Loading...
07/20/2021ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL REGULAR AND REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF JULY 20, 2021 The regular meeting of July 20, 2021 was called to order at 3:00 P.M. and adjourned to 4:00 P.M. for lack of a quorum. The regular adjourned meeting of July 20, 2021 was called to order at 4:03 P.M. in person and telephonically, pursuant to Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-08-21 (superseding the Brown Act related provisions of Executive Orders N-29-20 and N-25-20) in response to COVID- 19. The meeting notice, agenda, and related materials were duly posted on July 15, 2021. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Harry Sidhu and Council Members Stephen Faessel, Jose Diaz, and Trevor O'Neil (in person). Council Member Jordan Brandman (via teleconference) MEMBERS ABSENT: Council Members Jose F. Moreno and Avelino Valencia STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Jim Vanderpool, City Attorney Robert Fabela, and City Clerk Theresa Bass ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: None CLOSED SESSION: At 4:04 P.M., Mayor Sidhu recessed to closed session for consideration of the following: 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Subdivision (a) of Section 54957.6 of the California Government Code) Agency Designated Representative: Linda Andal, Human Resources Director Name of Employee Organizations: (1) Anaheim Police Management Association; (2) American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (General Management, Professional/Technical, and Confidential Units); (3) Teamsters, Local 952; (4) International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local 47 representing the Part -Time Customer Service Employees At 5:04 P.M., Mayor Sidhu reconvened the Anaheim City Council. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Harry Sidhu and Council Members Stephen Faessel, Jose Diaz, Jose F. Moreno, Avelino Valencia, and Trevor O'Neil (in person). Council Member Jordan Brandman (via teleconference). Council Member Brandman joined the meeting in person at 6:52 P.M. INVOCATION: Pastor James Bove, Calvary Chapel Anaheim FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Jose F. Moreno At 5:07 P.M., Mayor Sidhu called to order the Anaheim Housing Authority (in joint session with the City Council). ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDAS: None City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 2 of 41 PUBLIC COMMENTS [all agenda items, except public hearin City Clerk Theresa Bass reported that a total of seven (7) public comments were received electronically prior to 2:00 P.M. related to City Council agenda items and matters within the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Council. [A final total of seven (7) public comments were received electronically, distributed to the City Council, and made part of the official record]. — See Appendix. Victoria Michaels addressed Mayor Sidhu's role in the sale of Angel Stadium and questioned how he would personally benefit from the sale. She advised the City is facing a potential $96,000,000 fine from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). She alleged Council Member Moreno was suppressed during public discussions of the sale and called for Council Member Brandman to resign for besmirching former Council Member Denise Barnes. Fred Sigala, Jr. remarked there were many red flags in the Angel Stadium sale and noted it was a legally questionable backroom deal. He also criticized Council Member Brandman's comments about Ms. Barnes in addition to his support of the stadium sale. He called for a new independent appraisal of the stadium site, noting the appraisal was not publicly released in its entirety reflecting a lack of transparency. He advised the City had not received a complete land survey at the time of the agreement. He requested to see a written agreement stating the property could still be used for City activities after its sale. Orange County Supervisor Don Wagner spoke in favor of Item No. 19 and noted Council Member O'Neil and Mayor Pro Tern Faessel attended a recent event showcasing the site. He expressed excitement for local veterans deserving of a cemetery like this one. He shared a letter from Assemblymember Steven Choi confirming he has requested $25,000,000 from the State for the site with support from State Senators Pat Bates and Josh Newman, along with Assembly members Sharon Quirk -Silva, Phillip Chen, Janet Nguyen, and Laurie Davis. He advised he expects the item to receive significant traction and noted the Orange County Board of Supervisors would consider an item the following week contributing $20,000,000 towards the cemetery. He urged the City Council to support Item No. 19. Wally Courtney praised the City Council's forthcoming discussion of the HCD letter at the meeting but expressed displeasure at the letter's existence coming to light first through the Los Angeles Times and Orange County Register. He criticized the lack of public input taken into account during the stadium sale process. He noted the sale is still in escrow and called for an updated assessment. He inquired if the affordable housing component should be done at the buyer's cost like at the Honda Center. Bobby McDonald, a Vietnam veteran, thanked the City Council for its continued support of the veterans' cemetery and Council Member O'Neil's resolution. Bill Cook, Chairman of the Orange County Veterans Memorial Park Foundation and a Vietnam veteran, spoke of a decade -long search for space for a veterans' cemetery in Orange County. He thanked Council Member O'Neil and Mayor Pro Tern Faessel for attending the recent ceremony at the site. Steve Spriggs thanked the City Council for honoring veterans and urged support for Item No. 19. City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 3 of 41 Nick Bernadino, President of the Veterans Alliance of Orange County (VALOR) and a Vietnam veteran, asked the City Council for unanimous support on Item No. 19. He expressed disgust over the politics behind getting to this stage with the cemetery. He thanked City Council for its support. Gary Colletti, a Vietnam veteran and veteran service officer, urged the City Council to support the resolution. Jose Guevara, a representative for United States Congressman Lou Correa and a Marine Corps veteran, read a letter of support for the cemetery from Congressman Correa. Wayne Yost, Senior Vice Commander of Southern California Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) District 2 and a Vietnam veteran, praised the cemetery site and thanked City Council for its support. Wes Jones remarked the veterans' cemetery is a no-brainer, spoke of several late veterans in his family, and urged City Council to pass Item No. 19. He referenced Item No. 20 and noted Council Member Moreno cautioned there would be State issues with the Angel Stadium deal, which were not heeded. Mark Richard Daniels thanked the veterans for their service, agreed that Item No. 19 is a no-brainer, and advised his father is interned at a veterans' cemetery in San Diego. He noted the stadium sale is the first issue he can recall in 43 years of following the City Council where the City's decision was directly questioned by the State. He explained it was originally the people's stadium with its construction in 1966 funded by City bonds. He also spoke of crack cocaine and crystal methamphetamine's prominence in the homeless community around the City and requested the issue be investigated. Mike Robbins criticized the other Council Members for not condemning Council Member Brandman for his actions. He spoke of the City's large debts, lack of a fully staffed fire department, and noted residents should blame the City Council when they have to wait too long for emergency services. He advised the stadium sale is land theft and this lost money could fully staff the police and fire departments, along with better parks and schools. Jeanine Robbins suggested Mayor Sidhu's criticism of her tone at the last meeting as being discriminatory because the same was not said to her husband and many others who directly quoted Council Member Brandman's profane comments about Ms. Barnes. She termed him a puppet and addressed certain phrasing the mayor uses when speaking during meetings. She questioned those who endorsed Council Member Brandman, called him a carpetbagger, and noted his attack of Ms. Barnes crossed all lines and has made the City Council the subject of worldwide ridicule. Tom Fielder remarked that Council Member Brandman must go and noted his comments would rub off on the other Council Members. He urged City Council to remove Council Member Brandman. Cecil Jordan Corkern presented reports about reopening Disneyland, homeless shelters, and other matters. Larry Rosenberg, Executive Director of the Anaheim Ballet, invited City Council to a free performance on Friday at the Pearson Park Amphitheatre. He introduced two Japanese ballerinas and a Mexican ballerina who stated her gratitude for being in Anaheim. He encouraged City Council to support the arts. City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 4 of 41 Tim Schindler thanked all the veterans who spoke on behalf of the cemetery for their service. He chastised the City of Irvine for not welcoming the cemetery. He noted only Council Member Moreno spoke up about Council Member Brandman's statements and questioned how the other men on the dais tolerate his words. He encouraged citizens to ask the news media to make this a national story and expressed shame for the Council Members. Paul Hyek requested a location to feed the homeless as the City of Orange has shut down Mary's Kitchen, which fed 300 people per day along with providing other services for the homeless. He requested walk-in, walk -out shelters like in Los Angeles. He suggested the homeless self -run the facilities in Orange County. Denise Barnes called for action against Council Member Brandman's comments about her and expressed surprise at the lack of action by the City Attorney. She called for an investigation into whether Council Member Brandman has similarly offended others and advised she would keep returning to City Council meetings. She requested that Council Member Brandman respect the position and honorably resign and advised she would help fund the recall if not. She thanked the veterans in attendance, recalling her late father's service. Peter Warner thanked the veterans for their service. He advised his homeless friend Linda was being unfairly framed for the crime she was charged with and called for better enforcement. He requested a properly coded shelter at 1000 South Kraemer Boulevard, stating the second floor is not legal as there are no permits for the offices, and noted there is a garbage collection issue. He suggested Council Member Brandman come in front of the audience and apologize to all those he has offended and noted his comments do not belong in public office. Mark Lowry, Orange County Food Bank, spoke of opening a diaper bank during the pandemic to help vulnerable families. He thanked Mayor Sidhu for helping get over 20,000,000 diapers stored at the Anaheim Convention Center. Kenneth Batiste questioned why the veterans' cemetery is even an issue and indicated his clear support. He remarked on Council Member Brandman's comments and questioned why Mayor Sidhu has not condemned him. He decried corruption with billionaires running the City through their financial influence. He called for Council Member Brandman to resign. Cyrus Hojjaty advised that it was not the City Council's decision to determine what the City's values are and restrict freedom of speech following the City's cancellation of a rally featuring United States Congress members Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz. He spoke of the country's founding by European settlers who made it great and questioned whether or not diversity is a strength. He decried the country's immigration policies. Vern Nelson clarified the origin of the movement to recall Council Member Brandman extended back before the texts about Ms. Barnes became public. He noted the biggest pre-existing reason was his support of selling Angel Stadium to his campaign contributor Arte Moreno. He spoke of former Mayor Tom Tait's past calling of bluffs by Mr. Moreno and Council Member Brandman's opposition to Mr. Tait. He criticized Mayor Sidhu for being cozy with both Mr. Moreno and Council Member Brandman. He thanked Council Members Valencia and Moreno for continuing to fight against the Angel Stadium deal and other matters. Donna Acevedo Nelson decried the Council Members for not acknowledging her as she spoke. She advised she started regularly coming to speak before the City Council shortly after her son was murdered. She called for better police officers who are less trigger-happy. She reported meeting with City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 5 of 41 Mayor Pro Tern Faessel about hiring officers trained to handle the mentally ill. She criticized Council Member O'Neil for his take on Council Member Brandman's obscene comments. She noted her hope that the reason for Council Member Brandman's absence from the meeting is that he is getting help since representatives of the people should not speak like this about colleagues. She urged the City Council to tell the police to stop killing people. Dr. Anat Herzog expressed confusion regarding the lack of action over Council Member Brandman's behavior, noting apologies are not enough. She explained that mental health issues are not an excuse for sexist and misogynistic behavior because they are not the cause. She noted individuals on the receiving end, like Ms. Barnes, could suffer mentally from the attack. She advised mental health issues do not lead to degrading women and abusive behaviors and noted mental health does not excuse him from responsibility for his impact on others. She called for the City Council to stop conflating the two issues because his behavior is cause for extreme discipline or dismissal in any professional setting. She called for an investigation into the matter, anti -misogyny behavior training for all City staff, and support for the victims. CITY MANAGER'S UPDATE: City Manager Jim Vanderpool thanked the Anaheim Police Department Traffic Bureau for collaborating with Children's Hospital Orange County on a Bike Safety Day where helmets were distributed and approximately 75 children were able to ride their bikes through a Bike Rodeo to learn safety procedures. At 6:28 P.M., Mayor Sidhu recessed the Anaheim City Council to address the Anaheim Housing Authority agenda and reconvened at 6:29 P.M. CONSENT CALENDAR: At 6:29 P.M., the consent calendar was considered with Council Member Diaz pulling Item No. 04, Council Member Moreno pulling Item Nos. 05 and 09, and Council Member O'Neil pulling Item No. 10 for separate discussion and consideration. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Faessel moved to waive reading of all ordinances and resolutions and adopt the balance of the consent calendar, in accordance with reports, certifications, and recommendations furnished each City Council Member and as listed on the consent calendar, seconded by Council Member Diaz. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members Faessel, Brandman, Diaz, Moreno, O'Neil, and Valencia); NOES — 0. Motion carried. D116 3. Approve a posthumous proclamation for Anaheim resident, Jahzel Rojas. D182 6. Approve the proposed Five -Year Underground Conversion Plan for Fiscal Year 2021/22. D180 7. Waive the sealed bidding requirement of Council Policy 4.0 and authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a master agreement to ViaTRON Systems, Inc., in an annual amount not to exceed $150,000 beginning in 2021, for the scanning and archiving of various types of documents for a one year period with up to four one-year optional renewals. D180 8. Waive the sealed bidding requirement of Council Policy 4.0 and authorize the purchase of new Dell/EMC data storage equipment hardware and software from ConvergeOne Inc., in the amount of $599,956.54 plus applicable taxes and fees. City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 6 of 41 AGR-13009 11. Approve the Master Agreement for electric high voltage utility construction, maintenance, AGR-13010 repair, and immediate response projects with 12 contractors pre -qualified by the City and such AGR-13011 other contractors pre -qualified by the City in the future during the term of the Master AGR-13012 Agreement, and approve a not to exceed award amount of $500,000 per work order package or request for immediate response services, plus change order authorization in an amount not AGR-13013 to exceed 10% per change order and $100,000 in total change orders for each work order AGR-13014 package or request for immediate response services, with a combined cumulative value per AGR-13015 contractor per fiscal year not to exceed $3,000,000 excluding change orders, for a five-year AGR-13016 period and a one-year extension for projects in progress; authorize de minimis changes that AGR-13017 do not substantially change the terms and conditions of the Master Agreement, as determined AGR-13018 by the City Attorney; authorize the Public Utilities General Manager, or designee, to execute AGR-13019 the Master Agreements and to take the necessary actions to implement and administer the AGR-13020 Master Agreements, including any extensions; and determine that the projects to be performed under the Master Agreement shall be categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, Sections 15301, 15302, 15303, and/or 15304 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (Asplundh Construction LLC; E.E. Electric, Inc.; Hampton Tedder Electric Co.; Henkels & McCoy, Inc.; Herman Weissker Power, Inc.; Hot Line Construction, Inc.; International Line Builders, Inc.; Miron Electric Construction Corp.; Outsource Utility Contractor Corp.; Parkia, Inc.; Roberson Waite Electric; and Wilson Utility Construction Co.). 12. Approve the Final Map and Subdivision Agreement with LS-Anaheim LLC for Tract No. 19021 AGR-13021 located at 1941-1963 W. Lincoln Avenue, to establish a one numbered condominium lot map for 65-unit attached, single family condominium units. AGR- 13. Approve the First Amendment to Amended and Restated North Net Joint Powers Training 2466.13.1 Agreement between the cities of Anaheim and Orange to amend the definition of Property as set forth in the Amended and Restated North Net Joint Powers Training Agreement to add approximately 21,500 square feet to the fire training center site and provide for distribution of proceeds between Anaheim and Orange should the fire training center site ever be sold; and authorize the Fire Chief, or designee, to take any and all necessary actions to implement and administer the amended Agreement. AGR- 14. Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with Howroyd-Wright Employment Agency, 4388.E.1 Inc., dba AppleOne Employment Services, to increase the contract year not to exceed amount from $150,000 to $400,000 for continued temporary employment services. 15. Approve a contract with CGI Technologies and Solutions, Inc., in an amount not to exceed AGR-13022 $4,708,595, for the upgrade of the City's existing Enterprise Resource Planning System covering the Financial, Budget, Human Resources and Payroll systems and the amount of $14,192,000 for the associated annual maintenance, licensing, and other services costs required for the continuous use of the software over a period of ten years; and authorize the Finance Director to execute the agreement, additional agreements, change orders, purchase orders, and related documents as necessary for the implementation of this upgrade. T105 16. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-072 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM levying special taxes within City of Anaheim Community Facilities District No. 06-2 (Stadium Lofts). City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 7 of 41 RESOLUTION NO. 2021-073 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM levying special taxes within City of Anaheim Community Facilities District No. 08-1 (Platinum Triangle). M142 17 ORDINANCE NO. 6511 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending and restating Chapter 17.10 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to lot line adjustments. Determine that the Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, as this will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. D114 18. Approve the minutes of the City Council meeting on November 10, 2020. Following consideration of the Consent Calendar, Mayor Sidhu called to proceed to Item No. 21, noting a large number of attendees present to speak on it. Council Member O'Neil recommended hearing the remaining Consent Calendar items so long as the nature of the pulling was simply ministerial and not to invoke a discussion. He advised he only had a few statements regarding Item No. 10 and would not have questions for the staff or need a staff report. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mayor Sidhu explained many public commenters are waiting to address Item No. 21, but would not commit to making this procedural practice a regular one. He called for Item No. 10 to be heard. Council Member Moreno objected to moving the public hearing forward without the assurance this would be a regular procedural change and noted it was prejudicial making this exemption just today. Mayor Sidhu advised as Chair that it was his discretion to move out of order. City Attorney Robert Fabela clarified there is a rule for this situation. He explained that if a member objects to taking items out of order, no second is required and the Chair must comply unless the City Council by a two-thirds vote agrees to set aside the order of the agenda items. In response to Mr. Fabela's inquiry, Council Member Moreno clarified his objection is to hearing Item No. 21 out of order. MOTION: Council Member O'Neil moved to set aside the orders of the day and hear Public Hearing Item No. 21 out of order, seconded by Council Member Diaz. DISCUSSION: In response to Council Member O'Neil's inquiry, Mr. Fabela confirmed they would not take up Item No. 10 until they have voted on this motion. In response to Mr. Fabela's inquiry, Council Member O'Neil clarified his motion is to suspend the orders of the day to hear the public hearing first. Mayor Sidhu added this would allow Item No. 21 to be heard next. Council Member Diaz expressed support for the motion because there are hundreds of people in attendance for Item No. 21 who would otherwise have to wait for hours. City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 8 of 41 In response to Council Member Valencia's inquiry, Mr. Fabela stated this alteration of the order has happened just once or twice during his tenure. He advised there is typically an action by the Mayor to move an item forward without objection. In response to Council Member Valencia's inquiry, City Clerk Theresa Bass advised this has historically been at the discretion of the Mayor based upon attendance. She explained this has and has not been done before based on how the Mayor saw fit. Council Member Moreno advised his objection was simply because Mayor Sidhu could not commit to being fair in future applications of this procedural change. He advised moving up a public hearing has generally happened only due to time restrictions and a need to make certain decisions before midnight. He explained residents from his district have come to speak before and have not been afforded the same courtesy. He believed this process should be fair and just throughout the City. He questioned whether this move was being done so the room was cleared before hearing Item No. 20 and its opportunity for public questions about the Angel Stadium sale. Council Member Moreno advised the items he pulled from the Consent Calendar were simply for public informational purposes and his remarks would be brief. Council Member O'Neil clarified it was not a mayoral direction to suspend the orders of the day but rather his motion. In response to Mayor Sidhu's inquiry, Mr. Fabela confirmed it would require five votes to be approved. MOTION: Council Member O'Neil moved to set aside the orders of the day and hear Public Hearing Item No. 21 out of order, seconded by Council Member Diaz. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 5 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members Faessel, Brandman, Diaz, and O'Neil); NOES — 2 (Council Members Moreno and Valencia). Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: C220 21. C_EQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 32 C250 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.2019-06048 VARIANCE NO.2020-05144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO.2021-00001 DEV2019-00172 OWNER: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints, 50 E. North Temple Street, 12th Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84124 APPLICANT: Alliance Realty Partners, LLC, Michael Wilborn, 2462 Dupont Drive, Irvine CA 92612 PROJECT LOCATION: The 2.99-acre project site is located at 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road, at the northwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak Road. REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of the following land use entitlements: (i) a conditional use permit to construct a new 118 unit, 2-story state licensed senior living facility and a coordinated sign program; (ii) a variance to permit fewer parking spaces than required by Code; and (iii) a specimen tree removal permit to allow removal of two existing specimen trees. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City Council will consider whether the proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15332 (Class 32 Infill Development). ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Approved Conditional Use Permit No. City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 9 of 41 2019-06048, Variance No. 2020-05144, and Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2021-00001 and made certain findings in connection therewith (PC2021-020). VOTE: 4-2 (Chairperson Pro-Tempore Meeks and Commissioners Kring, Mulleady, and Perez voted yes. Commissioners Vadodaria and White voted no. Chairperson Keys was absent.) (Planning Commission meeting of May 24, 2021). Appealed by: (1) Rick Pollgreen; (2) Matthew S. Brady; and (3) Richard C. Bright on behalf of Shadow Run H.O.A. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06048, Variance No. 2020- 05144, and Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2021-00001 and making certain findings in connection therewith (DEV2019-00172) (5275 East Nohl Ranch Road) [includes determination that the proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA as it is within that class of projects (i.e., Class 32 — In -fill Development projects) which consists of in -fill development meeting the conditions described in Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, the property is located within an "urbanized area" as that term is defined in Section 15387 of the CEQA Guidelines, and will not cause a significant effect on the environment]. Deputy Director of Planning and Building Niki Wetzel reported the applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a senior living facility, a Variance to permit fewer parking spaces than required by code, a Coordinated Sign Program, and a Specimen Tree Removal Permit. She reported the project site is 2.99 acres, is currently home to a church in the RH-3 zone, and is surrounded by single-family residential uses on all sides. Ms. Wetzel reported the applicant intends to demolish the church to build a two-story senior living facility with 94 assisted living units and 24 memory care units for totals of 118 units with 127 beds. She advised the proposal includes 59 parking spaces in a surface lot, noting the total was only 55 at the time of Planning Commission review. She advised residents cannot have vehicles on the property. Ms. Wetzel reported a CUP is required in the RH-3 zone for a State -licensed Residential Care Facility for Elderly (RCFE) facility with seven or more residents. She advised the facility would be staffed 24 hours a day by a total of 45 staffers spread over three shifts. She detailed resident amenities and security measures for the facility and noted the CUP restricts hours for deliveries and service activities from 7:00 a.m. through 7:00 p.m. She described the setbacks, landscaping, and height of the structure, reporting that all comply with code. Ms. Wetzel reported the request for a Variance calls for 59 parking spaces instead of the required 102. She advised a Parking Study, which considered the facility's planned operational schedule and those of 51 comparable facilities, found the facility's peak parking demand would only call for 44 parking spaces. She advised the applicant would also offer parking management measures such as an employee carpool incentive program and noted a condition of approval includes prohibiting vehicles associated with the facility from parking on neighborhood streets. Ms. Wetzel reported the City's code requires having a Coordinated Sign Program due to the facility being over 40,000 square feet and detailed the applicant's proposed signage. She reported the applicant would require a Specimen Tree Removal Permit to remove a pair of sycamore trees. She advised staff agreed the trees would not allow reasonable and practical development of the property. She advised the applicant would exceed the City's requirement of planting five qualified replacement trees by instead planting six oak trees. She reported the facility would be compliant with noise codes and would not create significant traffic impacts. City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 10 of 41 Ms. Wetzel reported the Planning Commission approved the project by a 4-2 vote at a public hearing on May 24, 2021. She advised there were three appeals of the decision and detailed the 11 issues raised by the appeals and staff's response. Ms. Wetzel stated the first issue is fire safety but added the facility is not in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the Anaheim Fire & Rescue (AF&R) requirements have been met, and the facility would have a State -approved Disaster Rescue Plan as a condition of being licensed. She advised the second issue is regarding what is permitted in the RH-3 zone but reported an RCFE could be approved with a CUP and the building's height and setbacks are permissible on a site of its size. She reported the third issue pertains to traffic impacts but the City has shown the project would not have significant impacts. She reported the appeals raised parking concerns but the Parking Study demonstrates the facility would have more than adequate on -site parking. Ms. Wetzel reported the fifth issue raised pertains to inconsistency with the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone but staff believes the facility meets the requirements. She reported the appeal states the Class 32 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption is inadequate; however, City consultant EcoTierra Consulting, Inc. and the Planning Commission believe an exemption is appropriate. She reported the building's height of 25 feet is allowed in the zone and staff believes the landscaping and setbacks would prevent an issue with neighborhood privacy. Ms. Wetzel reported the eighth issue is the lack of a Slope Stability Analysis but noted a Preliminary Geotechnical Report was submitted by the applicant and was reviewed and approved by the City. She advised a final Soils Report would be required during final engineering. She reported the ninth issue is that the project may destroy scenic vistas and views inconsistent with the General Plan's goals; however, she stated staff disagrees with this assessment. She reported the appellants stated the Acoustical Analysis was inadequate for not addressing properties south and west of the site but reported the studies have been updated to address those directions and found no code violations. She reported the final issue involved specimen trees but noted the Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC) does allow for their removal in some instances and the project complies with removal requirements and exceeds the replacement requirements. She concluded by advising staff recommends denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's decision. DISCUSSION: In response to Mayor Pro Tem Faessel's inquiries, AF&R Deputy Chief Mike Molloy confirmed the last three fire evacuations did not include the project site. He advised the site is on the Know Your Way corridor. He explained the first line of defense in a major incident for this sort of facility would be a shelter in place. He advised the staff report indicates the facility has a plan in place including five buses on standby should an evacuation be necessary. He further advised a facility like this would have a very high standard from the State for fire safety in addition to the City's fire codes and he did not see the building itself as an issue. He confirmed AF&R has no concerns with this building at this site. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Faessel's inquiries, Public Works Director Rudy Emami reported the City's study expects an insignificant traffic impact from an engineering point of view. He advised, from a practical standpoint, there are three senior living facilities a mile from this site and he does not see any negative traffic impacts stemming from those facilities. He confirmed some areas of Anaheim Hills are prone to slides but noted this project is not located in one of them. He confirmed a Preliminary Engineering Report has been performed for the site and it gives him a level of comfort with slopes. City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 11 of 41 In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Mr. Emami clarified the threshold for further assessing traffic impacts is when there are over 100 daily trips during the morning or evening peak periods. He clarified those windows are from 7:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Ms. Wetzel confirmed the site is across East Nohl Ranch Road from the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. She confirmed this is the highest level hazard zone established by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Ms. Wetzel deferred to the applicant for details of the facility's Fire Plan. She advised her impression is that a Fire Emergency Plan has to be approved by the State for this sort of facility regardless of where it is located relative to various fire risk zones. She stated whether the state also evaluates risks like seismic activity is not in her realm of expertise. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Deputy Chief Molloy clarified his impression is that the issue is specifically regarding the fire risk and not potential seismic activity. He confirmed having this Emergency Plan is a requirement based upon the type of facility in question. He confirmed it is his understanding this plan would have to be in place regardless of the building's location relative to fire risk zones. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Deputy Chief Molloy estimated the width of this section of East Nohl Ranch Road is 100 feet. He advised he did not have the distance from the site to the point where the red -shaded area on the fire risk map overtakes East Nohl Ranch Road. He confirmed East Nohl Ranch Road is part of the Know Your Way route for Anaheim Hills. He explained even if the project were across the street in the red zone, it would not change how AF&R viewed the project. He advised it could impact some of the components required to be implemented into the building. He confirmed moving it across the street would not change AF&R's opinion about its potential to complicate a potential evacuation. He clarified, in an emergency, the building would have a shelter in place order and steady communication from the Emergency Operations Center (EOC). He advised the facility would need to create an evacuation plan. He explained traffic from people coming to the area to help get loved ones out would be a concern for anyone and is part of what spurred the Know Your Way program. In response to Council Member Valencia's inquiries, Deputy Chief Molloy clarified the red zone on the map is deemed to be of very high fire risk by the State, the City adopts this assessment, and advised the City does not adopt lower tiers. He advised the shelter in place order has been used often with wildfires. He explained residents would shelter inside the facility with all the necessary components to exist while self-contained, such as an electrical generator. He advised this would last until either there was an evacuation ordered or the situation was remedied. He clarified logistics of how the residents and staff would evacuate would be a component of the facility's plan. He advised there would be ample warning from the EOC and noted an evacuation order would come from the City. He confirmed AF&R has no concerns about either the building overburdening the evacuation route or it adding fuel to a fire. He confirmed these plans and the capacity to evacuate must be in place to serve as a State - licensed facility. He explained the facility and not AF&R would be performing the actual rescue. operations. In response to Council Member Valencia's inquiries, Ms. Wetzel reported she is not aware of any process where the City would be asking if the plan was approved by the State. She advised the operator would violate its CUP if it was not meeting its State license requirements. She advised she is unaware of any requirement for the operator to share its emergency plan with the City. Deputy Chief Molloy confirmed AF&R does not have anything at this time and it would simply be an internal plan for the facility City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 12 of 41 In response to Council Member Diaz's inquiry, Deputy Chief Molloy estimated the closest a wildfire has come to the site is 3.5 miles and reiterated it was simply an estimate. Mayor Sidhu reported he had ex-parte communications with both the appellants and applicant in the last 60 days. Council Members Brandman, O'Neil, Valencia, Diaz, and Moreno, and Mayor Pro Tem Faessel all disclosed ex parte communications relative to this item. Mayor Sidhu opened the public hearing. Rick Pollgreen, appellant, urged the City Council to make the hard decision to do what the voters want and not what a speculator wants. He noted and praised the detailed complaints of the 35 residents speaking against the project at the Planning Commission meeting. He expressed surprise the Planning Commission dismissed the residents' concerns. Mr. Pollgreen shared his story from living in the neighborhood and how his home would be less wonderful with the new facility. He noted the owner of one of the 12 houses most impacted has sold it and moved in the past three weeks. He advised the 20-month construction process would also be a challenge for neighbors. Mr. Pollgreen lamented the church not being sold to another congregation instead of prospector and applicant Alliance Realty Partners, LLC and denied Alliance's claims the response in the community has been positive. He noted the notification of only six neighbors and not all neighbors within 300 feet was deceptive. He advised he was duped into believing he was speaking to the developer instead of a lobbyist. He contested the height at the north end of the building would be between 32 and 37 feet due to the slope of the lot. He noted City staff and the Planning Commission disagreed over whether or not the building could be excavated to lower its overall height. Mr. Pollgreen advised the RH-3 zone is for low -density residential and this three -acre lot should only hold 12 houses, not apartments, condominiums, or businesses. He encouraged the City Council not to resort to a CUP to slide this project through, calling it fraudulent, and instead requested a rezoning process for the lot. He explained this would be fought in court if the zoning laws were not followed. Mr. Pollgreen advised the requirements for a CUP do not meet the requirement for impacting adjoining land uses. He noted it is inconsistent with the General Plan for being in a residential setting and not an urban one and its density would be woefully out of place. He denounced a lack of privacy presented by the height being 37 feet in the northeast corner and denounced the Traffic Study. He explained there is potential for light pollution with the current building plans. He advised the parking figures underestimate the vehicles based upon other facilities. He explained there has been no discussion of how much extra money the project would bring to the City as opposed to a non-profit church and how this could sway votes. Lastly, he advised over 800 registered voters are in the opposition group and asked City Council to listen to them. Tim Graham spoke on behalf of appellate Matt Brady who could not attend the meeting. He advised almost all of Anaheim Hills does not want this project where it is proposed. He explained it would be portrayed as a case of not in my backyard (NIMBY) but that was not the case. He clarified they instead simply do not like large facilities plopped in the middle of low -density neighborhoods without regard for the character of the surrounding neighborhood or other negative impacts. Mr. Graham advised the project should not be exempt from CEQA and should require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). He noted the underplayed risk of landslides in the area and stated the study should not be done by the City but rather by a more adversarial body. He advised several findings of fact still need to be made before the development should go forward. He noted the City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 13 of 41 facility flagrantly violates the intent of an RH-3 zone and should be denied. He advised the facility is a convalescent center in disguise, which is expressly prohibited in RH-3 zones, citing the wing for dementia patients. He noted a senior living facility is designated as a non-residential use by the AMC. He explained under no terminology does the proposal fit the characteristics of the surrounding area. Mr. Graham advised the Traffic Study does not properly reflect the area, noting it was done in March 2020 as the world was shutting down due to the pandemic. He pointed out that the large vehicles that would make deliveries to the facility are not permitted on the local roads. He noted the study does not account for the inevitable increase in emergency vehicles to the facility given its nature. He cited discrepancies between the City and applicant over where deliveries would be made on the property. Mr. Graham reported the building would impact views in an SC zone for its height and light pollution. He explained the facilities used for the Traffic Study are not comparable by being located closer to mass transit and not in a residential area. He advised construction would make an evacuation worse in the event of a wildfire, noting there is already too much traffic complicating any evacuation situation. He believed it would hurt adjoining property values. He advised the entire community is against the development, contrary to the developer's claims, including 800 written objections. Mr. Graham requested that at a minimum a CEQA Study should be conducted and questioned why there would not be one in the first place. He noted the development does not address any significant needs relative to Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) quotas. He advised approving the project would put the interests of builders ahead of the interests of residents. He called upon the City Council to fix the Planning Commission's error and stop the project. Richard Bright spoke on behalf of Shadow Run Home Owners' Association (HOA). He thanked the City Council for listening to their concerns and the residents for speaking to them. He noted the project's supporters had come in from out of town. He advised the HOA includes 144 single-family residences whose Board voted unanimously to appeal. He noted the appeal is being privately funded and not from the HOA's coffers. Mr. Bright reported the HOA's concerns are similar to the previous speakers, focusing on the size, location, and uses of the development not befitting an RH-3 zone. He questioned how the matter got this far, as the facility is not allowed per several chapters of the AMC. He