoning Code, the developers are seeking a variance. The plan readily admits that the proposed parking for the site is well below the amount that is required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. In fact, it only provides for 55 of the 102 required parking spaces in an area that is not accessible by mass transit, walking is impractical, and bicycling is possible only for those in the best physical shape. The reality is motor vehicles will take up lots of parking on the adjoining residential streets where children are omnipresent. The "Updated Parking Demand Analysis for the Proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project" portion of the HOLDEN PROJECT dated February 19, 2021, is full of misleading statements and outright fiction. It purports to identify three similar development for comparison regarding parking. To say that these comparisons are "apples and oranges" is an extreme understatement. 11 Most recently, the HOLDEN PROJECT claims they "found" four additional parking spaces. How did they do this? By removing trees they claimed would be planted on the site to make up for the dozens of trees that they will be cutting down on the property. The first identified comparison is located at 18922 Delaware Street in Huntington Beach, California. This facility is located next door to an 11 -story medical complex and apartment buildings. The area is comprised of shopping centers, other convalescent and rest homes, and car dealerships. It is also located approximately one block west of Beach Boulevard in the heart of Huntington Beach with lots of mass transit availability. Quite simply, this is a deceitful comparison to the site located in Anaheim Hills. The second comparison is at 433 W. Bastanchury Road in Fullerton, California. That facility is located across the street from the St. Jude Medical Center complex that encompasses numerous city blocks, multiple convalescent and rest homes, restaurants, and shopping centers. It is also located on a six -lane highway with many available forms of mass transportation. This is a deceitful comparison to the site located in Anaheim Hills. The third comparison was allegedly located at 630 The City Drive South also in Fullerton, California. The developers had to file an addendum correcting their mistakes that they tried to pass off on the Planning Commission. Their fix was to compare the site to one in Orange, California. The new site that the parking study company claims is comparable is a three-story facility in a commercial area next to the 22 Freeway with immediate access to medical facilities, restaurants and shopping at the Outlets at Orange. Basic common sense and logic tells us that these are not comparable sites. The "updated analysis" also purports that employees are encouraged to walk or bike to work. Clearly, these folks have no idea how steep the terrain is in this area. Mass transit is also non- existent in this area. There is no other church or school parking lot to make arrangements with on holidays and special occasions because they purchased the only one in the area and hope to make it dramatically smaller to the detriment of the surrounding neighborhood. As such, the requested variance should be denied. VL PRIVACY SHOULD BE PROTECTED AND HAS BEEN IN THIS EXACT CONU%4UNITY The backfilling of the site will allow people walking by the site via South Royal Oak Road to walk directly to the height of the adjoining walls on the north side of the property and easily hop down into residents' yards. Not only is this a privacy concern, but it is also a security threat to the local community. The HOLDEN PROJECT will also tower above the single family homes that it shares property boundaries with allowing customers in the facility to stare down into the backyards of the community. Imagine your own children or grandchildren in swimwear at your pool being stared at from above. These things will happen if the HOLDEN PROJECT is allowed. 12 The City has previously made single -story zoning a condition of a project just west down Nohl Ranch Road. We cannot imagine a more applicable comparison... same main road, same side, similar topography, similar situation, etc. See below. Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.18.060.0203: Pursuant to the conditions of approval of Tract No. 8418 and 8647, a one (1) story height overlay zone is hereby established and imposed upon those certain lots abutting the area known as "Peralta Hills," and located on the north side of Valley Gate Drive, the east side of Sleepy Meadow Lane north of Forest Glen Road, and the north side of Forest Glen Road and Old Bucket Lane between Sleepy Meadow Lane and Nohl Ranch Road, and further described as Lot Nos. 65 through 79, inclusive, of Tract No. 8418 and Lot Nos. 24 through 46, inclusive, of Tract No. 8647. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, the maximum structural height on said lots shall not exceed one (1) story or twenty-five (25) feet, whichever is less, except as otherwise permitted in this subsection .020. The term "One -Story," as used in this subsection, shall mean a single habitable floor, and shall not permit any loft, mezzanine, balcony or similar habitable floor or area above such single habitable floor. In keeping with the City's previous actions in this community prohibiting two-story buildings above single family homes below, the HOLDEN PROJECT should be denied as it will destroy the community's privacy. VII. THE SITE IS IN A PROTECTED SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE AND IT SUPERSEDES ANY REGULATIONS THAT ARE INCONSISTENT THEREWITH The area where the site is located is in a protected Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. As stated in Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.18.010 et seq.: Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone, is to provide for and promote orderly growth in certain areas of the City designated as being of distinctive, scenic importance, while implementing local governmental agency actions for the protection, preservation and enhancement of the unique and natural scenic assets of these areas as a valuable resource to the community. This area has been designated as an area of distinctive natural and rural beauty, characterized and exemplified by the interrelationship between such primary natural features as the rolling terrain, winding river, Specimen Trees, and the profusion of natural vegetation. This site at issue is subject to the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, which is defined as: The area of the City designated as being within the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone is defined as that area lying easterly of the intersection of the State Route 55/Costa Mesa and State Route 91/Riverside Freeways, westerly of the Orange County line, southerly of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad right -of - 13 way, and northerly of the present or any future south city limits of the City of Anaheim. Further, "The (SC) Overlay Zone is combined with any zone ("underlying zone") within the scenic corridor. The regulations contained in this chapter shall apply in addition to, and, where inconsistent therewith, shall supersede any regulations of the zone with which the (SC) Overlay Zone is combined." Building a monstrous, nearly -100,000 square feet convalescent and rest home would only harm the natural beauty of the area. The HOLDEN PROJECT is approximately six times larger than the church that is currently on the property! Any regulation inconsistent with the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone must be denied. People driving from miles away will be able to see it hideously sticking out on the hillside. The City of Anaheim is required to protect and preserve the natural scenic assets of the area. As such, the HOLDEN PROJECT must be denied. The HOLDEN PROJECT is a prohibited use, not subject to consideration of a conditional use permit because it is a convalescent or rest home. Holden speciously claims this is a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly. "Other terms used to refer to this level of care are assisted living facilities, board and care homes, rest homes and that component of Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs) that provide personal care and supervision." [emphasis added] (canhr.org/RCFE/rcfe_what.htm) The City Staff's Recommendation ignored that the HOLDEN PROJECT is a convalescent or rest home which is specifically not permitted in RH-3 Zoning per Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.04.030 Table 4-A. Planning Commissioner Meeks requested a legal opinion from the Assistant City Attorney at the May 24, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting as to this exact issue and the Assistant City Attorney did not respond. The Assistant City Attorney literally sat there and said nothing when asked to provide a legal opinion on this issue. Again, this is a rest home that is specifically written in the zoning code as a prohibited use in the area's RH-3 Zone. Therefore, the HOLDEN PROJECT's applications for conditional use permit, variance, and specimen tree removal must be denied by the City Council. The Planning Commission's Resolution also fails to mention that it is a NON-RESIDENTIAL use (a.k.a. business). A massive, nearly 100,000 square foot business in the middle of a protected low density residential neighborhood with a scenic overlay makes no sense whatsoever. There is also the specious claim in the Planning Commission Resolution that "The services provided on-site is limited to assistance with daily living activities, and does not include medical services." (Enumerated paragraph 2 on page 2 of the Resolution) However, the California Department of Health Care Services who licenses ALW (Assisted Living Waiver) residents in Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE) basic requirements state "facilities are required to have licensed nursing staff." Will ALW customers be immediately kicked out of the resort once they need medical care? Further, the HOLDEN PROJECT admits in their March 12, 2021 correspondence to Planning Department Staff that services will include "Access to health and medical services." (Attachment 2 to the City staff's recommendation) Their presentation to 14 the City Council also touts "top-of-the-line care" on slide 10. However, they are quick to point out that "top-of-the-line care" does not include medical care. The HOLDEN PROJECT's claims are completely contradictory and incompatible with the Planning Commission's Resolution. VIII. SLOPE STABILITY NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED All Anaheim Hills residents know that the slopes in the area are subject to sliding. Even the engineering firm and developers know that the property is in "an area of landslide hazard risk" as noted in the WQMP. A slope stability analysis should be performed to determine the dangers to the surrounding neighborhood, especially those north of the project who would be crushed in a landslide. It is unclear if the Santiago Geologic Hazard Abatement District ("GHAD") has been consulted regarding the HOLDEN PROJECT, but it stands to reason that they should be given that they