Public Comment From: Sent: To: Subject: Kn: Farley Wednesday, July 14, 2021 2:29 PM Public Comment 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
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 1 Public Comment From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: City Clerk Tuesday, July 20, 2021 1:52 PM Public Comment FW: Kennedy Commission Comments on Item 20 Anaheim SLA 7.20.21.pdf Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 1:35 PM Subject: Kennedy Commission Comments on Item 20 Anaheim City Clerk, Please see attached comments on Item #20.
ommission.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 1:35 PM Subject: Kennedy Commission Comments on Item 20 Anaheim City Clerk, Please see attached comments on Item #20.
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 1 July 20, 2021 Mayor Harry Sidhu Councilmembers City of Anaheim 200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, CA 92805 Kennedy COMMISSION www.kennedycommission.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.
y, 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.
I. 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 1 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).
II. 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
ls, 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 2 with the act or by offering priority to affordable housing developers.
III. Conclusion
and pursued a sale of city owned surplus land without allowing for a disposition of surplus land in accordance 2 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, Сеоби Cesar Covarrubias Executive Director 3 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: Rebecca Sanchez Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:44 PM Public Comment 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
ednesday, July 14, 2021 7:44 PM Public Comment 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 1 Public Comment Toni Ferro From: Sent: To: Subject: Sunday, July 18, 2021 10:30 AM Public Comment 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 1 Public Comment From: Sent: To: Subject: Theresa Bass Monday, July 19, 2021 8:53 AM Public Comment FW: Freedom of Speech!
From: Sharyl Hess Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2021 7:19 PM 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:
a 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: Sent: To: Subject: Theresa Bass Monday, July 19, 2021 8:55 AM Public Comment FW: Marxist city of Anaheim -----Original Message---From: DSP Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2021 4:51 PM 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 1 Public Comment From: Sent: To: Subject: Theresa Bass Monday, July 19, 2021 8:56 AM Public Comment FW: Results of your decision From: Kandy Schendel Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2021 4:09 PM 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
on 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 1 S SCHENDEL MEDIA 2 Public Comment Sharon Petty From: Sent: To: Subject: Tuesday, July 13, 2021 8:06 PM Public Comment 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.
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
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.
1 Robert and Sharon Petty Anaheim Hills, CA 92807 Phone: Email: 2 Public Comment From: Sent: Subject: Attachments: Jill Cook Tuesday, July 13, 2021 8:43 PM Opposition to Holden Project 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 1 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
ok 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 20th 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!
se 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?
ly, 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.
or 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: Sent: Subject: James Kelly Wednesday, July 14, 2021 1:48 PM HOLDEN PROJECT Dear City of Anaheim City Council: July 14, 2021 I, 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. 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
s 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 ADJOINING 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 2 Public Comment From: Sent: To: Subject: verjeanw Wednesday, July 14, 2021 3:15 PM Public Comment 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
Public Comment 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 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
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 ½ 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.
1 Kind Regards, Verjean Walker 2 Public Comment From: Sent: Subject: James Kelly Wednesday, July 14, 2021 3:33 PM HOLDEN PROJECT Dear City of Anaheim City Council:
oppose the Proposed Holden Project.
1 Kind Regards, Verjean Walker 2 Public Comment From: Sent: Subject: James Kelly Wednesday, July 14, 2021 3:33 PM 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 1
fety 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 1 Public Comment From: Sent: Subject: James Kelly Wednesday, July 14, 2021 3:45 PM 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 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 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
ncy 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 2 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: Jenni Thomas Wednesday, July 14, 2021 4:00 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor) Proposed HOLDEN Project July 14, 2021 City of Anaheim City Council 200 South Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, CA. 92805 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
ct: 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.
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.
1 Best Regards, Jenni Thomas 2 Public Comment From: Sent: To: Subject: Brady Jaime Friday, July 16, 2021 12:00 PM Public Comment 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 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
ing 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.
n 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 2 Public Comment From: Sent: Cc: Subject: Luke Callahan Friday, July 16, 2021 4:29 PM britanycallahan Homeowner Opposition to Holden Project Dear Council Member 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
he 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.
ore 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.
