12 (12)
Susana Barrios
From:Marc Herbert <fatclaw@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday,
To:Public Comment
Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] Fwd: Project Dev2021-00218-Cove Church at Rio Vista/Wagner
Attachments:Cecilia.pages
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open a?achments unless you
recognize the sender and are expec?ng the message.
September 11, 2023
To: Anaheim Mayor and City Council
Subject: Project DEV2021-00218- Cove Church at Rio Vista/Wagner
Dear Council Mayor and Council Members,
The City Council owes an answer to the issues raised by this development to the residents in the adjoining
neighborhood as well as to the rest of Anaheim residents before making a decision on the proposal.
They remain unanswered because Anaheim’s Planning Process is broken.
Just over a few blocks in District 5 at the corner of Ball and Sunkist and one will see the results of this dysfunc?onal
process. For 41 years the Jagerhaus German Restaurant, and several other family run businesses, prospered. Now, 2
years a?er the Council approved a 24-hour 7-Eleven gas sta?on and carwash, the buildings remain vacant and the lot
surrounded by a chainlink fence.
Though the old Council has been been voted out, and a new Council voted in, the Planning Process remains broken. In
the eyes of Anaheim residents this is how the Planning Process looks in the Cove Church
project:
April 2022- The home of Cecilia Flores on S. Marjan borders the Cove Church property. One day she was asked at her
door what her thoughts were on charter schools. She expressed some reserva?ons before the brief survey was
concluded. A neighbor a few days later asked whether she was going to the neighborhood mee?ng. This was the first
Cecilia had heard of such a mee?ng. She ended up having to invite herself. In this case, a community screening process
preceded the community outreach mee?ng. I am not ques?oning the right of the applicant to screen community
outreach mee?ngs. I am ques?oning the inten?on and validity of their community outreach efforts.
Summer 2023- Cecilia Flores collected over 100 signatures in her neighborhood on a pe??on protes?ng the Charter
School development.
She collected 13 addi?onal names on a second pe??on and again turned it in at City Hall. Both pe??ons were lost. Both
failed to be included in the public record or discussed at the July 17, 2023 Planning Commission Hearing.
3. Planning Hearing July 17, 2023- Thomas Gorham, City Contract
Planner, made the 10 min. presenta?on of the Planning Commission Report. The report was 286 pages long with 12
a?achments:
1
a.) Staff Report………………..……………………..11pages.
b.) Condi?onal Use Permit Dra? (1 a?achment)….16 pages.
c.) Applicant’s submissions (10 a?achments)…….223 pages.
d.) Public Comments (1 a?achment)……………….36 pages.
Anaheim’s Staff Report included none of their own traffic, parking, noise, or environmental reports. The city’s Staff
Report listed the the site, described the proposal, and gave its conclusion. Anaheim conducted no independent surveys
of the neighborhood. Anaheim completed no in-depth independent analyses. In this proposal, Anaheim trusted the
applicant but did not verify.
I’m not ques?oning the right of Scholarship Prep to spend what they wanted to gain approval for their proposal. I do
ques?on the fairness of the process when the developer’s submissions made up 78% of the Planning Commission’s
report. The developer submi?ed 223 of the 286 pages. Among the companies contribu?ng to Scholarship Prep’s
presenta?on:
a.) California Costal Works d.) Veneklasen Associates
b.) Studio W. Architects e.) Red Hook Partners
c. ) Urban Crossroads
4. Planning Hearing July 17, 2023- Commissioner Michelle Lieberman ques?oned why Cecilia Flores’s 100-signature
pe??on was not in the Staff Report. There was no record of it being received at City Hall.
Although Commissioner Lieberman saw the pe??on herself during a visit to the site the week before, she failed to
followup. The lack of concern or even curiosity for the missing pe??on made it clear how much the Planning Commission
valued the views of the community.