were created to monitor geologic hazards after landslides in an adjacent area of Anaheim Hills. IX. THE SOUND ATTENUATION STUDY IS FLAWED AS IT DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA — IT WILL SOUND LIKE A HELICOPTER IS HOVERING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.40.090.010 states, "Residential developments involving the construction of two (2) or more dwelling units, or residential subdivisions resulting in two (2) or more parcels, and located within six hundred (600) feet of any railroad, freeway, expressway, major arterial, primary arterial or secondary arterial, as designated by the Circulation Element of the General Plan, shall comply with the provisions of this section." Nohl Ranch Road, which the site is located adjacent to, is a second arterial, which makes this code section applicable if the HOLDEN PROJECT is considered to be residential (which it should not be as described above). However, if this project is considered to be residential, Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.40.090.020 requires that a sound study be performed: A noise level analysis shall be performed for any new residential development or subdivision to determine the projected interior and exterior noise levels within the development. The study shall include mitigation measures that would be required to comply with applicable City noise standards, as identified in this section. The study shall be provided by the applicant, at its sole expense, to the City at the time of application for development of the residential development or subdivision. The PROJECT PLAN materials made available to the public via the City of Anaheim website do not include a noise level analysis of what heavy machinery will sound like in the surrounding residential community for the years it would take to build the proposed development. As such, the requested variance should be denied. The acoustical analysis only shows the potential impact on the properties north of the property. (See Attachment No. 5 to the City Staff Recommendation) The impacts upon the west and south are not delineated in the study and are not blocked by a sound wall. Figure 3 in Attachment No. 5 shows that 99 decibels of noise will be sent directly towards homes to the south and west where there are no sound barriers. 100 decibels is equal to a helicopter hovering 100 feet above 15 your head. (https://www.purdue.edu/ehps/rem/documents/programs/HCP.pdf - Purdue University' Hearing Conservation Report — Appendix F) I, Matthew Brady, personally invited representatives of Alliance and Curt Pringle & Associates to my property to conduct the sound study, but my invitation was not accepted. X. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL — FURTHER REVIEW IS NEEDED The HOLDEN PROJECT application includes a "study" of the specimen trees that are present at the site. However, we question whether the number of specimen trees were accurately counted on the site. As such, the Planning Commission's granting of the application for Specimen Tree Removal (No. 2021-00001) must be further reviewed as there are at least three specimen Sycamore trees on the site. The "study" submitted as part of the HOLDEN PROJECT only identifies two Sycamore trees. Therefore, application for Specimen Tree Removal (No. 2021- 00001) must be further reviewed. XI. THE COMMUNITY REACTION IS COMPLETELY AGAINST THE HOLDEN PROJECT Every single resident in the affected area who has commented on the HOLDEN PROJECT is opposed to it. Every single one. There are now over 800 community residents who have objected to the HOLDEN PROJECT in writing! We urge you to listen to the community and not allow a massive business in neighborhood that it will endanger. XII. COUNCILMEMBER JORDAN BRANDMAN MUST RECUSE HIMSELF FROM VOTING ON THE HOLDEN PROJECT According to the concurrently served Declaration of Anaheim Resident Rick Pollgreen, Councilmember Jordan Brandman verbally accosted Mr. Pollgreen regarding the Public Records Act request Mr. Pollgreen made to the City for documents related to the HOLDEN PROJECT. Councilman Brandman cannot possibly be impartial in this matter if he is calling residents to intimidate them for conducting perfectly legal requests from their City government. There is a clear conflict of interest in this matter for Councilman Brandman that demands he recuse himself from voting on this appeal. XIII. THE DEVELOPERS HAVE DENIED OUR REOUESTS FOR A CONTINUANCE TO APPEAR AT THE CITY COUNCIL'S HEARNING REGARDING THIS MATTER Appellant Matthew Brady met in-person with representatives of the developer, agent, and architects to discuss this matter on July 6, 2021. Mr. Brady stated that he had a pre -paid vacation planned for the week of the City Council hearing scheduled for July 20, 2021, and requested a continuance to the next City Council hearing. Each of the other two appellants, Richard Pollgreen and Corby Bright, have agreed to our request for a continuance. Unfortunately, the agent denied our request for a one -meeting continuance and denied our ability to participate in the hearing. 