criticized the Parking Study for only considering facilities in commercial areas. He advised the Code Enforcement staff concluded it would not be their place to remove cars parked on streets near the facility although the Planning Commission told him it would. He advised there would also be parking complications during construction. Mr. Bright addressed wildfire concerns by noting there is an old gas line right of way north of the property and it is not denoted on the map. He reported the HOA had a slope failure 20 years ago just half a mile from the site so more attention should be paid to the issue. He noted the process has been an eye-opener, alleging an undue level of influence from former Mayor Curt Pringle. He advised previous Alliance developments have not been located in comparable neighborhoods and noted Principal Planner Scott Koehm stated he was not aware of any similar projects in Anaheim. He questioned why the project was being pushed when so many Anaheim residents have voiced opposition in writing. Mr. Bright advised the resulting message would either be the City Council is pro -development and money is more important than the residents or the City Council does care and realizes there is more to care about than business and profit and stands up for its citizens. He explained there is no way the City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 14 of 41 project would not negatively impact their home values. He noted several churches would like to take over the space. He encouraged City Council to oppose the item. Michael Wilborn, Managing Director of Allied Residential and developer of the proposed Holden Anaheim Hills project, spoke of his pride in the high -quality housing Allied Residential has built in Southern California. He advised they have a responsibility to build the facility to the highest levels of quality and noted he and Alliance are there to invest in the City and improve the Anaheim Hills community. He praised Alliance's thorough community outreach for the project over the past 20 months. Mr. Wilborn referenced a Facebook page, on -site posting, and an email address where Alliance has fielded multiple questions as evidence of the company being open to the community. He advised they met with all three appellants for two hours on July 6, 2021. He explained ultimately it is a project to care for today's seniors and stated the project would be a resource for the elderly in Anaheim Hills for generations, allowing them to age within their community. Mr. Wilborn showed renderings to display the quality the project would have including model rooms and internal outdoor courtyards. He noted Alliance has received 537 signatures and 163 comments showing support of the project including several comments posted by neighbors. He cited two other Alliance -run senior projects within Anaheim Hills and advised that both projects received a Variance to reduce the parking requirement. Mr. Wilborn noted Holden Anaheim Hills would be a State -licensed RCFE facility. He clarified it is a residential community by design and not a convalescent center, rest home, or skilled nursing facility. He noted the facility is permissible in RH-3 zoning with a CUP as it is considered a large senior living facility under AMC. He detailed several legal differences between an assisted living center and a rest home, including its regulation by the California Department of Social Services and not the Department of Health Care Services. He advised Holden Anaheim Hills would be considered a social setting and not a medical setting. Mr. Wilborn reported the building would comply with the strict SC zone restrictions, noting it substantially exceeds setback requirements to minimize privacy concerns. He advised it meets all City codes of height, the slope stability on the north side would be improved, and it would meet all applicable building codes. He advised there was a preliminary Geotechnical Report approved by City Public Works staff and there would be a final Geotechnical Report in the next phase of the process. He explained the proposed lot coverage of 37% is below the permissible level of 40% and advised the lopsided setbacks are intended to push the structure as far away from the surrounding homes as possible towards the intersection of East Nohl Ranch Road and South Royal Oak Road. He detailed the site grade adjustments with a maximum increase at 11.84 feet and advised the height is measured from finished grade up to a maximum of 25 feet. He displayed virtual proposed views from local homes with the future building and landscaping added in for perspective. Mr. Wilborn reported they added four parking stalls after the Planning Commission meeting, increasing the proposal's count from 55 to 59. He noted only two stalls out of 118 units are for residents and stated this would be both a condition of resident leases and also enforced by the City as a CUP condition. He advised the Parking Study indicates there would be a surplus at all times, with a peak demand expected to range from 44 to 49 vehicles, and presented a table from the study basing demand off information gleaned from 51 similar -sized communities. In response to Mayor Sidhu's inquiry, Ms. Bass advised there are 17 public comments from within the noticed area and 24 from outside the noticed area. She reported 70 public comments were received City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 15 of 41 electronically prior to 7:00 P.M. related to Public Hearing Item No. 21 [A final total of 70 public comments were received electronically, distributed to the City Council, and made part of the official record]. — See Appendix. Mike Price, noticed area resident, explained they are not a neighborhood of senior citizens haters, advised residents in the neighborhood could not afford to live in Holden Anaheim Hills, and stated it offers no benefit to the community. He advised the only one who would benefit is the speculator and noted commercial business does not belong in anyone's backyard regardless of zip code. He advised the project would be a disaster for the surrounding neighborhood, which it does not match. He explained the structure would be 37 feet high on the side facing his house, noting there is a freight elevator from the loading dock to the first floor making it a second story. He expressed concerns about lost privacy from the development and questioned why the AMC was being ignored. He advised single-family homes in the neighborhood are held to a more stringent height standard for this reason. Mr. Price advised a 100,000 square foot building should not be squeezed between single- family homes and noted it was incompatible with the neighborhood. He expressed concerns regarding the risk of landslides in the vicinity, the facility's parking being just 20 feet from his property line where his children play, that the overflow parking will go onto their residential streets, and denounced the noise from delivery trucks. He advised every proposed change to the slope is unsafe. He advised the wall is too high and would require a Variance not included in this item. He showed pictures of how the facility would negatively impact the view from his house and noted a facility this size does not belong in his neighborhood. He encouraged City Council to reject the project and noted the City would lose in court if approved. Georgia Price asked the City Council to reject the project because it would destroy her neighborhood. She advised she and her neighbors have come together from all walks of life for the common goal of saying "no" to Holden Anaheim Hills. Ms. Price noted the CEQA checklist states trash would be collected on South Royal Oak Road but this does not match what the City's Traffic Engineer told the Planning Commission. She questioned why the report includes a reference to a non-existent subterranean parking structure and noted the report acknowledges the site is a landslide hazard risk. She noted the report states no slopes would be modified and questioned why the City was ignoring these discrepancies. She pointed out a discrepancy between the two Noise Studies relative to the facility's generator although she acknowledged both decibel levels are permissible. Ms. Price advised having to have seniors in a shelter in place scenario would be terrifying were it her grandmother in the facility. She questioned whether the five employees scheduled for the night shift could evacuate 127 seniors. She questioned the estimated parking needs due to what she stated is an underestimated number of contractors assisting with the residents. She believed the facility would serve as more of a convalescent rest home than a senior living center and cited where it is referenced as such in previous documents. She noted the church presently on the site only met on Sundays, creating far less daily traffic. She advised the 2,000 weekly trips for the development would be a significant impact on the community. She noted more discrepancies in the CEQA checklist between whether or not the facility is a senior living center or a convalescent rest home. She noted a portion of the Traffic Study should only apply to facilities under 50,000 square feet, which this one would exceed. Ms. Price explained if it is a senior living center, it should not receive a CUP at this size and if it is a convalescent home it should not screen out of CEQA so one or the other should stop the project. She advised Alliance's petition was solely created by people who would benefit from the project and not the homeowners. Jon Lovett, noticed area resident, advised he expressed his objections to the development to each Council Member in writing, noting the project is too large for the available real estate. City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 16 of 41 Naser Saleh, noticed area resident, expressed opposition to the project and stated non -noticed area residents should not be there because they do not live there. Gary Scott, noticed area resident, reported he has a direct view of the existing church from his house. He advised there have historically been very few overruns of the church's 150 parking spaces and the church has been a good neighbor. He reported he spent two years visiting a similar facility daily and the personnel needs for this proposed facility are understated. He explained the parking is his biggest issue with the development as it will lead to overflow parking on their residential streets. He questioned how the provision of residents not having vehicles would be enforced. He advised the project is too large for the lot and encouraged City Council to deny it. Richard Guercio, noticed area resident, reported he is a senior citizen so he is not against seniors but believes this facility does not belong on this site. He emphasized potential issues with the evacuation route and the stability of the land. He reported mudslides onto the sidewalk in front of his property on East Nohl Ranch Road forcing him to sweep it weekly. He suggested an area like the one around the Kaiser Permanente Lakeview Medical Offices would be a better site. Don Chiesa, noticed area resident, expressed opposition to the project. He stated he is concerned about the proximity to the fire zone and not hearing a full evacuation plan. He discussed his experiences working with City of Paradise residents following the 2019 wildfire, which forced the evacuation of Feather River Hospital after a period of sheltering in place. He relayed experiences from the Santa Rosa wildfire where a shopping mall could no longer be used as a staging area because the mall was ablaze before it could be put into use. He advised the City Council might need to explain putting a senior living center in this spot without hearing a full evacuation plan. Mr. Chiesa reported there are traffic signals less than half a block apart on East Nohl Ranch Road at both South Royal Oak Road and Rural Ridge Drive because the road bends creating a blind spot and a pair of dangerous intersections. He advised the building would create another blind spot at the corner of East Nohl Ranch Road and South Royal Oak Road. He noted he often hears cars skidding at these intersections near his home and called for further study on this issue. Mr. Chiesa reported there are senior living facilities in the area, contradicting the notion that neighbors do not support seniors. He advised the Meridian at Anaheim Hills has a CUP for the parking but the onsite parking has proved to be insufficient, causing overflows to the adjacent Gateway Medical Center. He reported his neighbors recently sold their home and had to re -pour concrete due to the shifting slope. He advised this is just two houses away from the site and called for more research on the slope. He encouraged City Council to reject the proposal. Derrell Brown, noticed area resident, expressed his opposition to the proposal. He added, as a retired engineer, he had concerns about safety in a fire evacuation. He recalled during the 2017 evacuation for Canyon Fire 2, he and his wife decided to walk down the hill because the traffic on East Nohl Ranch Road was so bad. He expressed concerns about how 150 seniors and staff would get out. Mr. Brown reported other nearby facilities have an option to take four -lane divided Anaheim Hills Road and not only the two-lane East Nohl Ranch Road, which offers a better path to safety. He advised the other area senior facilities have large adjacent commercial parking lots for spillover parking, whereas this one would only have the residential streets. He reported there are no shopping plazas and other amenities within walking distance for residents at this site. He noted the wider Anaheim Hills Road by the other facilities provides access for service trucks without disrupting the traffic flow. Mr. Brown explained the AMC's call for 102 parking spots was established by engineers who did good work in creating a reasonable estimate. He advised the 59 spots are not even close to the 102 and would lead to residential street usage for overflow, creating safety issues for children. He explained the issue is not about caring for senior citizens but rather if this is the right place for such a large facility. City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 17 of 41 He thanked City Council for listening to the residents and called for full consideration of what the facility would do to their neighborhood. Sandy Pollgreen, noticed area resident, expressed her pride in Mr. Pollgreen's efforts and expressed opposition to the facility. She advised she was a caregiver for her mother and is an advocate for home care. She criticized Alliance for flying a drone into her backyard to demonstrate how the view of the facility would appear. She advised she does not want 127 vulnerable elderly to struggle when a wildfire comes. She described the area's trees as being dry in this older section of the City. She noted the elderly were traumatized by the damage brought by the Santa Rosa fire burning all they had. Mrs. Pollgreen clarified she is not against the facility but rather she would like to see it built in a safer location. She noted supporters of the project do not live there and the 800 signatures from people who do live there speak volumes. She questioned how many residents of Anaheim could afford to live in Holden Anaheim Hills, particularly after the pandemic's toll. She relayed stories from home caring for her mother and stated sheltering in place would not sit well with her. She expressed concerns about staging 127 seniors, many likely with disabilities, onto five buses and evacuating them through the area's traffic and advised Council would be responsible by voting for the development. She praised Alliance as a company and spoke of its strong reputation but called for a compromise. She thanked the City Council for listening to the people and expressed support for the veterans' cemetery. Joe Guercio, noticed area resident, spoke of the constant noise from the heat pump and air conditioners that was not addressed in the Noise Study, and advised they would get noisier with age. He advised that, without public transportation and the hills making bicycles difficult, there would be no way for facility access besides driving. Lastly, he noted ambulance noise would be an issue at night. Michele Duncan, noticed area resident, reported she spoke at the Planning Commission's meeting about her concerns for the evacuation plans and noted her community was planned to be residential. She recalled her children playing in the neighborhood and urged City Council to drive through the neighborhood and see what this facility would do to it. She advised CAL FIRE confirmed the project is actually in the very high fire risk zone. She appealed to the City Council's sense of community responsibility for what is a suburb and not a city. She advised the facility would be a huge impact on their environment and noted how many people are opposed to the size of the structure, traffic, and safety concerns. She encouraged City Council to make a respectful footprint on their environment. Peter Duncan, noticed area resident, reported he wrote to the Council Members about fire concerns and advised it is his biggest concern. He noted the inevitable impacts of climate change and how there will be larger, more dangerous, and more frequent fires to come. He spoke of the evacuation for the 2017 Canyon Fire 2, which could have spread farther into Anaheim Hills if the winds were higher. He recalled East Nohl Ranch Road was being utilized by police and fire personnel to access the fire and the lengthy traffic backup going out was leading to panic. He explained things would only get more intense over time and expressed concerns for the elderly who would inhabit the facility. Mr. Duncan advised the facility is only 300 yards from Pelanconi Park, which is a 23-acre canyon with dense vegetation, and noted a fire in the park would be a direct threat to the facility. He expressed opposition to the project and asked City Council to do the right thing in not approving the project. Manny Dominguez, noticed area resident, advised he moved into the area to get away from heavy freeway construction in Seal Beach. He explained Anaheim Hills is still simply Anaheim for the post office and the City Council through its actions is creating a lowland versus highlands situation. He believed the City Council would rather have them all be there in support of the facility. He reported he has never seen a neighborhood gather so many people at one time for one specific issue as the opposition to Holden Anaheim Hills has done. Mr. Dominguez advised he sent Council Member O'Neil a video of how packed traffic on East Nohl Ranch Road was on July 4 for the City's fireworks City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 18 of 41 display. He reported he would support Holden Anaheim Hills but not in the neighborhood and noted it was inappropriate for affecting so many homeowners. He advised he and his neighbors have never seen any of the people in the Council Chambers holding "yes to Holden" signs and insinuated either they were told to come or were getting paid to be there. He advised City Council would be bringing a nuisance to the neighborhood by approving the project. He expressed his intention to complain regularly and loudly about the construction's dirt and noise, along with the completed project's light and traffic. Mr. Dominguez advised the site's proposed traffic exit would be hazardous due to the blind curve and noted trucks would have to go a substantial distance before they could legally turn around. He advised KTLA has reported on this story and would follow up. He asked Council Member O'Neil to listen to his constituents and their strong opposition and expressed their collective anger over what was happening. He advised City Council should be discussing the City's real problems instead of hearing opposition until midnight over a single building by a non -Anaheim builder. He called for the church property to be given instead to one of the two other congregations that have expressed an interest. Luke Callahan, noticed area resident, questioned when the Alliance community outreach occurred since he and many of his neighbors missed it and questioned if Alliance's 540 signatures were vetted or reviewed for residents and duplicates. He expressed opposition to the project. Britany Callahan, noticed area resident, advised she and her husband have previously emailed their opposition to the project to City Council. She reported a recent discussion about the project on Nextdoor featuring a supporter of the project who she claimed is the Assistant General Manager of Administration and Finance at Anaheim Public Utilities (APU), and noted it was unethical for the poster not to disclose his role with the City. She reported the commenter addressed an influx of property taxes to assist the City's budget, inquired if this was the official City statement, and noted financial impacts were not supposed to be considered. She believed APU has completed an Impact Report on the usage of the site with which the poster may have been involved. She advised these postings would have been made on company time and the poster's information indicates he is a resident of the City of Orange, not Anaheim. She remarked the posting was made during working hours by a high-ranking City official who does not live in the City yet takes an active role supporting a project against the wishes of Anaheim Hills' homeowners. Mrs. Callahan urged the City Council to vote against the project. Mark Kurzbard, on behalf of noticed area resident Jill Cook, advised residents feel desperate because their homes are being challenged. He noted he believes the Council Members would not want the facility in their backyard and neither do they. He asked the Council Members to consider if they would be taking the same route if in their position. He read a letter from Ms. Cook strongly opposing the project, noting it is too large, would create safety issues, and would change the neighborhood's feel. She explained it does not fit the site, would negatively affect the neighborhood, and would create privacy issues in her backyard. She advised in the letter she would be forced to consider selling the house she had shared with her late husband. Mr. Kurzbard reported that he also lives down the street and opposes the plan in an unmitigated fashion. He advised it is a commercial business for a for -profit entity in an area zoned residential area. He explained this is a conditional use on the surface but is a zoning change. He noted there is a hidden pressure to approve this project. He decried the potential parking issues and how residents would be subsidizing the commercial venture by giving up parking on their streets. He questioned why there was a rush to approve the project without taking time for an EIR. Mr. Kurzbard inquired who would benefit from the proposal, stating it was not the hundreds of people who signed the petition of opposition and were voicing their concerns now. He reported it was not the 350,000 Anaheim citizens who overwhelmingly could not afford this facility. He inquired why a firm from Arizona should have greater sway with the Mayor and City Council than the citizens who voted them into the office to protect them and noted the citizens do City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 19 of 41 not benefit from this proposal. He explained he is a geriatrician who takes care of patients at facilities like this so he does not object to the facility itself. He clarified his objection is to placing this commercial venture in a residential area. Mr. Kurzbard advised the City is currently suing HCD over affordable housing but would now be approving non -affordable care for seniors. He noted the City owes people affordable housing in appropriate areas not unaffordable housing commercial developments for for -profit industries in the middle of a residential area. He encouraged City Council to deny the project and restore the residents' faith in their elected officials to keep their promise to protect them. Arnold Gregg reported Anaheim Hills is a planned community of mainly residential single-family homes. He advised people who bought homes in the area knew the site was a church and noted rezoning the parcel without any hearings was irresponsible. He advised that changing the characteristic of the parcel throws out any zoning rules. He urged City Council to uphold the zoning laws and listen to their constituents. He questioned how many of the supporters holding signs of support in the Council Chamber live within a mile of the development and noted he only saw one hand raised. Brian Paul reported he and his wife have enjoyed living in the area near the site because of the zoning laws. He expressed concerns regarding the size of the development and the safety of evacuating its residents. He encouraged City Council to reject the project. Jolynn Mahoney reported she lives a couple of blocks from the facility and is in favor of it. She advised it is the perfect location for a senior living facility. She reported she looked into the plans after they became controversial and she still feels it is a great project for the location. She noted she would like to live in a residential area as a senior and not an industrial or commercial area. She advised the opposition has exaggerated concerns, noted the project is fair for the location, and called for more facilities like it in residential neighborhoods. She explained if the plan is denied something else could occupy the spot, which would be a comparative disaster for the community as the State takes more control. Pat Mahoney, President of Peralta Hills Estates Improvement Association, reported the community which includes 260 homes in the site's vicinity has a large group of seniors who would need to move to a facility like this one. He reported the association's board has met and agreed to support the project. He advised it would be the best in its class and low -impact, providing much -needed housing for seniors. He explained it is leaps and bounds better than what else could end up on the site as the State is considering legislation to allow high -density, multi -family, low-income housing in residential areas like this. He reported he recently helped move his mother and uncle into area senior homes, realized there are very few newer ones despite the growing senior population, and noted this is one of the best possible sites for the development. He endorsed the proposal on behalf of the association and advised many of the signatures collected by Alliance came from his community. He called for newer senior living centers in the community. Lane Curtis, Peralta Hills Estates resident, noted he lives about 1,150 feet from the project. He expressed support for the development as approved by both the Planning Commission and Planning Department. He advised as an architect he often worked with the City's Planners and urged City Council to put its trust in City staff. He advised it is a beautiful project, recommended approving the development, and noted it is a good use for the area. Wendy Bucknum expressed support for the project. She advised she served on the RHNA subcommittee, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and is a member of the Mission Viejo City Council. She advised the State is taking away the City's ability to make a lot of City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 20 of 41 decisions and cautioned the next development on the site could be one satisfying HCD's high -density affordable housing requirements. She reported there is a demand for senior living facilities and noted items like this for residential areas at all levels of cost are coming before many City Councils throughout the region. She advised she recently supported a project like this in Mission Viejo and urged Council to do the same. Garret Hayes, Chief Executive Officer of the largest rehabilitation company in Southern California whose services include Anaheim's Walnut Village Retirement Community, stated business for RCFE facilities is booming because they are profitable while skilled nursing facility occupancy is declining in part for heavier regulations. He advised RCFE facilities are offering skilled nursing options through third -party vendors so they can provide these services while remaining RCFEs. He explained he does not want to live near one and noted he cannot park at any of his 75 facilities because they do not account for traffic from people like himself. He advised it is his expectation that Holden Anaheim Hills would contract out its management as most similar facilities do. He reported he had to fly to Santa Rosa to help two of his company's facilities with their evacuations because the local fire department was overwhelmed. He advised parking would be an issue spilling over into the streets. He explained RCFEs are so popular because they are profitable and can off-load care to third parties. He advised many residents not only pay $7,000 to $8,000 a month to live at the RCFE but also pay $20 to $25 an hour for a full-time caregiver. Irma Ramirez expressed support of the project, stating it is much needed. She reported she visits these communities regularly as a minister and these projects are less intrusive than other types of business in a community noting they are often well maintained and quiet. She expressed support for the project and stressed the need for it. Andrea Phelps reported she travels the intersection of East Nohl Ranch Road and South Royal Oak Road daily taking her children to school. She advised traffic and parking are causes for denial, noting the chances of emergency vehicles turning off their sirens on the busy street are very low. She explained that if the sirens are silenced this would lead to accidents or delays in residents receiving needed emergency services. She advised the parking situation would be a disaster, noting there would be additional issues as staff overlaps on a shift change and inquired where emergency vehicles would park. She advised the restriction on delivery vehicle size would create more delivery traffic. Lastly, she noted there is insufficient parking for visitors. Verjean Walker offered a history of the neighborhood's changes since its inception from her experience of living there most of her life. She expressed concerns about the lack of an EIR because the land in the area moves. Mike Whelan reported Anaheim Hills is a residential area. He expressed frustration over building codes being blatantly ignored and noted it is the essence of the issue. He advised the codes should not be overridden to put a commercial business into a residential area and noted the codes created the suburbia that attracts people to the area. He commented that there is a manipulation of the process at work and encouraged City Council to adhere to the codes. Kelly Juell thanked Council Members Moreno and O'Neil and Mayor Pro Tern Faessel for coming to the site to hear their concerns. She inquired why East Nohl Ranch Road was designated as an evacuation route and why a high -density project would be approved on it. She also inquired why the CAL FIRE map shows the very high fire risk zone extends north to the Riverside Freeway while the map used in this item stops at East Nohl Ranch Road. She responded to Council Member Moreno's earlier inquiry by stating it is five feet from the fire line to the property or, at most, 35 feet. She questioned why CEQA experts are not analyzing the environmental impact, citing a nearby City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 21 of 41 community pool challenged by the changing slope. She questioned why the project would be zoned as low -density residential. Steven LaMotte, Building Industry Association, expressed strong support for the project. He noted it was approved by the Planning Commission and is only being heard here because of a small group of residents. He advised the housing crisis, fueled by the pandemic, has caused an increased demand for housing with a significant lack of supply. He reported this has led to record -breaking housing prices and rents impacting every generation. He advised any delays would add to the cost of the development and noted the City cannot be held hostage by residents who do not want projects near them. He explained the project would keep seniors in Orange County and free up needed housing stock. Steve Kitsigianis expressed support for the project and advised there is a need for senior housing in the City. He advised the project fits the zoning and noted many cities should consider projects like this one. He encouraged City Council to approve the development. Donna Acevedo -Nelson reported she has worked as a caregiver in facilities like these. She advised it is a business and not an affordable housing project. She inquired what the solution is for an emergency after a shelter in place when all of the City's first responders are otherwise occupied. She described the daily lunch line bottlenecks of disabled people at a typical senior home and wondered aloud who would get all of those people onto buses. She advised other area facilities rarely have enough parking, leading her to sometimes park in strange neighborhoods or adjoining commercial entities. She noted people normally only come out to address the City Council when it involves them but things like this happen across Anaheim. She encouraged residents to remain at the meeting through the Angel Stadium sale item. She noted seniors should not have to live in an unsafe place. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, City Attorney Robert Fabela confirmed Mayor Sidhu has the discretion to request whether the appellants or applicant speak first. Mr. Pollgreen refuted the accuracy of Mr. Wilborn's rendering of the view from his backyard for picking a specific angle that made the structure less visible than others did. He questioned the lack of honesty and integrity in selecting this specific angle. He noted how Mr. Wilborn contradicted his statement about how the elevation of the current slope grade would not be increased and stated it is a bald -faced lie. Mr. Pollgreen lamented Mayor Sidhu not attending the site tour despite living nearby. He speculated Mayor Sidhu would have been inclined to vote against the project after seeing it in person, impacting his decision to not attend. He advised this project brings no benefit to the current residents and urged Mayor Sidhu to grant their appeal. Mr. Pollgreen thanked District 6 Council Member O'Neil for attending the on -site meeting and facilitating a meeting with the developers. He urged Council Member O'Neil to stand up for his constituents' rights by voting against the project. Mr. Pollgreen thanked Council Member Diaz for meeting with them and visiting the site on what was both a Sunday and Independence Day. He expressed hope that it gave him an appreciation for how out of character the development would be on this site and urged him to vote no. He offered extra appreciation to Council Member Moreno for visiting the site three times including a meeting with the developer. He expressed hope it allowed him to see how wrong the project is for the location beyond simply the traffic and parking issues. He stated it does not meet zoning requirements and urged Council Member Moreno to force the developer to work through the rezoning system instead of back- dooring approval with a CUP. Mr. Pollgreen expressed appreciation to Council Member Valencia for meeting with them and cited a quote Council Member Valencia provided to the Anaheim Exclusive prior to the election about City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 22 of 41 residents. Mr. Pollgreen advised this project does not improve the life of any resident but rather does the opposite. He noted it only improves the quality of life for the speculators who are not Anaheim residents and have no connection to the neighborhood. Mr. Pollgreen advised during the City Council's discussion of a proposed convenience store and car wash on June 8, Council Member Valencia reported he would not be comfortable approving a project that had potentially detrimental impacts on adjacent neighbors' properties. He reported Council Member Valencia stated a mortgage is the biggest investment of people's lifetimes. He expressed full agreement with Council Member Valencia on both points and stated this makes it imperative to vote against the project. He noted the similarities between the June 8 public hearing and this meeting. Mr. Pollgreen thanked Mayor Pro Tern Faessel for meeting with him and his team at the site. He expressed belief Mayor Pro Tern Faessel understands all of their issues with the project, would agree with them, and support the appeal. He referenced Mayor Pro Tem Faessel's comments at the June 8 meeting about the car wash and voting for what the residents want. Mr. Pollgreen requested Council Member Brandman recuse himself based on a conflict of interest. He advised Council Member Brandman sternly admonished him on the phone on June 17 over his Public Records Act request and advised he is making himself an enemy to the City Council. He reported Council Member Brandman acknowledged having a "buddy-buddy"/mentor relationship with Mr. Pringle. He noted this was disturbing while doing his due diligence in asking for data legally. He explained a recusal would be doing the right thing. Mr. Pollgreen noted the people holding signs of support for the project have mostly left the Council Chamber. He remarked he believed it was because most of them are not residents of Anaheim but rather were being paid by one of several groups with a vested interest in the project's success. He advised the Peralta Hills residents are local but they are among the few people who could afford to live in the facility. Mr. Pollgreen advised it would be a shame for the project to be approved despite such heavy opposition. He requested they find a better location near medical facilities and noted there would be a legal battle if approved. He explained the CUP must be denied for both violating every applicable AMC section and for not meeting all of its conditions. He encouraged City Council to grant the appeal. Mr. Bright believed the AMC does not allow for this development and noted having no similar developments within the City speaks to the intentions of the zoning codes. He advised it is inappropriate for the site and noted how a similar facility is being built at a more suitable site on the corner of Lincoln Avenue and North Tustin Street. He advised this new building would have even more parking spaces being a smaller facility. He remarked they are hoping City Council would deny the CUP and find a more suitable site for the proposed facility. Mr. Wilborn advised he supports senior housing and called for change and progress due to changing demographics. He praised the work of staff in looking to codes and their documentation. He advised they have checked every single box multiple times and the project meets all of the requirements. He explained they have gone through the parking analysis three times and it has been deemed appropriate with a Variance. He noted there is a need for senior housing and questioned where else it should be built. He explained Alliance wants seniors to be able to live within their community. Mr. Wilborn reported the State has requirements to ensure the facility would be ready for a fire emergency and requires appropriate documentation and approval before occupying the facility. He explained the Fire Marshal must sign off on the property before an RCFE license can be issued and noted they have the support of AF&R. He advised they are prepared for any type of disaster and advised their properties have an internal incident commander to work with emergency officials. He explained that anything beyond shelter in place would only come from communication with these City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 23 of 41 officials. He further advised buses would be onsite and residents would be ready to go. He reiterated they would be prepared to deal with a fire evacuation scenario and noted they would have an emergency generator and 72 hours of food onsite. He advised the basis of their plan is mandated by State regulations and they have thought through the process. He noted that, in addition to the AF&R, they have spoken with the Anaheim Emergency Preparedness Department and have a third -party consultant to best manage the process. Mr. Wilborn encouraged the City Council to vote for seniors and build housing for them. He remarked that Anaheim Hills is a great place for senior housing. He urged City Council to understand his passion for senior housing and recalled caring for his aging grandparents. He noted the demographics would be changing to see an increase in seniors who would need to go somewhere. He expressed appreciation for the City Council meeting with him and his team to better understand the project. He advised more senior housing would need to be built and it belongs in Anaheim. Mayor Sidhu closed the public hearing. DISCUSSION: In response to Mayor Pro Tern Faessel's inquiry, Deputy Chief Molloy clarified AF&R was asked to look at the impact on the evacuation corridor and they felt what Alliance would supply was adequate. He advised AF&R did not feel the building itself would impact a wildfire. He clarified Alliance would have to come up with an internal plan for logistics of how to evacuate the residents and get them onto the buses. He advised Alliance feels confident in its ability to do this but he has not evaluated or been presented with a plan so he could not adequately answer a question about the plan. Council Member Diaz reported receiving many emails both in favor and against the project and noted he just listened to hours of public comment. He noted he has spoken to staff many times about the project and must rely on their expertise. He explained that, while he hears the concerns, he must agree with staff and the Planning Commission that the project meets requirements. MOTION: Council Member Diaz moved to deny the appeals and approve A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06048, Variance No. 2020-05144, and Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2021-00001 and making certain findings in connection therewith (DEV2019-00172) (5275 East Nohl Ranch Road), seconded by Council Member Brandman. DISCUSSION: Council Member O'Neil advised the project is in his district and thanked all of the residents who came out. He noted civic engagement is an important part of the process and Council values the input. He thanked the applicant for working with the residents in good faith. He advised he has been in the senior services business for years so he understands both the licensing requirements and the need for more facilities. He advised he lives in Anaheim Hills so he understands his neighbors' concerns. He would love to have a place where his parents could live once they cannot remain independent in their own home. Council Member O'Neil inquired if other nearby sites were offering less of an impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. He advised he has always been a strong advocate for private property rights, but sometimes the needs of one private property owner must be balanced against the needs of many others. He acknowledged most of the opposition stems from impacts of traffic, parking, and fire. He expressed agreement with Council Member Diaz about how the studies by the City's expert staff refute these claims. He acknowledged there is also an impact on neighbors and noted most people who buy into a master -planned community like Anaheim Hills do so for the look and feel of a community with an expectation it would stay this way. City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 24 of 41 Council Member O'Neil noted it is a beautiful facility and technicalities do allow for its existence on this site without a zoning change. He explained it would not be allowed if it were condominiums or apartments instead of a senior living facility. He advised he does not want to lose a church at this site, noting places of worship are important parts of any community. He advised there is at least one other congregation interested in moving into the structure and noted this would be his preferred use for the site. Council Member O'Neil advised he has friends who support the project and friends who oppose it. He confirmed there has been a lot of testimony at the meeting and a lot of emails over the past few weeks with as many people being for it as against it. He expressed his comfort with the permissibility of the facility, the Traffic Study, and parking