5. Planning Hearing July 17, 2023- The Hearing was 2 hours. Public Comments were 1 hour. 15 minutes of technical
difficul?es arose and several speakers could not be heard. 25% of the public comments were not heard. The lead
community ac?vist opposing the project, Cecilia Flores, was one of the missing voices. The Planning Commission made
no effort to delay the proceedings while searching for a solu?on. Though the public’s comments were not audible to
those a?ending in person nor to those a?ending online, the public’s comments con?nued. This ?me the broken state of
the Planning Commission was on public display. Switching microphones solved the immediate problem. Solving the
larger dysfunc?on of the Planning Commission and Process won’t be so easy. Recognizing the problem is the first step.
6. Planning Hearing July 17, 2023- The Planning Commission and City Staff failed to address the reasons given by the
1976 and 1982 Councils when similar proposals were denied. Again they listed the issues, but failed to conduct
independent studies and analyses. The previous neighborhood problems posed by placing a school on this site
remain: “traffic, noise, health, safety, peace, and the general welfare of the neighborhood”. What had changed was the
size of the proposed maximum enrollment for the current development. In 1976, the maximum was 140. In 1982, the
maximum increased to 300. Today, the maximum has grown to 480. The width, configura?on, and capacity of the
streets fron?ng the property, Wagner and Rio Vista, have not increased since 1976. Below are 2 excerpts from the 1976
and 1982 City Council decisions:
In 1976 a proposal for a private school with a maximum enrollment of
140 was denied: “That tes?mony was presented that the exis?ng use of the property has been detrimental to the
adjacent single-family residen?al proper?es and that the proposed expansion of the use would substan?ally increase the
noise and other impacts.”
In 1982 a proposal for a private school with a maximum enrollment of
300 was denied: “…that traffic generated by the proposed use will impose an undue burden upon the streets and
highways designed and improved to carry he traffic in the area; and that the gran?ng of the proposed use will be
detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the ci?zens of the City of Anaheim.”
7. Planning Hearing July 17, 2023- Relying on the analysis of a
2
study paid for by the applicant can lead to false conclusions. In A?achment #9 of the Traffic Impact Analysis the
applicant submi?ed 2 traffic projec?ons for 2025: 1 including the school proposal and 1 without. The month in 2025
selected for the projec?ons was not disclosed.
If the month selected in the 2024/2025 school year is prior to September, the 2025 traffic projec?on is based on the
school’s opening maximum student enrollment of 220. This enrollment is 55% less than what the maximum student
enrollment will be in the 2028-2029 school year. There are no traffic projec?ons for the 2028-2029 school year when
Scholarship Prep first reaches its maximum student enrollment of 480.
If the selec?on in the 2024/2025 school year is a month following September, the 2025 traffic projec?on is based on the
2025/2026 school year, the maximum enrollment would be 320 students. This is 33% less than what the traffic impact to
the neighborhood will be in
2028-2029 when the school reaches its maximum enrollment of 480.
Again I am not ques?oning the right of the applicant to submit their own traffic impact reports. Nor am I ques?oning
their intent. The fairness of the Planning Process where an applicant’s report goes unexamined and untested by the city
staff is the ques?on. Is this the normal procedure in Anaheim’s Planning Process? Did this happen in the Jagerhaus case?
Is this due to a lack of funding? Is there a plan to address this problem? If not, when does the Council plan to address the
systemic problems in the Planning Process?
8. City Council Mee?ng August 15, 2023- Orange County Water
District(OCWD) Execu?ve Director of Water Quality and Technical Resources, Jason Dadakis, gave a general overview and
report. He closed in saying (OCWD) is “developing trail connec?vity along the Santa Ana River(SAR) to Anaheim Coves
Trail at Burris Basin." The memo of understanding(mou) on this "should be ready soon". "City will also work with Orange
County Flood Control, United States Army Corps of Engineers.”
