Loading...
21 (65)Public Comment From: Mike Price < Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 2:45 PM To: Public Comment Cc: Mike Price Subject: Fwd: No to Holden Holden Anaheim Hills 2575 E. Nohl Ranch Road CUP No. 2019-06048 Variance No. 2020-05144 Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2021-00001 (DEV 2019-00172) Mayor Sidhu and Anaheim City Council Members, We ask that you please do not approve this project! We are opposed to the Planning Committees May 24, 2021 approval of the Holden Project at 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road. This oversized large commercial business will bring many problems. * It will endanger lives in an emergency evacuation in the event of a catastrophic wild fire. Adding a high density business on an already overcrowded evacuation route makes no logical sense! * Complete lack of privacy to neighbors who share the property line. It will essentially be a three story building on the north side at a whopping 37' tall staring directly into backyards. We will no longer be able to enjoy our swimming pools / yards with any reasonable privacy! * Lack of the code required parking for the employees, daily services, 3Ro party caregivers and visitors. * Increased noise. * Increased traffic. Most of Anaheim Hills, including the surrounding streets to this project, are located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone by Cal Fire. Attached is the Cal Fire Risk Map for Anaheim Hills. I WO'• - -' I•, WIG' Fire, H�;.:ard Th reat Zane G -y Limit � Il wee &ax : ftp .- AL FIRE - Fire Hazard Threat Zo Anaheim Hills is already over built and is at a high risk for Catastrophic Fires in the future. Fire risk is increasing with climate change, drought and high Santa Ana winds. During the Cannon 2 Fire in 2017, Anaheim Hills was impacted by an aggressive fire that resulted in near panic for residents trying to exit East Anaheim Hills. The fire resulted in the evacuation of a little over 16,000 residents, 25 homes were destroyed and 55 damaged. Residents found themselves trapped in cars for over 2 hours on Nohl Ranch Road. Many considered abandoning their cars to escape and some did leave cars behind making the trip out on foot. The Cannon 2 Fire resulted in road closures that forced residents to use Nohl Ranch Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road that intersect at Lincoln as the only means of escape for a community with over 10,000 homes. The road closures included: * Imperial Hwy * Lakeview * Weir Canyon * Serrano * Toll Road 241 * Hwy 91 Pelanconi Park also increases the fire risk to individuals at this site. It's a 23 acre canyon with dense tree and brush growth that runs from Santa Ana Canyon Road to within a few hundred yards of this proposed project. Most of these residents will struggle to evacuate in a timely manner, especially if theproposed employee head count is accurate. They will struggle with just the 31 memory care residents alone. Getting a few buses onto this site using an overcrowded evacuation route will be next to impossible. Even if the buses arrived they are not reporting enough staff to quickly evacuate all of these seniors. Once in the buses, they would be stuck in the grid lock traffic just like everyone encountered during the Canyon 2 Fire in 2017. These residents will NOT have the option of walking out of the neighborhood, like many of us chose to do. The pictures below show the before and after views looking up at the proposed MEGA structure from my backyard. The second story will clearly have a direct view into our swimming pool, yard and house. Current View _F3 -44 ;4z I After view / {wy,Z - .yi'y�\ ,. . ± � - - ^ /.� I requested renderings of what the view would be from my backyard and the below perspectives were shown to me in a presentation by the developer on 7/6/21 at Curt Pringles office. As I suspected it appears they have manipulated these renderings in a way that is very deceiving! I asked them for an updated view from the back of my house and they said that was the best they could do without violating my privacy with the drone. I found that rather funny, if they actually cared about my privacythey wouldn't be trying to build a 37' high structure that will tower over my private yard. Iwas in the parking lot of the church meeting with Trevor O'Neil, when Zeshaan had the gentleman flying the drone. He could have easily asked me for my permission. I don't buy this excuse for one minute, as the very reason the drone was onsite was to produce these renderings. While the following pictures below are labeled "near easement", they are actually on the southeast corner of the easement (standing at the red circle on my grass). I own the easement, it's part of my usable yard. It appears that this will possibly be the only area of my yard that will not see this structure. The developer stated at the 5/24/21 planning commission meeting (pg. 14 of the draft minutes) that SoCalGas maintains the easement. They are clearly out of touch and haven't done proper research. SoCalGas has nothing to do with the easement or dormant pipeline that runs through it. The homeowners own and maintain the easement. 