Variance, but advised it was ultimately not sufficiently compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He advised the project would impact the enjoyment of private property and the rights of homeowners and noted any of the Council Members would feel the same way if they owned a home in this community. He advised his duty is to protect their neighborhood as if it was his own and he could not support the project. Council Member O'Neil advised the next General Plan update should look at existing permitted uses within various residential zones to ensure they are compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. He informed his neighbors change is inevitable. He noted the State has imposed huge housing quotas on all cities and there is a trend of passing legislation reducing local control over land use and single- family zoning. He advised the City no longer has control over approval for certain group homes and cautioned many other restrictive bills are already being discussed by the State legislature. He explained if the City cannot identify ideal sites for affordable housing and get it constructed, the State will usurp the City's authority and do it for them. Council Member Brandman commented that Council Member O'Neil's record on housing is well noted, including his work with SCAG. He thanked Council Member O'Neil for his great work on behalf of the City and understanding the west Anaheim centric viewpoints of himself and Council Member Diaz. In response to Council Member Brandman's inquiries, Curtis Zacuto, Principal of EcoTierra Consulting, advised they prepared the Class 32 CEQA categorical exemption based upon 15 technical studies. He explained the Class 32 exemption is one for in -fill and has five conditions and six exceptions. He listed the 11 items and advised the project met all five conditions and did not invoke any of the six exceptions to a significant level. He advised, if this were not the case, a study would be started towards a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an EIR. He explained an EIR would not only look for significant effects but also unavoidable effects. He advised the City believed a categorical exemption was the appropriate document because there are no significant effects based upon the CEQA guidelines. He confirmed this is black -and -white based upon the guidelines and confirmed there is no gray area whatsoever. In response to Council Member Brandman's inquiry, Ms. Wetzel confirmed staff agrees with the EcoTierra analysis. Council Member Brandman advised obtaining a Class 32 designation is pretty rare and noted an MND can take 18 to 24 months and end up being bigger than an EIR. Council Member Brandman explained he seconded the motion because if the project is not approved, it is coming to West Anaheim and noted whatever would go onto the site otherwise would be far denser at the State's behest. He advised Council Member O'Neil just fought a hopeless battle last week at SCAG over RHNA he ended up winning because the City now has a fighting chance. He City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 25 of 41 explained that by approving this development the City is saving everyone from more dense housing to come. He further advised this project would have gone at the former Cornelia Connelly School site if there was not already another project in the pipeline and noted it would have fit perfectly there. He expressed pleasure the site would have townhomes and he looked forward to approving it. Council Member Brandman advised former City Council Member Shirley McCracken moved to Anaheim Hills in the early 1970s, leaving west Anaheim, and noted she continued to live independently as long as she could. He advised she wanted to remain in Anaheim Hills but there was no suitable place she could go so she moved to Emerald Court in District 2 but she wanted to stay in Anaheim Hills at a property like the one proposed. He advised Community Services Commissioner Linda Barnett lives at Meridian Anaheim Hills and noted it was not her first, second, or third choice but she did not want to leave Anaheim Hills. He stated she would have liked to live in the proposed facility and maybe she would someday. He noted this helped him reach his conclusion. Council Member Brandman noted his heart goes out to all who spoke against the project and wished they knew more details. He explained what could happen if they do not approve the project would be 10 times worse and come with less discretion. He restated his support for the development because it is best for the entire City. Council Member Valencia thanked all who spoke at the meeting, those who emailed their opinions, those he met with in -person, and praised the community engagement. He echoed the residents' concerns about a fire threat and noted the facility could be detrimental to the health and safety of Anaheim residents. He advised he could not support the development for this reason. Council Member Moreno apologized for the length of the discussion, noting the veterans still in attendance waiting for the cemetery vote. Council Member Moreno thanked Mr. Pollgreen and his neighbors for inviting them to see the site and the opportunity to see the neighborhood through their eyes since he does not live in Anaheim Hills or know the area well. He referenced Mr. Dominguez's public comments about how there are two Anaheims and noted they are now moving into three Anaheims, with Anaheim Hills being the third. He advised heritage residents of Anaheim Hills are now seeing what campaign financing truly means and noted Mr. Pringle's consulting firm being hired 18 months ago for the project when residents were only noticed two months ago. He reported he would propose some things in the future to allow the City Council to help bridge gaps and noted money should not be in their politics. Council Member Moreno advised his on -site view from the residents' backyards did not match those in the renderings presented to the Planning Commission. He noted he met with Mr. Wilborn in a meeting arranged by Mr. Pringle's firm and thanked them for their time and the privacy concern mitigation efforts being made through landscaping. He advised his intention with this item was to listen to everyone and study. He advised he spoke to District 3 Planning Commissioner Steve White who voted against the project to help understand the benefits and costs. Council Member Moreno noted the highest senior population in the City lives in Anaheim Hills. He also noted the highest rent -burdened population in Anaheim are seniors and the highest subsect of this population is in Anaheim Hills. He expressed doubt those rent -burdened seniors would be able to live in this development. He countered Council Member Brandman's statement the development, if denied, would shift to west Anaheim by expressing doubts those residents could afford this high - caliber luxury facility either. Council Member Moreno advised many of the same opposing arguments were also made by Pauline Street residents when a developer applied to build 40 townhomes on a small lot. He recalled they City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 26 of 41 raised the same privacy issue due to the height of the buildings and noted staff similarly presented the project. He confirmed those have now been built and the townhouse residents can indeed see into the neighbors' backyards. He advised, at the time of approval, there was also a parking concern raised by neighbors contradicted by a Parking Study and reported parking is now becoming an issue there. Council Member Moreno referenced the Anaheim Packing House in District 3 and the community being told parking would not be a major issue based on studies. He praised the results of the development but advised residents in the neighborhood cannot find parking. He confirmed this is the biggest issue he gets as a district Council Member. He explained this does not mean he distrusts staff but rather that human behavior cannot always be predicted. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Mr. Wilborn advised there are a few days out of the year, such as holidays, when the parking demand increases dramatically and noted they have two options for those days. He explained there is a valet parking option where they can fit in more cars than usual on the lot because someone is managing them. He also advised they could sign a short-term agreement with a property in the area where visitors can park on those special days and then take a shuttle bus to the property. He advised satellite parking areas could be a shopping center, church, or other location. He clarified they are not like a hospital with specific visitor hours but rather they come throughout the day, often after they get off work. He expressed confidence they could manage their parking. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. Wilborn confirmed the Traffic Study showed 18 trips in the morning peak hours and 25 in the afternoon peak hours. Mr. Emami clarified this means 18 and 25 vehicles would come to the site during those peak times. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Mr. Wilborn clarified from 6:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. they would have 28 staff members on -site and advised they are staggered during the period. He clarified the peak hour for parking is from 12:00 p.m. until 1:00 p.m. and they have accounted for 28 staff members parking during this window. He advised third -party caregivers are factored into the parking demand, maximizing at six (6) to eight (8) staff members, fluctuating on different schedules. He confirmed there would be no off -site parking allowed with this project as an agreed condition of approval. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Mr. Wilborn clarified much of the community outreach was phone calls or emails. He advised his team knocked on doors passing out Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) sheets and noted they met with all three appellants. He advised they have been transparent since the beginning and noted they held a virtual open house three weeks before the Planning Commission meeting, which included a 500-foot radius notice to residents about the virtual meeting. He recalled there were about 20-28 community members online for the presentation. He advised parking was one of the bigger concerns they heard, which led them to revisit the site and create two additional parking spaces. He explained the wall for security was added at the request of neighbors in this meeting. He advised they increased the height of landscaping based upon their meeting with the appellants and noted they listened and made fair adjustments. He also advised there was a public notice on the property. He explained there was only so much that could be done in light of the pandemic but advised they have been out there. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Mr. Wilborn explained the construction would be 20 months. He advised construction vehicles would not park off -site and they will forge agreements with other properties to park the construction vehicles. He explained they are both the developer and builder so they deal with this topic at all of their sites and regularly have to find parking resources. City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 27 of 41 In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Mr. Wilborn explained the alternative to shelter in place is evacuation. He advised once a disaster occurs, they are in constant contact with officials. He explained the priority is to protect the building but there needs to be a backup plan, which is evacuation. He advised they have to meet strict State requirements in preparation for any disaster, not just fire. He explained they have to prepare and have the residents ready to go. He further explained their buses have to be ready to come onsite to evacuate the residents before there is a true danger. He advised their operator has properties in all types of disaster areas and understands this concept. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Mr. Wilborn clarified their drawings go through the AF&R's approval process in this early stage. He advised they have a sign -off from AF&R at this stage. He explained there would be another stage of approvals with AF&R during the Building Permit process and noted AF&R would inspect the building during construction and before it is finally occupied. He clarified they have a draft disaster plan as required by the State. Council Member Moreno recalled at the last meeting the City Council voted to oppose Senate Bill 12, which would require any developments in high -risk fire zones to go through a State -level analysis. He advised this leaves it on them at the local level to make these decisions without an appropriate evaluation of the context of a high fire risk area. Mr. Wilborn advised they would review all of that during the Building Permit process, which includes a comprehensive AF&R review. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Mr. Wilborn advised the message to families would be to not pick their loved ones up at the property in the event of a disaster but rather, if they are forced to evacuate, they could pick up their family member at the temporary shelter. Council Member Moreno explained it is tough to cast a yes vote with so many concerns, particularly for permitting 118 senior citizens to find their needed housing in a high fire risk area while fire risk is getting even riskier due to climate change. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Patrick Dooley, Chief Development Officer for Milestone Retirement Communities, reported they operate 38 properties in nine states. He advised they deal with everything from hurricanes to tornadoes, floods, and fires and noted they have successfully evacuated 17 communities over the last 18 years with no casualties. He explained they tend to overreact on behalf of familial concerns for their loved ones. He advised that when a fire approached the backdoor of one of their facilities in the City of Thousand Oaks, they had four buses on site. He clarified Sage Mountain is the community he is discussing and it has one access road. He advised they were already discussing an evacuation ahead of the actual order. He explained they communicate regularly with family members of residents urging them not to come to the community but rather the safe site to minimize risk and congestion. He advised this is their standard approach to earthquakes, floods, and all other forms of peril. He expressed his belief in the emergency plan submitted to AF&R. He advised they also have enough food and medicine on -site to shelter in place if necessary without relying on overwhelmed City officials facing a crisis. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. Dooley explained that at the hint of a fire they would start readying their vehicles in the cities of Glendale and Thousand Oaks. He advised they also have a national third -party arrangement with Go Bus to supply wheelchair -accessible buses. He advised 14% of residents in their communities have canes and wheelchairs and the majority of their residents are ambulatory. He clarified memory care residents would have a separate bus. City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 28 of 41 Mayor Pro Tern Faessel reported he was a Planning Commissioner from 2006-13 so he understands how it works and noted he has seen his share of controversial projects. He advised he is unapologetically pro -housing and noted he may have delayed a few but has never turned down a housing project either on the Planning Commission or City Council. He noted they often found success getting the divergent sides together to formulate a better plan. He expressed disappointment this did not happen here. He praised all of those who took the time to speak in opposition in the name of preserving their neighborhood. Mayor Pro Tem Faessel agreed the fire issue is significant. He expressed his wishes his father could have gone to a project like this but lamented there was not a facility available. He agreed with Council Member Brandman's assessment that Ms. McCracken would have also enjoyed a facility like this. He advised he views this as a housing project but the developer did not do as much as he could have to mitigate the neighbors' concerns. He explained the City needs this type of housing and he would like to see some of it in District 5. He expressed appreciation for hearing so many thoughtful concerns about the project and for having an opportunity to walk the property. He advised he drove around the neighborhood later on his own. He reiterated he is pro -housing and expressed support for the project. Mayor Sidhu advised he lives the closest to this location of all the City Council Members at just over a quarter of a mile and noted he wanted to be fair. He reported the church has been vacant for a long time and noted if it is not going to be a church, it is going to be either a senior living facility or a future housing project. He reiterated he is pro -business and pro -property rights but is also surrounded by all of the speakers tonight from his neighborhood. Mayor Sidhu noted he is not concerned about the fire issue and advised his biggest concern is the density of the development and the variance for fewer parking spaces. He expressed the belief that loved ones would come to visit and exceed capacity. He reported he watched the Planning Commission hearing and he could go either way. He advised having the higher density makes him uncomfortable at this time. He explained that if the developer came back with a less -dense plan he would consider it but he did not feel comfortable with the project as proposed. MOTION: Council Member Diaz moved to deny the appeals and approve A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06048, Variance No. 2020-05144, and Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2021-00001 and making certain findings in connection therewith (DEV2019-00172) (5275 East Nohl Ranch Road), seconded by Council Member Brandman. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 3 (Mayor Pro Tern Faessel and Council Members Diaz and Brandman); NOES — 4 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil). Motion failed; Resolution not approved. Mr. Fabela advised since the staff recommendation and findings were for approval, Council might need to approve a denial with the proper findings at the next meeting on the Consent Calendar. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR: AGR- 4. Approve the appointment and associated Employment Agreement with Sergio M. Ramirez for 13006 the appointment to the position of Economic Development Director, effective August 23, 2021, and authorize the City Manager to execute and administer the agreement. DISCUSSION: Council Member Diaz expressed support for the creation of this position because west Anaheim needs an economic infusion and noted this position would bring businesses to Anaheim. He advised he ran his campaign on bringing businesses to District 1 and this position is perfect for this. City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 29 of 41 MOTION: Council Member Diaz moved to approve the appointment and associated Employment Agreement with Sergio M. Ramirez for the appointment to the position of Economic Development Director, effective August 23, 2021; and authorize the City Manager to execute and administer the agreement, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Faessel. Pursuant to Government Code §54953, City Clerk Theresa Bass provided an oral summary of salary and benefits for the appointment of Sergio Ramirez to the position of Economic Development Director including salary in the amount of $202,000 annually and all benefits and perquisites as provided to all other executive managers. MOTION: Council Member Diaz moved to approve the appointment and associated Employment Agreement with Sergio M. Ramirez for the appointment to the position of Economic Development Director, effective August 23, 2021; and authorize the City Manager to execute and administer the agreement, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Faessel. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members Faessel, Brandman, Diaz, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0. Motion carried. D116 5. Receive a six-month report on the Community Care Response Team Pilot Program (informational item). DISCUSSION: In regards to the previous item (Item No. 04), Council Member Moreno welcomed Economic Development Director Ramirez home and noted it was a gain for Anaheim and a loss for the City of Long Beach. Council Member Moreno advised other cities were being covered well by the Orange County Register for how they shifted their model in response to homelessness and noted it may have been forgotten that Anaheim started this movement. He requested a brief update on what the data was showing on allowing the police to perform their duties. A brief video was presented which noted the successes of the Anaheim Community Care Response Team (CCRT) in addressing the homeless. Police Chief Jorge Cisneros advised, in the video, the Anaheim Police Department (APD) does not always have a legal foundation to address all of the issues posed by the homeless and it is important to look at methods to address the issues differently. He noted the video advises the purpose of the CCRT is to transition away from the APD to a service -centered approach to the homeless featuring outreach workers, mental health clinicians, nurse practitioners, and safety coordinators. City Net Vice President Matt Bates explained in the video that the homeless are more receptive to this style of an offer for care than an APD badge. Police Chief Cisneros explained in the video that there has been a decrease in the number of service calls to the APD and an increase in the number of street exits. The video reported there were 2,721 people touched by CCRT outreach in the first six months of the program, 1,116 of which began case management, 1,372 engagements related to COVID-19, and 726 people moved off the streets and into housing or a shelter. Mr. Bates stated in the video the 24-hour-a-day service is a pilot program and noted it is off to a great start. Following the video, Police Chief Cisneros advised APD is beginning the process of improving the program by adding a City Prosecutor to the APD team and looking at ways to serve those in need with no homeless nexus. City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 30 of 41 Community Preservation and Licensing Manager Sandy Lozeau detailed the components of the CCRT and noted it is entirely funded by a federal Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG). She reported that for the first six months there has been an average of four (4) daily exits from the streets. She advised 19% of homeless calls have been diverted away from the APD and the APD has seen a decrease in homeless calls, indicating a cultural change to think of CCRT first for non -emergency calls. She reported 27% of all contacts accept shelter with 726 going into some form of temporary housing, 32 into permanent housing, and 19 into a treatment or medical facility. She clarified some of the dots outside the City limits on the service map indicate those 19 who are part of the program but in treatment or medical facilities. Ms. Lozeau advised the ESG grant is restricted for use with the homeless and the pandemic. She detailed the COVID-19 prevention outreach efforts made within the homeless community by the CCRT. Acting Director of Community and Economic Development Grace Stepter detailed the City's pathway home include 300 beds at 14 facilities that are either completed or in development for the formerly homeless. She advised her department is looking to shore up the pathway to receiving City services and ultimately becoming stably housed. Ms. Lozeau reported they are trying to create a standard of practice and regionalize Anaheim's approach. She advised staff and City Net has presented the CCRT to Orange County's Continuum of Care Board, the County's Human Relations Committee, and the League of California Cities. She reported there is also a scheduled chat with the United Way and updates were presented to Neighborhood Council meetings along with the Anaheim Community Religious Council. She advised the CCRT has received publicity recognizing how the City reimagined working with the homeless with compassion. Ms. Lozeau reported staff believes the CCRT is operating effectively. She advised they expect to see continued improvement in their metrics over the next six months. Police Chief Cisneros clarified the 25% reduction in calls is speaking specifically to the APD's homeless calls and not all calls. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Ms. Lozeau clarified the ESG funds of $2,500,000 would cover the entire year. She reported the City has applied for other grants and noted United States Senator Dianne Feinstein was pushing for additional funding through appropriations. She advised there would be other homeless funding coming that could be used to continue the program if it is regionalized. Council Member Moreno advised Anaheim does not get enough credit for the major shift it made in its effort as a major city. He requested adding the 2017 Homeless Working Group to the presentation's timeline as it helped move the paradigm shift to one of housing -first and health services. He advised the recommendations were approved unanimously by an often -divided City Council. He thanked staff for their work. Mayor Pro Tem Faessel noted there is more work to be done. He advised he has discussed the CCRT with Ms. Lozeau weekly and emphasized Police Chief Cisneros' mention of adding a prosecutor because sometimes compassion does not work. He advised the work would never be done but they would continue to improve, fine-tune, and address needs as they become known. City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 31 of 41 Council Member Diaz reiterated the importance of the program for west Anaheim, which has the City's largest homeless population. He praised the number of people placed into housing or shelters and the volume of calls taken off the APD's shoulders. He reported they are working on fine-tuning and noted only 25% accept the help and they would have to find the right approach for them. He reported he could see a difference in his district. Informational item - No action taken. AGR- 9. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, GRBCON, Inc., in the amount of 13007 $875,599, for the Alley Sanitary Sewer Improvements Project in the alley east of Anaheim Boulevard from Wilhelmina Street to Alberta Street and the alley south of Wilhelmina Street from east of Anaheim Boulevard to east of Claudina Street; authorize the Director of Public Works to execute the contract and any related documents, and to take the necessary actions to implement and administer the contract; determine that the Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Class 3, Section 15303 (d) (New Construction) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions. DISCUSSION: In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Public Works Director Rudy Emami reported the funding for this work is coming from Sewer Fees that go towards capital improvements. He confirmed these rates are paid as a part of residents' utility bills. Council Member Moreno explained this is the City reinvesting in itself. He praised Mr. Emami for using these dollars efficiently and in needed spaces. MOTION: Council Member Moreno moved to award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, GRBCON, Inc., in the amount of $875,599, for the Alley Sanitary Sewer Improvements Project in the alley east of Anaheim Boulevard from Wilhelmina Street to Alberta Street and the alley south of Wilhelmina Street from east of Anaheim Boulevard to east of Claudina Street; authorize the Director of Public Works to execute the contract and any related documents, and to take the necessary actions to implement and administer the contract; determine that the Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Class 3, Section 15303 (d) (New Construction) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions, seconded by Council Member Diaz. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members Faessel, Brandman, Diaz, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0. Motion carried. AGR- 10. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Three Peaks Corp., in the amount of 13008 $405,973, for the Central Library Outdoor Space Improvement, Phase II and Euclid Library Outdoor Space Project; authorize the Director of Public Works to execute the contract and any related documents, and to take the necessary actions to implement and administer the contract; determine that the Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section(s) 15301, 15303, 15303(e), and 15304(f) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions. DISCUSSION: Council Member O'Neil reported they are spending $400,000 for library improvements at the Euclid Branch of the Anaheim Public Library while the East Anaheim branch remains closed from the pandemic for budgetary and staffing reasons. He advised the budget is important but so is providing community resources to those they represent. He asked staff to consider ways to reopen City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 32 of 41 the East Anaheim branch as soon as possible even at different service levels and with outsourced staff. MOTION: Council Member O'Neil moved to award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Three Peaks Corp., in the amount of $405,973, for the Central Library Outdoor Space Improvement, Phase II and Euclid Library Outdoor Space Project; authorize the Director of Public Works to execute the contract and any related documents, and to take the necessary actions to implement and administer the contract; determine that the Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section(s) 15301, 15303, 15303(e), and 15304(f) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Faessel. DISCUSSION: Council Member Moreno advised he supports the sentiment expressed by Council Member O'Neil but has no interest in directing staff to outsource this work. He expressed hopes they could find money to fund staffing by the City's employees. He noted he wanted to be on the record as being against outsourcing. MOTION: Council Member O'Neil moved to award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Three Peaks Corp., in the amount of $405,973, for the Central Library Outdoor Space Improvement, Phase II and Euclid Library Outdoor Space Project; authorize the Director of Public Works to execute the contract and any related documents, and to take the necessary actions to implement and administer the contract; determine that the Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section(s) 15301, 15303, 15303(e), and 15304(f) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Faessel. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members Faessel, Brandman, Diaz, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0. Motion carried. R100 19. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-074 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE D116 CITY OF ANAHEIM in support of the establishment of a veteran's cemetery in Anaheim. Assistant City Manager Greg Garcia reported at the June 22, 2021 City Council meeting, Council Member O'Neil requested an agenda item for a Resolution in support of establishing a veterans' cemetery in the City. He advised that in 2014 the City Council adopted a Resolution in support of Assembly Bill 1453, which called for a veterans' cemetery in Orange County. He advised in 2018 the City Council directed staff to engage with stakeholders and evaluate the feasibility of establishing the cemetery in the City. He reported a conceptual plan has since been shared with the City and staff continues to work with the stakeholders. Mr. Garcia advised the Resolution tonight reaffirms the City Council's commitment to bring a veterans' cemetery to the City and directs staff to share this with the legislative delegation and encourage them to continue to work on this effort. Staff played a video of Nick Bernadino and others, including Council Member O'Neil, speaking at a VALOR event about how difficult it was to get this cemetery built in the City of Irvine and how excited they are to have it in Anaheim. Council Member O'Neil noted there are over 10,000 veterans in Anaheim. DISCUSSION: Council Member O'Neil thanked Mr. Bernadino for his advocacy efforts. He noted the site at Gypsum Canyon has been under consideration for some time, but the 2014 Resolution was too long ago and came at a time when there was still a debate going on between potential Irvine City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 33 of 41 sites. He advised all of the support has since shifted to Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Hills. He reported dozens of elected officials around the County support the site. He advised next week the County Board of Supervisors would consider $20,000,000 in funding and noted there would be a $5,000,000 allocation from the State in addition to redirecting $25,000,000 allocated to one of the possible Irvine sites. Council Member O'Neil advised this was a generational opportunity to provide a final resting place for these brave men and women in Anaheim. MOTION: Council Member O'Neil moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2021-074 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM in support of the establishment of a veteran's cemetery in Anaheim, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Faessel. DISCUSSION: Council Member Diaz reported he was an undesirable in his native Cuba, hungry for food and freedom. He explained the United States opened the door for him and welcomed him with open arms and noted today he is a proud American. He noted someone else fought for the freedoms he enjoys, expressed his gratitude for the sacrifice, and noted this was just a small way to repay them for providing it. Council Member Valencia expressed his appreciation for the spirit of the Resolution and Council Member O'Neil bringing it forward. He noted serving the country and paying the ultimate sacrifice is one of the most honorable acts anyone can do and the last thing he wants for veterans is more empty promises. He advised there are still many unanswered questions about the project, including its total cost, if it would be federally recognized, if it would also be dual -use for non -veterans, and where the remaining funding would come from. Council Member Valencia expressed hopes all of the stakeholders would do their parts in working towards developing the veterans' cemetery to honor them for their service. He expressed support for the Resolution and the veterans. Council Member Moreno expressed support for the item and thanked Council Member O'Neil for bringing it back. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Mr. Garcia reported he does not have a good sense of the potential timeline. He advised Supervisor Wagner has indicated he would like to see the project break ground by next year but noted there were still many unanswered questions as Council Member Valencia mentioned. He agreed that next year is ambitious but could be done with everyone on the same page and momentum continuing to move forward. He noted a conservative timeline would be hard to state. He acknowledged there is some work to be done at the State level in shifting some things from Irvine to Anaheim, which will not happen until 2022. He noted things could move swiftly at the City level and noted they have had conversations with the Orange County Cemetery District and have seen conceptual plans. He reiterated it would be tough for him to place a timeline. Council Member Moreno explained Mr. Garcia's pledge that the City would not be a speed bump in this process was enough to satisfy him. He expressed his appreciation for Council Member O'Neil bringing it back to say this current City Council is still on board with having the cemetery in Anaheim. He noted District 3 resident Cynthia Ward sits on the County Cemetery District and has been arguing for years for it to be in Anaheim. He praised her work and expressed support for the item. Council Member Moreno also referenced the CCRT presentation and urged citizens to help the veterans who are living but down and out. He reported many homeless are veterans who were City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 34 of 41 drafted rather than having a choice to serve. He advised this cemetery would be a place for them to someday rest in with dignity. Council Member Brandman thanked Mr. Bernadino and expressed happiness this was finally coming together. In response to Council Member Brandman's inquiries, Mr. Garcia reported the difference between 2018 and now is a momentum shift from groups focused on Irvine and not Anaheim. He advised the impression people have now is that it is not going to happen quickly in Irvine, if at all. He advised if there is unanimous support in Anaheim, it could move quickly and get built. He noted this Resolution would help send a message that the City would be a willing partner. He explained the direction he would take from a unanimous approval of the item would be to work with the State to get this built as soon as possible. Mayor Sidhu congratulated Mr. Bernadino and his friends. He advised there would be no politics in Anaheim and the City would work with him hand -in -hand, with City Council leading the way. MOTION: Council Member O'Neil moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2021-074 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM in support of the establishment of a veteran's cemetery in Anaheim, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Faessel. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members Faessel, Brandman, Diaz, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0. Motion carried. D116 20. Discussion regarding the California Department of Housing and Community Development letter dated April 28, 2021 sent to the City of Anaheim regarding the Surplus Land Act and the Angel Stadium transaction, and the events leading up to and following the letter. Mayor Sidhu advised this item is a discussion item about the interaction between the City and the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) regarding the transaction with SRB Management for Angel Stadium. He believed the staff report and discussion would show the City complied with the letter and spirit of the Surplus Land Act (SLA) and the economic opportunity status. He advised the plan approved by the City yields 15% affordable housing and other amenities 20 years sooner than any other developer could achieve and noted the discussion would show staff acted appropriately under City practices and the City Charter. He explained he, as lead negotiator, left it to staff to have the preliminary interactions with the State and no question of policy was raised in the interaction with the State. He reiterated the Stadium sale is not complete. Mayor Sidhu requested City Attorney Robert Fabela intervene if the discussion ventured into areas that should be reserved for Closed Session or could reveal privileged attorney -client communications and noted the item was not for full discussion of all of the points of the Development Plan approved by the City Council last year. Mr. Fabela reported the Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) for Angel Stadium was approved by City Council on December 20, 2019. He explained his office worked closely with outside counsel and attorneys for the Angels to determine all of the legal requirements associated with the sale and disposition of the property. He advised they considered the application of the SLA in regards to its economic opportunity statutes and advised the sale moved forward as an economic opportunity sale under Government Code Section 52201, requiring a commissioned economic report, a public hearing, and two weeks' notice to the public. He advised the legislature has made it clear this statute is an alternative to any other authority granted by law to cities to dispose of City -owned property. City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 35 of 41 Mr. Fabela advised that because of the nature of the sale as an economic opportunity, the fact the land would likely be deemed exempt under the SLA, the Angels controlled the property through at least 2038 making negotiations with affordable land developers impractical, and the project would yield the SLA's minimum threshold of 15% affordable housing, they felt and still feel the City was on solid ground to move forward with the sale. Mr. Fabela reported that in the months after the PSA approval neither HCD nor any other entity reached out to assert the City was not in compliance with the SLA. He advised the City Council approved the Development Agreement (DA), Commitment Agreement, Lease Assignment, and amended PSA at a public hearing on September 29, 2020, with final approval of the DA on October 6, 2020. He reported only after the October meeting did HCD reach out to City staff to request information about the transaction, with the first telephone conference coming in mid -November 2020. He reported the nature of HCD's activities was not made clear to the City in this and subsequent calls beyond questions about the transaction, the City's legal position, and the nature of the parties' relationships. He reported the City has provided as much information as it can and its relationship with HCD has remained cordial and professional. Mr. Fabela reported there were months of silence from HCD until May 3, 2021, when a preliminary determination letter was received stating the City may have violated the SLA. He advised the City's legal team disagreed with this preliminary finding. He reported the City responded in writing to HCD on June 14, 2021, and he has since been in direct contact with HCD staff following up on requests for more information. He reported the City is awaiting HCD's response to the letter with no indication of when it may arrive. Mr. Fabela advised they are hopeful HCD would make a final determination that the City complied with the SLA. He advised if the preliminary determination of non-compliance stands, staff would return to City Council to discuss its legal options. Mr. Fabela reported one viable option would be to notice affordable housing sponsors and applicable government agencies and wait 60 days to see if any of them would be willing to negotiate with the City for the purchase of the property for affordable housing development or open space despite the fact the Angels control the property for the next 18 years. Mr. Fabela reported any fines associated with the SLA would only arise if the City did not comply with the SLA as determined by the courts and if the transaction closes despite the non-compliance. He opined this was not a realistic possibility in light of the ability to delay the transaction while this issue is being resolved. DISCUSSION: Council Member Valencia advised it is their fiduciary duty as elected officials to be transparent on matters relating to public assets and tax dollars, particularly with the City's largest publicly owned piece of real estate. He advised he brought this forth to increase transparency. In response to Council Member Valencia's inquiries, Mr. Fabela reported the City is looking to close escrow by the end of this year or early next year. Mr. Fabela advised many contingencies have been addressed before closing escrow, including matters of title, easements, application processing, and outstanding legal issues, with certain items still forthcoming. Mr. Fabela confirmed SRB Management has deposited $50,000,000 in escrow but it has not yet been exchanged by the City. In response to Council Member Valencia's inquiries related to the HCD letter, Mr. Fabela reported the basic claim being made by HCD in its preliminary determination is that the City did not properly notice affordable housing sponsors and relevant government agencies to give those entities 60 days to respond with whether or not they would be interested in negotiating a purchase of the property. He City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 36 of 41 noted, had the City taken this step, he did not believe there would be an issue. He advised there are some technical issues over whether the 2019 version of the SLA applies versus the 2020 version of the SLA, and whether the City would be exempt from the most current version and noted this has been discussed with HCD. In response to Council Member Valencia's inquiries, Mr. Fabela confirmed the City could only be fined if the sale closes while being determined to be non -compliant. He confirmed if the 2020 version of the SLA applies to the City, and it is found we are in violation and close the deal despite this finding, then the City would be subject to a fine of 30% of the purchase price. In response to Council Member Valencia's inquiries, Mr. Fabela summarized the City's defense as being its belief the 2019 version, if any, of the SLA applied to the transaction, the economic opportunity statute was the proper alternative to dispose of the property, and its belief it complied with the spirit of the SLA by meeting the 15% affordable housing threshold on a property that would be otherwise be tied up for at least 18 years. He advised, relative to whether the 2019 or 2020 version of the SLA applies, staff discovered an HCD finding from March of 2020 for a project in the City of Santa Monica where the project was exempted from the newer version of the SLA because there was a constructive exclusive negotiation agreement. He noted this was a viable argument for Anaheim as well as they would only be negotiating with Angels Baseball LP because of their Lease Agreement and because the January 2019 extension was to create this opportunity to negotiate with the Angels. He clarified the Santa Monica case was not identical to this case but it was similar because there was not a written Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) between the parties. He advised there was once an ENA in the Santa Monica case but it had expired. In response to Council Member Valencia's inquiries, City Manager Jim Vanderpool stated, upon receipt of the letter, Mayor Sidhu was briefed as the designated representative on behalf of the City Council. He advised Council Member Valencia was briefed as part of a dialogue with State Assemblymember Tom Daly. Mr. Vanderpool reported it was his understanding the City shared the information with the Angels and they pursued a path to resolve the matter. He explained it was not the City's decision to either agree or not agree with how the Angels lobbied HCD on behalf of the City but rather they took a position on their own. He confirmed the Angels were informed administratively about the letter. In response to Council Member Valencia's inquiry, Mr. Vanderpool clarified the City was working on dual tracks to have options to close escrow by the end of the year. He reported they were working with the City Attorney's office to work directly with the State and HCD's attorneys. He advised they took a dual track to work with legislators for clarification in compliance with the State law. He explained other cities are struggling with the interpretation of the new law and the City's efforts are about timing and a need for clarification versus getting an exemption. Council Member Valencia inquired why outside entities knew about the letter before the City Council Members. Council Member Brandman called for a point of order. He advised it is very late and what he just heard gives him great concern. In response to Council Member Brandman's inquiries, Mr. Fabela acknowledged he informed Mayor Sidhu of the HCD inquiry early on. Mr. Fabela confirmed Assemblymember Daly was also informed. Council Member Brandman inquired if Assemblymember Daly was informed at about the same time as Mayor Sidhu. Council Member Moreno questioned how this was a point of order and not an interruption, to which Council Member Brandman asked for indulgence. City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 37 of 41 Council Member Brandman explained his point of order is because they have a colleague who had been informed of the letter and he only learned about it himself when the Los Angeles Times published it. He explained he is only now finding out about information Assemblymember Daly and his colleague knew weeks before he did. He noted he felt completely ill equipped to have this conversation now. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Council Member Brandman advised it is a point of order because they should have been given all of this information before the discussion. Council Member Moreno noted Council Member Brandman was obfuscating and this was not a point of order. He noted Council Member Brandman was interrupting an inquiry from the person who agendized the item. He clarified a point of order would be if Council Member Valencia was out of order in asking these questions, otherwise, he could ask whatever he wanted within the parameters set by Mayor Sidhu. Mayor Sidhu requested Council Members Moreno and Brandman allow Council Member Valencia to finish his questions for staff. Council Member Valencia confirmed he was informed of the letter a few days before the newspaper articles were published. In response to Council Member Valencia's inquiries, Mr. Vanderpool reported staff had clear policy direction to implement the transaction. He advised when they received the preliminary finding from HCD it was viewed as being just preliminary. He advised staff notified the Mayor and Council Member Valencia but stopped there because that was the end of the need to engage further while continuing the dialogue administratively. Mr. Fabela advised the Angels were notified because staff has been working with the Angels on a series of issues trying to close the transaction and noted they have a contractual obligation to work with the Angels to try and close the deal. In response to Council Member Valencia's inquiry, Mr. Vanderpool advised at no time did the Angels give the City direction on how to work with State entities. Mr. Vanderpool reported Council Member Valencia was informed ahead of his colleagues as a courtesy to him, recognizing he works for Assemblymember Daly, so he could be in the loop as the City reached out to the Assemblymember. Council Member Moreno noted that he wished they were all notified at the same time. He advised that while the Mayor served on the negotiating committee, there was no longer a negotiating committee. Mayor Sidhu clarified the deal is not completed until the escrow is completed so he is still part of the negotiating team. Council Member Moreno restated his point there may now be an implementation committee but there was no more negotiating to be done. He noted there would likely be more coming on the deal and instructed staff to inform all Council Members. He noted potential impending litigation is often agendized as a heads -up so they are not blindsided by reporters. He explained it does not make the City look good when its elected body is unaware of a letter like this and noted it does not make them look like a team. He advised it was also first reported to him by the media that it was a letter of inquiry and not a letter of preliminary conclusions. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Mr. Fabela clarified the City took a different position on the ENA until it discovered HCD recognized constructive ENAs as a means for the timing of which version of the SLA applies. He acknowledged there was no written or approved agreement but HCD recognized the existence of a constructive ENA in the Santa Monica case and this is why the City raised it. He confirmed there was an expired ENA in the Santa Monica case but the determination was derived more from how the parties were negotiating. He advised HCD has been inquiring about this and the City has provided as much information as it can. City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 38 of 41 In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Mr. Fabela clarified whether or not the Angels were also negotiating with the City of Long Beach is irrelevant to this situation, which is HCD focusing on how the City handled the property. He advised he is unsure if the SLA makes a distinction between a lease and a sale. He explained the SLA could apply to a Lease Agreement but acknowledged he needed to research more and believed it depends on the nature of the lease. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Mr. Fabela confirmed the City's argument is, while the City Council did not approve a written ENA, the City was negotiating in the spirit of having an ENA. He explained the City did not take this position until they learned HCD would recognize a constructive ENA. He clarified the City knew about the changes to the SLA before negotiations began but he advised the City did not believe it was enforceable because the statute once passed by legislature becomes effective January 1, 2020. He advised this retroactivity issue has come up with Anaheim's civic ordinances as well when they are passed but do not take effect until a certain future date and believed the 2020 SLA should not have a retroactive effect. Council Member Moreno referenced similar retroactive application on proposed rent relief efforts. Council Member O'Neil recalled the proposed ENA was rejected as part of a package of other simultaneous amendments he believed were designed to derail the deal. In response to Council Member O'Neil's inquiries, Mr. Fabela clarified there is not a provision in the lease prohibiting the City from negotiating with other parties, but its mere existence prohibited them from negotiating with a party other than the Angels without violating the lease. Mr. Fabela confirmed the City made the point the lease itself is the ENA preventing the City from negotiating with others for the disposition of the property. In response to Council Member O'Neil's inquiries, Mr. Fabela clarified HCD has been more active in pursuing legal matters against cities because of new powers granted in 2020. He advised they are in an experimental place where the extent of HCD's power is still being determined by the courts. He noted that whether staff handles legal correspondence like this administratively or brings it to City Council depends on the issue. He reported the plan, in this case, was to get some clarity on HCD's position, as there would be time before closing to get potential policy direction from City Council. He advised HCD could still walk away from its preliminary finding but, should HCD stick by it, he would discuss legal options with City Council. In response to Council Member O'Neil's inquiries, Mr. Fabela reported there is a chronology on the City's website of the number of times the sale was discussed in a public forum. He advised there were public meetings but he could not speak to the exact number and their timing with absolute precision. Council Member O'Neil advised about 20 meetings and outreach forums were held, giving ample transparency considering the situation because you could not negotiate with all of your cards on the table. Council Member Moreno referenced the January 15, 2019 City Council meeting minutes where he moved to have an ENA as a stand-alone motion rather than as part of other requests. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Mr. Fabela clarified his first recommendation would be to work with HCD to see what they would be looking for from the City as a remedy. He explained it could involve noticing potential affordable housing developers even at this stage, although he advised it would be hard to imagine a viable response for a property tied up for 18 years. He explained if someone did respond, there would be a 90-day negotiation period that could extend City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 39 of 41 the sale's closing timeline by quite a bit. He advised it is a condition of closing to get this situation behind them and noted it is his impression the Angels would agree. He advised they would not close the deal with the potential of a penalty looming. He clarified the 30% penalty is fixed into the statute but there is uncertainty over HCD's preferred remedy should the preliminary finding become finalized. He explained the City needs to know if the remedy would rescind the deal to start over or if they could work within the conscripts of the current situation. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. Fabela clarified if the City sells the property to an affordable housing sponsor the minimum requirement is 25% affordable units, assuming if the SLA applies. He advised if they open up the sale and notice affordable housing sponsors with no response, a developer would only have to meet a 15% affordable housing requirement if they develop at least 10 units of housing. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Mr. Fabela confirmed a stipulation of the deal is the Angels would cover any legal fees incurred relative to the deal. He advised they do not know what HCD is doing yet but he has started reaching out to SRB on this issue. He clarified they are looking at the wording of this component and he does not know yet if this threshold would be crossed for what HCD is doing. He advised he is unsure if an HCD fine would be covered under the indemnity provisions of the deal but noted he did not believe it would get to this point. Council Member Moreno reported there was a suggestion by the City Council to start spending the $50,000,000 escrow money immediately but staff intervened and advised this would be unwise until the sale is closed. He thanked the staff for this interjection. Council Member Valencia noted the Angel Stadium negotiation took a year to a year and a half while sometimes a convenience store faces a longer negotiation in this City. He expressed concerns over how rapidly the deal developed. In response to Council Member Valencia's inquiry, Mr. Fabela explained, in general, the more time there is to address potential issues the more likely the City could protect itself. He advised he does not know if they took longer with the deal whether or not they would be in a different position. He explained the deal was an economic opportunity and they took the route correctly. He noted the economic opportunity versus SLA argument was made in the City of Oakland over the sale of the Oakland Coliseum but the case was settled before there was a resolution. He acknowledged it remains an open issue but they feel it is a strong argument. Council Member Valencia reported he was not informed about the letter until after the State legislators were informed. He advised while these potential violations may be mundane and technical, they are not above the law. He expressed concerns over the potential impact on the City's taxpayers even though it is still preliminary. He noted there is still a possibility of a $96,000,000 fine based on the current situation. He advised it is their responsibility to revisit this topic at later dates to continue to discuss future developments in this area. He expressed hopes this sentiment is spread across the dais because they are elected to responsibly steward the taxpayers. Mayor Sidhu advised the record makes it clear the City complied with both the spirit and the letter of the SLA. He noted the discussion made it clear staff has done a great job handling this matter at the administrative level. He praised Mr. Fabela's overview of the responses to HCD. He explained the process is ongoing and, if and when, they receive a final answer from the State staff has committed to return to City Council if a new policy direction is needed. City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 40 of 41 Mayor Sidhu advised he is committed to doing the right thing for the City, including keeping the Angels in Anaheim while providing parks, workforce housing, economic opportunity, tax revenue, and good -paying jobs, all while following the law. He reported they have done this and staff is implementing it as directed. Informational item - No action taken. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS: None PUBLIC COMMENTS (non -agenda items): None COUNCIL COMM UNICATIONSIAGENDA REQUESTS: Council Member Brandman expressed concerns with how information about the California Department of Housing and Community Development letter dated April 28, 2021, sent to the City of Anaheim regarding the Surplus Land Act was not shared with all members of the City Council before becoming public and requested staff explain. Council Member O'Neil addressed a political rally scheduled at a private venue over the weekend that was canceled by the venue operator over concerns of public safety and his concern about the City's statement that made a values judgment without City Council direction when no such statement had been made regarding previous events in the City. He expressed support for free speech and a need to protect free speech whether one agreed with the content or not. He requested a future agenda item to consider officially opposing SIB 9 and SIB 10, two housing bills related to residential lot splits to allow eight units per lot and re -zoning residential and commercial parcels in transit -rich areas to allow 10-unit apartment buildings (request failed for lack of two concurrences). Mayor Pro Tern Faessel requested the meeting close in memory of Dudley Frank, a 1950 graduate of Anaheim High School and long-time Anaheim resident and property owner. Council Member Valencia shared the concerns related to the provision of information about the California Department of Housing and Community Development letter dated April 28, 2021, sent to the City of Anaheim regarding the Surplus Land Act. He advised he did inquire if his colleagues had also been informed when he received the information and noted it was communicated to him that colleagues would not be given that information until it was made public per the reasons provided during the agenda item. Council Member Diaz announced an Anaheim Police Department Coffee with a Cop event to be held at the Starbucks at Lincoln and Magnolia Avenues on July 22, 2021, 11:00 A.M — 1:00 P.M. He echoed Council Member O'Neil's comments related to the canceled event over the weekend, noted that the event was canceled by the private party, not the City, and shared his beliefs that no government agency has the right to restrict free speech, but rather should protect free speech for all. Council Member Moreno thanked staff for their efforts related to the canceled events and expressed concerns with a lack of communication by the event organizers and the Police Department related to safety concerns and permitting. He expressed gratitude to the venue operator for canceling the event to protect neighborhood safety, by its conditional use permit, and for its values. Council Member Moreno appreciated the staff for reinforcing values, believed in free speech and believed it was a responsibility to stand up to actionable hate and lies. He thanked the Anaheim Hills residents for coming to the meeting and hoped that the democracy and rights shown tonight would be afforded across the city. Regarding the text message comments by Council Member Brandman, Council Member Moreno stated he was pursuing an understanding of the parameters of a formal complaint, City Council Minutes of July 20, 2021 Page 41 of 41 including whether it could encompass another agency, as City Council did not formally act on appointing Council Member Brandman to the Water Board due to his stated leave of absence. He requested City Council consider an agenda item at the next meeting to censure Council Member Brandman for the texts sent (request failed for lack of two concurrences). Council Member Moreno reported he would meet with Human Resources regarding an investigation. ADJOURNMENT: At 1:53 A.M. on July 21, 2021, Mayor Sidhu adjourned the City Council meeting in memory of Dudley Frank. Resp mitted, er s, CIVIC ity Clerk Public Comment From: Kn: Farley Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 2:29 PM To: Public Comment Subject: Veteran's Cemetery Fire Hazard Concerns Hello Anaheim City Council, I'm hearing talk of a Veteran's Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon/Santa Ana Canyon. Please do not support this location for any kind of development/building beyond the gate (except for firefighter access). Fires in this area are exactly why us locals have had to evacuate twice in the last ten years. Look at where the local fires start and move through, where all the fuel is, and acknowledge that building a remote road next to a busy freeway, likely without adequate alternative evacuation routes, and surrounded by fuel is a horrible idea for those of us that live here. Keep this area gated off and firebugs well away from it! I know it's an "easy win" to support veterans' affairs but I'm afraid you're condemning your living residents to more frequent and worse fire events in an area that is already a problem. Who is going to guarantee the safety of the area? Have you ever been to Gypsum/Santa Ana Canyon in rush hour when the cars back up to the apartment buildings west along Santa Ana Canyon and north down Gypsum, wrapping all the way west down La Palma beyond Via Lomas De Yorba East? The volume of cars that travel through this area daily, nonetheless when an accident diverts nearby traffic even more heavily to the 91, has already caused brush fires from drivers flicking their cigarettes out their windows and accidents. It will be an absolute temptation to bad actors and you would be serving it to them on a silver platter. How do you intend to protect your residents? Will the power lines to the cemetery be underground, unlike the ones that line Santa Ana Canyon Road? Will there be more fire monitoring stations put in place to offset the repercussions of what you propose? What is the environmental and monetary cost of providing enough water to this drought -stricken place to feed what is sure to be a massive lawn? Will the land around it be regularly cleared of brush to provide a firebreak to the community, and would the funding to upkeep it be guaranteed in perpetuity? I sent a similar letter to the OC BOS but I have less hope that I will be heard by them, who are already feeling the pressure from losing the Irvine location. They need to score political points; I'm hoping you all are more able to prioritize keeping the community as safe as possible. Please take the fires in the hills between OC and Riverside as seriously as those of us who have lived through evacuating by driving down a shutdown 91 surrounded by flames. I hope you think this through and present concrete plans to protect your residents and support the firefighters who protect us should you move forward. Kimberly A Nearby Yorba Linda Resident Who Drives This Section of Road Nearly Every Day Public Comment From: City Clerk Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 1:52 PM To: Public Comment Subject: FW: Kennedy Commission Comments on Item 20 Attachments: Anaheim SLA 7.20.21.pdf From: Cesar C <cesarc@kennedycommission.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 1:35 PM To: City Clerk <cityclerk@anaheim.net> Subject: Kennedy Commission Comments on Item 20 Anaheim City Clerk, Please see attached comments on Item 420. Item 20: DISCUSSION REGARDING CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LETTER TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REGARDING THE SURPLUS LAND ACT Cesar Covarrubias Executive Director July 20, 2021 Mayor Harry Sidhu Councilmembers City of Anaheim 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805 www.kennedycoimnission.org 17701 Cowan Ave., Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 (949)250-0909 Re: CA Housing and Community Development Department Inquiry on Surplus Land Act Violation for the Sale of 153-acres of property generally located at 2000 E. Gene Autry Way and 2200 E. Katella Ave. in Anaheim Dear Mayor Harry Sidhu and Councilmembers: The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is broad coalition of residents and community organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for families earning less than $20,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has been successful in partnering and working with jurisdictions in Orange County to create effective policies that have led to the production of new homes affordable to low income working families. We submitted public comments on December 20, 2019, opposing the City's sale of the city owned 153-acres of property generally located at 2000 E. Gene Autry Way and 2200 E. Katella Avenue. Our objection was based on the City's violation of the Surplus Land Act (the "Act"). Accordingly, we continue to urge the City to dispose of the Land in a manner that complied with the Act by, at a minimum, offering a priority to sell or lease the land for affordable housing or open space uses. L The Surplus Land Act Requires that Surplus Land Be Offered for Affordable Housing or Open Space The Act, Cal. Gov. Code, § 54220, et seq., requires that when a local agency wishes to dispose of land it no longer requires, the agency must send a written offer to sell or lease the property to certain entities for affordable housing or park purposes. In adopting the Act, the California Legislature declared, "housing is of vital statewide importance to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of this state and ... provision of a decent home and a suitable living environment for every Californian is a priority of the highest order," and thus "surplus government land, prior to disposition, should be made available for that purpose." Cal. Gov. Code, § 54220(a). Specifically, the Act requires that a local agency disposing of surplus land must send a "written offer to sell or lease for the purpose of developing low- and moderate -income housing" to local public agencies and, upon request, to individuals or organizations certified by the state to "own, construct, acquire, or rehabilitate a housing development" Cal. Gov't Code § 54222(a). The Act further requires that a written offer to "sell or lease for park and recreational purposes or open -space purposes" be sent to local and regional parks agencies. Cal. Gov't Code § 54222(b). IL The City's Proposed Sale of the Parcels, Violate the Act Here, the city elected not to follow the process and priorities of the Surplus Land Act. Instead, the city proposed to sell approximately 153 acres of City owned property generally located at 2000 E. Gene Autry Way and 2200 E. Katella Ave. in Anaheim, upon which exist certain improvements, including Angel Stadium of Anaheim (Stadium), City National Grove of Anaheim (Grove), and their surrounding parking areas, in the City of Anaheim. The City's proposal set forth in a Request for Council Action dated December 20, 2019, "This is a public hearing to take public testimony and consider the Summary Report prepared pursuant to California Government Code section 52201, and a resolution approving a Purchase and Sale Agreement with SRB Management Company, LLC, in the purchase price of $325,000,000, for real property generally located at 2000 E. Gene Autry Way and 2200 E. Katella Ave, upon which exists certain improvements, including Angel Stadium of Anaheim, City National Grove of Anaheim and their surrounding parking areas and environs (approximately 153 acres generally bounded by Orangewood Avenue, State Route 57, Katella Avenue, and State College Boulevard) that will assist in the creation of economic opportunity pursuant to California Government Code section 52201 (APNs 232-011-02, -06, - 35,-36,-37, -38, -39, -40, -41, -42, -43, -44, -47, -48, -49 -50)." (the "Staff Report"). Here the City ignored the requirements and the formal process of the Surplus Land Act and entered into direct discussion and negotiation with SRB Management Company and pursued a sale of city owned surplus land without allowing for a disposition of surplus land in accordance with the act or by offering priority to affordable housing developers. III. Conclusion We continue to ask that the City of Anaheim rescind this sale today and move forward with a formal disposition of the land in a manner that complies with the Surplus Land Act by, at a minimum, offering a priority to sell or lease the land for affordable housing or open space uses. The city needs to prioritize its city owned land to create much needed affordable housing. As highlighted in the City of Anaheim's April 2020 Housing Element Progress Report that was submitted to the California Housing and Community Development, the city has a deficit of affordable housing. The city has permitted over 7,644 housing units during the current Housing Element period and only 308 have been in the affordability level of low and very low. The vast majority of the housing units, 7,206 have been approve at moderate and above moderate -income levels. With only a few months left in the planning period and with the City lacking site capacity for affordable housing sites it is imperative that the City of Anaheim prioritize affordable housing on this land. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. We look forward to further conversation regarding this important matter. Very truly yours, Cesar Covarrubias Executive Director Jennifer L. Hall From: Rebecca Sanchez Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:44 PM To: Public Comment Subject: Denise Barnes Comments on 7/13/21 I applaud Denise Barnes and her very thoughtful and inspiring words to the council on July 13, 2021. She threw no rocks rather she reached out to all the leaders of the city asking them to dig deep and pull out of themselves true compassion and integrity. Bravo Denise! You are truly an example of humility and greatness. It is so disappointing that you are no longer on the council. Rebecca Sanchez Sent from my iPhone Public Comment From: Toni Ferro Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2021 10:30 AM To: Public Comment Subject: Mike Lyster Mike Lyster does not speak for the people of Anaheim. If Republicans want to hold a rally it is their constitutional free speech right. You are a disgrace to the city of Anaheim and Lyster should be removed. Sent from my iPad Public Comment From: Theresa Bass Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 8:53 AM To: Public Comment Subject: FW: Freedom of Speech! From: Sharyl Hess Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2021 7:19 PM To: Theresa Bass <TBass@anaheim.net> Subject: Freedom of Speech! Dear City Clerk Bass, Please forward my email to the Mayor and council people. I saw your letter. How dare you cancel an event because you don't like the message!!! Your cowardice, corruption, and laziness will not win in the end. The people of Anaheim and California are rising up and will get you out of office... soon. Don't get too comfortable in your roles. If you are going to be anti-American and cancel our Congress people from speaking directly to the people, then you need to go. Feel free to move out of America actually... that will be a lot easier and much quicker for us, rather than recalling or voting you out. Wake up Anaheim!!! THIS IS us AMERICA. Regards, Sharyl California Resident 1 Public Comment From: Theresa Bass Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 8:55 AM To: Public Comment Subject: FW: Marxist city of Anaheim -----Original Message ----- From: DSP Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2021 4:51 PM To: Theresa Bass <TBass@anaheim.net> Subject: Marxist city of Anaheim So now that you're cancelling free speech and cancelling Republicans from speaking just because they don't agree with you, I hope you know that you have violated the constitution ....... I wouldn't be to surprised if your and the city of Anaheim are sued over this...... Sent from my iPad Public Comment From: Theresa Bass Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 8:56 AM To: Public Comment Subject: FW: Results of your decision From: Kandy Schendel Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2021 4:09 PM To: Theresa Bass <TBass@anaheim.net> Subject: Results of your decision Hello, please forward this email to your mayor and city council members for me. Thank you. Dear elected officials, Among other things, my team and I work to find the perfect locations for corporate events/conventions on behalf of our clients. We fully intended to hold another upcoming event in Anaheim, just as we have recommended in the past. I learned, however, that you (via Mike Lyster) made the decision to cancel an event of Rep. Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene. Your goal is very pellucid ... to shut down free speech because you don't like what they have to say. Your decision ends my company's interest in recommending Anaheim locations for any events going forward. America is not a socialist or communist country where Big Brother stifles people from speaking freely. Now that your true colors have been put on display for all to see, I regret that we have recommended and held various corporate events in Anaheim in the past. What you have done is of vital concern to many Americans. Because of your decision, we are pulling out of Anaheim and as a result you should lose millions of dollars from clients I and others have. We will instead send our clients to cities that embrace the value of supporting all people regardless of their political affiliation or beliefs. Sincerely, Kandy Schendel CEO, SCHENDEL MEDIA media, marketing, and event services Public Comment From: Sharon Petty Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2021 8:06 PM To: Public Comment Subject: Holden project We do not live in the immediate neighborhood of the Mormon Church where the Holden Corporation is seeking to construct the large retirement/care facility but rather to the east a couple of miles. But we wish to lend our voices to the NOTOHOLDEN movement that is attempting to stop the construction for these reasons: 1. The area is zoned for single family homes. The church, while not a home, is of a use and size compatible with such zoning and the residents are used to it. We, ourselves, live on a street that has about 25 homes. Four of these have been converted to care facilities (I call them hospital houses) for elderly sick people. While we would rather see families occupying them, the buildings have not been altered in such a manner to be incompatible with the appearance of our neighborhood. That would not be the case with the Holden project. Assume that the church lot were divided into 6 lots and houses put on them with each home about 3,000 sq. ft. The living space of the Holden project would be about 30 times that of 6 single family homes —totally incompatible with zoning in the neighborhood. 2. Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oaks are both busy streets, and the community doesn't need the traffic that would result from the retirement center. We understand that Holden has asked for a waiver for parking spaces of almost 50%. That waves a red flag for us that this property is not large enough for what Holden is proposing to do. 3. Denying the Holden permit won't be a financial hardship for the Mormon church, as we understand these are at least two other buyers who have made full -price offers, and at least one of them is a church. Choosing a church as the buyer would make new occupancy almost seamless. It also would not result in years of construction to disturb the neighborhood. 4. If Holden goes forward, families who live in the lots next to the church property would lose their view and their privacy and no longer enjoy the same features of the home they purchased. Who is going to compensate them for their loss? 5. In case of a large fire requiring evacuation, Anaheim Hills residents need to evacuate on Nohl Ranch Road. Hopefully this will never happen, but if it does, what kind of a mess would be created by ambulances trying to get in and out to transport the many residents of that facility. 6. There are currently many lots with for sale signs posted on Santa Ana Canyon Road near the Festival Shopping Center. That road is designed for heavy traffic. While it would probably cost Holden more to build there because they would have to run the electricity and plumbing up to one of those lots, it would be a nice location. Residents would have a view of the hills. Residents who drive would have access to groceries, dry cleaning, gasoline, restaurants, a movie theater, and even medical offices on the east side of the Festival S.C. And, building a retirement facility on one of these lots would not result in a loss of property values for the homeowners surrounding the church property. We could probably give other reasons against the project, but know that others will be giving their opinions and many would duplicate our thoughts. So we will close by saying, please do the right thing for the residents currently living near the Mormon church property and say NOTOHOLDEN. Robert and Sharon Petty Anaheim Hills, CA 92807 Phone: Email: Public Comment From: Jill Cook Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2021 8:43 PM Subject: Opposition to Holden Project Attachments: Holden opposition letter July 13, 2021.docx Please see attached letter opposing the Holden Project. I am unable to attend and speak at the July 20, 2021 City Council meeting due to a memorial service for my late husband. Jill Cook Jill Cook Anaheim CA 92805 July 13, 2021 City of Anaheim City Council 200 South Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA. 92805 Dear City Council Member, Subject: HOLDEN PROJECT 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim, CA. 92807 I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Holden project Development. I do not believe that this development fits the site and it will negatively affect the neighborhood. I live within the 500 feet of the development site and would definitely speak at the meeting but I am unable to attend the July 201h City Council meeting as I am hosting a memorial service for my husband who passed in October 2020. We were unable to have a proper service for him because of previous Covid restrictions. Please listen to my concerns and accept my apology for not being able to address you directly at the meeting. We purchased our house on Honeywood Lane to be our retirement home and loved the quiet neighborhood and privacy of our back yard. This location provided a warm escape from our cold Colorado winters. There are also two iconic huge palm trees that sit between our property and the church "development" property that have been very dear to our heart. We spent many hours recovering between chemo rounds watching and enjoying the variety of birds and squirrels that feast on the palm. The church development property lies directly behind and above our house. My wish is that my daughters and I can continue to enjoy this house and backyard as it is today and that my husband's memory can continue to live in this house and backyard without a major unexpected change based on a corporate development. I have to admit that if this development is approved I will consider selling the house which makes me very very sad! I accept that some change will occur to the neighboring property but it should adhere to the Anaheim Hills development criteria and not negatively affect the current residents. We purchased our property expecting the published restrictions to be in effect and do not believe that a large developer should be able to get exceptions to these published requirements. The two important restrictions that seem to be changed for this developer are: 1) The height restriction of 25 feet. That restriction should be from the current ground level! How does it make sense to say that you are sticking to a 25 feet maximum height then allowing terracing and a "walkout basement" to make the effective height 37' from the current ground elevation? This is in effect a 4 story building and it is nearly 100,000 square feet. At this height and the proximity to the steep slope behind the development property there will be no privacy in our backyard anymore. Holden residents will be sitting at their windows and looking directly into our backyard and living room. 2) Parking variance- Again it does not make any sense to waive an established parking space requirement by nearly 50%. Parking studies done during the Covid restrictions are inaccurate and far underestimate the actual number of visitors and staff that would need parking. The parking needs for employees, third party caregivers, family, resident transport, and support staff will far exceed the provided parking of 52 spots. Why would the city allow this overage to flow into neighboring streets and cause safety and neighbor issues? This particular largescale development would be detrimental to the comfort and safety of our community. It is just too large for this site! I urge you to disapprove this project that will burden our community with High Density housing functioning as a commercial business within the current RH-3 zoning. The proposed location is inappropriate and not fitted for an operation of this sort. Countless residents share my deep concerns regarding the safety hazards that would arise should this project be approved. TRAFFIC -This project will significantly increase traffic with its frequency of emergency, transportation, delivery, staff, and visitation vehicles thus adding to the existing challenges. FIRE- Nohl Ranch Road is a FIRE EVACUTION ROUTE. Our community knows all too well the dangers of not being able to evacuate quickly and safely. Many of us were stuck in gridlock on Nohl Ranch Road, some in excess of two hours traveling only a short two miles. I shudder to think how we as a community could execute a safe and successful evacuation of our vulnerable elderly population residing within the High Density facility that Holden is proposing. There are many other valid concerns, we as residents of this community have, however SAFETY is and should be the primary focus for all of us. Thank you for your continued service to the city of Anaheim and for your consideration in supporting the residents by keeping our communities safe. Please oppose the Proposed Holden Project, it just doesn't fit. Please feel free to contact me for any questions or further discussion. Again I am sorry that I cannot attend the upcoming city council meeting due to my late husband's memorial service. Sincerely, Jill Cook DVM Public Comment From: James Kelly Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 1:48 PM Subject: HOLDEN PROJECT Dear City of Anaheim City Council: July 14, 2021 1, Jim Kelly, am opposed to the planned Holden Project ("HOLDEN PROJECT") at 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road in Anaheim, California. Here are just a few of my reasons. First of all, this does not properly belong in our RH-3 zoned neighborhood. This is NOT a residence or residential use. 1t is a business. The current zoning allows for 4 houses per acre and that would be 12 houses on the property max! This is I IS units and way too dense for this low -density zoned area. But, let's say you still are inclined to approve this. Then you should actually look at the city laws on when a Conditional Use Permit may be employed. The bolding is my addition obviously. From Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 18.+66 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: 18.66.060 FINDINGS. Before the approval authority, or Planning Commission and/or City Council on appeal, may approve a minor conditional use permit or a conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact, by resolution, that the evidence presented shows .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); .