1 Best regards, Britany and Luke Callahan 2 Public Comment From: Sent: To: Subject: jim saenz Saturday, July 17, 2021 2:38 PM Public Comment 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 1 Public Comment From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: rgrand Monday, July 19, 2021 9:07 AM Harry Sidhu (Mayor) Public Comment
From: Jim Saenz Anaheim, Ca. 92807 Anaheim P.D.-Retired Long time Anaheim resident 1 Public Comment From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: rgrand Monday, July 19, 2021 9:07 AM Harry Sidhu (Mayor) Public Comment 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 1 Public Comment From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: JAMES VANDERHEIDE Monday, July 19, 2021 9:21 AM Public Comment Holden Hills Appeal 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 1 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
s 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.
oo 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: Sent: To: Kenneth Piguee Monday, July 19, 2021 10:21 AM Public Comment CC 7/20 Agenda Item 21 Subject: 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 the community.
Kenneth Piguee and believe this is a great amenity for seniors and will not adversely impact 1 Public Comment From: Sent: To: Subject: Amy Larson Monday, July 19, 2021 2:54 PM Public Comment; [email protected]; Stephen Faessel; Jose Diaz; [email protected]; Avelino Valencia; Trevor O'Neil 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.
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 Dr James Larson and 1 Public Comment From: Sent: To: Subject: Sue Kurzbard Monday, July 19, 2021 3:13 PM Public Comment 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.
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 1 Public Comment From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: philip Monday, July 19, 2021 3:50 PM Public Comment G Philip; Steve La Motte 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
t 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 | Stewardship Newport Beach | La Quinta 1 RECEIVED 2021 JUL 19 P 3:56 OFFICE OF CITY CLERK CITY OF ANAHEIM Office of the City Clerk 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard 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
ommercial 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 opiniongathering shows it to be resoundingly unpopular to the tune of about 95%. Not only will the threestory 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.
Keith floyd Keith Lloyd Anaheim Hills, CA 92807 Public Comment From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Peter Chang Monday, July 19, 2021 6:07 PM Public Comment Holden Hills Appeal CUP 2019-06048 Holden project CUP 2019-06048.pdf
aheim Hills, CA 92807 Public Comment From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Peter Chang Monday, July 19, 2021 6:07 PM Public Comment Holden Hills Appeal CUP 2019-06048 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.
1 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.
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 Peter K. Chang Public Comment From: Sent: To: Scott Reece Tuesday, July 20, 2021 12:24 PM Public Comment LockLear Law Office Cc: Subject: Attachments: Holden Opposition Holden Letter.pdf I have attached herewith a letter of opposition to the Holden project now being considered by the City Council.
Scott Reece 1 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. I, 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.
(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
mmission 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
ting 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: Tina Locklear Monday, July 19, 2021 7:33 PM Public Comment No to Holden Project No on Holden Council Member letter.pdf Dear Council Members Please see the attached which articulates my concerns over the Holden Project for you to consider.
Thank you.
Tina Locklear
Holden Project No on Holden Council Member letter.pdf Dear Council Members Please see the attached which articulates my concerns over the Holden Project for you to consider.
Thank you.
Tina Locklear Anaheim, CA 92807 1 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
arby 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
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
n 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: Sent: To: Subject: Raj Stars Monday, July 19, 2021 11:56 PM Public Comment 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.
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 1 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
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 2 Public Comment From: Sent: To: Subject: SAghera Tuesday, July 20, 2021 12:00 AM Public Comment HOLDEN PROJECT at 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim, CA 92807 July 19, 2021 Dear City of Anaheim City Council: I, 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.
oned 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
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 ADJOINING 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 2 Public Comment From: Sent: To: Subject: Atims Star Tuesday, July 20, 2021 12:02 AM Public Comment HOLDEN PROJECT at 5275 East Nohl 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
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 1 Public Comment From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Bailey Cook Tuesday, July 20, 2021 9:05 AM Public Comment Holden Development Opposition Holden opposition letter July 20, 2021.docx Please see my attached letter in opposition of the Holden Development.
