Loading...
21 (61)Public Comment From: Richard Bright < Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 2:28 PM To: Public Comment Subject: City Council Hearing regarding Holden Anaheim Hills Development Attachments: scan0033.pdf Hi - I filed one of the three appeals regarding the proposed Holden Development. I have attached the comments I will be making at the council meeting. If somehow I screwed up and this doesn't come through please call me and I will try again. Thank you, Richard Corby Bright Holden Development Appeal to City Council This appeal was filed on behalf of the Shadow Run Homeowner's Association which encompasses 144 single family residences located east of Royal Oak Rd. and north of East Honeywood Lane. At our May 26, 2021, board meeting the board voted unanimously to file an appeal to the planning commission's disappointing decision to approve the development of the Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility at 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim. While the board voted to sponsor the appeal, the $450 filing fee was paid through individual donations, not association accounts. Our board members and homeowners have several specific concerns: Size and Location of the Project The current building is approximately 17,000 square feet with a large open area and parking lot with over 40 mature trees, all of which will have to be removed. The proposed building will be approximately 98,000 square feet with 118 units and will require a new retaining wall and backfill to allow for minimal parking spaces that do not comply with the number required by code. The property in question is in a residential area which is zoned RH3 for single family houses on a minimum of a 10,000 square foot lot and has been home to a church for over forty years. There are no other commercial projects or medical facilities in the immediate area so any of the residents needing to shop or receive medical treatment, which will not be offered on-site, will need to be transported by vehicle. There are three other facilities similar to the one proposed operating within two miles and a fourth one is under construction. All are in areas zoned for commercial development and offer access to shopping and medical offices. 1 Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.04.030 covers allowable uses for property zoned for residential use as outlined in Table 4A. Permissible uses for property zoned RH3 are Alcohol or Drug Abuse Recovery Treatment Facilities (Small), Community Care Facilities -Licensed (Small), Community Care Facilities -Unlicensed (Small), Dwellings -Single Family Detached and Senior Living Facilities (Small). Read definition of RH-3. Section 18.04.030.060 Reads "Unlisted uses. Any class of use that is not listed in Tables 4-A, 4-13 or 4-C is not permitted." Tables 4-13 and 4-C deal with accessory structures and temporary structures. This development clearly does not fall within the permissible uses listed in Table 4-A and by city code should have never been approved. Considering this is located in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone where you need a permit to cut down a specimen tree it seems absurd that a project like this would be approved. Our HOA often struggles with how to deal with specimen trees planted on our slopes and have actually changed the type of trees we plant to avoid the regulations. Of course, that didn't help because after two years of planting California Pepper trees they were added to the list of specimen trees. My point here is that we jump through hoops to get a tree removed because we live in the Scenic Corridor and then we see this behemoth approved by the planning commission. It makes no sense. Traffic Congestion The proposed project will be on the corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak, both high volume roadways that are especially busy during commute times. Royal Oak is one of three roads in the area that connect Nohl Ranch Road to Santa Ana Canyon, Nohl Ranch Road and Santa Ana Canyon are the primary east -west routes and key emergency evacuation routes. During 0A the last mandatory fire evacuation several years ago, the area was gridlocked with some people leaving their cars in the roadway while others spent hours to go a few miles. The project plans call for vehicles exiting on to Nohl Ranch Road to make a Right -turn only. This will force drivers to make a U-turn if they need to go eastbound or go several miles until they reach Santa Ana Canyon Road for other options. Royal Oak is a two-lane road and is often congested between Nohl Ranch and East Honeywood Lane. Because the roadway curves and changes elevation it is difficult seeing both north and south bound vehicles when entering the roadway from East Honeywood Lane. The driveway entering Royal Oak from the proposed development will add to the traffic and will result in drivers pulling out when they have limited views of oncoming traffic. This will be even more of a problem for emergency and medical transport vehicles which will take longer to pull out and will likely need to constantly use sirens to safely exit the facility. Parking The current plans call for a reduction of nearly 50% in the required on-site parking spaces. The developer claims employees can ride share, walk, ride bicycles or use mass transit so there will be less demand for parking. There is no mass transit, bicycling in the hills is not for the average person and because