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. (Ord. 5920 § 1 (part); June 8, 2004: Ord. 6432 § 38 (part); April 10, 2018.) So, it does not meet the CUP requirements since it needs to meet ALL the above conditions. .020 alone is all that we need to defeat this and that is pretty obvious in that it ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE ADJOININiG LAND USES! So, I urge you to vote against this project rather than tie the city up in a lengthy and costly court battle that they will likely not win. A Sincerely concerned Voter, Resident and Taxpayer, Jim Kelly Anaheim, CA 92807 Public Comment From: verjeanw Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 3:15 PM To: Public Comment Subject: HOLDEN DEVELOPMENT 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Ca 92807 Anaheim. CA. 92807 July 14, 2021 City of Anaheim City Council 200 South Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA. 92805 Dear City Council Member, Subject: HOLDEN PROJECT 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim, CA. 92807 1 am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Holden project Development. As a resident of Anaheim this particular Iargescale development would be detrimental to the safety of our community. I urge you to disapprove this project that will burden our community with High Density housing functioning as a commercial business within the current RH-3 zoning. The proposed location is inappropriate and not fitted for an operation of this sort. Countless residents share my deep concerns regarding the safety hazards that would arise should this project be approved. TRAFFIC- Nohl Ranch Road has become a busy freeway alternate in which vehicles exceeding the speed limit has become the norm. The intersection of Royal Oak and Nohl Ranch Road (The Proposed Project location) has a " no right turn on red' as its blind spot corner has proven to be hazardous with a history of accidents. The large scale of the Holden Project Building would further exasperate this problem. This project will significantly increase traffic with its frequency of emergency, transportation, delivery, staff, and visitation vehicles thus adding to the existing challenges. FIRE- Nohl Ranch Road is a FIRE EVACUTION ROUTE. Our community knows all too well the dangers of not being able to evacuate quickly and safely. Many of us were stuck in gridlock on Nohl Ranch Road, some in excess of two hours traveling only a short two miles. I shudder to think how we as a community could execute a safe and successful evacuation of our vulnerable elderly population residing within the High Density facility that Holden is proposing. LACK OF PARKING- Holden's proposed parking spaces are grossly under allocated. The lack of parking for staff, third party providers and visitors will put a strain on the surrounding neighborhoods. There is no parking on Nohl Ranch Road nor Royal Oak so over flow will be forced upon the residential streets. This lack of parking redirected to surrounding homes poses safety risks to neighborhood children and families. My family moved to Anaheim in 1957 and I have the honor of moving to Westridge in 1972 as the first development of Anaheim Hills, "The New Land". There were no schools, no Vons and no Canyon High. I have seen change and it is inevitable. I am not against Assisted Living Facilities and I am now even a senior myself. They need to be placed in the right location to best serve their needs and the community needs. On Nohl Ranch Road and Anaheim Hills Road 1 '/2 miles away we have 2 Assisted Living facilities on 2 corners with a CVS, Senior apartments on a corner and a medical center on the 4th corner. My parents lived in Nohl Ranch Inn 6 years! The right place as we do care for our seniors in Anaheim Hills! Thank you for your continued service to our wonderful city and for your consideration in supporting the residents by keeping our communities safe. Please oppose the Proposed Holden Project. Kind Regards, Verjean Walker Public Comment From: James Kelly Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 3:33 PM Subject: HOLDEN PROJECT Dear City of Anaheim City Council: July 14, 2021 I, Claudia Kelly, am opposed to the planned Holden Project ("HOLDEN PROJECT") at 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road in Anaheim, California. Here are just a few of my reasons. The additional noise and traffic such a facility will have on our sleepy residential neighborhood is a given. And to what benefit for us actually? None of us could afford a room at this luxury place. So, what is the benefit to the neighborhood? A church is a HUGE BENEFIT to a neighborhood. And if this developer would go away, the property could go back to being a church. The Orange Hills Assembly Church is ready to purchase the property and wants to just occupy the beautiful campus. They need the parking that facility contains. No razing of the campus or 2 years of construction. A church provides lots of benefits to the community. They typically have food closets that help the homeless or low-income people with basic food. They have after school child care. They may have an actual school on campus as well. This is definitely a BEST USE for this property as it has been since 1977. Check your city records. Nowhere else in the city is a "Senior Living Facility (Large)" existing in an RH-3 zoned area. They are all in commercially zoned areas. And that is because that is where they belong! Put it nearby other medical and hospital -like facilities. That is where it belongs for the health and safety of its residents. Please listen to your voting residents that say this is the wrong location for this facility. I urge you to vote NO on this project! Cordially, Claudia Kelly Anaheim, CA 92807 Public Comment From: James Kelly Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 3:45 PM Subject: HOLDEN PROJECT Anaheim. CA. Zip July 14, 2021 City of Anaheim City Council 200 South Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA. 92805 Dear City Council Member, Subject: HOLDEN PROJECT 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim, CA. 92807 I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Holden project Development. As a resident of Anaheim this particular Iargescale development would be detrimental to the safety of our community. I urge you to disapprove this project that will burden our community with High Density housing functioning as a commercial business within the current RH-3 zoning. The proposed location is inappropriate and not fitted for an operation of this sort. Countless residents share my deep concerns regarding the safety hazards that would arise should this project be approved. TRAFFIC- Nohl Ranch Road has become a busy freeway alternate in which vehicles exceeding the speed limit has become the norm. The intersection of Royal Oak and Nohl Ranch Road (The 1 Proposed Project location) has a " no right turn on red' as its blind spot corner has proven to be hazardous with a history of accidents. The large scale of the Holden Project Building would further exasperate this problem. This project will significantly increase traffic with its frequency of emergency, transportation, delivery, staff, and visitation vehicles thus adding to the existing challenges. FIRE- Nohl Ranch Road is a FIRE EVACUTION ROUTE. Our community knows all too well the dangers of not being able to evacuate quickly and safely. Many of us were stuck in gridlock on Nohl Ranch Road, some in excess of two hours traveling only a short two miles. I shudder to think how we as a community could execute a safe and successful evacuation of our vulnerable elderly population residing within the High Density facility that Holden is proposing. LACK OF PARKING- Holden's proposed parking spaces are grossly under allocated. The lack of parking for staff, third party providers and visitors will put a strain on the surrounding neighborhoods. There is no parking on Nohl Ranch Road nor Royal Oak so over flow will be forced upon the residential streets. This lack of parking redirected to surrounding homes poses safety risks to neighborhood children and families. There are many other valid concerns, we as residents of this community have, however SAFETY is and should be the primary focus for all of us. Thank you for your continued service to our wonderful city and for your consideration in supporting the residents by keeping our communities safe. Please oppose the Proposed Holden Project. Best Regards, Maureen Etheridge Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: July 14, 2021 City of Anaheim City Council 200 South Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA. 92805 Jenni Thomas Wednesday, July 14, 2021 4:00 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor) Proposed HOLDEN Project Subject: HOLDEN PROJECT 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim, CA. 92807 Dear City Council Member, I am writing to express my strong OPPOSITION to the proposed Holden project Development. I reside in Westridge community, and as a resident of Anaheim this particular large-scale development would be detrimental to the safety of our community. I urge you to DISAPPROVE this project that will burden our community with High Density housing functioning as a commercial business within the current RH-3 zoning. The proposed location is inappropriate and not fitted for an operation of this sort. Countless residents share my deep concerns regarding the safety hazards that would arise should this project be approved. TRAFFIC- Nohl Ranch Road has become a busy freeway alternate in which vehicles exceeding the speed limit have become the norm. The intersection of Royal Oak and Nohl Ranch Road (The Proposed Project location) has a " no right turn on red' as its blind spot corner has proven to be hazardous with a history of accidents. The large scale of the Holden Project Building would further exasperate this problem. This project will significantly increase traffic with its frequency of emergency, transportation, delivery, staff, and visitation vehicles thus adding to the existing challenges. FIRE- Nohl Ranch Road is a FIRE EVACUATION ROUTE. Our community knows all too well the dangers of not being able to evacuate quickly and safely. Many of us were stuck in gridlock on Nohl Ranch Road, some in excess of two hours traveling only a short two miles. I shudder to think how we as a community could execute a safe and successful evacuation of our vulnerable elderly population residing within the High Density facility that Holden is proposing. LACK OF PARKING- Holden's proposed parking spaces are extremely under allocated. The lack of parking for staff, third party providers and visitors will put a strain on the surrounding neighborhoods. There is no parking on Nohl Ranch Road nor Royal Oak so over flow will be forced upon the residential streets. This lack of parking redirected to surrounding homes poses safety risks to neighborhood children and families. There are many other valid concerns, we as residents of this community have, however SAFETY is and should be the primary focus for all of us. Thank you for your continued service to our wonderful city and for your consideration in supporting the residents by keeping our communities safe. Please oppose the Proposed Holden Project. Best Regards, Jenni Thomas Public Comment From: Brady Jaime Sent: Friday, July 16, 2021 12:00 PM To: Public Comment Subject: HOLDEN PROJECT Anaheim. CA. 92807 July 16, 2021 City of Anaheim City Council 200 South Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA. 92805 Dear City Council Member, Subject: HOLDEN PROJECT 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim, CA. 92807 I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Holden project Development. As a resident of Anaheim this particular Iargescale development would be detrimental to the safety of our community. I urge you to disapprove this project that will burden our community with High Density housing functioning as a commercial business within the current RH-3 zoning. The proposed location is inappropriate and not fitted for an operation of this sort. Countless residents share my deep concerns regarding the safety hazards that would arise should this project be approved. 1 TRAFFIC- Nohl Ranch Road has become a busy freeway alternate in which vehicles exceeding the speed limit has become the norm. The intersection of Royal Oak and Nohl Ranch Road (The Proposed Project location) has a " no right turn on red' as its blind spot corner has proven to be hazardous with a history of accidents. The large scale of the Holden Project Building would further exasperate this problem. This project will significantly increase traffic with its frequency of emergency, transportation, delivery, staff, and visitation vehicles thus adding to the existing challenges. FIRE- Nohl Ranch Road is a FIRE EVACUTION ROUTE. Our community knows all too well the dangers of not being able to evacuate quickly and safely. Many of us were stuck in gridlock on Nohl Ranch Road, some in excess of two hours traveling only a short two miles. I shudder to think how we as a community could execute a safe and successful evacuation of our vulnerable elderly population residing within the High Density facility that Holden is proposing. LACK OF PARKING- Holden's proposed parking spaces are grossly under allocated. The lack of parking for staff, third party providers and visitors will put a strain on the surrounding neighborhoods. There is no parking on Nohl Ranch Road nor Royal Oak so over flow will be forced upon the residential streets. This lack of parking redirected to surrounding homes poses safety risks to neighborhood children and families. There are many other valid concerns, we as residents of this community have, however SAFETY is and should be the primary focus for all of us. Thank you for your continued service to our wonderful city and for your consideration in supporting the residents by keeping our communities safe. Please oppose the Proposed Holden Project. Best Regards, Brady Jaime Public Comment From: Sent: Cc: Subject: Dear Council Member - Luke Callahan Friday, July 16, 2021 4:29 PM britanycallahan Homeowner Opposition to Holden Project I am writing today to share my concerns regarding the Holden Project that is slated for the corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak. I live just below the proposed site at Royal Oak and Honeywood, and would be greatly impacted by this project. I urge you to please consider the concerns we have and to vote no against this huge business venture. My family and I have only recently moved to our neighborhood. It is our first house and truly love it. The street is a beautiful mix of both younger and older families, with some original homeowners still residing on the block. Below are the concerns my husband and I would like to share with you: - This property is zoned for RH-3, with no other businesses in the vicinity. Current zoning laws allow for 4 homes per acre, but with the 118 units being proposed, this greatly exceeds the limit. In addition, not a single current Senior Living Facility in the city of Anaheim is currently within an RH-3 zone. A property of this nature has been and should continue to be in only a commercially zoned area. We purchased our home in part because of the peaceful setting of the area, and it would be disheartening to see such a large commercial style structure literally out our front door. I don't believe this location should qualify for a conditional use permit. -We are aware of the congestion and safety impact recent fires had to our streets and the evacuation route along Nohl Ranch Road. Adding such a significant amount of units and individuals to such a small area, many of whom will most likely be mobility impaired, causes great concern for emergency situations. What is the plan to help these residents without impeding evacuation access? -We have looked at the plans for this business, and are sad to see the high quantity of rooms being crammed into the property lines. I strongly believe in good care for seniors, but this doesn't seem to provide ample amenities and green space that improves quality of life. -The lack of parking is a tremendous issue. With such few parking spots (I believe the current proposal is to have around 40 spots, but by code there should be at least 100), the cars will spill over into our neighborhood every day. That is not fair, and should the business proceed despite all the objections raised, they must consider sacrificing rooms to provide more parking. -An additional concern we have is related to noise pollution. Additional cars, emergency vehicles, deliveries, generators, etc. will bring additional noise to this quiet residential area. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter, and for your service to our wonderful city. Best regards, Britany and Luke Callahan Public Comment From: jim saenz Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2021 2:38 PM To: Public Comment Subject: Holden Hills project To: Anaheim City Council Subject: proposed Holden Hills project. Dear sirs, I am writing to express my opposition the proposed above mentioned project. As I understand it, it was first presented as a much smaller project but come to find out its much much larger than the original. As a former Anaheim Police officer, 28 years, I am familiar with the types of problems that come with a large business in the middle of a strictly residential area. The increase in traffic as well as commercial vehicles making deliveries at all hours and trying to maneuver in a tight areas and extremely hazardous and ruin what is otherwise a serene quiet residential landscape. I can't help but think residential values will be negatively affected as well. The quality of life we've become accustomed to in this area will be adversely affected and I for one would hate to leave this city that I've been a part of for so many years. There must be lots of other sites much better suited for this type of project and not in an area that is 100% residential. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration in this very important matter. From: Jim Saenz Anaheim, Ca. 92807 Anaheim P.D.-Retired Long time Anaheim resident Public Comment From: rg ra nd Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 9:07 AM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor) Cc: Public Comment Subject: Holden Hills Project Dear Harry, I am writing you to join those who strongly oppose the construction of the Holden assisted living facility that is being proposed to replace the LDS Church located at Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak. We feel that the developer has significantly understated the negative impact on the nearby residents. The proposed excavation and construction of a facility will generate a drastic increase in noise, traffic and inconvenience. These detrimental factors will surely continue after the project is completed because of the daily activity of the facility's residents, visitors, employees, commercial deliveries and medical personnel. These concerns and many more have been shared with you and the other members of the city council. I would also ask that before you cast your vote, please consider the Rotary International Four Way Test. Regards, Bob Grandolfo Anaheim 92807 Public Comment From: JAMES VANDERHEIDE Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 9:21 AM To: Public Comment Subject: Holden Hills Appeal Attachments: Holden's Anaheim Hills Senior Center.docx Please find attached a letter voicing our opposition to the proposed Holden Senior Center in Anaheim Hills. From: Dr. and Mrs. James D. Vander Heide July 19, 2021 To: Anaheim City Council Members From: Dr. and Mrs. James D. Vander Heide Anaheim Hills, CA 92807 Re: Our opposition to Holden's proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Assisted Living Community. City Planning Department Case # CUP2019-06048 DEV 2019-00172 The location for the proposed "Senior Center" is the North — West corner of Royal Oak intersecting with Nohl Ranch Road in Anaheim Hills. A single story church building presently exists on the property, in a neighborhood of exclusively single family homes. Our opposition to this project is not the purpose, but the physical size and scope relative to the size of the available developed property — the proposed total square footage of the buildings, their height and the woefully inadequate parking. Our understanding of the City parking requirement, for the size of the proposal, is 102 spaces. Holden proposes only 55 spaces. A similar Senior Center in Anaheim, named Walnut Village, was allowed to be developed without adequate parking. They utilize a valet who parks visitor's cars on the streets in the adjoining residential neighborhood. We don't want that to happen in our adjacent neighborhood, which has limited street parking already. There is presently no legal street parking adjacent to the proposed project on either Royal Oak or Nohl Ranch Road. Holden proposes building a massive, very high retaining wall along the north lot line, which is presently a landscaped slope adjacent to the back yards of private residences. They want to backfill to the retaining wall to gain additional site area. This will be an unsightly intrusion for the homeowners of the adjacent properties. The height of the proposed buildings is considerably higher than the existing church building, and is too high for a residential neighborhood. A much smaller version of this project would be more compatible with the residential neighborhood and bring it into compliance with the City's parking ordnance. Public Comment From: Kenneth Piguee Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 10:21 AM To: Public Comment Subject: CC 7/20 Agenda Item 21 Hello, I am in support of the proposed recommendation to deny the appeals and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve the senior living project at 5725 E Nohl Ranch. I live at and believe this is a great amenity for seniors and will not adversely impact the community. Kenneth Piguee Public Comment From: Amy Larson Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 2:54 PM To: Public Comment; haidhu@anaheim.net; Stephen Faessel; Jose Diaz; jbrandon@anaheim.net; Avelino Valencia; Trevor O'Neil Subject: Holden Hills 5275 east nohl ranch road meeting 7/20/2021 To whom it may concern To be clear, We absolutely oppose hidden hills assisted living off royal oak at 5275 east nohl ranch road, Anaheim which used to be small church. The every day commuters using royal oak as a short cut as well as residents and fire engine traffic on both streets already are a menace and many near misses occur daily while leaving our streets off royal oak. We have Major legitimate concerns with employee/ resident parking which will invariably spill over on quiet residential streets near by prospective hidden hills community as well as concerns with removal of existing trees and general noise pollution generated by a large amount of people living : working in a small acreage not meant for this purpose. The amount of people living , working , visiting will exceed what is reasonable , cause danger with traffic emergency route , lack of access . Quite simply this large for profit business will cause major issues w traffic, noise from many people living / working , generators and emergency vehicles , emergency route blocked and compromised it will not work in this small quiet residential area. Hopefully this and other emails actually be read. Best Regards , John and Amy Larson and Dr James Larson Public Comment From: Sue Kurzbard Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 3:13 PM To: Public Comment Subject: PROPOSED HOLDEN PROJECT: 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim Hills, CA To the Members of the City of Anaheim City Council; I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Holden project Development. As a resident of Anaheim Hills, this particular large-scale development would be detrimental to the safety of our community. I urge you to disapprove this project which will burden our community with High Density housing functioning as a commercial business within the current RH-3 zoning. The proposed location is inappropriate and not suitable for an operation of this size. Countless residents share my deep concerns regarding the safety hazards that would arise if this project is approved. TRAFFIC: Nohl Ranch Road has become a busy freeway alternate and speeding vehicles are the norm. The intersection of Royal Oak and Nohl Ranch Road (the proposed project location) has a history of accidents. The large scale of the Holden Project would further exacerbate this problem with its frequency of emergency, transportation, delivery, staff and visitation vehicles adding to the existing challenges. FIRE: Nohl Ranch Road is a FIRE EVACUATION ROUTE. Our community is well aware of the dangers of not being able to evacuate quickly and safely. Many residents were caught in gridlock on Nohl Ranch road, some in excess of two hours traveling only short distances during the fires in recent years. How will the community provide a safe and successful emergency evacuation of vulnerable elderly people residing within the High Density facility that Holden is proposing? INSUFFICIENT PARKING: Holden's proposed parking spaces are grossly under allocated. The lack of parking for staff, third party providers and visitors will have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. Parking is not allowed on Nohl Ranch Road or Royal Oak, so the overflow will be forced upon the residential streets. This redirected parking to surrounding homes poses safety risks to the neighborhood children and families. I hope that you will listen to the concerns of the residents and support us by opposing the Proposed Holden Project. Thank you for your service to our city. Regards, Susan Kurzbard Anaheim Hills, CA 92807 Public Comment From: philip Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 3:50 PM To: Public Comment Cc: G Philip; Steve La Motte Subject: Conditional Use Permit No.2019-06048: Support. Mayor Sidhu, city council members and staff I am writing as an independent planning professional to lend my support to the entitlements before you for Holden Anaheim Hills. Back in the day I was Vice President public affairs for Texaco -Anaheim Hills Inc and a member of the Hill and Canyon Municipal Advisory Council;. I am also the former chair of the board and CEO for Rossmoor Partners LLP and Cortese Properties Inc., the Leisure World retirement community creators and successors I am well acquainted with best practices for senior housing and the development standards that make for good communities and good neighbors. With your support, the City of Anaheim and Anaheim Hills will be well served by this newest addition to the planned community. Thank you for your service. Philip F. Bettencourt Real Estate Development Planning I Stewardship Newport Beach I La Quinta Office of the City Clerk 1 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard C'T `� Anaheim, California 92805 Dear Sirs: The following comments apply to the proposed senior living facility at the northwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak Road. I understand the need for this sort of facility. With advances in science and medicine, our seniors are living longer than ever before. My argument is not against the facility itself, but the chosen location. There are better choices. There have to be. When homeowners move into a neighborhood, they do so with zoning laws and codes in mind. In the most basic sense, promises are being made to them. For example, there will be no commercial enterprises, tall buildings, mini -markets, etc. to destroy the authenticity and atmosphere of the area. Or maybe trees and common grounds will be safeguarded to maintain the character of the neighborhood. Promises come in all shapes and sizes; and they exist for the sake of safety, integrity, and even property value. Lies leave a bad taste in the mouth. Variances in codes or laws are quite simply broken promises. Sometimes change is necessary; and when it serves for the greater good, understandable. But have you checked with the residents who will be most affected by this project. My informal opinion - gathering shows it to be resoundingly unpopular to the tune of about 95%. Not only will the three- story building destroy views and privacy, it will create unwanted traffic and parking problems, and leave us with troublesome construction noise, dirt, and debris for months. Is this facility, in this location, for the greater good? I'd argue it is not. Not on Nohl Ranch Road. The Holden Company should look elsewhere for its enormous profits. And I'd like to think that the City Council and Planning Commission will adhere to past promises made and reject this particular site. You know, in our democratic system, a vote is something of a promise made, a pledge of support for a candidate. Residents of our neighborhoods and members of our homeowner's association won't soon forget that you've approved this project, and turned your backs on us. I promise you that. Do the right thing. Thanks. 1/,� Keith Lloyd Anaheim Hills, CA 92807 Public Comment From: Peter Chang Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 6:07 PM To: Public Comment Subject: Holden Hills Appeal CUP 2019-06048 Attachments: Holden project CUP 2019-06048.pdf Anaheim City Clerk, I would like to voice my concern against the Holden Project for the hearing on July 20, 2021. I have enclosed a letter to the Mayor and Council Members. Please confirm receipt. Peter K. Chang Anaheim, CA 92807 Office of the City Clerk 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805 CUP 2019-06048 Dear Mayor and Council Members: This letter / email serves as my voice against the proposed Holden Project that is located at 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road. After reviewing the proposed plans by the developer and the size of this project. I have the following concerns. • The increase in traffic to and from this location would be a great burden to the current community and people who live nearby. This include the increased noise levels of the vehicles, and any pollutions that it would incur. This would affect the current resident nearby and their quality of living. • The size of the structure seems rather large and it would be problematic to the stability of the slopes. The number of parking spaces are also not enough to accommodate the number of units. Environmentally this just does not sound safe and could have major impact and consequences. Landslide would be of future concern for this area. • The safety of the existing neighborhood resident would be jeopardized by this. Especially during a natural disaster such as fire or earthquake. How quickly can they be evacuated; how will it affect the evacuation of current residents? It would for sure make things worse during emergency situations. These are the issues that I have concerns about this proposed project. I urge the Mayor and Council Members to please vote no on this project and deny the granting of permit to the developers. Sincerely, Peter K. Chang Public Comment From: Scott Reece Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 12:24 PM To: Public Comment Cc: LockLear Law Office Subject: Holden Opposition Attachments: Holden Letter.pdf I have attached herewith a letter of opposition to the Holden project now being considered by the City Council. Scott Reece Scott Reece Anaheim. CA. 92807 July 14, 2021 City of Anaheim City Council 200 South Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA. 92805 Dear City Council Member, Subject: HOLDEN PROJECT - 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim, CA. 92807 Siren noise and overwhelmed traffic load on Nohl Ranch have not been properly considered I am contacting you regarding my opposition to the proposed Holden project Development. Your vote on this matter is coming up. Please try to understand, me and my neighbors are not upset about the view, nor are we against senior living facilities or seniors. 1, myself am a senior. As a nearby resident of Anaheim, this particular largescale development would be disruptive with 24 hour noise issues from first responders. The effect of increasing traffic (which is already at an unsafe level) would be disruptive and create unnecessary safety risks to my neighborhood. I live in Point Quissett, the development across the street from the proposed project. FIRE Evacuation Hazard - Nohl Ranch Road is a FIRE EVACUTION ROUTE. Not only will you bog up the already congested evacuation route of residents, you will syphon off first responders to help evacuate 118 + people that have no cars and no ability to get off the hill on their own. Fires are not an infrequent event to us. Every year since I have moved here (2006), there has been a fire nearby and I have had to pack and prepare for evacuation. I have evacuated twice. Weather conditions are worsening, and this is a real and growing threat. The beautiful trees of Anaheim Hills are also a fuel source for wind blown embers. This is a dangerous area for immobile people to be living. And it is unfair to trap residents on the hill because of being short sighted on this issue. This part of Nohl Ranch Road (at Royal Oak to Point Quissett entry on Andover) is already a danger. Already, Nohl Ranch Road is a danger to exit onto from Point Quissett at busy times of the day. It has become a speedway alternative to the 91 Freeway. Trying to turn west onto Nohl Ranch in the morning and evening, has become an anxiety inducing and often traumatizing event. The "suicide lane" that is a car length long is not enough of a safe harbor to protect oneself from the speeders zipping around the blind turns as you get halfway out into the road. When I attended the Planning commission meeting two months ago, when they were to vote on this project, one of the planners said that very few accidents had occurred on Nohl Ranch when this safety question was raised. In the past 5 years, Point Quissett HOA has had to rebuild the Brick Monument in front of the subdivision as a result of an accident. My property owns the easement for this monument, so I have a bird's eye view of the injuries. There was a fatality behind my house when someone ran into a light pole and took it down. The brick wall across from me looks like a patchwork quilt from the number of times cars have been pushed into it after crashing on the blind turn as they come around too fast. I can document at least 7 crashes of pictures I have taken of crashes in the street in the 30 yards of Nohl Ranch behind my house. Hearing the screeching brakes behind my house is a daily phenomenon. I have called in each of the crashes to 911, all of which required ambulances or tow trucks for the parties to leave the scene. So when the planner said "only a few" accidents were reported, I question the truthfulness or the unverified source of that data. They should check 911 calls, accident reports, and the HOA financial reports that are required to rebuild the block walls. The increased traffic -related issues will be exacerbated by the increase in foot traffic along Nohl Ranch and other nearby streets. I am assuming that patrons of the facility will be allowed outside of the building to go for walks. Increased Noise of Sirens: Inserting a 24 hour commercial care facility in this spot will increase the noise from emergency sirens every day and every night, for such things as falling and other medical emergencies that the facility will not be staffed to handle. I have one neighbor now that falls at home a lot due to a medical condition, and the sirens and noise that disrupt the neighborhood each and every month is significant. Now multiply that siren noise caused by one falling senior to 118 seniors, many with memory care issues who are even more likely to fall as they forget how to walk. There will be ambulance sirens and fire engine sirens at least 4 times a day, presuming just one fall per patient per month. This is too much. There will be additional accidents from the staff and deliveries turning into the facility from an already overly dangerous blind curve, and more sirens and injuries for that. I know you are probably very busy with many other issues to consider. But please remember that me, my family, and the thousands of residents in this area will be deeply negatively impacted by this project. There are alternative locations available, I'm sure, that won't sit nestled among blocks of single-family residences on a high -traffic street. Thank you for your continued service to Anaheim, and its residents. Please help find the middle road here for the project and the residents of Anaheim Hills. Please oppose this site for the Proposed Holden Project. Kindest regards, Scott Reece Public Comment From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Dear Council Members Tina Locklear Monday, July 19, 2021 7:33 PM Public Comment No to Holden Project - No on Holden Council Member letter.pdf Please see the attached which articulates my concerns over the Holden Project for you to consider. Thank you. Tina Locklear Anaheim, CA 92807 Tina Locklear Anaheim. CA. 92807 July 14, 2021 City of Anaheim City Council 200 South Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA. 92805 Dear City Council Member, Subject: HOLDEN PROJECT - 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim, CA. 92807 Siren noise and overwhelmed traffic load on Nohl Ranch have not been properly considered Again, I am contacting you regarding my extreme opposition to the proposed Holden project Development. Your vote on this matter is coming up. Please try to understand, me and my neighbors are not upset about the view, nor are we against senior living facilities or seniors. As a nearby resident of Anaheim, this particular largescale development would be disruptive with 24 hour noise issues from first responders. The effect of increasing traffic (which is already at an unsafe level) would be irresponsible and create unnecessary safety risks to my neighborhood. I live in Point Quissett, the development across the street from the proposed project. FIRE Evacuation Hazard - Nohl Ranch Road is a FIRE EVACUTION ROUTE. Not only will you bog up the already congested evacuation route of residents, you will syphon off first responders to help evacuate 118 + people that have no cars and no ability to get off the hill on their own. Fires are not an infrequent event to us. Every year since I have moved here (2006), there has been a fire nearby and I have had to pack and prepare for evacuation. I have evacuated twice. Weather conditions are worsening, and this is a real and growing threat. The beautiful trees of Anaheim Hills are also a fuel source for wind blown embers. This is a dangerous area for immobile people to be living. And it is unfair to trap residents on the hill because of being short sighted on this issue. This part of Nohl Ranch Road (at Royal Oak to Point Quissett entry on Andover) is already a danger. Already, Nohl Ranch Road is a danger to exit onto from Point Quissett at busy times of the day. It has become a speedway alternative to the 91 Freeway. Trying to turn west onto Nohl Ranch in the morning and evening, has become an anxiety inducing and often traumatizing event. The "suicide lane" that is a car length long is not enough of a safe harbor to protect oneself from the speeders zipping around the blind turns as you get halfway out into the road. When I attended the Planning commission meeting two months ago, when they were to vote on this project, one of the planners said that very few accidents had occurred on Nohl Ranch when this safety question was raised. That is an outrageous lie and made from an uninformed person. Do a certain number of deaths have to occur to be considered a lot? In the past 5 years, Point Quissett HOA has had to rebuild the Brick Monument out front twice because of crashes into it. My property owns the easement for this monument, so I have a bird's eye view of the injuries. There was a fatality behind my house when someone ran into a light pole and took it down. The brick wall across from me looks like a patchwork quilt from the number of times cars have been pushed into it after crashing on the blind turn as they come around too fast. I can document at least 7 crashes of pictures I have taken of crashes in the street in the 30 yards of Nohl Ranch behind my house. Hearing the screeching brakes behind my house is a daily phenomenon. I have called in each of the crashes to 911, all of which required ambulances or tow trucks for the parties to leave the scene. So when the planner said "only a few" accidents were reported, I question the truthfulness or the unverified source of that data. They should check 911 calls, accident reports, and the HOA financial reports that are required to rebuild the block walls. Increased Noise of Sirens: Inserting a 24 hour commercial care facility in this spot will increase the noise every day and every night, for the ordinary events of falling or medical conditions. I have one neighbor now that falls at home a lot due to a medical condition, and the sirens and noise that disrupt the neighborhood each and every month is significant. Now multiply that siren noise caused by one falling senior to 118 seniors, many with memory care issues who are even more likely to fall as they forget how to walk. There will be ambulance sirens and fire engine sirens at least 4 times a day, presuming just one fall per patient per month. This is too much. There will be additional accidents from the staff and deliveries turning into the facility from an already overly dangerous blind curve, and more sirens and injuries for that. Perfectly acceptable alternate is available: Thus project should be located off the hill in a better area. The old Kaiser land on Lakeview is a perfect site, with a park and hospital nearby to accommodate the needs of this senior housing community. A church wants to buy the land and continue to use it for the purpose that is presently has a variance for. I know you are probably very busy with many other issues to consider. But please remember that me, my family, and the thousands of residents in this area will be deeply negatively impacted by this project. There are easy alternate locations available for this project, so that Anaheim can still get the taxation revenue from this project: right down the hill on the Kaiser Lakeview lot, without impacting the safety and quiet enjoyment of so many residents. Thank you for your continued service to Anaheim, and its residents. Please help find the middle road here for the project and the residents of Anaheim Hills. Please oppose this site for the Proposed Holden Project. Kindest regards, Tina Locklear Public Comment From: Raj Stars Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 11:56 PM To: Public Comment Subject: HOLDEN PROJECT at 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim, CA 92807 Anaheim, CA 92807 July 19, 2021 City of Anaheim City Council 200 South Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA. 92805 Dear City Council Member, Subject: HOLDEN PROJECT 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim, CA 92807 I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Holden project Development. As a resident of Anaheim this particular largescale development would be detrimental to the safety of our community. I urge you to disapprove this project that will burden our community with High Density housing functioning as a commercial business within the current RH-3 zoning. The proposed location is inappropriate and not fitted for an operation of this sort. Countless residents share my deep concerns regarding the safety hazards that would arise should this project be approved. TRAFFIC- Nohl Ranch Road has become a busy freeway alternate in which vehicles exceeding the speed limit has become the norm. The intersection of Royal Oak and Nohl Ranch Road (The Proposed Project location) has a " no right turn on red' as its blind spot corner has proven to be hazardous with a history of accidents. The large scale of the Holden Project Building would further exasperate this problem. This project will significantly increase traffic with its frequency of emergency, transportation, delivery, staff, and visitation vehicles thus adding to the existing challenges. FIRE- Nohl Ranch Road is a FIRE EVACUTION ROUTE. Our community knows all too well the dangers of not being able to evacuate quickly and safely. Many of us were stuck in gridlock on Nohl Ranch Road, some in excess of two hours traveling only a short two miles. I shudder to think how we as a community could execute a safe and successful evacuation of our vulnerable elderly population residing within the High Density facility that Holden is proposing. LACK OF PARKING- Holden's proposed parking spaces are grossly under allocated. The lack of parking for staff, third party providers and visitors will put a strain on the surrounding neighborhoods. There is no parking on Nohl Ranch Road nor Royal Oak so over flow will be forced upon the residential streets. This lack of parking redirected to surrounding homes poses safety risks to neighborhood children and families. There are many other valid concerns, we as residents of this community have, however SAFETY is and should be the primary focus for all of us. Thank you for your continued service to our wonderful city and for your consideration in supporting the residents by keeping our communities safe. Please oppose the Proposed Holden Project. Best Regards, Babulal Aghera Labhuben Aghera Public Comment From: SAgherz Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 12:00 AM To: Public Comment Subject: HOLDEN PROJECT at 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim, CA 92807 July 19, 2021 Dear City of Anaheim City Council: 1, Subhash Aghera, am opposed to the planned Holden Project ("HOLDEN PROJECT") at 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road in Anaheim, California. Here are just a few of my reasons. First of all, this does not properly belong in our RH-3 zoned neighborhood. This is NOT a residence or residential use. It is a business. The current zoning allows for 4 houses per acre and that would be 12 houses on the property max! This is 118 units and way too dense for this low -density zoned area. But, let's say you still are inclined to approve this. Then you should actually look at the city laws on when a Conditional Use Permit may be employed. The bolding is my addition obviously. From Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 18.66 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: 18.66.060 FINDINGS. Before the approval authority, or Planning Commission and/or City Council on appeal, may approve a minor conditional use permit or a conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact, by resolution, that the evidence presented shows that all 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. (Ord. 5920 § 1 (part); June 8, 2004: Ord. 6432 § 38 (part); April 10, 2018.) 