Bailey Cook MBA 1 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 20th 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
ywood 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
t 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
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: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Rick Pollgreen Tuesday, July 20, 2021 11:08 AM Public Comment For Appeal of DEV2019-00172 petition_signatures.pdf; NoToHolden-Signatures Real[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 1 Name Reza Mirbeik II Zahra Azadbadi City State Postal Code Country Signed On Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 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 5/29/2021 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 5/29/2021
A 92807 US 5/29/2021 William Suvoy Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 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 5/29/2021 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 5/29/2021 Sandra Blanco Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 Joe A. Rodriguez Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 Sherry Brooks Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 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 5/29/2021 Edward Rutherford Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 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 5/29/2021 Melissa kimball Anaheim CA 92808 US 5/29/2021 Joseph Giangrande Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 Christina Mooney Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 MaryAnn Tilhof Anaheim CA 92808 US 5/29/2021 Robyn Logan Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 Subhash Aghera Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 Shannon Page Cutler Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/29/2021 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 5/29/2021 Amanda Fraser Orange CA 92869 US 5/29/2021 Stacy Turner Orange CA 92865 US 5/29/2021 Bharti shah 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
m 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 Sanaz Azadbadi 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 Leila Hale Irvine CA 92612 US 5/30/2021 Los Angeles CA 90014 US 5/30/2021
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 Leila Hale Irvine CA 92612 US 5/30/2021 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 5/31/2021 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 Jake Johnson Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 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 5/31/2021 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 lan 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
san Sloan Anaheim CA 92807 US 5/31/2021 lan 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 PP 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 Bao 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
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 Jane Schonfeld Orange Jill Jones Placentia 555 CA 92869 US 6/1/2021 CA 92867 US 6/1/2021 CA 92870 US 6/1/2021 Erika Simons San jose 95136 US 6/1/2021 Huy Vu Anaheim Michelle MacDonald Anaheim Ruben Rodarte Anaheim CA Heidi Heffington Anaheim CA BJ Shim Anaheim CA Brenda Bianchino Anaheim CA Michael Mooney Anaheim JJJJJJJ CA 92807 US 6/2/2021 CA 92807 US 6/2/2021 92807 US 6/2/2021 92807 US 6/2/2021 92807 US 6/2/2021 92807 US 6/2/2021 CA 90807 US 6/2/2021 Nyla Bell Sky Rojo Judith Mejia John De Lucia Brent Wagstaff Mark Gabbe Jacksonville Los Angeles Placentia Anaheim 28546 US 6/2/2021 CA CA Anaheim Anaheim CA Holly Frye Anaheim Marion Candia Anaheim CA 90006 US 6/2/2021 CA 92870 US 6/2/2021 92807 US 6/3/2021 CA 92805 US 6/3/2021 92807 US 6/3/2021 CA 92807 US 6/3/2021 92807 US 6/3/2021 Kendezzy P Anaheim 92804 US 6/3/2021 Lynette Lam Anaheim Jennifer Paino Anaheim Isabella Lopez Anaheim 555 CA 92807 US 6/3/2021 CA 92807 US 6/3/2021 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 Craig Brand Anaheim CA Anaheim Serena Lopez Anaheim CA Nathaniel Grenier Anaheim CA April Lanteri Corona CA Cathy Dayton Bernadette Suraweera lisa fritz Maywood JJJJJJ 92867 US 6/3/2021 CA 92807 US 6/3/2021