of property costs it is unlikely any one working at the facility will be able to afford living within walking distance. The result will be over flow parking spilling on to adjacent residential streets. During the planning commission hearing Joanne Hwang from the planning department said that if there were any parking related issues code enforcement would respond and handle the problem. As a retired police officer I thought that was unlikely so I called the city code enforcement office. They are open Monday -Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. I was told that they do handle some parking issues, however, they would not cite a vehicle on a public street unless there was a municipal code or vehicle code violation. In other words, once the project is approved everyone is free to park where ever they want. 3 The parking study provided by the developer references three other assisted care facilities, all owned by the same company. These facilities have several things in common: they are in commercial areas near medical facilities and have adjacent on street parking. The developer uses their ratio of beds to parking spaces to justify reducing the required number of spaces for their facility but these facilities all have access to offsite parking which is not the case here. To say these facilities are similar is misleading although they probably could not find another facility in a similar location amid residential neighborhoods because they would never receive approval for construction. There are other Assisted Care Facilities at Nohl Ranch and Anaheim Hills Road, a mile from the proposed development. They are in a commercial area with adjacent parking available. During one of our Wednesday evening opposition rallies at the church site a passerby stopped to sign our petition and told me she recently sold her office complex at Tustin Ave. and Lincoln, two miles from the Holden site. She said someone showed up at her business and made an offer she could not refuse to buy her property to put in an assisted care facility. The site, at 1301 E. Lincoln in Orange is under construction and will be an Assisted Living and Memory Care facility, the same as the Holden Development, with 93 units in 74,000 square feet and will have 62 parking spaces as well as adjacent on street parking. Smaller facility, more parking spaces. Through this entire process the planning department has seemed intent on getting this project approved. Numerous citizen concerns have been brushed aside. When the subject of emergency vehicles responding to and from the facility with sirens was brought up at the commission hearing Ms. Hwang said it would not be a problem because sirens are turned off when the vehicles enter a neighborhood. That is absurd -sirens are turned off when they are no longer needed and, in this case, the "neighborhood" begins at the entrance to the facility. When asked about traffic concerns Ms. Hwang called on a gentleman in the audience who said he was from traffic engineering. He said he called the police department and they said they did not have an abnormal number of accidents reported at the intersection of 4 Royal Oak and Nohl Ranch. That does not qualify as a traffic study. I personally have had three vehicles go through the garden wall in my front yard at Royal Oak and East Honeywood in the years I have lived here and have witnessed numerous other traffic accidents. Does that qualify as a traffic study? While everyone from the planning department has been co-operative with us it has been apparent that this project was pre -approved. Numerous people, including several associated with the city, have told us that the decision to approve the project was pre -ordained. They said Curt Pringle, who is working with the developer to push this project through, has tremendous influence and if he supports it no one will challenge it. Several used the term "bought and paid for." I prefer to believe that Mr. Pringle and the developer have good track records with the city and that is why everyone seems to bend over backwards to push this through. Alliance does operate another facility in Anaheim, at 1731 Medical Center Way, which is in a commercial area surrounded by a mobile home park, the 91 Fwy., a car dealership and a community college campus. Absolutely no comparison to the Nohl Ranch location. I contacted Scott Koehm in the city planning office and asked if there were any other similar projects in the city of Anaheim because I wanted to see how they impacted local neighborhoods. His response, "I am not aware of other senior living facilities in Anaheim on properties zoned RH-3. I found one that is zoned RM -4, which is residential Multiple -Family." That helps explain why the parking study couldn't come up with similar facilities for comparison -no one approves these types of facilities in residential areas. The current residents are going to experience increased traffic, noise and light pollution and spend two years living in a construction zone for a project that benefits no one other than the developer. People are going to lose their views, have their privacy encroached on and, for those living closest to the facility, suffer significant losses due to decreased property values. 