1 So, it does not meet the CUP requirements since it needs to meet ALL the above conditions. .020 alone is all that we need to defeat this and that is pretty obvious in that it ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE ADJOININiG LAND USES! So, I urge you to vote against this project rather than tie the city up in a lengthy and costly court battle that they will likely not win. A Sincerely concerned Voter, Resident and Taxpayer, Subhash Aghera Anaheim, CA 92807 Public Comment From: Atims Star Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 12:02 AM To: Public Comment Subject: HOLDEN PROJECT at 5275 East Noh) Ranch Road Anaheim, CA 92807 July 19, 2021 Dear City of Anaheim City Council: I, Smita Aghera, am opposed to the planned Holden Project ("HOLDEN PROJECT") at 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road in Anaheim, California. Here are just a few of my reasons. The additional noise and traffic such a facility will have on our sleepy residential neighborhood is a given. And to what benefit for us actually? None of us could afford a room at this luxury place. So, what is the benefit to the neighborhood? A church is a HUGE BENEFIT to a neighborhood. And if this developer would go away, the property could go back to being a church. The Orange Hills Assembly church is ready to purchase the property and wants to just occupy the beautiful campus. They need the parking that facility contains. No razing of the campus or 2 years of construction. A church provides lots of benefits to the community. They typically have food closets that help the homeless or low-income people with basic food. They have after school child care. They may have an actual school on campus as well. This is definitely a BEST USE for this property as it has been since 1977. Check your city records. Nowhere else in the city is a "Senior Living Facility (Large)" existing in an RH-3 zoned area. They are all in commercially zoned areas. And that is because that is where they belong! Put it nearby other medical and hospital -like facilities. That is where it belongs for the health and safety of its residents. Please listen to your voting residents that say this is the wrong location for this facility. I urge you to vote NO on this project! Cordially, Smita Aghera Anaheim, CA 92807 Public Comment From: Bailey Cook Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 9:05 AM To: Public Comment Subject: Holden Development Opposition Attachments: Holden opposition letter July 20, 2021.docx Please see my attached letter in opposition of the Holden Development. Bailey Cook MBA Bailey Cook Anaheim CA 92805 July 19, 2021 City of Anaheim City Council 200 South Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA. 92805 Dear City Council Member, Subject: HOLDEN PROJECT 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim, CA. 92807 I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Holden project Development. I do not believe that this development fits the site and it will negatively affect the neighborhood. I live within the 500 feet of the development site and would definitely speak at the meeting but I am unable to attend the July 201h City Council meeting. We purchased our house on Honeywood Lane because we loved the quiet neighborhood and privacy of our back yard. This location provided a warm escape from our cold Colorado winters. There are also two iconic huge palm trees that sit between our property and the church "development" property that have been very dear to our heart. We spent many hours recovering between chemo rounds watching and enjoying the variety of birds and squirrels that feast on the palm. The church development property lies directly behind and above our house. My wish is that I can continue to enjoy this house and backyard as it is today without a major unexpected change based on a corporate development. I have to admit that if this development is approved I will consider selling the house which makes me very sad! I accept that some change will occur to the neighboring property but it should adhere to the Anaheim Hills development criteria and not negatively affect the current residents. We purchased our property expecting the published restrictions to be in effect and do not believe that a large developer should be able to get exceptions to these published requirements. The two important restrictions that seem to be changed for this developer are: 1) The height restriction of 25 feet. That restriction should be from the current ground level! How does it make sense to say that you are sticking to a 25 feet maximum height then allowing terracing and a "walkout basement" to make the effective height 37' from the current ground elevation? This is in effect a 4 story building and it is nearly 100,000 square feet. At this height and the proximity to the steep slope behind the development property there will be no privacy in our backyard anymore. Holden residents will be sitting at their windows and looking directly into our backyard and living room. 2) Parking variance- Again it does not make any sense to waive an established parking space requirement by nearly 50%. Parking studies done during the Covid restrictions are inaccurate and far underestimate the actual number of visitors and staff that would need parking. The parking needs for employees, third party caregivers, family, resident transport, and support staff will far exceed the provided parking of 52 spots. Why would the city allow this overage to flow into neighboring streets and cause safety and neighbor issues? This particular largescale development would be detrimental to the comfort and safety of our community. It is just too large for this site! I urge you to disapprove this project that will burden our community with High Density housing functioning as a commercial business within the current RH-3 zoning. The proposed location is inappropriate and not fitted for an operation of this sort. Countless residents share my deep concerns regarding the safety hazards that would arise should this project be approved. TRAFFIC -This project will significantly increase traffic with its frequency of emergency, transportation, delivery, staff, and visitation vehicles thus adding to the existing challenges. FIRE- Nohl Ranch Road is a FIRE EVACUTION ROUTE. Our community knows all too well the dangers of not being able to evacuate quickly and safely. Many of us were stuck in gridlock on Nohl Ranch Road, some in excess of two hours traveling only a short two miles. I shudder to think how we as a community could execute a safe and successful evacuation of our vulnerable elderly population residing within the High Density facility that Holden is proposing. There are many other valid concerns, we as residents of this community have, however SAFETY is and should be the primary focus for all of us. Thank you for your continued service to the city of Anaheim and for your consideration in supporting the residents by keeping our communities safe. Please oppose the Proposed Holden Project, it just doesn't fit. Please feel free to contact me for any questions or further discussion. Again I am sorry that I cannot attend the upcoming city council meeting. Sincerely, Bailey Cook MBA Public Comment From: Rick Pollgreen Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 11:08 AM To: Public Comment Subject: For Appeal of DEV2019-00172 Attachments: petition_signatures.pdf, NoToHolden-SignaturesReal[original].PDF Hello, please see attached. I have my Appellant speech attached. Along with our collection of 764 signatures from the surrounding neighbors all in OPPOSITION to this project. We have 403 electronic signatures as well as 361 door-to-door handwritten ones. See you tonight! Thanks, Rick Pollgreen Name City State Postal Cod(Country Signed On Reza Mirbeik II Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 Zahra Azadbadi Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 Rick Pollgreen Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 Annette Nagy Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 Bridgette Ruiz Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 William Suvoy Anaheim CA 92807 US 5129/2021 Manuel Dominguez Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 Amy Norin Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 Oscar E. Henriquez Anaheim CA 92807 US 5J29/2021 Brian Folkman Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 Sandra Blanco -Fisher Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 Danielle Gregorio Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 Martin Blanco Anaheim CA 92807 US 5J29/2021 Sandra Blanco Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 Joe A. Rodriguez Anaheim CA 92807 US 5129/2021 Sherry Brooks Anaheim CA 92807 US 5J29/2021 Karen Krolosky Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 Maureen Peltzer Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 Shayne Smith Anaheim CA 92802 US 5/29/2021 Axiom Cutler Anaheim CA 92807 US 5J29/2021 Edward Rutherford Anaheim CA 92807 US SJ29/2021 BhRti Shah Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 Warner Woo Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 Eden Lessley Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 Eldean Orozco Anaheim CA 92807 US SJ29/2021 Melissa kimball Anaheim CA 92808 US 5/29/2021 Joseph Giangrande Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 Christina Mooney Anaheim CA 92807 US 5J29/2021 MaryAnn Tilhof Anaheim CA 92808 US 5/29/2021 Robyn Logan Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 Subhash Aghera Anaheim CA 92807 US 5129/2021 Shannon Page Cutler Anaheim CA 92807 US 5J29/2021 Minaxi Patel Patel Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 BHIKHU Patel Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 Amy Gold Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 Ben Gold Anaheim CA 92807 US 5J29/2021 Amanda Fraser Orange CA 92869 US SJ29/2021 Stacy Turner Orange CA 92865 US 5129/2021 Bhartishah Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Jon Lovette Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Mary Paul Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Sarah Smathers Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Alexandra Guzik Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Scott Reece Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Tina Locklear Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Nathan Stein Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Ronald Dumesnil Anaheim CA 92805 US 5/30/2021 Darren Kelso Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Kalee Lund Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Amin Nazarinia Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Ron Vesely Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Stephanie Schweitzer Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Ramona Adamson Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Jeff Partridge Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Shelly Cheng Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Tiffany Ng Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Jose Tostado Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Megan Morales Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Michael Yolton Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Sylvia Ota Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Jill Cook Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 SanazAzadbadi Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Brian Paul Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Irvin Clayton Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Dylan Reed Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Rhett Vieth Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Michele Miller Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Robert Miller Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Daniel Topete Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Megan Kishi Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 LINDA CLARK Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Lisa Budds Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Nancy Halas Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Mitch Tamez Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Julia Humphrey Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Peter Wu Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Bridgette Ruiz Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Maral Tatarian Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Kimberly Flint Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Niel Patel Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/30/2021 Nana Azin Irvine CA 92612 US 5/30/2021 Leila Hale Los Angeles CA 90014 US 5/30/2021 Mina Toubak Orange CA 92865 US 5/30/2021 Melika Noori Orange CA 92865 US 5/30/2021 SEYEDHOMAYOON Noori Orange CA 92865 US 5/30/2021 Maryann Hall Orange CA 92865 US 5/30/2021 Bailey Cook Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 Neal Johnson Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 FRANCES LOPEZ Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 Glenda Cordrey Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 Omid Pezeshkfar Anaheim CA 95807 US SJ31/2021 CATHY ROUSE Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 Deborah Scott Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 Maryam Balouch Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 Sharon Ingle Anaheim CA 92808 US 5/31/2021 Allison Merino Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 Jake Johnson Anaheim CA 92806 US 5/31/2021 Dino Koukladas Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 Manuel Ureno Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 Tony Cheng Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 Steven Bennett Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 June Glenn Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 Heather Bradford Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 Sharon Pi Anaheim CA 92808 US 5/31/2021 Makoto Nagata Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 Kristen Bright Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 Rita Powers Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 Kelly Juell Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 Grace Juell Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 Leyli Nashiba Anaheim CA 99807 US 5/31/2.021 Todd Moeller Anaheim CA 92808 US 5/31/2021 Nancy Moeller Anaheim CA 92808 US 5/31/2021 Christine Ney Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 John Seymour Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 Susan Sloan Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 Ian Sloan Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 Negar Dolatabadi Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 Ghazal Mihammadi Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 Saeed Mohammadi Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 Nahid Fardi Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 collin Wolff chico CA 95988 US 5/31/2021 Pota Grammas Corona CA 92879 US 5/31/2021 maryam Kia Los Angeles CA 90036 US 5/31/2021 kris Juhl Mckinleyville CA 95519 US 5/31/2021 Cypress MacNamara Monterey 93940 US 5/31/2021 Linda Hatcher Orange CA 92865 US 5/31/2021 Lori Madsen Orange CA 92869 US 5/31/2021 Cole Stevens Orange CA 92865 US 5/31/2021 Maria Gomez Orange CA 92869 US 5/31/2021 Thomas Kelleher Orange CA 92865 US 5/31/2021 P P Placentia CA 92870 US 5/31/2021 JUSTIN HOLMBERG Yorba Linda CA 92886 US 5/31/2021 Sophie Marshall -Holmberg Yorba Linda CA 92886 US 5/31/2021 Richard Juell Jr. Yorba Linda CA 92886 US 5/31/2021 Nagata Junco Anaheim CA 92808 US 6/1/2021 Babak Agahi Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/1/2021 clifFord hard Anaheim CA 92808 US 6/1/2021 Kimberly Para Anaheim CA 92808 US 6/1/2021 Jim Para Anaheim CA 92808 US 6/1/2021 Lindsey Jessup Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/1/2021 Anh Vu Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/1/2021 Georgia Price Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/1/2021 Andrea Yamasaki Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/1/2021 emmie nagata anaheim CA 92807 US 6/1/2021 Nick Weinrauch Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/1/2021 Larry Larsen Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/1/2021 Greg Schlarbaum Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/1/2021 Amy Netzky Anaheim CA 92808 US 6/1/2021 Stephanie Ba❑ Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/1/2021 Kirsten Almario Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/1/2021 Sean Bailey Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/1/2021 Jessica Boatman Anaheim CA 92808 US 6/1/2021 yousreya khalil Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/1/2021 Mohammad Haghpanah Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/1/2021 Karina Fawzy Anaheim CA 92808 US 6/1/2021 Kristin Wagstaff Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/1/2021 Chance Sloan Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/1/2021 Pamela Lavine Antelope 95843 US 6/1/2021 Evro Panos Orange CA 92869 US 6/1/2021 Jane Schonfeld Orange CA 92867 US 6/1/2021 Jill Jones Placentia CA 92870 US 6/1/2021 Erika Simons San jose 95136 US 6/1/2021 Huy Vu Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/2/2021 Michelle MacDonald Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/2/2021 Ruben Rodarte Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/2/2021 Heidi Heffington Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/2/2021 BJ Shim Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/2/2021 Brenda Bianchino Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/2/2021 Michael Mooney Anaheim CA 90807 US 6/2/2021 Nyla Bell Jacksonville 28546 US 6/2/2021 Sky Rojo Los Angeles CA 90006 US 6/2/2021 Judith Mejia Placentia CA 92870 US 6/2/2021 John De Lucia Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/3/2021 Brent Wagstaff Anaheim CA 92805 US 6/3/2021 Mark Gabbe Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/3/2021 Holly Frye Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/3/2021 Marion Candia Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/3/2021 Kendezzy P Anaheim 92804 US 6/3/2021 Lynette Lam Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/3/2021 Jennifer Paino Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/3/2021 Isabella Lopez Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/3/2021 Sharon Tochilin Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/3/2021 Susie Ear Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/3/2021 SANJAY YADAV Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/3/2021 James Lancaster Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/3/2021 Roger Kim Anaheim CA 92907 US 6/3/2021 Steve Lopez Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/3/2021 Linda Nino Anaheim CA 92867 US 6/3/2021 Craig Brand Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/3/2021 Serena Lopez Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/3/2021 Nathaniel Grenier Anaheim CA us 6/3/2021 April Lanteri Corona CA 92882 US 6/3/2021 Cathy Dayton Maywood CA 90270 US 6/3/2021 Bernadette Suraweera Rancho Santa Margarita 92688 US 6/3/2021 lisa fritz Santa Barbara CA 93101 US 6/3/2021 David Nino Yorba Linda CA 92886 US 6/3/2021 Roxana Solonar Anaheim CA 92345 US 6/4/2021 Bandaly Azzam Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/4/2021 Julie Elizondo Anaheim CA 92805 US 6/4/2021 Stephanie Lopez Anaheim CA 92808 US 6/4/2021 Ken Leighton Anaheim CA 92808 US 6/4/2021 George Tejadilla Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/4/2021 Tim Day Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/4/2021 Susan Tsai Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/4/2021 Michelle Nunez Anaheim CA 92808 US 6/4/2021 wendy leivan Anaheim CA 92808 US 6/4/2021 Sandra Day Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/4/2021 gandhi haddadin anaheim CA 92807 US 6/4/2021 ross Kasravi Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/4/2021 GYONGYI ZELLER Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/4/2021 Liping Yang Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/4/2021 Kandace Quintero Bakersfield 93313 US 6/4/2021 Nicholas Rosenthal Costa Mesa CA 92627 US 6/4/2021 Natalie Reschke Costa Mesa 92626 US 6/4/2021 Maria Roman Garden Grove 92843 US 6/4/2021 Jonathan Ochoa Los Angeles 90012 US 6/4/2021 Sarah Dos Santos Los Angeles 90036 US 6/4/2021 joan Claire rich nape 94559 US 6/4/2021 Jignesh Patel Orange CA 92865 US 6/4/2021 Shaheen Ghori Palo Alto 94303 US 6/4/2021 Heather Derlin Santa Ana CA 92703 US 6/4/2021 Kiyomi Webb Walnut Creek 94598 US 6/4/2021 Sue Hoyer West Hills 91304 US 6/4/2021 Amelia Azzam Yorba Linda CA 92886 US 6/4/2021 Debi ❑hman Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/5/2021 Shirley Cooksey Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/5/2021 Jerry Cooksey Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/5/2021 Porcelain Ogle Anaheim 92807 US 6/5/2021 Clifford Bulloch Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/5/2021 Shaina Strait Anaheim CA us 6/5/2021 Flora Ortega Bakersfield CA 93313 US 6/5/2021 Duoli thou Camarillo 93012 US 6/5/2021 Mohamed Sarwar Dublin 94568 US 6/5/2021 Valerie Vasquez Fontana 92336 US 6/5/2021 Karen Ayala Fontana 92336 US 6/5/2021 Estrella Garcia Lopez Fullerton 92831 US 6/5/2021 dedera Jackson Hemet CA 92543 US 6/5/2021 Iris Rivera Seaside 93955 US 6/5/2021 Robert Gross Yucca Valley 92284 US 6/5/2021 Bryan Bergeron Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/6/2021 Cynthia Gonzales Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/6/2021 Shaun T Anaheim CA 92804 US 6/6/2021 Anand Palasamudram Anaheim 92808 US 6/6/2021 Priya Yadav Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/6/2021 Gabriela Gonzalez Los Angeles CA 90001 us 6/6/2021 wary ann neilsen santa barbara 93101-164• US 6/6/2021 Ziad Naime Seal Beach 90740 US 6/6/2021 eric wong Anaheim CA 92808 US 6/7/2021 Mark Glenn Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/7/2021 Russell Jenkin Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/7/2021 Victor Nunez Anaheim CA 92808 US 6/7/2021 Robert Gomez Whittier 90604 US 6/7/2021 Greg Harwell Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/8/2021 eric lin Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/8/2021 Silvia Adrianzen San Diego CA 92104 US 6/8/2021 Richard Wolfinger Yorba Linda CA 92886 US 6/8/2021 Barbara Mouness Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/9/2021 Betsy Kasten Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/10/2021 Jordan Haddadin Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/10/2021 Steven Tang Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/10/2021 Bryan Galaz Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/10/2021 Jacob Osier Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/10/2021 Salomon Maya Corona CA 92879 US 6110/2021 Lawrence Haddadin Orange CA 92865 US 6/10/2021 Jennie Lynn Johanson Orange CA 92867 US 6/10/2021 Don Leedy Anaheim CA 92807 US 6111/2021 Sheila Valdivia Anaheim CA 92808 US 6111/2021 CAROL NEWHART99 Anaheim CA 92808 US 6/11/2021 Beverly Bell Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/11/2021 arlene ferguson Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/11/2021 Dennis Hoppe Anaheim CA 92808 US 6f11/2021 Melissa Vega Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/11/2021 Anne Kridle Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/11/2021 Karin DeVore Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/11/2021 Patricia Jarrell Orange CA 92867 US 6/11/2021 Nancy Wilson Orange CA 92867 US 6/11/2021 Diana Feilteau Orange CA 92807 US 6/11/2021 Cindy Graves Orange CA 92866 US 6/11/2021 Jennifer Laguba Sun Valley CA 91352 US 6111/2021 Perry Gx Tustin 92780 US 6/11/2021 Bruce Radloff Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/12/2021 Deborah Diliberto Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/12/2021 tammy witke Anaheim CA 92808 US 6/12/2021 Kathy Lam Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/12/2021 John Edwards Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/12/2021 Theresa Cademartori Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/12/2021 Steven Hulen Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/12/2021 Lorrene Hulen Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/12/2021 Noreen Francis Anaheim CA 92808 US 6/12/2021 Shelly Pyle Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/12/2021 Gay Fontanesi Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/12/2021 Jeannine Falcon Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/12/2021 Tsuchiya Kay Corona CA 92880 US 6/12/2021 Megan Hulen Los Angeles CA 90037 US 6/12/2021 Rick Breuer Orange CA 92869 US 6/12/2021 Kosta Mallakis Orange CA 92867 US 6/12/2021 Kenneth Namekawa Orange CA 92867 US 6/12/2021 Stacy Lee Orange CA 92869 US 6112/2021 Mary Greene Orange CA 92869 US 6/12/2021 kim plehn Orange CA 92867 US 6/12/2021 Rick Cutler Orange CA 92869 US 6/12/2021 Julie Brown Orange CA 92867 US 6J12/2021 Laurence Hamlin Orange CA 92869 US 6/12/2021 Mathew Astengo Placentia CA 92870 US 6/12/2021 Jane Reinhardt Placentia CA 92870 US 6/12/2021 Vicki Spletter Yorba Linda CA 92886 US 6/12/2021 2ahra Romero Yorba Linda CA 92886 US 6/12/2021 Myrna Allen Yorba Linda CA 92886 US 6/12/2021 Mariko Nakama Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/13/2021 Shannon McChurch Anaheim CA 92808 US 6/13/2021 Misty Burns Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/13/2021 Damien Garcia Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/13/2021 Haley Mast Orange 92869 US 6/13/2021 Kyle Prichard Anaheim CA 92867 US 6/14/2021 Joan Rietkerk Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/14/2021 Laural Lyon Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/14/2021 Vanessa Bates Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/14/2021 Rhonda Beecher Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/14/2021 Max Schiappacasse Folsom 95630 US 6/14/2021 NAVEEN SAXENA Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/15/2021 emily juell Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/15/2021 Chelsie Cortes Commerce 90022 US 6/1S/2021 Ginny Weasley Los Angeles CA 90009 US 6/15/2021 Jeffrey Nguyen Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/16/2021 Gina Grammas Anaheim CA 92808 US 6/16/2021 Jim Grammas Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/16/2021 Farhad Saghatchi Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/16/2021 Sandra S Collier Anaheim CA 92807-503: US 6/16/2021 Chris Lundin Fullerton CA 92832 US 6/16/2021 Ashley Peniche Montenegro Yorba Linda CA 92886 US 6/16/2021 Danielle Gorsha Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/17/2021 Fernando Espino Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/17/2021 Rouhina Mehregan Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/17/2021 Brian Fisher Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/18/2021 Andrew Saca Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/19/2021 Kashyap Deliwala Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/19/2021 erikafuerbach Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/19/2021 John Grammas Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/20/2021 Jonel Yalung Anaheim 92807 US 6/20/2021 Amy Dukes Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/20/2021 Hemali Long Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/21/2021 Felipe Rivera Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/22/2021 Robert Feist Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/22/2021 Michele Miller Mukilteo 98275 US 6/22/2021 Hanna Anderson Victorville 92395 US 6/22/2021 Carol Davis Orange CA 92867 US 6/24/2021 Alexander Valentine Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/26/2021 Susan Valentine Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/26/2021 William Leming Anaheim CA us 6/26/2021 Judith Frey Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/27/2021 Paul Derlin Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/27/2021 Susanna Riley -Graham Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/28/2021 Martha Mandas Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/30/2021 Carole Nunes Anaheim CA 92807 US 7/1/2021 James Clinger Yorba Linda CA 92887 US 7/2/2021 Michael J. McRoberts Anaheim CA 92807 US 7/3/2021 Kristin McRoberts Anaheim CA 92807 US 7/3/2021 Aaron Bernat Los Angeles CA 90032 US 7/3/2021 Dayton & Emma candice Seattle 98105 us 7/3/2021 LaTanisha de Leon Anaheim CA 92807 US 7/4/2021 Jason Hui El Cerrito 94530 US 7/4/2021 Christina Chow San Francisco 94114 US 7/4/2021 Ava Berg Anaheim CA 92807-372: US 7/5/2021 Fyle Cabagnot Anaheim CA 92807 US 7/5/2021 Kim Najera Norwalk CA 90650 US 7/5/2021 ray law Anaheim CA 92807 US 7/6/2021 Isabelle Krenz Anaheim CA 92805 US 7/6/2021 misty matt Anaheim CA 92807 US 7/6/2021 James Matz Anaheim CA 92807 US 7/6/2021 Hannah Cabagnot Anaheim CA 92807 US 7/6/2021 Mark Jorgensen Anaheim CA 92808 US 7/6/2021 Christy Frazelle Anaheim CA 92807 US 7/6/2021 Lemlem Aregawi Tibebu Buellton 93427 US 7/6/2021 Anh Le Stanton 90680 US 7/6/2021 Tom Bonnstetter Anaheim CA 92807 US 7/7/2021 Debbie Bonnstetter Anaheim CA 92807 US 7/7/2021 Rick Farano Anaheim CA 92807 US 7/7/2021 Ruby Demitros Seattle 98144 US 7/7/2021 Robert Meehan Anaheim CA 92807 US 7/8/2021 Chris Weber Anaheim CA 92807 US 7/9/2021 Gloria Ressler Anaheim CA 92807 US 7/9/2021 Felicia Jones Clovis 93611 US 7/9/2021 Steven Salas Los Angeles 90028 US 7/9/2021 Charmaine Meyer Rancho Cucamonga 91730 US 7/9/2021 Francois Blackwell San Diego 92114 US 7/9/2021 Noemi Bautista Santa Ana 92704 US 7/9/2021 Jolene Vasquez Anaheim CA 92807 US 7/10/2021 Sarah Hughes Anaheim CA 92807 US 7/10/2021 Charles Hughes Anaheim CA 92807 US 7/10/2021 Rosie Zabalza Anaheim CA 92807 US 7/10/2021 Elizabeth Lozano Orange CA 92807 US 7/12/2021 R. Wayne Fisher Anaheim CA 92807 US 7/14/2021 BRENDA TAPLEY anaheim CA 92807 US 7/14/2021 Alyssa Tapley Anaheim CA 92807 US 7/14/2021 Marc Tapley Anaheim CA 92807 US 7/14/2021 Martin Alvarado Anaheim CA 92807 US 7f 14/2021 Donneen McCormick Anaheim CA 92807 US 7/14/2021 William Chiang Anaheim CA 92804 US 7/15/2021 Mark Jansky Orange CA 92867 US 7/15/2021 Alice Chen Anaheim CA 92807 US 7/18/2021 Timothy Lynch Anaheim CA 92807 US 7/18/2021 Emily Jenkin Anaheim CA 92808 US 7/18/2021 Neal Weber Anaheim CA 92807 US 7/19/2021 I Rl I 1�7 52 2 I c I rti SO, k4 At, 00 Eli IKD Qn OR 91 III No A i rAQ oll CL CD 0 0 00 ri. MY Im 19 IN 0 z CA I NO -7J 9 I M 0 Ise? G4 le 4�- CL cn Z z I 6ww OQ n 1 10 I 0 a MAT 2 SO W C) tllj C) 6 im OR a I C) C) z > CL rD LA 0 0 z 0 r+ c C) 14 CD M CD rid C) CD m r �' 1 I I I 0 ,Ifk, ""l- t C-11 C4 I rim a I I I ml, im mom M I 91, 5 a I CL cl-I DC t7rl 171 z 4", 00 tir I I n rQ C) tQ Im I a P-4) tIJ fWL I ®R I A it I I I CD w CD 0 z tTl t7j rQ m Mv a I I t") I Public Comment From: Rick Pollgreen Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 11:10 AM To: Public Comment Subject: Re: For Appeal of DEV2019-00172 Attachments: My-appeal-speech.docx Oops! my speech did not attach! Try again. Here is my speech now! 0 Rick From: Rick Pollgreen Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 11:07 AM To: publiccomment@anaheim.net <publiccomment@anaheim.net> Subject: For Appeal of DEV2019-00172 Hello, please see attached. I have my Appellant speech attached. Along with our collection of 764 signatures from the surrounding neighbors all in OPPOSITION to this project. We have 403 electronic signatures as well as 361 door-to-door handwritten ones. See you tonight! Thanks, Rick Pollgreen 1 Good evening Mr. Mayor and City council members. My name is Rick Pollgreen and I am here to appeal the Planning Commission's decision of May 24, 2021 to approve Item 5 on that agenda. That item ►eras titled "CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 2020-05144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019- 00172) °= I first want to thank each of you for your service to our city. It must be such a thankless job at times, and one that not many are willing to take on personally. I am glad to see the "In God We Trust" words on the seal at the front of the chamber. I sure hope you will make a decision tonight that you really feel is right and just. Possibly, not the easy decision, but the one that is honorable and represents what your voters and residents want and not what some speculator, Alliance, wants. I sure hope that each of you read the May 24 Planning Commission (PC) minutes or listened to the audio records. I think you would be amazed at the detailed complaints that were raised by the 35 residents that spoke against the project. And hopefully, some of their concerns might concern you as well. They did not seem to be listened to by the Planning Commission except for Steve White and ❑ave Vadodaria. This was deeply troubling for those of us at the meeting. We had thought that the Planning Commission would actually listen to us and consider our objections as having some value. But to be dismissed out of hand, as we were, was pretty disheartening to watch. I know I have been warned that talking about loss of view and privacy will only alienate the council since apparently, they do not have these things. And they think those things are not protected or guaranteed. Even though the City of Anaheim`s General Plan for this area is to "Encourage the preservation of scenic vistas and views through Green Element Policies and Zoning Code development standards." But let me tell you my story and maybe you could be sympathetic to it, at least. In 2016, my wife, Sandy and I, purchased this house in Anaheim Hills. We bought it because it was close to our 7 grandkids, and it is a single -story house. I did not want to do stairs anymore since I had both knees replaced. Well, as you are aware in real estate, location, location, location is the mantra! And it is also the driving force in pricing obviously. So, we paid a premium price for this house that has expansive wide-open views to the East as it overlooks the church parking lot. But, besides this view, we have peace and quiet. We have owls, peregrine falcons, hawks and parrots that routinely land in the trees in the church parking lot, all which will be cut down to make room for this huge building. We spent over a year completely renovating and remodeling this property, inside and out. We literally redid everything! We spent a large chunk of our lifetime savings to buy and renovate this house, expecting it to be our forever home. But now, we discuss daily being forced to sell and get out of here because of this project! It is a travesty. So, I am sure, the developer is saying "it is only 12 houses who are really impacted, so what is the big deal?" Well, put yourselves in our shoes. If you were one of those 12, 1 think you would care. And I think you would be fighting this project as we have been. Already, one of those 12 neighbors chose to sell and move out as they could not imagine living with this; both the monstrosity„ after it is built, and the 20 months of construction that would occur to build it. As I have been laser focused on OPPOSING this project, I have not had time to worry about Page 1 of 8 this 20-month construction plan. Can you imagine the DIRT, NOISE, DIRT and NOISE that this project will impose onto the houses immediately surrounding the property? From 7.00 am until 7:00 pm possibly 7 days a week, FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS! And then just imagine the DIRT AND NOISE again! For 20 LONG MONTHS! And especially due to the strong winds in this area as well. It is tough to envision that scenario and I sure hope it never comes to reality! Let me say up front that I think you all are missing the biggest key with this project. There were 2 churches that bid on this property. They made full -priced offers and more. But they got outbid by this MONSTER COMPANY Alliance! Now, if either of these churches were to have bought the property, they are just ready to occupy it as -is! They love the campus and need it desperately. Sure, they might do some interior remodeling, but the basic footprint and buildings would remain the same. No need to raze them all and start over like this speculator Alliance is doing. Pastor Brian from Orange Hills Assembly will be speaking later on about this. Please listen to what he has to say. For the speculator Alliance to say they have "community involvement" or "support" or whatever words they used in the commission meeting is a huge misrepresentation and outright lie! They claimed "Overall, the community response to Holden Anaheim Hills has been in the majority, positive." That is just plain BULLSHIT! Just because they handed out flyers to 6 houses and then setup a website and email address, that means nothing really. They ABSOLUTELY HAVE NO NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT! Every neighbor is OPPOSED! They were supposed to notify ALL RESIDENTS WITHIN 300 feet of the property and that would include those on Honeywood (both sides) and Rural Ridge, Westridge neighborhoods„ North and South. The fact that they only notified the 6 owners on the West side of the project shows you that they were deceptive from the start with the residents. And this should give you an indication of the people you are dealing with here. I have emailed and spoken on the phone with Zeshaan Younus since December 2019 on this project. I thought he was listening and working with me, but in the end, he was deceptive and inflexible. I also thought I was speaking with the developer as that is who he claimed to be.. When in fact, he works for the big and powerful lobbyist firm Curt Pringle and Associates. Evidently, I have been duped. Every step of the way I fought with him on the size and height of the project. He told me many times that it would be 25 feet above THE CURRENT GRADE behind my backyard! Well, that is just not true! They are starting at the south end on the highest point on that lot, and then they are making it 25 feet tall there. The property slopes about 7-12 feet down going north and so they intend on backfilling that to maintain that same height. Therefore, at the north end of the building, the height will be more like 32-37 feet ABOVE THE CURRENT GRADE! And the city Planning department says THIS IS FINE! Ridiculous! I asked him about possibly excavating down a bit to lower the pad elevation at the South end, which would then reduce the overall height and he told me the city would not allow that. I Page 2 of 8 then contacted the city and got an email back from Scott stating that is just not true. They are able to excavate it if they want. It just comes down to the cost of doing that. And they apparently did not want to spend the money for that. Let's start with the most obvious mistake being mane here. This property is zoned RH-3! That means low density residential. It means 10,000 sq foot minimum lots. 4 single family residences per acre. And at almost 3 acres, that means 12 houses can go there! But no apartments, no condos, and certainly NO BIG BUSINESSES can go there! 118 beds are not low -density housing! If you want to attempt to put such a project there, then I just ask that you follow the rules! Don't try to slide this in under a CUP. That is just fraudulent, illegal and purposefully deceptive. Ask for a re -zone of the property. At least if they did that, it would not be deceitful and shady as it is today. With a re -zoning a bunch of reports and studies would need to be done. Lots of Meetings and reviews. A costly Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required. This will be fought in court if the city continues to ignore the zoning laws that were put in place to protect all of us! And we are confident that the court will be on our side. Now let's talk about the CUP itself. Here is some data from the Anaheim Municipal Code on when a CUP is allowed. I will not read it all, but provide it to you instead. Hand them the cards! Section .020 alone is all that we need to defeat this and that is pretty obvious in that it ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE ADJOINING LAND USES! So, it does not meet the requirements since it needs to meet ALL the above conditions. This project is also not consistent with the Anaheim General Plan nor the RH-3 applicable zoning designation. The property is less than five acres, but is surrounded by suburban uses, not urban uses. The trees on the property provide habitats for owls, rare peregrine falcons and other birds. There will be significant negative effects related to privacy, traffic, noise and air quality. The City of Anaheim's "General Plan — Land Use" has designated the area that includes the site at issue as being one of low density. This designation includes a maximum of 6.5 dwelling units per acre, which the surrounding area is well below. The HOLDEN PROJECT seeks to place 118 units on 2.99 acres. That is the equivalent of 39.5 dwellings per acre! The HOLDEN PROJECT does not conform to the low -density area and is woefully out of place in this area of our city. Privacy: The privacy of the surrounding neighbors should be protected. The height of the HOLDEN PROTECT is staggering. It is a two-story project that will be 37 feet high in the northeast portion of the project. Individuals will be able to loop out the windows into the neighboring swimming ;pools and backyards. Do we really want our children and grandchildren playing in their bathing suits while people are spying down on them? And understand that whether they are watching or not, we, the neighbors, have no way of knowing Page 3 of 8 and so it is just creepy. The original design and methodology by the city planners would NOT have allowed this! Traffic:. I find the traffic study laughable. The current Mormon church met once a week on Sunday mornings. So, their impact on traffic was pretty small. Almost nil, if you will. Yet, the traffic study claims "that the existing/entitled church use is forecast to generate 120 daily trips...". So, this alone should make you question the validity of the traffic study in total! So, since that is just flat out wrong, let's just focus on is how many ADDED TRIPS this new project will add. If I can believe the study, they claim that this project will add 330 trips per day. I think that 330 TRIPS PER DAY is pretty significant! So, l would claim the exact opposite of their study! The proposed Project will significantly impact the surrounding transportation system! Light Pollution: Zeshaan said that the lighting on the new project would be very similar to what is there today! Well, that is a lie! If you look at the proposed lighting plan attached, you will see it is WAY MORE LIGHTING! And then the building lighting is even added onto this. This will disrupt the dark skies and solitude the current residents now enjoy! �G±%=+E CCtiCEA" a � � a t �= i' EfCnTTf.4 n.