Brand Anaheim CA Anaheim Serena Lopez Anaheim CA Nathaniel Grenier Anaheim CA April Lanteri Corona CA Cathy Dayton Bernadette Suraweera lisa fritz Maywood JJJJJJ 92867 US 6/3/2021 CA 92807 US 6/3/2021 92807 US 6/3/2021 US 6/3/2021 92882 US 6/3/2021 CA 90270 US 6/3/2021 Rancho Santa Margarita 92688 US 6/3/2021 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 Jonathan Ochoa Garden Grove 92843 US 6/4/2021 Los Angeles 90012 US 6/4/2021 Sarah Dos Santos joan claire rich Jignesh Patel Shaheen Ghori Heather Derlin Kiyomi Webb Sue Hoyer Amelia Azzam Los Angeles 90036 US 6/4/2021 napa Orange 94559 US 6/4/2021 CA J 92865 US 6/4/2021 Palo Alto 94303 US 6/4/2021 Santa Ana CA 92703 US 6/4/2021 Walnut Creek 94598 US 6/4/2021 West Hills 91304 US 6/4/2021 Yorba Linda CA Debi Ohman Anaheim CA Shirley Cooksey Anaheim Jerry Cooksey Anaheim CA 8855 92886 US 6/4/2021 92807 US 6/5/2021 CA 92807 US 6/5/2021 92807 US 6/5/2021 Porcelain Ogle Anaheim 92807 US 6/5/2021 Clifford Bulloch
an Anaheim CA Shirley Cooksey Anaheim Jerry Cooksey Anaheim CA 8855 92886 US 6/4/2021 92807 US 6/5/2021 CA 92807 US 6/5/2021 92807 US 6/5/2021 Porcelain Ogle Anaheim 92807 US 6/5/2021 Clifford Bulloch Anaheim Shaina Strait Anaheim Flora Ortega Bakersfield 555 CA 92807 US 6/5/2021 CA US 6/5/2021 CA 93313 US 6/5/2021 Duoli zhou Camarillo 93012 US 6/5/2021 Mohamed Sarwar Dublin 94568 US 6/5/2021 Valerie Vasquez Fontana 92336 US 6/5/2021 Karen Ayala Estrella Garcia Lopez dedera Jackson Fontana Fullerton Hemet 92336 US 6/5/2021 92831 US 6/5/2021 CA J 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 Cynthia Gonzales Anaheim Shaun T Anaheim 888 92807 US 6/6/2021 CA 92807 US 6/6/2021 CA 92804 US 6/6/2021 Anand Palasamudram Anaheim 92808 US 6/6/2021 Priya Yadav Anaheim CA Gabriela Gonzalez Los Angeles CA 55 92807 US 6/6/2021 90001 US 6/6/2021 mary ann neilsen Ziad Naime santa barbara 93101-164 US 6/6/2021 Seal Beach 90740 US 6/6/2021 eric wong Anaheim CA Mark Glenn Anaheim CA Russell Jenkin Anaheim Victor Nunez Anaheim CA 5 5 5 5 92808 US 6/7/2021 92807 US 6/7/2021 CA 92807 US 6/7/2021 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 Adrianzén 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 6/10/2021 Lawrence Haddadin Orange CA 92865 US 6/10/2021 Jennie Lynn Johanson Orange CA 92867 US
Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/10/2021 Jacob Osier Anaheim CA 92807 US 6/10/2021 Salomon Maya Corona CA 92879 US 6/10/2021 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 6/11/2021 Sheila Valdivia Anaheim CA 92808 US 6/11/2021 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 6/11/2021 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 6/11/2021 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 6/12/2021 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 6/12/2021 Stacy Lee Orange CA 92869 US 6/12/2021 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 6/12/2021 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 Zahra 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 Joan Rietkerk Anaheim Laural Lyon Anaheim CA Vanessa Bates Anaheim Rhonda Beecher Anaheim 55555 92867 US 6/14/2021 CA 92807 US 6/14/2021 92807 US 6/14/2021 CA 92807 US 6/14/2021 CA 92807 US 6/14/2021 Max Schiappacasse Folsom 95630 US 6/14/2021 emily juell NAVEEN SAXENA Chelsie Cortes Anaheim Anaheim 55 CA 92807 US 6/15/2021 CA 92807 US 6/15/2021 Commerce 90022 US 6/15/2021 Ginny Weasley Jeffrey Nguyen Los Angeles Anaheim CA CA Gina Grammas Jim Grammas Farhad Saghatchi Anaheim Anaheim Sandra S Collier Anaheim Anaheim CA 90009 US 6/15/2021 92807 US 6/16/2021 92808 US 6/16/2021 CA 92807 US 6/16/2021 CA 92807 US 6/16/2021 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 erika fuerbach