This ‘trail connec?vity” includes:
a.) Building a park along the Santa Ana River from Orangewood to Ball Road. This was funded in Feb. 2023 with a $5
million federal grant.
b.) The 100 acre OC Vibe development between Katella and Ball Road.
It will include 1,500 new homes and a 100-acre entertainment district along the River Trail.
c.) US Army Corp of Engineers is designing a plan with OCWD to fill Burris Basin for recrea?onal and storage. Burris Basin
is on the Cove Trail across from the Scholarship Prep site.
The Cove Trail is already quite popular. Star?ng at 6:30am parking along Rio Vista fills up and spills over into the
neighborhood. The Staff Report and Planning Commission failed to study the overlapping demands of the early morning
users of the Cove Trail with the parking and traffic demands of parents dropping their children off for pre-school
breakfast and classes. A couple public comments touched on this at the Planning Hearing.
The applicant, City Staff, and the Planning Commission all failed to examine how future projects would impact the
ongoing issues of “traffic, noise, health, safety, peace, and the general welfare of the neighborhood” which were first
noted in the 1976 and 1982 City Councils. The applicant, City Staff, and the Planning Commission all failed to men?on
that the Burris Basin project Memo of Understanding “should be ready soon”. Has the boat already le? the dock on this
project? A planning process where a proposal of this size remains under the radar is broken. Anaheim’s Planning Process
is such a system. With the Planning Commission, City Staff, City Council, and Mayor remaining silent on this project, the
problem appears to be systemic and/or cultural.
9. Planning Hearing July 17, 2023- The Staff Report included and
agreed with a noise study (A?achment #7 ) submi?ed by the applicant.
No independent noise study was conducted. Again I am not ques?oning the right of the applicant to submit their own
study and analysis.
3
The ques?ons are directed to the Planning Process: What is Anaheim’s noise policy? In this par?cular case, when did
the policy change from the one the 1976 and 1982 Council’s operated under? What has changed causing the Planning
Commission to overturn 2 separate Council decisions to deny 2 similar, but smaller school proposals in 1976 and 1982,
for the same site in the same neighborhood.
If ?mes have changed, and noise isn’t viewed as the problem it once was, then why has the construc?on of the Pla?num
Triangle Fire
Sta?on#12 been delayed for over a year due to the noise issue?
On Sept. 29, 2022 Angel Owner Ar?e Moreno’s a?orney wrote:
“”Landlord (Anaheim) has violated Tenant's right to peaceable and quiet enjoyment of the Baseball Stadium and Parking
Area by, on August 9, 2022, approving a Design-Build Agreement with Soltek-ECC for the design and construc?on of a fire
sta?on that is proposed to be located in the Parking Area and which is proposed to be constructed during the Term of
the Lease."
In this case, the Angels were complaining about poten?al excessive noise on game days. At most, including playoff
games, they would be facing the noise issue on 100 days. This is half the number of days the neighbors of the Scholarship
Prep school will be facing. Including summer school, Scholarship Prep will be open over 200 days. This doesn’t take into
the considera?on the frequency and length of the noise incidents. And it doesn’t include number of noise incidents
generated during special night events. In the case of the Angels the noise issue con?nues to outweigh the issue of public
safety. The year delay in building Fire Sta?on#12 con?nues.
What is Anaheim’s noise policy today? Are there 2? One for large interests like the Angels and one for residents? As
long as Anaheim con?nues to have 2 conflic?ng noise policies the planning process will remain broken.
10. Planning Hearing July 17, 2023- Traffic, parking and noise were
the 3 most common issues raised at the Hearing. In each case the applicant outlined the steps they had taken to reduce
these problems.
In each case the applicant promised to monitor these problems a?er the school opens. If the problems persisted they
promised mee?ngs every 6 months for up to 5 years to address them. The Planning Commission’s concerns were
sa?sfied.