�ix sEEr eurw.wrxm�ae raas:;� Parking issue. I find it funny that the developer would use the other nearby facilities as a rationale for why they should be able to get a variance for about 50% less parking than the city requires. But what I find even funnier is that the city would actually approve this variance request. If you ask almost anyone familiar with those other nearby facilities that were granted similar parking variances, they will tell you it has been a disaster. At Meridian, the nearby medical facility was forced to put up gates on its lot to keep the Meridian spillover parking Page 4 of 8 from filling its lot! And the other sites referenced have large commercial parking spaces fairly close -by that their visitors regularly use. Now that we know those parking studies are bogus, why approve another variance based upon one? This one is way worse since there are no nearby facilities to spillover onto. There are just 3 residential streets that are the most obvious places these people will resort to when not enough parking is on -site. Once again, we the residents are the ones paying the price for poor controls at the city level. If you approve this project, we will have to live with this decision of yours for years to come, not you! This is just not fair. I doubt you would do that to your own neighborhood wherever it is located. I request you to not approve their variance and require more parking spaces on the project! Now let's talk about MONEY! The city claims that money is not in the decision -making process here! I beg to differ. A city finance clerk, who will remain anonymous, was all over the social media app Next Door acting as if he was a supporter for this project. He never disclosed he worked for the city and therefore had lots to gain from this. But he did make it clear the city finances are in a poor state due to COVID and that this project would bring many dollars to the city coffers! So, you really want me to believe you are looking out for me and my neighbors? It sure doesn't seem like it from my vantage. I understand a church provides NO REVENUE to the city due to its tax-exempt status. And I can do simple math too. 118 'beds times $8000 per month is $944,000 per month in income. So, I can assume the city would be getting a fair amount of money if this project were to be approved and built. So, I sure hope that this data is not being taken into account when you vote as I was told by the city. Now, I implore you to listen to my fellow neighbors who follow me tonight with requests of you to OPPOSE this project. This is NOT a case of "Not In My BackYard (NIMBY)" as I hear it get called. A large majority of the nearby community is opposed to it! We have over 800 local residents[VOTERS in our OPPOSITION group. And for many good and valid reasons. I just ask you listen to them before you make up your minds, please. Thank you! Page 5 of 8 REBUTTAL 10 minutes! - Just wing it? Add in anything I think of during hearing At this time, I would like to address each of you on the council individually. Mr. Mayor: I am sorry sir that you were unable to come walk the site with us as you live literally just down the street. I think that by seeing the enormity of this project and what it will do to the neighborhood you would be inclined to vote against it. So, perhaps that is why you would not meet us there. As this project is of NO BENEFIT to the current residents, I see no point in approving it. It will only negatively impact ALL of the surrounding neighbors lives forevermore. I urge you to grant our appeal and deny the HOLDEN PROJECT. Trevor O'Neill (District 6): You met with us on site. And you facilitated a meeting between the developers and us as well. And I thank you for that. I sure hope you remember that you are our District 6 representative. If we can't trust you to fight for our rights, then who can we look to? You should set the bar for being forthright and honest and vote NO on this project. By doing so, that would show your fellow councilmen that you are serious and they then should follow suit. I am pretty certain you would care about this project if it was proposed in your backyard! Can you imagine that? Really? I am asking you to grant our appeal and deny the HOLDEN PROJECT. Jose Diaz (District 1): We really appreciated your taking a meeting with us and then with coming out to the site to see it first-hand. On a Sunday, the 411 of July, no less! Thank You! Hopefully, that gave you an appreciation for how out of character this project is with the neighborhood. I urge you to vote NO on this project. Jose Moreno (District 3): You came out to the site and met with us. And then came back again. And then came back with the developer as well. And we really appreciate that. Surely you see how wrong this project is for this location. Forget about the safety and parking and traffic issues. It is NOT ZONED PROPERLY for this project. At least do us the courtesy of working within the system and not allow the speculator to try and backdoor this project with a CUP. If a re -zoning was requested, as it should by law, then there would be much more scrutiny and visibility into what is being done behind closed doors here. I urge you to grant our appeal and deny the HOLDEN PROJECT. Avelino Valencia (District 4). You met with us and we appreciate that. Before you were elected to your seat, you told a reporter from Anaheim Exclusivo what your main priority would be. "I would like the residents of Anaheim to know that I am dedicating the next four years of my life to improving the quality of life for our residents," you said. "I will be selfless in those endeavors; I will put the residents' needs first." Well sir, this project is NOT improving the quality of life for ANY RESIDENTS, one bit! It is doing the exact opposite! The only people it is improving their quality of life is the speculators (and their wallets), and they are NOT EVEN Anaheim residents! There is no familial connection with this neighborhood at all. Mr. Valencia, I listened to your comments during the Jagerhaus Council Meeting of June 8 and you said you would not be comfortable with approving a project that had "potentially Page 6 of 8 detrimental impacts on adjacent neighbor's properties". You also mentioned "A mortgage is the largest purchase and investments of people's lifetimes.". And I could not agree with you more on both points. Therefore, it is imperative for you to vote against this project. Put yourself in my shoes. As mentioned in the Jagerhaus case, you would not be comfortable with that project in your backyard. And in the same way, who would have ever imagined this monstrosity of a business could be built in my residentially zoned area, adjacent to my back yard! I urge you to grant our appeal and deny the HOLDEN PROJECT. Mayor Pro Tem Stephen Faessel (District 5): Mr. Faessel, you came out and met with myself and my leadership team at the property. And I believe you understand ALL our concerns and issues with this project as currently proposed. I would hope that you would agree the project is wrong for this location and therefore support us in our appeal. There are just too many issues with this project at this location that it needs to be denied. In your words, you stated during the Jagerhaus Council Meeting of June 8 that you would vote what the residents want. Well, it is obvious here tonight what the residents want. gust look around the chamber and replay what you just heard from them all. I am urging you to grant our appeal and please deny the HOLDEN PROJECT. Jordan Brandman (District 2): 1 am going to have to ask you, Jordan, to recuse yourself. This request is based upon an apparent conflict of interest! Specifically, for your phone call to me on June 17, 2021, where you sternly admonished me for my PRA request. You said that I was making myself an enemy to the city council for some reason. And then you went on to tell me that you have a "BUDDY/BUDDY/MENTOR relationship" with Curt Pringle! I find this rather disturbing since I was merely doing my due diligence in asking for data that is perfectly legal for me to ask for. So, please do the right thing here and recuse yourself! Next, I want to discuss the Alliance "I SUPPORT HOLDEN" electronic petition. Most of these people are non -Anaheim residents. Most of them work for Alliance or Curt Pringle or the Traffic study company and the Parking study company. Compared to our signatures which were obtained by walking around and actually meeting the real residents that will be NEGATIVELY impacted by this project FOR YEARS TO COME! I find it comical that they attempt to combat our real signatures with bogus ones obtained the way they did. It shows me that they are perhaps scared by all this opposition and trying their best to fight back! Discuss the Tustin Clearwater Living project. 1-story, and left many of the mature trees on the property. We suggested to the speculator that they cut this project down in half and make it 1 story. That would make the parking numbers actually work by the way. And of course, they said NO WAY! So, they do not seem too willing to make any concessions. In summary, it would be a real shame if this project gets approved at this location despite all this opposition. We suggest they find a better location for this project near medical facilities, etc. Like the Kaiser hospital property down on Lakeview and Riverdale perhaps. This project will not be allowed to proceed without a huge legal battle. And I am pretty sure I know what most of you all are thinking. Good luck since Alliance is a multi -BILLION (with a B!) dollar Page 7 of 8 company! But hopefully, the courts (outside of Anaheim and Orange County) will see what is the truth and rule against this project at this location! As described above, the proposed conditional use permit must be denied as it violates every applicable zoning code section to this area. The proposed conditional use permit also does not meet every single one of the required conditions and, as such, must be denied. For each of the above -mentioned reasons, I urge you to grant our appeal and deny the HOLDEN PROJECT. God bless all of you and may you really think about what really is the right thing to do here. You really should vote to oppose this development! It is the right thing to do and you know it! Sincerely, Rick Pollgreen Anaheim, CA 92807 Page 8 of 8 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[Signed].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 PROJECTS REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, AND SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL AT 5275 EAST KOHL 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). CEOA/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 far Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 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.App.4tb 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. II. FIRE DANGER- LIVES WILL BEAT 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:llwww.ocgov.comfcivicaxlfilebankfblobdload.aspx?BlobID-8755) A close-up view of the map is below: 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 gridiocked up the evacuation route more than. a mile before where the HOLDEN PROJECT would risk an epic disaster. 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 fallowing 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 Iarge 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. r L6 The Planning Commission's findings of fact in this area are shockingly deficient and do not support the approval of the HOLDEN PROJECT. M. 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 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 Iargest 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 HOIDEN 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. (littps://www.nierriain- webster.com/dictionary/rest°/`201iome) 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." These 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." (holdenanaheimhiils.com/fae) The HOLDEN PROJECT's engineering consultants, EcoTierra Consulting, Inc., prepared a May 2021 CEQA exemption analysis for Andy M 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. 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 Iocated 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 Grange 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. N 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. lk1 Il 7r = =l 1.�L7Llll t _rl 117q- 41W3 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 iN 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 ram` 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 l I -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 Iocated 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.. VI. PRIVACY SHOULD BE PROTECTED AND HAS BEEN IN THIS EXACT COMMUNITY 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. VH. 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 55lCosta Mesa and State Route 9 VRiverside 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 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. VM. 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 A0.090.0 10 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:llwww.purdue.edulehps/rem/documents/programs/IiCP.pdf - Purdue University' Hearing Conservation Report — Appendix l~) 1, 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. COFUNCILMEMBER 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 REQUESTS 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 b, 2021. Mr. Brady stated that he bad 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. HE 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. PC2.021-020 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 I, 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. l reside at 414 South Rolling Hills Place in Anaheim, California 92807. 1 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. S. 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. 1 surmised this was because 1 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. I1. I was shocked at Councilman Bra ndman'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 5 day of July, 2021, at Anaheim, California. E Rlt-c4j - 4vj tf Richard (Rick) Pollgreen PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNHY SECTION III SITE DESCRIPTION 111.1 PHYSICAL SETTING MARCH 13, 2020 Planning Areal 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 RH-3: Single -Family Hillside Residential Zoning: SC: Scenic Corridor Overlay Acreage: 3.1 ac Predominant Soil Type: HSG ❑ Impervious Conditions: Existing Impervious: 60% (40% Pervious) Proposed Impervious: 67/fl (33/a Pervious) City of Anaheim Drainage District No.; Drainage District No. 37 111.2 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 11.1 for a complete description of existing and proposed Patterns/ Connections: drainage patterns and connections. Proposed Drainage See Section II.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 PAkTNERs, LLC 10 SITE DESCRIPTION From: Alyssa Tapley To: Brenda Tapley Cc: Jose Moreno; Kimberly Keys; Lucille.King20ng.us; Avelino Valencia; Steve White; Dave Vadodaria; Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Jordan Brandman; Joanne Hwang; Jose Diaz; Luis Andres Perez; Natalie Meeks; Planning Commission; Rosa Mulleady; Stephen Faessel; Trevor O°Neil Subject: Re: NO TO HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS - Case # CUP2019-06048 / DEV # DEV2019-00172 Date: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 5:07:02 PM I am aware of the proposed assisted living community Holden Anaheim Hills consisting of 118 units and 127 beds to be built on the corner of Nohl Ranch and Royal Oak in Anaheim Hills. I am a homeowner and am directly impacted by your project. I have some major concerns on how your project will negatively impact our neighborhood and quality of life. any against this project for the following reasons: • The Size of Structure — at almost 100,000 sq. ft, it is 5.6 times larger than the current structure. You are misleading the public claiming the new structure will not exceed 25 feet. This is extremely deceptive. The height of the structure will be 25 feet at the highest point of the lot. The building will grow in height with the slope of the lot. It will be 36 feet tall at the back, towering over the neighborhood to the north. The proposed structure is entirely too large for the size of the current lot and location. • Parking —The city code requires 102 parking spaces . The proposal is for only 55 spaces! This severe shortage will result in employees, third parties caregivers, vendors, and visitors to park in the surrounding residential streets daily. Our quiet streets will be overrun by the lack of parking spaces. Slope• Stability —The north slope will be backfilled to add 20 feet of parking and usable land. Disturbing the slope could be disastrous for homeowners both below and above the slope. Noise• and Traffic — The proposed structure will bring unimaginable traffic to our quite neighborhood with three shifts of workers 7 days a week, daily food/supply deliveries, and constant emergency vehicles. There are no plans to build any sound walls. This will result in constant noise and an unacceptable burden placed upon our neighborhood. I urge you to reconsider the location of the proposed structure. Please find a lot that can accommodate the size of the structure and one that is better suited to handle the traffic. Myself and my fellow neighbors are A AlNIS"I"the building of this structure. Please reconsider. Q i Z ssa Ta le iw& From: Mike Price To: Planning Commission; Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Stephen Faessel; Jose Diaz; Jordan Brandman; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Trevor O°Neil Cc: Mike Price Subject: Fwd: No to Holden Date: Monday, July 19, 2021 9:20:45 PM Attachments: 70096C24-EBA5-4556-A1CD-661466E4C067.png 7CB42AF3-3EED-41B7-B9A7-08CF5246E3C4.ung 3ECE6BB7-6DFE-4FBE-B92A-62DFBB43299D.png 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, 3RD 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. 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 After view 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. Was 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. 3D PERSPECTIVES- NORTH PROPOSED NEAR EASEMENT 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 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, 2ND 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 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 Jennifer L. Hall From: Elizabeth Busick Sent: Friday, July 9, 2021 11:27 PM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Stephen Faessel; Jose Diaz; Jordan Brandman; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Trevor O'Neil; Joanne Hwang; Scott Koehm; Niki J. Wetzel Subject: YES to Holden Anaheim Hills Elizabeth H. Busick Mission Viejo, CA 92691 July 10, 2021 RE: YES to Holden Anaheim Hills I am reaching out to you with an urgent request. Please vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. This is a crucial, beautiful, and meaningful residential development that will support seniors in Anaheim Hills for generations to come. As a senior myself, we do NOT want to be pushed into commercial areas. We want to continue our life in safe and intentionally crafted communities. One exactly like Holden Anaheim Hills. The residents of the neighborhood would be lucky to have such a beautiful residential development as opposed to apartments housing low- income residents. This is a win for all. Please vote yes to this residential community. Vote YES to supporting seniors. Vote YES to doing the right thing for one of the most sensitive populations in the county. Sincerely, Elizabeth H. Busick Jennifer L. Hall Subject: FVV NDTDHOLDEN ANAHBMHILLS Case #[UP2O10-O6O48/DEV# DEV2010-00172 Begin forwarded message: From: Brenda Tapley Date: July 14,ZUZlatlZ5Z:lZPMPDT To: Planning Commission Joanne "Harry Sidhu(K�ayorY' Trevor StephenFaesse| Jose Diaz ]ordanBrandman ]oseK�oreno Avelino Valencia RosaMuUeady `, Luis Andres Perez .DaveVadodaha , Steve White Subject: NOTOHOLDEN ANAHE|[NHILLS - Case #[U92O1S-O6O48/OEV#OEV2O1S-0O172 Hello Planning Commission, Uamaware cfthe proposed assisted living community m H.ill.s consistingcf 118units and 1Z7beds tobebuilt owthe corner cf NON Ranch and Royal Oak iwAnaheim Hills. 11 am a homeowner (on Honeywood Lane) and am directly impacted by YOUr project. 11 have some major concerns on [low YOUr project will negatively impact Our neighborhood and quality of life. I am against this project for the following reasons: • The Size of Structure—ata|mos 1QQQQQsq. ftitis5.Gtimes larger than the current structure. You are misleading the Public claiming the new structure will not exceed 25feet. This is extremely deceptive. The height cfthe structure will beZ5feet atthe highest point cfthe lot. The building will grow in height with the slope of the lot. It will be 36 feet tall at the back, towering over the neighborhood to the north. The proposed structure is entirely too large for the size of the current lot and location. • Parking — The city code requires 102 parking spaces . The proposal is for only 55 spaces! This severe shortage will result in employees, third parties caregivers, vendors, and visitors to park in the surrounding residential streets daily. Our quiet streets will be overrun by the lack of parking spaces. • SUope Stabifity — The north slope will be backfilled to add 20 feet of parking and usable land. Disturbing the slope could be disastrous for homeowners both below and above the slope. • Noise and Traffic — The proposed structure will bring unimaginable traffic to Our quite neighborhood with three shifts of workers 7 days a week, daily food/SUpply deliveries, and constant emergency vehicles. There are no plans to build any sound walls. This will result in constant noise and an unacceptable burden placed upon Our neighborhood. U urge YOU to reconsider the location of the proposed structure. Please find a lot that can accommodate the size cfthe structure and one that isbetter suited to handle the traffic. Myself and my fellow neighbors are AGAINST the building cfthis structure. Please reconsider. Thank YOU, Brenda Tapley EdvvardaLifeacienceax��.�=.� Healthcare Solutions | Associate Manager, GPO Contracts E'dwardu ! Jennifer L. Hall Subject: FW: Shadow Run HOA -- Response to Decision re: Holden Development Attachments: NoOnHolden071421.pdf Begin forwarded message: From: Lisa Veloz Date: July 14, 2021 at 2:13:08 PM PDT To: "Harry Sidhu (Mayor)" <HSidhu@anaheim.net>, Stephen Faessel <SFaessel@anaheim.net>, Jose Diaz <JoDiaz@anaheim.net>, Jordan Brandman <JBrandman@anaheim.net>, Jose Moreno <JMoreno@anaheim.net>, Avelino Valencia <AValencia@anaheim.net>, Trevor O'Neil <TONeil@anaheim.net> Cc: Angela O'Donnell Subject: Shadow Run HOA -- Response to Decision re: Holden Development Good afternoon: Attached please find a letter from the Shadow Run Homeowners Association Board of Directors, regarding your decision on the Holden Development. Thank you. Should you have any questions, comments, or require additional information, please feel free to contact me either via email at , via facsimile at , or via telephone at Thank you, and have a wonderful rest of the day. Sincerely, Lisa Veloz (DRE Lic. #o1889432) Office Manager/Lease Administrator Interpacific Asset Management (DRE License #01073855) Westminster, CA 92683 Office: Fax: Eman: The information in this email may be confidential and/or privileged. This email is intended to be reviewed by only the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination or copying of this email and its attachments, if any, or the information contained herein is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email and delete this email from your system. July 14, 2021 Mayor & Council Members City of Anaheim Re: Shadow Run Homeowners Association -- No on Holden Dear Mayor, Mayor Pro Tern 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: Fax: ( 3 E-mail: Westminster, CA 92683 htlps://interpacilcmgmt.sharepoint.com/sites/FileGabineVShared 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 roadwaycurves 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: Fax: E-mail: -- - - - -- Westminster, CA 92683 htips://interpacifcmgmt.sharepoint.com/sites/FileCabineUShared Documents/ShadowRun754BODMoOnHolden071421.docx Shadow Run HOA No on Holden Page Three Through this entire process the planning department has seemed intent on getting this project approved. Numerous citizen concerns have been brushed aside. 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. 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. Sincerely, Corby Bright, President Shadow Run Homeowners Association INTERPACIFIC ASSET MANAGEMENT I DRE Lic. #01073855 Tele: Fax: "-- -- -- - -- - E-mail: - .. ,_ - - r Westminster, CA 92683 r htlps://interpacihcmgmt.sharepoint.com/sites/FileGabineVShared Documents/ShadowRun754BODMoOnHolden071421.docx Jennifer L. Hall From: Jolynn Mahoney Sent: Friday, July 16, 2021 5:41 PM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia Cc: Ted White; Scott Koehm Subject: Support the Holden Best in Class Senior Living Center at Knoh) Ranch Rd & Royal Oak Dear Mayor and City Council, I want you to know that I fully support the Holden Project Anaheim Hills for a best in class senior living center at the corner of Royal Oak and Knohl Ranch Rd. I have seen the dissent or opposition of this project on Nextdoor and in our community. We are right here in this neighborhood. I understand that many of the owners of the surrounding homes to this property are opposed to this project. They would be opposed to any new project at this location, for the same reasons they are opposed to this one. I believe that they are being naive to the fact of this project, being much better than any other type of new project development that could happen at this location. They want another sleepy church to take over the closed Mormon Church, that would not involve any significant changes to the location. This is an unlikely wish. I realize change is hard for people, but this senior living center, is actually a much needed facility in our immediate area. We have many aging people in our neighborhood and a nearby facility like this one, would be welcome by most members of our community. I have looked at the plans and done my own research, and I believe that this is a great project for our community. I have personally spoken with numerous neighbors, all of whom feel that a best in class senior living center at this location is a great use of the property. Often the loudest are the people in opposition, but I assure you that there are just as many in favor. Whether or not they will speak up, I do not know, but I am confident that the positive outlook on this project is stronger than its opposition. If you have any questions, please contact me. -Tob Jennifer L. Hall From: Cathy Wills Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2021 5:48 PM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia Cc: Ted White; Scott Koehm Subject: Support the Holden Best in Class Senior Living Center at Nohl Ranch & Royal Oak Dear Mayor Sidhu and City Council Members, I would like to express that I fully support the Holden Project Anaheim Hills for a best in class senior living center at the corner of Royal Oak and Nohl Ranch Rd. I have seen the dissent or opposition of this project on Nextdoor and in our community. We reside in this neighborhood. I understand that many of the owners of the surrounding homes to this property are opposed to this project. They would be opposed to any new project at this location, for the same reasons they are opposed to this one. I believe that they are being naive to the fact of this project, being much better than any other type of new project development that could happen at this location. They want another sleepy church to take over the closed Mormon Church, that would not involve any significant changes to the location. This is an unlikely wish. I realize change is hard for people, but this senior living center, is actually a much needed facility in our immediate area. We have many aging people in our neighborhood and a nearby facility like this one, would be welcome by most members of our community. I have researched this project and I believe that this is an asset to our community. If you have any questions, please contact me at your earliest convenience. Best, Cathy Wills, Real Estate Broker Jennifer L. Hall From: Cathy Wills Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2021 5:55 PM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Stephen Faessel; Avelino Valencia; Jordan Brandman; Trevor O'Neil; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno Cc: Ted White; Scott Koehm Subject: Support for the Holden Project Anaheim Hills Dear Mayor Sidhu and City Council Members, I would like to express that I fully support the Holden Project Anaheim Hills for a best in class senior living center at the corner of Royal Oak and Nohl Ranch Rd. I have seen the dissent or opposition of this project on Nextdoor and in our community. We reside in this neighborhood. I understand that many of the owners of the surrounding homes to this property are opposed to this project. They would be opposed to any new project at this location, for the same reasons they are opposed to this one. I believe that they are being naive to the fact of this project, being much better than any other type of new project development that could happen at this location. They want another sleepy church to take over the closed Mormon Church, that would not involve any significant changes to the location. This is an unlikely wish. I realize change is hard for people, but this senior living center, is actually a much needed facility in our immediate area. We have many aging people in our neighborhood and a nearby facility like this one, would be welcome by most members of our community. I have researched this project and I believe that this is an asset to our community. If you have any questions, please contact me at your earliest convenience. Best, Andy Plisko MD Jennifer L. Hall From: Cathy Wills Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2021 5:58 PM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Avelino Valencia; Jose Moreno Cc: Ted White; Scott Koehm Subject: Support for the Holden Project Anaheim Hills Dear Mayor Sidhu and City Council Members, I would like to express that I fully support the Holden Project Anaheim Hills for a best in class senior living center at the corner of Royal Oak and Nohl Ranch Rd. I have seen the dissent or opposition of this project on Nextdoor and in our community. We reside in this neighborhood. I understand that many of the owners of the surrounding homes to this property are opposed to this project. They would be opposed to any new project at this location, for the same reasons they are opposed to this one. I believe that they are being naive to the fact of this project, being much better than any other type of new project development that could happen at this location. They want another sleepy church to take over the closed Mormon Church, that would not involve any significant changes to the location. This is an unlikely wish. I realize change is hard for people, but this senior living center, is actually a much needed facility in our immediate area. We have many aging people in our neighborhood and a nearby facility like this one, would be welcome by most members of our community. I have researched this project and I believe that this is an asset to our community. If you have any questions, please contact me at your earliest convenience. Best, Jessica Sandra Wills-Plisko Jennifer L. Hall Subject: FW: Holden Anaheim Hills Begin forwarded message: From: Pat Soldano Date: July 18, 2021 at 3:03:48 PM PDT To: Trevor O'Neil <TONeil _,anaheim.net>, Stephen Faessel <SFaesselganaheim.net>, Jordan Brandman <JBrandmanganaheim.net>, Jose Diaz <JoDiaz _,anaheim.net>, Jose Moreno <JMorenoganaheim.net>, Avelino Valencia <AValenciaganaheim.net>, "Harry Sidhu (Mayor)" <HSidhu o,anaheim.net> Subject: Holden Anaheim Hills Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I live in Anaheim Hills and want to voice my support for the HOlden Anaheim Hills project; it will be a beautiful needed addition to our Anaheim Hills community. I have read everything from the opposition and watched the Channel 5 news program and still do not understand their real objection, and more importantly, what do they want if not Holden; they have never said; would they rather have a sober living home or drug abuse facility; that is possible. I think they just dont want change, and that is too bad because change will happen, if not Holden than something else and it could be so much worse. The project will not allow parking except for two units, so traffic is not an issue, and deliveries will stop at 7pm. It is the same height as the church, so how can their view be more obstructed, it will have beautiful landscape and the architecture is consistent with that of Anaheim Hills community, and in fact will be more attractive with more landscaping than the current church. So I must conclude that the opposition just does not want change. I believe we have a chance for a wonderful needed addition to our Anaheim Hills community and so I ask you to PLEASE APPROVE HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS. Thank you Pat Pat Soldano Sender tiofflled by 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: rkitsigianis _ Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 8:11 AM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Subject: Holden Anaheim Hills Project Dear Mayor and City Council, I am writing today to inform you of my own, and many others in our community, support of the Holden Anaheim Hills Project at the corner of Knohl Ranch Rd and Royal Oak Rd. This is a great use of this property location and a much needed facility in our local community. The reason I support this senior living project is because it will be "best in class", it's a low impact to our community, serves a need for senior housing, and it is leaps and bounds better than what could end up there. Opposing neighbors want to force a sale to another church, because they have become accustom to hardly any activity at the Mormon Church. While this project will certainly have more of an impact on the immediate homes behind the church, it's still a good use of the property. Good neighbors! Thank you, Raza Kitsigianis Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Jennifer L. Hall From: g w Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 8:59 AM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Subject: Yes to Holden and Senior Living Mayor Sidhu, Mayor Pro Tern Faessel, and City Councilmembers I am writing today to urge you to vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills. As an Anaheim resident for nearly all of my life, we cannot allow a small contingent of opposition to stop good projects in our city. This is a good project. Much better than any alternatives at this site. Seniors deserve care. They deserve to be kept in residential communities and not pushed out into the fringes. As my mom continues to grow old, I can only hope communities like Holden Anaheim Hills are available for her to move into. YES to this project and YES to senior living in Anaheim. Thank you. Greg Webb Get Outlook for iOS Jennifer L. Hall From: Tina - - -- Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 12:54 PM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Subject: Support Senior Living Dear Mayor and City Council, I am writing today in support of the Holden Anaheim Hills Project at the corner of Knohl Ranch Rd and Royal Oak Rd. This is a great use of this property location and a much needed facility in our local community. The reason I support this senior living project is because it is needed in our community. It's a low impact to our community, serves a need for senior housing, and it is leaps and bounds better than what could end up there. Opposing neighbors want to force a sale to another church, because they have become accustom to hardly any activity at the Mormon Church. While this project will certainly have more of an impact on the immediate homes behind the church, it's still a good use of the property. Good neighbors! Thank you, Cristina Diaz Jennifer L. Hall From: ana Crruz - Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 12:59 PM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Subject: Support for Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Center Dear Mayor and City Council, I am writing today to inform you of my own, and many others in our community, support of the Holden Anaheim Hills Project at the corner of Knohl Ranch Rd and Royal Oak Rd. This is a great use of this property location and a much needed facility in our local community. The reason I support this senior living project is because it will be "best in class", it's a low impact to our community, serves a need for senior housing, and it is leaps and bounds better than what could end up there. Opposing neighbors want to force a sale to another church, because they have become accustom to hardly any activity at the Mormon Church. While this project will certainly have more of an impact on the immediate homes behind the church, it's still a good use of the property. Good neighbors! Thank you, Ana Cruz Jennifer L. Hall From: JANET CASAS Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 1:05 PM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Subject: Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Center Dear Mayor and City Council, I am writing today to inform you of my own, and many others in our community, support of the Holden Anaheim Hills Project at the corner of Knohl Ranch Rd and Royal Oak Rd. This is a great use of this property location and a much needed facility in our local community. It will help families that need that support with family members that they need help with and would be in a great neighborhood. It would be great for elderly people to be able to be close to family and friends. The reason I support this senior living project is because it will be "best in class", it's a low impact to our community, serves a need for senior housing, and it is leaps and bounds better than what could end up there. Opposing neighbors want to force a sale to another church, because they have become accustom to hardly any activity at the Mormon Church. While this project will certainly have more of an impact on the immediate homes behind the church, it's still a good use of the property. Thank you, Janet Casas Jennifer L. Hall From: Victor Gonzalez Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 1:05 PM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Subject: In Support of Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Center Dear Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council, I am writing today to inform you of my support of the Holden Anaheim Hills Project at the corner of Knohl Ranch Rd and Royal Oak Rd. This is a great use of this property location and a much needed facility for the elderly in our community. I support this senior living project because it will be completed with the City's best interest in mind. It will be a low impact to our community but more importantly it will serve a much needed area for senior housing. This facility will be far superior than what could end up there. There are opposing neighbors who want to force a sale of the property to another church, because they have become accustom to hardly any activity at the current Mormon Church. While this new project may have an impact on the immediate homes behind the church, it's still a good use of the property. I support it for the greater good! Thank you, Manuel Gonzalez Jennifer L. Hall From: Ernesto Macias Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 1:08 PM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Subject: SUPPORT HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING CENTER Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, I am writing today for support of the Holden Anaheim Hills Project. This is a much -needed facility that will serve our local community and take care of our elderly citizens. It is my understanding opposing neighbors want another church for the property. Will this church serves the community better than a senior living center? Will it bring additional tax revenue from the area? We need to take care of our senior citizens, cause who else will do this? Jennifer L. Hall From: Rosa Sent: Monaay, JUIy l y, zuz i 1: i b F IVI To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Subject: Support for Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Center Dear Mayor and City Council, I am writing today to inform you that I, along with many others in our community, support the Holden Anaheim Hills Project at the corner of Knohl Ranch Rd and Royal Oak Rd. This is a great use of this property location and a much needed facility in our local community. The reason I support this senior living project is because it will be "best in class", it's a low impact on our community, and serves a need for senior housing. Opposing neighbors want to force a sale to another church, because they have become accustomed to hardly any activity at the Mormon Church. While this project will certainly have more of an impact on the immediate homes behind the church, it's still a good use of the property. Good neighbors! Thank you, Jennifer L. Hall From: Woodin Family - _ Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 1:20 PM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Subject: Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Center Dear Mayor and City Council, I am writing today to inform you that I, along with others in our community, support the Holden Anaheim Hills Project at the corner of Knohl Ranch Rd and Royal Oak Rd. This is a great use of this property location and a much needed facility in our local community. I support this project because it will serve as the best in class with minimal impact on our community. It serves a need for senior housing, and it is leaps and bounds better than what could end up there. Opposing neighbors want to force a sale to another church, because they have become accustomed to hardly any activity at the Mormon Church. While this project will certainly have more of an impact on the immediate homes behind the church, it is still a good use of the property. Thank you, Nicholas Woods Jennifer L. Hall From: Michael Huang Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 1:21 PM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Subject: Support for Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Center Dear Mayor and City Council, I am writing today to inform you that I support the Holden Anaheim Hills Project at the corner of Knohl Ranch Rd and Royal Oak Rd. I believe this is a great use of this property location and a much needed facility in our local community. The reason I support this senior living project is because it will be "best in class", it's a low impact on our community, serves a need for senior housing, and it is leaps and bounds better than what could end up there. Opposing neighbors want to force a sale to another church, because they have become accustomed to hardly any activity at the Mormon Church. While this project will certainly have more of an impact on the immediate homes behind the church, it's still a good use of the property. Thank you, Michael Huang Jennifer L. Hall From: William Usey Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 1:22 PM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Subject: Support for Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Center Dear Mayor and City Council, I am writing today to inform you of my own, and many others in our community, support of the Holden Anaheim Hills Project at the corner of Knohl Ranch Rd and Royal Oak Rd. This is a great use of this property location and a much needed facility in our local community. I support this senior living project because it will be superior in comparison to its peers, it will have a low impact on our community, serves a need for senior housing, and it will be better than what could end up there no doubt about it. Opposing neighbors want to force a sale to another church, because they have become accustomed to hardly any activity at the Mormon Church. While this project will certainly have more of an impact on the immediate homes behind the church, it's still an exceptional use of the property. Thank you, Bill Usey Jennifer L. Hall From: Mike L Sent: Monday, JUIy ly, zuz i 1:zb F IVI To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Subject: Support for Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Center Dear Mayor and City Council, I am writing today to inform you of my support of the Holden Anaheim Hills Project (corner of Knohl Ranch Rd & Royal Oak Rd). This is a great use of this property location and a much needed facility in our local community. I'm supporting this senior living project because it will be low impact to our community, serves a need for senior housing, and it is also much better than what could end up there. Opposing neighbors want to force a sale to another church because they have become accustomed to hardly any activity at the Mormon Church. While this project will certainly have more of an impact on the immediate homes behind the church, it will still be an excellent use of the property. Thank you, Michael Lee Jennifer L. Hall From: Andrew Pineda Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 1:26 