7/2021 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 erika fuerbach 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 g 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 matz 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
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 Rick Farano Anaheim 88 92807 US 7/7/2021 CA 92807 US 7/7/2021 Ruby Demitros Seattle 98144 US 7/7/2021 Robert Meehan Anaheim CA Chris Weber Gloria Ressler Felicia Jones Steven Salas Charmaine Meyer Francois Blackwell Noemi Bautista Los Angeles Rancho Cucamonga Anaheim CA Anaheim CA 855 92807 US 7/8/2021 92807 US 7/9/2021 92807 US 7/9/2021 Clovis 93611 US 7/9/2021 90028 US 7/9/2021 91730 US 7/9/2021 San Diego 92114 US 7/9/2021 Santa Ana 92704 US 7/9/2021 Jolene Vasquez Anaheim Sarah Hughes Anaheim 55 CA 92807 US 7/10/2021 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 7/14/2021 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 Neal Weber Anaheim 55 CA 92808 US 7/18/2021 CA 92807 US 7/19/2021 After Appols 2 Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) OVER Name Address Brian Walkwitz D 1 Connie Porter Laura Flores Kim Lovi quan
ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) OVER Name Address Brian Walkwitz D 1 Connie Porter Laura Flores Kim Lovi quan William Mintor Bill McCarter 11 Laura McCarter Mary Rutherford Ju Martha I Kuroishi t MARIA MIJARES GABE MIJARES Signature Vi Connie Port traheim, CA 92805 aura flu Kim Ravin " in a for cry ست hane Doyle Fatricia grz Chinly Dennis Ranes CORBY BRIGHT Chats 4 Raney Caney (Over> Name James F. Roberts Jagle Roberting Patricia (Watts Beverheyd Presthier siminda Rickett BARBARA PERES Mary mighty DAN YBARRA Binda Aliana Dylan Dais Kayden Peterson Kramer, TED Address Signature James F. Robact * Roberts ei di herm Amanda P, Lett.
Barbara Pere Mary my D Prestler Sid Kramu Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name AL FANEll, Ava Fanelli JOHN MURPHY Sue Kurzbard Mard K K William Bothwell Werner Berg Address Signature on bills th William Bothwell Maria After Appeal 1/4/21 France Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name Eric Guzik Aphanie Labatta Lynn O'Connell Roberta Morey GARRETT DAVis Sara Elmustafa Sunshu Ah SrokHee AHN Maria Basdak Brian Santell MARIA RUFINA Brayden Shay-Foley ALI GONDALWALA LARRY Broad Robert Siets Kat Lim Sophia Long nany Shaffer Gleorgia Maytas Kelly Leon Espinoza 487 F Address P Signature Ź The Aphanis Labatta 2 La Ambke oh 87 Maria B Р + Date 6/7/21 6/7/21 6-7-21 6-7-21 6-7-71 6-7-21 6-8-21 6/8/21 6/8/21 6/8/21.
6/8/21 6/8/21 6/8/21 6/8/21 6/8/21 A 16/8/21 姥 6/8/21 4/8/21 CA 92867 SW 92807 92867 Jelly on Espinge 6/8/2.
20
Maria B Р + Date 6/7/21 6/7/21 6-7-21 6-7-21 6-7-71 6-7-21 6-8-21 6/8/21 6/8/21 6/8/21.
6/8/21 6/8/21 6/8/21 6/8/21 6/8/21 A 16/8/21 姥 6/8/21 4/8/21 CA 92867 SW 92807 92867 Jelly on Espinge 6/8/2.
20 After Appeal Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name Katrina Fritter Georgia Alevizos Julie Crumpler CLIFFORD BULLOCH SCOTT RUMBO Address Frage APHESSETCHE Douille Juli Signature Date 6/8/21 4821 6·8-21 6-8.27 6.2.21 6-8.21.
After Appeal From Corby 6/9/2, ① Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name Amir Gholamipour Maryam Balouch Mary S. ILLIONS BERRY LESEN MORENU MICHAEL CARE, Ali Mirtor Sara Zarei Azizeh Sadati Soghrakhatoon Zarei Grace Hil SCOTT Hun Kay Matin Ahdi Frank Abdi Sina Abdi Address Signature Date 792807 A 5,28,2021 10307 P Mary & melys I Bery Balouch 5:2812021 5/28/2021 5/28/21 how uza theim Therm aheim zater Se DANA GROGGER Qua 5/28/22 5/28/22 5128121 5/28/21 5/28121 6/1/2 6/1/21 6/1/21 6/1/21 6/1/21 6/02/21 INR EL PENN RP Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) 20 Name Colleen/ DEL MAZZI 1 Dar De Wazz1.