5 No one has yet offered an explanation as to why building this facility is a benefit to our neighborhoods. The area is not zoned for it, there are no adjacent businesses or medical facilities to support it and the project will not contribute anything positive to our area. We have been told repeatedly that the planning commission and the council don't consider the financial impact on the city when approving projects. That does not make sense to me as a resident and, if true, when it comes to this project approval it means we lose equity in our houses solely to profit the developer. That sounds like a seizure by the city to benefit the developer in violation of the 5t" amendment. Personally, I would feel better if the city said we are taking your money but your loss will be outweighed by the benefit to the city. People seem to be talking in circles trying to justify why this development is suitable for this location. They argue it is not a commercial development, which also would be prohibited, even though they need a business license to operate and it is a for-profit operation. They claim it is a residence with 118 units, but it is not a multi -family development because by code that would require a minimum of a five -acre site. The proposed building does not meet the standards for an RH-3 zone. So, what is it? Let's say I walk in to a rental office at a large apartment complex with my German Shepard Bruno and I tell him we are looking for an apartment. The rental agent says they accept cats but not dogs so I tell him this is actually my cat, Tabby. Call it what you want, it is still a dog and the Holden development is still a huge building that does not belong in a residential area. We have collected almost 800 signatures from people opposed to this project. I have been personally involved in collecting 161 of those and all were from Anaheim residents, the vast majority living within a mile of the project. Many people have put in countless hours and donated thousands of dollars to stop this project. The opposition will not stop until we have exhausted all legal means to stop it. 11 Obviously, your vote tonight is critical to both sides and no one can say you are not fully aware of what you are voting on. We do appreciate the time and effort most of you put into evaluating this project. A vote for Alliance will leave hundreds of unhappy citizens, many who already question whether the council is too quick to support businesses over residents. It sends the message to everyone in the city that the concerns of area residents, along with zoning restrictions, are meaningless. Or you can vote to deny the conditional use permit and send the message that neighborhoods and the city residents do matter. Should you deny the CUP there are two churches that have pending offers, both over the original asking price, that want to continue using the site as a church. A representative from the Mormon Church says that they now have a need for the building for a Spanish speaking ward and he would recommend that if the sale does not go through the Church keep the property. We would be thrilled with any of the church options. Thanks for your time and please vote to deny the Conditional Use Permit. Sincerely, Corby Bright President — Shadow Run Home Owners Association Attachments: 18.04 Single Family Residential Zones 18.18.070 Multiple -Family Residential Zones -Standards Letter From Shadow Run Home Owners Association to Council Petition Sheets with 39 Signatures ( Additional 122 signatures turned in with Rich Polgreen's Appeal) 7/20/2021 Sections: Chapter 18.04 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES Chapter 18.04 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES 18.04.010 Purpose. 18.04.020 Intent of individual zones. 18.04.030 Uses. 18.04.040 Lot area. 18.04.050 Lot width. 18.04.060 Lot orientation. 18.04.070 Structural heights. 18.04.080 Floor area. 1.8.04.090 Lot coverage. 18.04.100 Structural setbacks. 18.04.105 Street wall facades. 18.04.110 Parking. 18.04.120 Signs. 18.04.130 Landscaping. 18.04.140 Fences, walls and hedges. 18.04.150 Refuse storage and recycling facilities. 18.04.160 Development in the RS -4 Zone. 1804.170 Zoning regulations applicable to certain property following annexation to the City of Anaheim. Appendix A Lot width on cul-de-sac or knuckle lots. Appendix B Setbacks. Appendix C Setbacks — Reversed corner lot and reverse building frontage, Table 4-I. 18.04.010 PURPOSE. The purpose of this chapter is to describe allowable land uses and property development standards, including density of development, for the single-family residential zones to create healthy, safe and attractive neighborhoods in the City of Anaheim, consistent with the policy direction in the Anaheim General Plan. The intent of each of the single-family residential zones is described below. (Ord. 5920 § 1 (part); June 8, 2004.) 18.04.020 INTENT OF INDIVIDUAL ZONES. The single-family residential zones consist of the following. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/anaheim/latest/anaheim_ca/0-0-0-65574 1/5 7/20/2021 Chapter 18.04 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES .010 "RH-1" Single -Family Hillside Residential Zone. The intent of the "RH-1" Single -Family Hillside Residential Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment of a spacious and semi -rural character, with single-family dwelling units on a minimum lot size of forty three thousand five hundred sixty (43,560) square feet. This zone implements the Estate Residential land use designation in the General Plan. .020 "RH-2" Single -Family Hillside Residential Zone. The intent of the "RH-2" Single -Family Hillside Residential Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment of a spacious and semi -rural character, with single-family dwelling units on a minimum lot size of twenty two thousand (22,000) square feet. This zone implements the Estate Residential land use designation in the General Plan. .030 "RH-3" Single -Family Hillside Residential Zone. The intent of the "RH-3" Single -Family Hillside Residential 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 minimum lot size of ten thousand (10,000) square feet. This zone implements the Low Density Residential land use designation in the General Plan. .040 "RS -1" Single -Family Residential Zone. The intent of the "RS -1" Single -Family Residential Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment with single-family dwelling units on a minimum lot size of ten thousand (10,000) square feet. This zone implements the Low Density Residential land use designation in the General Plan. .050 "RS -2" Single -Family Residential Zone. The intent of the "RS -2" Single -Family Residential Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment with single-family dwelling units on a minimum lot size of seven thousand two hundred (7,200) square feet. This zone implements the Low Density Residential land use designation in the General Plan. .060 "RS -3" Single -Family Residential Zone. The intent of the "RS -3" Single -Family Residential Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment with single-family dwelling units on a minimum lot size of five thousand (5,000) square feet. This zone implements the Low Density Residential and Low - Medium Hillside Density Residential land use designations in the General Plan. .070 "RS -4" Single -Family Residential Zone. The intent of the "RS -4" Single -Family Residential Zone is to provide for and encourage the development of high-quality residential units on small lots, in order to provide additional housing choices and use land efficiently. This zone implements the Low -Medium Density Residential and Low -Medium Hillside Density land use designations in the General Plan. (Ord. 5920 § 1 (part); June 8, 2004.) 18.04.030 USES. .010 Primary Uses. Table 4-A (Primary Uses: Single -Family Residential Zones) identifies allowable primary uses, listed by classes of uses, as defined in Section 18.36.030 and Section 18.36.040 of Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses). .020 Accessory Uses. Table 4-13 (Accessory Uses and Structures: Single -Family Residential Zones) identifies allowable accessory uses and structures, listed by classes of uses, as defined in Section 18.36.050 of Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses). .030 Temporary Uses. Table 4-C (Temporary Uses and Structures: Single -Family Residential Zones) identifies allowable temporary uses and structures, listed by classes of uses, as defined in Section 18.36.060 of Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses). .040 The allowable uses in Tables 4-A, 4-13 and 4-C for each zone are established by letter designations as follows: 0401 "P" designates classes of uses permitted by right; 0402 "C" designates classes of uses permitted with a conditional use permit; and 0403 "M" designates classes of uses permitted with a minor conditional use permit; and https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/anaheim/latest/anaheim_ca/0-0-0-65574 2/5 7/20/2021 Chapter 18.04 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES .0404 "N" designates classes of uses that are prohibited. .050 Interpreting Classes of Uses. The provisions for interpreting the classes of uses in Tables 4-A, 4-13 or 4-C are set forth in Section 18.36.020 (Classification of Uses) of Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses). .060 Unlisted Uses. Any class of use that is not listed in Tables 4-A, 4-B or 4-C is not permitted. .070 Development in the "RS -4" Zone. All development in the "RS -4" Zone is subject to the provisions of Section 18.04.160 of this chapter. .080 Special Provisions. Special provisions related to a use are referenced in the "Special Provisions" column of Tables 4-A, 4-13 and 4-C. Such provisions may include references to other applicable code sections, or limitations to the specified land use. .090 Overlay Zones. Any property that is located within an overlay zone may be subject to additional requirements as specified in the overlay zone. Table 4-A P=Permitted by Right PRIMARY USES: SINGLE-FAMILY C=Conditional Use Permit Required RESIDENTIAL ZONES N=Prohibited RH- 1 RH- 2 RH- 3 1 RS -1 RS -2 RS -3 RS -4 I Special Provisions Residential Classes of Uses Alcoholism or Drug Abuse P P P P P P P Recovery or Treatment Provisions Facilities (Small) Community Care Facilities— P P P P P P P Licensed (Small) Community Care Facilities— P P P P P P P Subject to Unlicensed (Small) §§ 18.16.058 and 18.38.123 Dwellings—Single-Family P P P P P P C Detached Mobile Home Parks N N N N N C N Senior Living Facilities P P P P P P P (Small) Table 4-13 P=Permitted by Right ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES C=Conditional Use Permit Required M=Minor Conditional Use Permit Required N=Prohibited RH-1 RH-2 RH-3 RS -1 RS -2 RS -3 RS -4 Special Provisions https_//codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/anaheimliatesVanaheim_ca/0-0-0-65574 3/5 7/20/2021 Chapter 18.04 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES Accessory Living Quarters P P P P P N N Subject RH-1 RH-2 RH-3 RS -1 RS -2 RS -3 RS -4 Special to 18.04.080.020 Provisions & 18.38.020 Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P P P Subject to 1838.105 to 18.38.015, Accessory Dwelling Unit - Junior P P P P P P P Subject removed at the end to 18.38.015 Agricultural Workers Quarters P P N N N N N Requires a minimum from the date of the lot size of ten (10) recording of the acres Animal Keeping P P P P P P P Subject the sale of the last to 18.38.030, house, whichever is except that in the earlier RH-2 Zone, equine, P P P P P P P Subject to Chapter bovine, sheep, goats .095 Building Articulation. Articulate building facades along street frontages by using color, arrangement of facade elements, a change in materials, or other architectural devices. .100 Design Compatibility of Detached Accessory Structure. Any detached structure that is used to accommodate an accessory use listed in Table 4-B (Accessory Uses and Structures: Single -Family Residential Zones), and that is more than one hundred twenty (120) square feet in total floor area, shall not have metal, vinyl, or plastic siding, unless the main structure has similar metal, vinyl, or plastic siding. Table 4-C P=Permitted by Right TEMPORARY USES AND STRUCTURES: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES C=Conditional Use Permit Required N=Prohibited RH-1 RH-2 RH-3 RS -1 RS -2 RS -3 RS -4 Special Provisions Contractor's Office & Storage P P P P P P P Subject to 1838.105 Real Estate Tract Office P P P P P P P The office shall be removed at the end of two (2) years from the date of the recording of the subdivision map, or the sale of the last house, whichever is earlier Real Estate Tract Signs P P P P P P P Subject to Chapter 18.44 Special Events P P P P P P P Subject to 18.38.240 110 Additional Restrictions for Temporary Uses. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/anaheim/latestianaheim_ca/0-0-0-65574 4/5 7/20/2021 Chapter 18.04 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES .1101 Cargo containers maybe permitted for the storage of construction materials only when building permits have been issued for substantial construction on the site. The containers shall not be used for the storage of furniture or other household items, and shall not block vehicular or pedestrian access to the property. .1102 Portable canopies, sunshades, sails, tarps or similar shade apparatus are not permitted if visible from a public right-of-way and shall not be used as a permanent shield or patio cover where visible to residential uses. .1103 Window and door awnings or similar shade structures are not considered temporary structures when they are attached to residential structures. Said window and door awnings or similar shade structures shall be permanently attached to the residential structure and limited in width to 120% of the window or door they are shading. (Ord. 5920 1 (part); June 8, 2004: Ord. 5998 § 1; October 25, 2005: Ord. 6000 § 1; November 8, 2005: Ord. 6007 § 1; November 11, 2005: Ord. 6030 § 1: August 22, 2006: Ord. 6031 § 2: August 22, 2006: Ord. 6101 § 2 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord. 6289 § 1; October 8, 2013: Ord. 6299 § 2; May 13, 2014: Ord. 6351 § 1; December 15, 2015: Ord. 6419 § 2; August 29, 2017: Ord. 6432, §§ 1, 2; April 10, 2018: Ord. 6461 §§ 1, 2; April 16, 2019: Ord. 6483 § 1; June 9, 2020: Ord. 6493 § 1; September 29, 2020: Ord. 6506 § 3; February 9, 2021.) https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/anaheim/latest/anaheim_ca/0-0-0-65574 5/5 7/19/2021 18.18.050 RESIDENTIAL ZONES - USES. 18.18.070 MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES — STANDARDS. The provisions of this section shall apply in addition to, and where inconsistent shall supercede, any site development standards of the underlying multiple -family residential zone in which the property is located: 010 Minimum Site Area. The minimum project area shall be five (5) acres. .020 Structural Setback. On all lots adjacent to freeways, expressways, arterial highways and railroad rights-of-way, buildings and mobile homes shall be located no closer than fifty (50) feet to the right-of-way line. Said setback may be used for landscaping, recreation and open space, or for open parking and vehicular accessways; provided that a minimum ten (10) foot wide screen planting, which may include trees and shrubs, a minimum thirty-six (36) inch high landscaped earthen berm, or any combination thereof, shall be maintained adjacent to the right-of-way line. .030 Roof -mounted equipment, including exterior mounted radio and television antennas and satellite dishes exceeding three (3) feet in diameter or diagonal length, shall not be permitted except solar collector panels and related equipment shall be permitted to the extent required by state or federal law. All satellite dishes and antennas three (3) feet and under in diameter or diagonal length shall be located such that visibility is minimized from public and private streets while maintaining reception. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/anaheim/latesVanaheim_ca/0-0-0-66548#J D_18.18.050 1 /1 Shadow Homeowners Ass July 14, 2021 Mayor & Council Members City of Anaheim Re: Shadow Run Homeowners Association -- No on Holden Dear Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Council Members: I am writing on behalf of the Shadow Run Homeowner's Association, which encompasses 144 houses located east of Royal Oak Rd. and north of East Honeywood Lane. At our May 26, 2021 Board meeting, the Board voted unanimously to file an appeal to the planning commission's disappointing decision to approve the development of the Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility at 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim. While the Board voted to sponsor the appeal, the $450 filing fee was paid through individual donations, not association accounts. Our board members and homeowners have several specific concerns: Size and Location of the Project The current building is approximately 17,000 square feet with a large open area and parking lot with over 40 mature trees, all of which will have to be removed. The proposed building will be approximately 98,000 square feet and will require a new retaining wall and backfill to allow for minimal parking spaces that do not comply with the number required by code. The property in question is in a residential area which is zoned for single family houses on a minimum of a 10,000 square foot lot and has been home to a church for over forty years. There are no other commercial projects or medical facilities in the immediate area so any of the residents needing to shop or receive medical treatment, which will not be offered on-site, will need to be transported by vehicle. There are three other facilities similar to the one proposed operating within two miles and a fourth one is under construction. All are in areas zoned for commercial development and offer access to shopping and medical offices. INTERPACIFIC ASSET MANAGEMENT I DRE Lic. #01073855 Tele: (714) 891-8804 Fax: (714) 894-5643 E-mail: aodonnell@interpacificmgmt.com 5505 Garden Grove Blvd., #150, Westminster, CA 92683 https.//interpacificmgmt.sharepoint.com/sites/FileCabineUShared Documents/ShadowRun754BODMoOnHolden071421.docx Shadow Run HOA No on Holden Page Two Traffic Congestion The proposed project will be on the corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak, both high volume roadways that are especially busy during commute times. Royal Oak is one of three roads in the area that connect Nohl Ranch Road to Santa Ana Canyon and Nohl Ranch Road and Santa Ana Canyon are the primary east -west routes and key emergency evacuation routes. During the last mandatory fire evacuation several years ago, the area was gridlocked with some people leaving their cars in the roadway while others spent hours to go a few miles. The project plans call for vehicles exiting on to Nohl Ranch Road to make a U-turn only. This will force drivers to make a U-turn if they need to go eastbound or go several miles until they reach Santa Ana Canyon Road for other options. Royal Oak is a two-lane road and is often congested between Nohl Ranch and East Honeywood Lane. Because the roadway curves and changes elevation it is difficult seeing both north and south bound vehicles when entering the roadway from East Honeywood Lane. The driveway entering Royal Oak from the proposed development will add to the traffic and will result in drivers pulling out when they have limited views of oncoming traffic. This will be even more of a problem for emergency and medical transport vehicles which will take longer to pull out and will likely need to constantly use sirens to safely exit the facility. Parking The current plans call for a reduction of nearly 50% in the required on-site parking spaces. The developer claims employees can ride share, walk, ride bicycles or use mass transit so there will be less demand for parking. There is no mass transit, bicycling in the hills is not for the average person and because of property costs it is unlikely any one working at the facility will be able to afford living within walking distance. The result will be over flow parking spilling on to adjacent residential streets. Duringthe planning commission hearing someone said that if there were any parking related issues code enforcement would respond and handle the problem. Code enforcement is not a 24-7 operation and if they do respond and find twenty cars parked on the street what are they going to do? Conduct an investigation, go to the facility to question employees and guests or wait for the owners to return? Once the facility is built there will be no control unless we go to neighborhood parking permits, a definite inconvenience for current homeowners. The parking study provided by the developer references three other assisted care facilities, all owned by the same company. These facilities have several things in common: they are in commercial areas near medical facilities and have adjacent on street parking. The developer uses their ratio of beds to parking spaces to justify reducing the required number of spaces for their facility but these facilities all have access to offsite parking which is not the case here. To say these facilities are similar is misleading although they probably could not find another facility in a similar location amid residential neighborhoods because they would never receive approval for construction. INTERPACIFIC ASSET MANAGEMENT I DRE Lic. #01073855 Tele: (714) 891-8804 Fax: (714) 894-5643 E-mail: aodonnell@interpacificmgmt.com 5505 Garden Grove Blvd., #150, Westminster, CA 92683 https:/Iinterpacificmgmt.sharepoint.com/sites/FileCabineUShared Documents/ShadowRun754BOD/NoOnHolden071421.docx d N O II V. A! .r L s 1 0 N O N N O 1 O N W A M R•1 0 ii v 7 R a l Qi tai C) 00 d- 0 0 0 cwt W •ry uo ri 71 0 cv 0 Cd al; a V) Q) L 2 II III Oc v E I ill k� I J � � i nil ZT'