If the problems persist, mee?ngs are required but penal?es aren’t assessed. A?er a year of planning, the best the
developer could come up with was the pos?ng of a few signs, the installa?on of some raised delineators in the median,
and a couple people sta?oned in front with two-way radios. The outlook for future remedies doesn’t look much be?er. If
there were be?er answers wouldn’t they be ini?ated now? As for a tech based solu?on to arrive for? Our chances would
be be?er in hoping for a tech based improvement to the results from keeping our fingers crossed.
11. I’m not ques?oning the right of the city staff and Planning
Commission to rely on the studies and promised remedies of the developer. The Council’s record in defending its
residents’s interests when they conflict with private interests the Planning Process is the ques?on. Managing programs,
se?ng policies, and holding them accountable have not been strengths demonstrated by Anaheim in the past decade.
The JL Group’s Corrup?on Report provided the example of Visit Anaheim. Visit Anaheim was founded 12 years ago and
was required to file an annual audit. 12 years later the city is s?ll wai?ng to receive the first audit. The Council is s?ll
struggling to find a majority to order one. The inability of the Council to follow through on wri?en agreements like this,
raises ques?ons about their ability to monitor and hold accountable unwri?en non-binding agreements with Scholarship
Prep.
4
Un?l the Planning Commission and the Council demonstrate the ability to monitor and hold accountable developers, the
Planning Commission and Process will remain broken.
12. August 31,2023- Neighborhood resident, Megan Harbert, filed a public records request for lobbying informa?on
connected with this proposal at the City Clerk’s office. On Friday September 1, 2023 at 5:01pm the City Clerk’s office
emailed their response: “We are exercising our right to an addi?onal fourteen (14) days to respond to your Public
Records Act request. This extension is provided by
Government Code §7922.535(b).” The Planning Hearing is September
12th, three days before the records request deadline.
The ques?on isn’t whether the public records are secure with the City Clerk’s office. The ques?on is how accessible the
public records are to the ci?zens of Anaheim. Currently they are not. This is not a sign of a func?oning Planning Process.
It is a another sign that the Planning Process is broken.
13. Planning Commission website September 1, 2023- There are no video records of Planning Commission Mee?ngs.
There are only audio records.
The July 17, 2023 Planning Mee?ng was held in the Council Chambers which is equipped for video. There is no video of
the mee?ng. There was no way to see the power point presenta?ons when listening to the mee?ng from home. There
was no way to see the power point presenta?ons when listening to the mee?ngs at home. There was no way for
journalists to see the power point presenta?ons when covering the mee?ng online. The Planning Commission and
Process are broken.
14. The decision to buy a home is most likely the largest investment most people will make. People who purchased their
homes in this neighborhood a?er 1982 made their decision with the understanding that the neighborhood was zoned
for low density single family homes.
Now they are faced with losing thousands of dollars in value in their homes in order to fulfill the interests of a private
commercial developer. If the Planning Commission and Process were working there would be a?empts to balance the 2
conflic?ng interests. So far there have been none. There have been no a?empts to reach a compromise. This is sign of a
broken Planning Commission and Process.
15. With 50 square miles inside Anaheim’s borders, there must be
another more suitable site for a school. OC Vibe or the Pla?num
Triangle should be considered. Both are large areas with a growing
number of residen?al units. The OC Vibe is approved for 1,500 new units and the Pla?num Triangle is approved for 5,000
to 6,000 new units to go along with the exis?ng 10,000 units. Both areas are short of schools.
Just because the current Planning Commission and Process are up and running doesn’t mean they aren’t broken. An
unbalanced Planning Process, where one side has be?er access to the Process than the other, is a broken Planning
Process. Un?l the Planning Commission and Process are repaired, the residents of the Cove Church neighborhood
cannot obtain a fair hearing.
The residents of this neighborhood are asking for no more than a fair hearing. The Council cannot deliver this while the
Planning Process remains broken. Un?l the Planning Process is repaired, this proposal must be denied. Assist
Scholarship Prep in finding a new home in the city. And get to work fixing this broken Planning Process.
Marc Herbert
(
5