PM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Subject: Support for Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Center Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, I am writing today to inform you of my support of the Holden Anaheim Hills Project at the corner of Knohl Ranch Rd and Royal Oak Rd. This is not only an excellent use of the location, but also a much needed hub in our local community. The reason I support this senior living project is because it will be "best in class", it's a low impact on our community, serves a need for senior housing, and it is leaps and bounds better than what could end up there. Opposing neighbors want to force a sale to another church, because they have become accustomed to hardly any activity at the Mormon Church. While this project will certainly have more of an impact on the immediate homes behind the church, it's still a good use of the property. Thank you, -a nd rew Jennifer L. Hall From: Jonathan Anton Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 1:26 PM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Subject: Holden Anaheim Hills Project Dear Mayor and City Council, I am writing today to inform you of my support for the Holden Anaheim Hills Project that is being proposed at the corner of Knohl Ranch Rd and Royal Oak Rd. This facility will provide a much needed facility and great service to some of the most vulnerable people in our community. I know that some of the immediate households surrounding the area oppose the project as it will have an impact on their day to day lives. However, a majority of the residents in the facility will not be commuters and as such, the impact of traffic will be minimal. It is my belief that the benefit of taking care of our elderly far outweighs the impact of any minor inconveniences that will result in building the facility. Thank you for your time in reading this email. Regards, Jonathan Anton Jennifer L. Hall From: Ronaldo Mendez Sent: Monday, July 19, ZU21 1:46 NM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Subject: Support - Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Center Good afternoon Anaheim Mayor and City Council, I wish to share my full support of the Holden Anaheim Hills Project at the corner of Knohl Ranch Rd and Royal Oak Rd. This is a fantastic use of this property location and a much needed facility for the seniors in our community. I support this senior living project because it is much needed especially with the ongoing housing crisis. It will be a low impact to our community but more importantly it will serve a much needed area for senior housing. I am confident that this facility will be completed professionally and with the City's best interests in mind. While this new project may have some to little impact on the immediate homes behind the church, it's still a good use of the property. I support it in the best interest of the City and for the seniors. Thank you, Ronaldo Mendez Jennifer L. Hall From: Jared Davlin Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 1:55 PM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Subject: Holden Senior Living Project Dear Mayor and City Council, I am writing today to inform you of my own, and many others in our community, support of the Holden Anaheim Hills Project at the corner of Knohl Ranch Rd and Royal Oak Rd. This is a great use of this property location and a much needed facility in our local community. The reason I support this senior living project is because it will be a much needed addition to our comunity, it's a low impact to our community, serves a need for senior housing, and it is leaps and bounds better than what could end up there. Opposing neighbors want to force a sale to another church, because they have become accustom to hardly any activity at the Mormon Church. While this project will certainly have more of an impact on the immediate homes behind the church, it's still a good use of the property. Good neighbors! Thank you, Jared Davlin Jennifer L. Hall From: Nicole Angene Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 1:59 PM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Subject: Support for Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Center God afternoon Mayor and City Council, I am emailing you in support of the Anaheim Hills Project at Knohl Ranch Rd and Royal Oak Rd. The senior living center is something that our community is in need of, and this property location would serve them greatly! I support this project because there is a demand for senior housing directly in this community, and it would be of low impact to the residents! The opposition would like to force in yet another church, simply because of their experience with almost no activity at the Mormon Church. The senior center would be supremely better then what could end up here, and while understanding that this project would have impact on the homes surrounding the church, it's still a fantastic use of the location, and our seniors deserve to have the best in class! Thank you, Nicole Angene Sent from my iPhone Jennifer L. Hall From: Isabel Berry Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 2:01 PM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Subject: Holden Anaheim Hills Project for Seniors Dear City Council and Mayor, I am writing to you today to show my support for the Holden Anaheim Hills Project on Knohl Ranch Rd and Royal Oak Rd. Our Seniors are in desperate need of a respectable and beautiful senior living environment, this would be an ideal location. I urge our City Council and our Mayor to consider The Holden Anaheim Hills Project as a support for our Senior Community. Thank you so much for your time. Sincerely, Maria Berry Jennifer L. Hall From: Eliz Parra Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 3:45 PM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Subject: Holden Anaheim Hils Project Dear Mayor and City Council, I am writing today to inform you of my own, and many others in our community, support of the Holden Anaheim Hills Project at the corner of Knohl Ranch Rd and Royal Oak Rd. This is a great use of this property location and a much needed facility in our local community. The reason I support this senior living project is because it will be "best in class", it's a low impact to our community, serves a need for senior housing, and it is leaps and bounds better than what could end up there. Senior living offers so much to our senior community, it gives them opportunities to continue to have a vibrant and social lifestyle while remaining in their own community. Opposing neighbors want to force a sale to another church, because they have become accustomed to hardly any activity at the Mormon Church. While this project will certainly have more of an impact on the immediate homes behind the church, it's still a good use of the property. Good neighbors! I thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. Eilz Parra Concerned citizen Jennifer L. Hall From: Rebeca Villarreal Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 3:46 PM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Subject: PLEASE CONSIDER THE NEEDS OF AMERICA'S SENIORS <3 Dear Mayor and City Council, I am writing today to inform you of my own, and many others in our community, support of the Holden Anaheim Hills Project at the corner of Knohl Ranch Rd and Royal Oak Rd. This is a great use of this property location and a much needed facility in our local community. The reason I support this senior living project is because it will be "best in class", it's a low impact to our community, serves a need for senior housing, and it is leaps and bounds better than what could end up there. Opposing neighbors want to force a sale to another church, because they have become accustom to hardly any activity at the Mormon Church. While this project will certainly have more of an impact on the immediate homes behind the church, it's still a good use of the property. Good neighbors! I feel as if we don't consider the needs of seniors and they need quality of life in their older age just as we would like to received quality of life in our older age. Thank you, Rebeca Franco Jennifer L. Hall From: Pat Mahoney Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 5:22 PM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Subject: Support for Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Center Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, My name is Patrick Mahoney and I am the current President of the Peralta Hills Estate Improvement Association (PHEIA.) PHEIA was formed in 1960 and is located just west of Royal Oak and south of Santa Ana Canyon Road. There are 264 homeowners on approximately 350 acres. Our Board of Directors have met on this matter, and we unanimously agree to support the Holden Senior Living Project. The reason we support this senior living project is because it will be "best in class", it will be a low impact development to our community, it will provide much needed housing for seniors, and it will be a development that is 'leaps and bounds' better than what could end up at that site. Neighbors who live immediately behind the church are most likely opposing the project, however, they are misrepresenting the facts about the project, presumably because they are opposed to it being built at that location. They want it sold to another church, and these residents are trying to stop the deal from going through by appealing the City of Anaheim Planning Commission's recent vote to approve the sale and the proposed project. They are claiming there is not enough parking (incorrect), they are claiming that the setback of the structure is not enough (setback is established at 85 feet from the property line to the closest residential street). They are also claiming the building is too high (it's two stories and so are most surrounding homes). What the opposing neighbors do not understand is that California legislators are planning on passing a bill later this year that would allow high -density multi- family, low-income housing in any residential neighborhood, including ours locally. Developers could start buying up lots or homes, tearing them down and building small apartments or duplexes, with much higher structures (more than two stories), with no garages so people would have to park streetside, and with as little as 15-ft setbacks to the surrounding homes. What people have yet to grasp is that this will forever change the culture of potentially every suburban neighborhood including this specific community. Again, I, along with the PHEIA Board of Directors, strongly support the Holden Senior Living Project. 1 Patrick Mahoney President, PHEIA Jennifer L. Hall From: Steve Kitsigianis < Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 9:29 PM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Subject: Holden Project Dear Mayor and City Council, I am writing today to inform you of my own, and many others in our community, support of the Holden Anaheim Hills Project at the corner of Knohl Ranch Rd and Royal Oak Rd. This is a great use of this property location and a much needed facility in our local community. The reason I support this senior living project is because it will be "best in class", it's a low impact to our community, serves a need for senior housing, and it is leaps and bounds better than what could end up there. Opposing neighbors want to force a sale to another church, because they have become accustom to hardly any activity at the Mormon Church. While this project will certainly have more of an impact on the immediate homes behind the church, it's still a good use of the property. Good neighbors! Thank you, Steve Kitsigianis Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Jennifer L. Hall From: lisa granillo Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 6:44 AM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Subject: Support for Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Center Dear City of Anaheim, My family and friends would really appreciate you putting in the Senior Housing off Knohl Ranch Rd and Royal Oak for the Holden Anaheim Hills Project. We are all looking forward to this type of facility being available to us and very close to our home. Thank you for your time, Lisa Granillo 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 25, 2921, 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 PA 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 al Royal Oak and Nohl Ranch. That does not qualify as a traffic study. 1 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. 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 51h 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 866 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. 1.1 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) VA 7120/2021 Chapter 18.04 SINGLE-FAMILY RES}DENTIAL ZONES Sections. 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. 18.04.05o Lot width. 18.04.060 Lot orientation. 18.04.070 Structural heights. 18.04.080 Floor area. 18.04.090 Lot coverage. 18.04.100 Structural setbacks. 18.04.105 Street wall facades. 18.04.110 larking. 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. 18.04.170 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-l. 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:llcodelibrary.amlegal.comlcodeslanaheimllatestlanaheim_ca10-0-0-65574 115 7/20/2021 Chapter 18.04 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES .010 "RH-1" Single -Family Hillside Residential Zane. The intent of the `°RH-1" Single -Family Hillside Residential Zane 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 Zane. 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 Zane 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 4-6 (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-B 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:Ncodelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/artaheim/latestlanaheim_ca/0-0-0-65574 215 7120/2021 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=Conditlonal Use Permit Required RESIDENTIAL ZONES N=Prohibited RH- 7 RH- 2 1 RH- 3 1 RS-9 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 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-B 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 I RH-2 I RH-3 I RS-1 RS-2 I RS-3 I RSA I Special Provisions https:l/codelibrary.amlegal.comlcodeslanaheim/latesVanaheim—ca/0-0-0-65574 3!5 7/2012021 Chapter 18.04 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES Accessory Living Quarters P P P P P N N Subject to 18.04.080.020 & 18.38.020 Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P P P Subject to 18.38.015 Accessory Dwelling Unit - Junior P P P P P P P Subject to 18.38.01 b Agricultural Workers Quarters P P N N N N N Requires a minimum lot size of ten (10) acres Animal Keeping P P P P P P P Subject to 18.38.030, except that in the RH-2 Zone, equine, 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 Accessary 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 18,38,105 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-.11codelibrary.amlegal.comlcodes/anaheim/latestfanaheim ca/0-0-0-65574 415 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: Card. 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: Card. 6483 § 1; June 9, 2020: Ord. 6493 § 1; September 29, 2020: Ord. 6506 § 3; February 9, 2021.) https:llcodelihrary.emiegal. cornicodeslanaheimllatesVanaheirn_czitO-0-0-65574 515 7119/2021 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 (35) 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!llcodelibrary.amlegal. cornlcodestanaheimllatest)anaheim_ca10-0-0-FE548#J D_18.18.050 ill Shadow,Run .1 - y Homeowners AssodaVan July 14, 2021 Mayor & Council Members City of Anaheim Re: Shadow Run Homeowners Association -- No on Holden Dear Mayor, Mayor Pro Tern 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 550E Garden Grove Blvd., #150, Westminster, CA 92683 https:llinterpacihcmgmtsherepoint corrJsitWFileCab[neVShared D©cumentslShadowRun754JBOD/NoOnHoldenO71421.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 Lie. #01073855 Tele: (714) 891-8804 Fax: (714) 894-5643 E-mail: aodonnell@interpacificmgmt.com 5505 Garden Grove Blvd., #150, Westminster, CA 92683 htips:flinterpacifcmgmt.sharepoint.cornlsitesrFileCab neUShared DocumentsfShadowRun7541B0a1NoonHoldenO71421.dom 3 I F� v 4-0 Cf9 E I Jennifer L. Hall Subject: FW: Re Holden Proj Attachments: re Holden Devel..doc Begin forwarded message: From: Chris W Date: July 14, 2021 at 2:02:58 PM PDT To: Stephen Faessel <SFaesseICanaheim.net> .�k.......................................... Subject: Re Holden Proj Please see attachment, thank you Anaheim, Ca 92807 July 14, 2021 City of Anaheim City Council 200 S Anaheim Blvd Anaheim, Ca 92805 Dear City Council Member, Subject: HOLDEN PROJECT 5275 E Nohl Ranch Rd, Anaheim, Ca 92807 Please accept my letter to express my strong opposition to the proposed Holden project Development. I have lived in Anaheim for some time and I'm concerned that this would be a detriment to our community. I urge you to disapprove this project that will burden our community with High Density housing. Many in our neighborhood agree that this should not be approved and would only bring hazards and crowding. It would also make a parking problem. We already have three other buildings with multiple tenants just down the street. We would like to keep this area quiet and without high traffic which many times just races down Nohl Ranch Rd. There are many other concerns and we hope that you will take these into consideration and vote No to this proposal. Thank you for your service. Sincerely Chris Weber Jennifer L. Hall Subject: FW: Yes for the Holden Anaheim Hills Project Begin forwarded message: From: lane curtis Date: July 17, 2021 at 4:42:50 PM PDT To: Stephen Faessel <SFaesseIC anaheim.net> Subject: Yes for the Holden Anaheim Hills Project Dear Mayor and City Council, I am writing today to inform you of my own, and many others in our community, support of the Holden Anaheim Hills Project at the corner of Knohl Ranch Rd and Royal Oak Rd. This is a great use of this property location and a much needed facility in our local community. The reason I support this senior living project is because it will be "best in class", it's a low impact to our community, serves a need for senior housing, and it is leaps and bounds better than what could end up there. Opposing neighbors want to force a sale to another church, because they have become accustom to hardly any activity at the Mormon Church. While this project will certainly have more of an impact on the immediate homes behind the church, it's still a good use of the property. Good neighbors! Thank you Jeannette Curtis Jennifer L. Hall Subject: FW: HOLDEN DEVELOPMENT Begin forwarded message: From: rfaranoi Date: July 18, 2021 at 1:40:18 PM PDT To: Stephen Faessel <SF esseIC anaheim.net> Subject: HOLDEN DEVELOPMENT Anaheim, CA 92807 July 18, 2021 City of Anaheim City Council 200 South Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA. 92805 Dear City Council Member, Subject: HOLDEN PROJECT 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim, CA. 92807 Anaheim Hills "A Planned Community" - As was clearly stated when Anaheim Hills was designed and created, this area of Anaheim was FULLY organized and laid out to prevent future builders and developers from coming to Anaheim Hills and placing buildings, shopping centers and businesses randomly where -ever they could find a blank space. At the time the goals were very clear. "We don't want liquor stores and gas stations on every corner" As a result there is very little "open space" and un-developed areas for builders to buy up property and turn the community into a vision of high density and random buildings. People bought in this area and paid a premium for the security of having Property that couldn't be over -run with development. Other areas of Anaheim were not given this distinction and buyers were not promised this same protection. As an elected representative of the citizens of Anaheim it is incumbent upon you to keep this promise and represent the need of the residents of ALL areas of the city. The future and value of our city is critical and it is your position to preserve the promise given to its residents. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Holden project Development. As a resident of Anaheim Hills this particular large scale development would be detrimental to the safety of our local community. I urge you to disapprove this project that will burden our community with High Density housing functioning as a commercial business within the current RH-3 zoning. The proposed location is inappropriate and not fitted for an operation of this sort. Countless residents share my deep concerns regarding the safety hazards that would arise should this project be approved. Traffic- Nohl Ranch Road has become a busy freeway alternate in which vehicles exceeding the speed limit has become the norm. The intersection of Royal Oak and Nohl Ranch Road (The Proposed Project location) has a "no right turn on red' as its blind spot corner has proven to be hazardous with a history of accidents. The large scale of the Holden Project Building would further exacerbate this problem and make this corner far more dangerous. This project will significantly increase traffic with its frequency of emergency, transportation, delivery, staff, and visitation vehicles thus adding to the existing challenges. FIRE- Nohl Ranch Road is a FIRE EVACUATION ROUTE. Our community knows all too well the dangers of not being able to evacuate quickly and safely. Many of us were stuck in gridlock on Nohl Ranch Road, some in excess of two hours traveling only a short two miles. I shudder to think how we as a community could execute a safe and successful evacuation of our vulnerable elderly population residing within the High Density facility that Holden is proposing. LACK OF PARKING- Holden's proposed parking spaces are grossly under allocated. The lack of parking for staff, third party providers and visitors will put a strain on the surrounding neighborhoods. There is no parking on Nohl Ranch Road nor Royal Oak so over -flow visitors will be forced into the residential streets. This lack of parking redirected to surrounding homes poses safety risks to neighborhood children and families. The developer has used The Meridian and Brookdale Assisted Living facility as an examples for the Zoning Variance but both facilities are overrun with parking problems and are good examples of what NOT to do because of other failures to provide adequate parking. Thank you for your continued service to our wonderful city and for your consideration in supporting the residents by keeping our communities safe. Please oppose the Proposed Holden Project. Best Regards, Richard and Phyllis Farano Residents of Anaheim for over 45 years 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. 2019-06046 Variance No. 2020-05144 Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2021-00001 (REV 2019-00172) Mayor Sldhu 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 )_. 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 i yards with any reasonable privacy! * Lack of the code required parking for the employees, daily services, 3- 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. (: j City omits :X- j kY�es n.�r: Cs Ita„�a Oywll rr •. S Yyf!1uT rav fig. C-J.xl r.. Hazard Threat Zia 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 • Tall 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 1 :.� - �� �-y • F qv +llr s't't µ fa*- w . • `�P, After view Its Vit -.a- 71-OCJJ lo 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 716121 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. i 3D PERSPECTIVES - NOR v � � ;_ Xqols i 8 0 tj P1 :14 kafal :1 :14 9 kyj *=Z Pel JOAJRMJITOG� 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 716121, 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 tots 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: r6O Total Employees" 30 staff members from Gam to 2pm 25 staff members from 2pm to 1 Opm 5 staff members from 1 Opm to Gam The parking study indicates: "45 Total Employees" 28 staff members from Gam to 2pm 13 staff members from 2pm to 1 Opm 4 staff members from 1 Opm to Gam 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 Georoia Price Hnaneim. l.A- 'JZ SU I 12 Public Comment From: Mike Price Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 3:10 PM To: Scott Koehm; Public Comment Cc: Mike Price Subject: Re: Holden Anaheim Hills Project Case: CUP2019-060481 DEV Number: DEV2019-00172 Attachments: 0170�210720135831_001.pdf Hi Scott, Since the height has now been confirmed to be 9' and city code only allows a 6° wall without a variance, it needs tc be visible from Royal Oak! I would like this entire email chain to become part of the public record along with the ati Mike Scott Koehnn to me They are not allowed to build a retaining wall larger than 6 feet, if it is visible from Royal Oak, without a variance. They have not applied for a variance, so we would not allow a wall greater than 6 feet without going back to the Planning Commission and requesting a variance. On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 1.18 PM Scott Koehm CSKoehm( anaheim.net> wrote: Mike, I'm sorry for the confusion. I checked with Public Works who reviews retaining walls and I have learned that the retaining wall portion is 3 feet, and the screening wall portion is 6 feet. The answer to your question is that from your perspective you will see a 9 foot face of the wall consisting of the lower 3 feet of the retaining wall and the upper 6 feet as a screening wall, with landscaping on the wall. Scott 1 From: Mike Price Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 10:07 AM To: Scott Koehm <SKoehm@anaheim.neta Cc: Mike PriCE Subject: Holden Anaheim Hills Project Case: CUP2019-06048 / DEV Number: DEV2019-00172 Good morning Scott, Can you take a look at the before and after photos and confirm the wall the developer is showing is only 6' tall! I circled it in blue for you. All of these photos were taken by the developer and were just sent to me. It sure looks like a 9' wall to me ... just like drawing allows them. If the code states max 6' why do the submitted drawing allow provision for it to be 9' ? Mike 7 ►.A Tr P-. 7T Tr ,"W do 11 as rI Yi A P•� F I A •.d4, yT:Yj1 � y TI. H z W G W t/Y a W 0 J W m On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 5:44 PM Mike Price • wrote: Thanks Scott. I feel like we have walked this question around the block a few times.... I understand the code only allows for 6'. You and I can both look at the plan and see 6' plus 3' making that wall 9' tall! All I'm trying to do here is verify I'm reading the plan correctly, even if you believe that's not the developers intent. Do you agree the plan clearly shows provision for it to be built at 9' On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 5:34 PM Scott Koehm <SKoehm@anaheim.net> wrote: Mike, a six foot wall is what is allowed by Code. Scott From: Mike Price Sent: Monday, July 19, 20215:34 PM To: Scott Koehm <SKoehm@anaheim.net> Cc: Mike Price Subject: Re: Holden Anaheim Hills Project Case: CUP2019-06045 f DEV Number: DEV2019-00172 I understand that. I live on Honeywood Lane and I share the north property line with this project. According to the drawing it shows I will be looking up at a 9' wall. Can you confirm the height of the wall that sits on the top of the parking lot. I'm not asking what's visible from Royal Oak. I'm asking if a 9' wall will be visible from my backyard that shares the north property line. On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 5:16 PM Scott Koehm <SKoehm@anaheim.net> wrote: They are not allowed to build a retaining wall larger than 6 feet, if it is visible from Royal Oak, without a variance. They have not applied for a variance, so we would not allow a wall greater than 6 feet without going back to the Planning Commission and requesting a variance. 6 Scott From: Mike Price Sent: Monday, July 19, 20214.56 PM To: Scott Koehm <SKoehm@anaheim.net7 Cc: Mike Price Subject: Re: Holden Anaheim Hills Project Case: CUP2019-06048 / UEV Number: DEV2019-00172 Scott, So just to understand this correctly, I will not see a 9' wall from the back of my house. Or is it a 9' wall with a 3' terraced wall in front so I can only see 6' from my backyard? Mike On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 4:45 PM Scott Koehm <SKoehm@anaheim.net> wrote: Retaining walls are permitted to be over 6 feet if it is not visible to a public or private street. In my conversation with the applicant he indicated that they are not proposing any walls greater than six feet as measured from finished grade. They will not be allowed to construct a wall greater than 6 feet if is visible from Royal Oak, which this wall is. Scott From: Mike Price Sent: Monday, July 19, 1UZ14:41 PM 11 To: Scott Koehm <SKoehm@anaheim.neta Cc: Mike Price Subject: Re: Holden Anaheim Hills Project Case: CUP2019-06048 / DEV Number: DEV2019-00172 Scott, I understand that's what the developer is saying, but that is not what's called out on the drawing. Do you not agree? How tall does the city code allow it to be? Mike On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 3.40 PM Scott Koehm <SKoehm@anaheim.net> wrote: Mike, The developer has indicated that the overall height will be 6 feet. Sincerely, Scott From: Mike Price Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 3:03 PM To: Scott Koehm <SKoehm@anaheim.net> Cc: Mike Price Subject: Re: Holden Anaheim Hills Project Case: CUP2019-06048 / DEV Number: DEV2019-00172 Good afternoon Scott, 8 I have a follow up question. Can you clarify the overall height of this wall? It appears to be 3' of retaining wall plus 6' feet of screening wall making the total height 9'. Can you confirm the finished visible height for me? Mike On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 12:16 PM Mike Price wrote: Hi Scott, N Thank you! Can you make sure the resolution gets updated to include this. It still shows the old one. Mike On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 8:56 AM Scott Koehm CSKoehmCanaheim.net> wrote: Good morning Mike, Attached are the plans that indicate the proposed generator enclosure and wall. Sincerely, Scott From: Mike Price Sent: Friday, July 16, 2021 10:23 AM To: Scott Koehm <Sooehm@anaheim.net> Cc: Mike Price Subject: Holden Anaheim Hills Project Case: CUP2019-06048 J DEV Number: DEV2019-00172 Hi Scott, Have you received the updated plans that raise the generator enclosure to match the 6' high parking lot wall along with the new wall that will close off the open end of the slope? If so can you share a copy with me. The updated drawing in the resolution for Tuesday' s meeting do not show these changes. 10 Mike On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 11:20 AM Mike Price wrote: Good morning! Thank you Sir! I' m not see any changes to the height of the generator enclosure or the added wall at the north end that will block off access to the slope. It' s my understanding that they will be raising the enclosure to meet the top of the new 6' wall and then adding a wall on the other side going towards Royal Oak and then turn and run along Royal Oak to connect to the new 6' retaining wall that will be 2' of the property line at the bottom of the slope. Perhaps they haven't submitted these changes yet? Please advise. Mike On Fri, Elul 9, 2021 at 10:59 AM Scott Koehm <SKoehm(danaheim.net> wrote: Good morning Mike, Attached is the revised site plan. Sincerely, G. Scott Koehm, AICP Principal Planner Planning and Building Department I Planning services City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard I Suite 162 Anaheim. CA 92805 office L) 765.5395 Mobile, Email skoehm0anaheim.net 11 From: Mike Price Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2021 6:56 PM To: Scott Koehm cSKoehm@anaheim.net> Cc: Mike Price Subject: Holden Anaheim HiIIsProject Case: CUP2019-06048 / DEV Number: DEV2019-00172 Good evening Scott, Can you email me a copy of the updated site plans for the Holden Hills project (or provide a link to it). It was brought to my attention by the developer that they are revising the number of parking spaces from 55 to 59. They are also making changes to the height of the generator enclosure and will be adding a block wall to enclose / secure the northeast side of the property. Would love to have the up to date version for review prior to the 7/20 council meeting. Thanks Mike Price 12 C 2 rIn w t 1 E CM 0 I 0 cu 0 MWo � 57 -2 G� r ® N 0 E 3 ® Z w E 0 w moo uC5 c km a� J 6fl C% 0 z a 4 A E A u 6 r V (A V 11+1 v c tA Cl) A C 0 n E n 0 Lol Ln m � a Z 00 �. E 3 c� A � E o � fq 0 0 m .n Z:E m uj � oo v i UL kn ul Jennifer L. Hall From: William Leming Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 100 PM To: Jennifer L. Hall Subject: letter to Mayor & City Council Members Attachments: Letter to Mayor and City Council Members.pdf; Public Notice 118 Unit Senior Living Facility.pdf Per our conversation attached is the letter regarding the 118-unit Senior Living facility on tonight's agenda. Please forward copies to the council. Regards, William ( Bill) Leming - GRI Lip #00512127 WA, Inc. Anaheim, CA 92807 The WILLIAM L. LEMING Real Estate Company Anaheim Hills, CA 92807 Mobil Number e-mail July 20, 2012 RE: 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road 118 Two -Story Senior Living Facility Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council, I respectfully request a 30-day delay of the above project. The project calls for a CLIP, in addition to a Variance. The area where the proposed project is to be located has had several landslides with -in a few miles of the site and the issue was not properly addressed. The planning commission failed to have all the information when they voted 4 to 2 in favor of Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06048, Variance No. 2020-05144, and Specimen Tree removal Permit No. 2021-00001. The project did not adequately address the traffic issues or the lack of services available for this type of facility. The project underestimated the emergency vehicle required per day for this type of facility. This project should not be exempt from CEQA. To postpone this review for 30 days would not be a hardship on the proposed project. As a long time, Anaheim resident, I am opposed to this project at this location. Sincerely, Z- zzmz;t� William Leming License No: 00512127 Broker OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 200 S. ANAHEIM BOULEVARD. ANAHEIM. CA 92805 T14 766-5166 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 32 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.2019-06048 VARIANCE NO. 2020-05144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 DEV2019-00172 DATE OF MEETING: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 TIME: 5:30 P.M. LOCATION: The 2,99-acre project site is located at 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road, at the northwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak Road. REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of the following land use entitlements: (i) a conditional use permit to construct a new 118 unit, 2-story state -licensed senior living facility and a coordinated sign program; (ii) a variance to permit fewer parking spaces than required by Code; and (iii) a specimen tree removal permit to allow removal of two existing specimen trees. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City Council will consider whether the proposed action: is Categorically Exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15332 (Class 32 Infili Development). ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06048, Variance No. 2020-05144, and Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2021-00001 and made certain findings in connection therewith (PC2021-020). VOTE: 4-2 (Chairperson Pro-Tempore Meeks and Commissioners bring, Mulleady, and Perez voted yes. Commissioners Vadodaria and White voted no. Chairperson Keys was absent.) (Planning Commission meeting of May 24, 2021) Appealed by: (1) Rick Pollgreen; (2) Matthew S. Brady; and (3) Richard C, Bright on behalf of Shadow Run H.O.A. INFORMATION AVAILABLE: A copy of the staff report, proposed plans, environmental impact determination, legal description, and property owners and developer/agent's names, and other project information are available for your review at the Planning & Building Department, 1st Floor, Anaheim City Hall, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, WHERE IS THE MEETING? If you have comments, questions, concerns, or objections, you are invited to attend the public hearing to be held by the Anaheim City Council on Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 5:30 P.M., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Council Chamber of Anaheim City Hall, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. Pursuant to Executive Order N-08-21, please be advised that the Anaheim City Council may participate in this meeting telephonically. All interested parties are invited to express their opinions for or against this item. Written comments may also be submitted to the City Clerk, at 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite 217, Anaheim, CA 92805 or to Publiccomment a anaheim.net, prior to the hearing. WHO TO CONTACT'? Further information may be obtained from the Planning & Building Department, Anaheim City Hall, 1st Floor, or by contacting Scott Boehm, skoehm danaheim.net or (714) 765-5395. IMPORTANT NOTE: Please refer to CUP 2019-06048 when you call or write regarding this property. MOTE: If you challenge the item listed above in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Furthermore, you must exhaust any administrative remedies prior to commencing a court challenge to City's action. I certity under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I hold the position indicated below, that on the date set forth, I deposited this notice of public hearing i S. Mail, postage fully -prepaid. DE F THE ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL - h Bass, CMC City C rk Mailed by: July 8, 2021 From: Brenda_Tapley. To: Planning Commission; Joanne Hwang Cc: Kimberly_ _eys; Lucille KinaiKring_us; Natalie_Meeks; Rosa_Mulleady.; Luis Andres_Perez; Dave_Vadodaria; Ste_v_e White Subject: HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS - Case # CUP2019-06048 / DEV # DEV2019-00172 - AGAINST PROJECT Date: Monday, May 24, 2021 4:20:27 PM Attachments: image001png Importance: High Hello Planning Commission, I am aware of the proposed assisted living community Holden Anaheim Hills consisting of 118 units and 127 beds to be built on the corner of NON Ranch and Royal Oal< in Anaheim Hills. I am a homeowner (on Honeywood Lane) and am directly impacted by your project. I have some major concerns on how your project will negatively impact our neighborhood and quality of life. I am against this project for the following reasons: + The Size of Structure — at almost 100,000 sq. ft, it is 5.6 times larger than the current structure. You are misleading the public claiming the new structure will not exceed 25 feet. This is extremely deceptive. The height of the structure will be 25 feet at the highest point of the lot. The building will grow in height with the slope of the lot. It will be 36 feet tall at the back, towering over the neighborhood to the north. The proposed structure is entirely too large for the size of the current lot and location. + Parking — The city code requires 102 parking spaces . The proposal is for only 55 spaces! This severe shortage will result in employees, third parties caregivers, vendors, and visitors to park in the surrounding residential streets daily. Our quiet streets will be overrun by the lack of parking spaces. • Slope Stability —The north slope will be backfilled to add 20 feet of parking and usable land. Disturbing the slope could be disastrous for homeowners both below and above the slope. • Noise and Traffic —The proposed structure will bring unimaginable traffic to our quite neighborhood with three shifts of workers 7 days a week, daily food/supply deliveries, and constant emergency vehicles. There are no plans to build any sound walls. This will result in constant noise and an unacceptable burden placed upon our neighborhood. I urge you to reconsider the location of the proposed structure. Please find a lot that can accommodate the size of the structure and one that is better suited to handle all of the traffic. Myself and my fellow neighbors are AGAIISIS11" the building of this structure. Please reconsider. Thank you, fo�lt9lml"`0 2 Brenda Tapley I Edwards Lifesciences P yd�ow ��I I Healthcare Solutions I Associate Manager, GPO Contracts tiUVr`�ll^t:��+ www_.edwards.corn Jennifer L. Hall Subject: FW: No to Holden Begin forwarded message: From: "Joe A. Rodriguez" Date: July 14, 2021 at 11:4.j:4 f AIvi r1J l To: Stephen Faessel <SFaessel.Cckanaheim.net> Subject: No to Holden Dear City of Anaheim City Council: July 14,2021 I, Joe A Rodriguez, am opposed to the planned Holden Project ("HOLDEN PROJECT") at 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road in Anaheim, California. Here are just a few of my reasons. The additional noise and traffic such a facility will have on our sleepy residential neighborhood is a given. And to what benefit for us actually? None of us could afford a room at this luxury place. So, what is the benefit to the neighborhood? A church is a HUGE BENEFIT to a neighborhood. And if this developer would go away, the property could go back to being a church. The Orange Hills Assembly church is ready to purchase the property and wants to just occupy the beautiful campus. They need the parking that facility contains. No razing of the campus or 2 years of construction. A church provides lots of benefits to the community. They typically have food closets that help the homeless or low-income people with basic food. They have after school child care. They may have an actual school on campus as well. This is definitely a BEST USE for this property as it has been since 1977. Check your city records. Nowhere else in the city is a "Senior Living Facility (Large)" existing in an RH-3 zoned area. They are all in commercially zoned areas. And that is because that is where they belong! Put it nearby other medical and hospital -like facilities. That is where it belongs for the health and safety of its residents. Please listen to your voting residents that say this is the wrong location for this facility. I urge you to vote NO on this project! Cordially, Joe A Rodriguez, Anaheim ca 92807 Jennifer L. Hall From: Darlene Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 6:04 PM To: Trevor O'Neil; Public Comment Subject: Holden Hills project I am asking that you DO NOT APROVE this project! This is a quiet residential neighborhood NOT suited for an apartment type project! When it was first sold, I thought they were going to remodel the existing one story building for a senior project. That was fine. I had no issue. But to find out the request is for a 118 unit 2 story facility, no way! I live only .3 miles down the street. I walk by regularly as do many neighbors. It's very quiet here and we need to keep it that way. That is why I live there! The other senior housing is on Anaheim hills rd across from commercial. That is more appropriate. This area is NOT the same! Please do not vote to ruin the beautiful ambiance of our neighborhood!!! Darlene Kearney -Broker Capital Real Estate & Investments O- Cell- BRE# 00910009 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Christopher Crippen Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 1:12 PM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Subject: Support for Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Center Dear Mayor and City Council, I am writing today to inform you of my own, and many others in our community, support of the Holden Anaheim Hills Project at the corner of Knohl Ranch Rd and Royal Oak Rd. This is a great use of this property location and a much needed facility in our local community. The reason I support this senior living project is because it will be "best in class", it's a low impact on our community, serves a need for senior housing, and it is leaps and bounds better than what could end up there. Opposing neighbors want to force a sale to another church, because they have become accustomed to hardly any activity at the Mormon Church. While this project will certainly have more of an impact on the immediate homes behind the church, it's still a good use of the property. Good neighbors! Thank you, Christopher Crippen