16 We also requested the opportunity to participate remotely in the hearing via telephone or Zoom. This request was denied by Anaheim City Clerk's office. This was despite the fact that the City Planner for the HOLDEN PROJECT participated telephonically during the Planning Commission hearing on this issue. XIV. CONCLUSION Our appeal of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim's Resolution No. PC2021-020 approving the HOLDEN PROJECT (No. DEV2019-00172) and the applications for a Conditional Use Permit (No. 2019-06048), Variance (No. 2020-05144), and Specimen Tree Removal (No. 2021-00001) should be granted. The HOLDEN PROJECT should not be allowed for each of the reasons stated above. As thoroughly 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 cannot meet every single one of the required conditions and, as such, must be denied. The HOLDEN PROJECT flagrantly violate required condition of Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.66.060.20 as it would adversely affect the adjoining land uses and development of the area for which it is located. The proposed project would be detrimental to the particular area as there are numerous zoning code provisions that would have to be violated or disregarded in order for it to be constructed. The proposed project would also be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the surrounding neighborhood. That alone requires the denial of the conditional use permit. Traffic would obviously increase and parking would an undue burden upon the adjacent streets. Further, the proposed project will be detrimental to the health and safety to the local citizens of Anaheim via increased traffic, noise, lights, etc. All citizens of the City of Anaheim would have their safety compromised by allowing the congestion of this major evacuation route. For each of the foregoing reasons, we urge you to grant out appeal and deny the HOLDEN PROJECT. Sincerely, Matthew S. Brady, Esq. Courtney M. Brady, Esq. Anaheim, CA 92807 17 Declaration of Richard (Rick) Pollgreen 1, Richard Pollgreen, declare and state as follows: I. The facts set forth herein are known to me personally, and if called upon to testify in a court of law, I could and would competently testify thereto. 2. 1 reside at 414 South Rolling Hills Place in Anaheim, California 92807. 3. 1 have lawfully served a California Public Records Act ("PRA") request upon the City of Anaheim on June 15, 2021 for documents related to the planned Holden Senior Center. 4. Councilman Jordan Brandman called me on my cell phone from telephone number ( on June 17, 2021, at 6:30 p.m. 5. Councilman Brandman began the conversation by stating that he was "very shocked" that I had filed the PRA. He said that by filing the PRA I had made myself an "adversary" of the whole City Council of Anaheim. 6. 1 told Councilman Brandman I thought it was a perfectly fine and legal thing to do in order to gather data in my attempt to oppose the Holden project. I was merely doing my due diligence. 7. Councilman Brandman told me that I never should have filed the PRA and that I was now "in trouble" for doing so. 8. Councilman Brandman then proceeded to tell me, "By the way, I am super good friends with Curt Pringle and he is my mentor." He was clearly implying that I was seeking damaging information regarding Curt Pringle and therefore I was an enemy of Councilman Brandman because of that. I surmised this was because I asked for communication between Curt Pringle and Associates and the city regarding this project. 9. The phone call from Councilman Brandman lasted for 11 minutes. 10. 1 was left stunned and concerned by Councilman Brandman's intimidation tactics. 11. 1 was shocked at Councilman Brandman's hostility towards me and was very intimidated. I immediately contacted others in my group to share my concerns and to warn them. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this day of July, 2021, at Anaheim, California. Richard (Rick) Pollgreen PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY MARCH 13, 2020 SECTION III SITE DESCRIPTION 111.1 PHYSICAL SETTING Planning Area/ Community Name: Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Address: 5275 Nohl Ranch Rd, Anaheim, CA 92807 Project Area Description: The project site is bounded by S Royal Oak Rd to the east, Nohl Ranch Rd to the south, and residential units to the west and north. Land Use: Low Density Residential Zoning: RH-3: Single -Family Hillside Residential SC: Scenic Corridor Overlay Acreage: 3.1 ac Predominant Soil Type: HSG D Impervious Conditions. Existing Impervious: 60% (40% Pervious) Proposed Drainage Proposed Impervious: 67/0 (33% Pervious) City of Anaheim Drainage District No. 37 Drainage District No.: According to Figure XVI -2a of the TGD, the site is located in an area 111.2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS Precipitation Zone: 0.9 inches The project site ranges from hilly to flat depending on location_ The highest point is 511 ft, while the lowest is 467 ft. However, the areas with the highest variation in elevation are mostly within the perimeter Topography: areas. Existing grades range from 1 % to 5% throughout pedestrian areas, parking lots, drive aisles, and the church building to 40% to 50% in the landscaping areas. Overall, the existing site drains towards the low point in the northeast bordering Royal Oak Rd. Existing Drainage See Section II.1 for a complete description of existing and proposed Patterns/ Connections: drainage patterns and connections. Proposed Drainage See Section I1.1 for a complete description of existing and proposed Patterns/ Connections: drainage patterns and connections. Soil Type, Geology, and According to Figure XVI -2a of the TGD, the site is located in an area Infiltration Properties: of HSG D soils and an area of landslide hazard risk. The historic groundwater within the project site was reported to be over Hydrogeologic 30 feet below ground surface. (Groundwater) Conditions: A site-specific geotechnical report will be conducted during the Final WQMP to validate these assumptions from the TGD. ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 10 SITE DESCRIPTION