4 :14 zm:j:cdk t Vj *10 z to] J -will ORE �iv F &L. t . .j 46 4 10 ILA i 0 3D PERSPECTIVES - NORTH PROP It was also brought to their attention multiple times that new retaining wall they are proposing to build two feet off of the north property line that will be backfilled almost to the top, is creating a serious safety concern. This will easily allow someone to jump down into our yard and access our swimming pool as the sloped section is not currently secure. At the meeting we had on 7/6/21, they agreed this was a valid concern and stated they would properly secure the open end of the slope on the Royal Oak side.However, the current revised site plans that are part of the resolution do not show this. They also offered to raise the generator cabinet by two feet so it matches the wall at the top of the parking lot and that hasn't been changed either. It was suggested that they propose something smaller and they declined. We also requested an extension in order to see if any sort of compromise or agreement could be made. They also declined that as well. It is clear that the only part of my yard that will not see this MEGA structure is while standing towards the very back of my yard. Most homeowners that share a property line with this project, will 10 no longer be able to enjoy swimming pools / yards with any reasonable privacy. It is absolutely disgusting to think for a single minute that strangers will be able to gawk at my daughters swimming or playing in our private back yard. For this project to provide a direct line of sight into our backyard, windows and house violates the city's very own design standards. This is not how this planned community was designed and is not acceptable! 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. If built, it will have three habitable floors. When this project was first proposed they had only 55 of the required 102 parking spaces. Magically they have now created 4 more spaces at the expense of removing 4 of the newly proposed trees that are needed to replace the many mature trees that are currently onsite and proposed to be removed. If anyone took the time to actually review the parking study that was provided by the developer they would have easily seen the many flaws and outright deception! The assisted living facilities that were used to justify the parking might be similar in size, but none of them are in residential neighborhoods and they all have street parking surrounding them. Additionally the employee count provided in the parking study does not match the employee count provided by the developer when this project was proposed to the city. The developer stated: "60 Total Employees" 30 staff members from 6am to 2pm 25 staff members from 2pm to 10pm 5 staff members from 10pm to 6am The parking study indicates: "45 Total Employees" 28 staff members from 6am to 2pm 13 staff members from 2pm to 10pm 4 staff members from 10pm to 6am So which numbers are we to believe, the developer or the parking study? The parking study fails to account for many of the amenities this resort like business is offering. There are no employees listed for the Bistro, Therapy room, Salon, 2- driver, Theater, etc.... Either way there is no doubt that this project will not have enough onsite parking to support this LARGE facility. This means all overflow cars will be forced to park on residential streets. If this project is allowed to be built, it will increase both noise and traffic to the surrounding neighborhoods. The traffic study that was provided by the developer came to the conclusion that the increase in traffic was "insignificant". It estimated that the project would generate 330 daily trips compared to the current church that generates 120. What they failed to point out is that the church was only used one day a week. Meaning the church accounted for 120 trips in total for a week. The proposed project will generate 1,470 trips per week. That's a difference of 1,350 trips per week or 5,400 trips per month. Clearly this is not an insignificant number, but it's quite the OPPOSITE! With all these extra trips comes extra noise, traffic and air pollution. Not to mention the traffic and noise that will be created by all the delivery vehicles and emergency vehicles that will be onsite more than likely multiple times a day. All these extra vehicles will also increase the real risk of accidents. It appears that the city is not looking out for the resident's best interest here. With all these red flags it is completely baffling why the City of Anaheim is supporting this project. When we went to the Planning Commission meeting all of us were naive to think that the truth would be heard and logic would prevail. We are no longer naive to what is happening. After many sleepless nights and hours of research, we all completely understand what this project is about. This project is all about the MONEY! While all perfectly legal, as 11 voters it really stinks that a large developer can use a lobbyist to influence the elected officials we voted for. Alliance quotes online that this is "the bread and butter for them". Essentially pump it and dump it with no consequences for any of the negative effect it will have on the surrounding neighbors. With all of these valid issues being raised and documented you can BET lawsuits will be filed should anyone happen to lose a loved one because the city decided to choose money over the safety of all of the residents in this community. If the risk and overall safety of these residents in the event of a catastrophic wildfire are ignored I firmly believe the city and developer are acting recklessly. They are taking a HUGE unnecessary gamble with the lives of all the residents that will live here. Not to just the ones that will live in the facility but also the families in the surrounding neighborhoods. It's disappointing that some of you couldn't take the time to walk the site and see our perspective. It looks very different onsite then it does on a flat piece of paper. Our family along with our entire community continues to pray that the city council does the right thing and denies this project! We are thankful for the ones that have taken the time to meet with us onsite. We strongly oppose this commercial project and again ask that you DO NOT approve this project. Respectfully, Michael and Georgia Price Anaheim, CA. 92807 12