Address Signature Colleen The Date 5/28/20 5/28128 RENSHANK Barbara Shank Matthew Brady ERIC MOUNESS Barbara Mouness JANELLE LEIGHTON Ben Leighton Tredy Dousal Michelle Matthews Anne Mattheus Richard GUERCIO Sherry Brooks Kathleen Rossi жаке чешаd Robert Frohn INGE Frohn Chaudia Kelly JAMES KELLY 5/28/21 5/28/21 5/28/21 men 5/28/21 Barbara Mouness 5/28/21 6 5/28/21 5/28/21 5/28/121 5/28/21 5/28/21 5/78/21
Sherry Brooks Kathleen Rossi жаке чешаd Robert Frohn INGE Frohn Chaudia Kelly JAMES KELLY 5/28/21 5/28/21 5/28/21 men 5/28/21 Barbara Mouness 5/28/21 6 5/28/21 5/28/21 5/28/121 5/28/21 5/28/21 5/78/21 Sherry Brook 20. si 5/25/21 5282 Judy Dougal le am 5/2/21 5/28/21 5/28/7 James Billy 5/28/21 5-28-21 Sig 1 of 8 Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name Address SEWON CHOUGH 15305 E Wartridor R Florence Hansen Amy Gold "GRANT JOHNSON' PAUL KRAMER Valerie Napoli Giovanni Marraqui RICHARD BIANCHING BRENDA BIANCHIN 4 ALT Signature Florence M. Hansen 5/29/21 Napol Branchine ch Date 5/29/21 5/29/21 5/29/21 5/29/21 5/29/21 5/29/21 5/29/21 5-29.21 5-29-21 5124/24 21-1/21 Cherie Susena laveca Sixec Kunghar Seycin Vandini Saxena Sig 2 of 8 Kungan Simpor Supena 13 RPellgren (2) Garrett Huyes Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name Address H B Signature Date 5/20/11 5/28/21 5/28/21 5/29/21 5-29-21 5/29/21 5/29/2021 5-29-21 5-29-21 Gabrielle Hayes ETERAN LULEDECKE BERTIE CHAWLA Karla Reynoso Hossein Moini WARNER WOR Michelle Aragon ROBERT T. PETTY SHARON S. PETTY Dina Darling JAMES A CAR DAWN CARTER ippagon Shawn S. Petty 5-29-21 fle 5-29-21 Dawn Bart 5-29-21 5-29-21 Sig 3 of 8 R. Pollgreen ③ Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name Address Date -Mike Janoff Sidney Jan off JEFF KISH Kirit Patel Helen Yoon Marissa Sutton Kellie Chiesa Don Chiesa Signature Michael Michael art 5/29/21 5/29/21 5/29/21 Колко s/zaki
DEV2019-00172) Name Address Date -Mike Janoff Sidney Jan off JEFF KISH Kirit Patel Helen Yoon Marissa Sutton Kellie Chiesa Don Chiesa Signature Michael Michael art 5/29/21 5/29/21 5/29/21 Колко s/zaki 5/29/21 Mi 5/29/21 Kellie D. Chiesa Don S Chiesa 5-29-21 5-29-21 Sig 4 of 8 Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172 ) Name •TERVER ATANASSOV Evelina Afanascova.
N C Nauren Hansen.
Eset this Sei Bennett Jureeporn Barker BRETT BARKER Lance Barker Coco Rodriguez Pamela Stevens Address Signature Date 05/37/2021 5/31/21 5/81/21 5/31/71 532 5/31/21 05/31/21 Ana.
Brill A Buble 05/31/21 05/31/21 5/31/21 PL Coco.
Par 5/31/21 21 Sig 5 of 8 (1) Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name Hannah Atkins.
Kristin Smith Lori Atkins Address Signature Наплеч Анкиа Kust m range Ca 92865 Lori Atkins Aaron Smith MITCH ATKers Luke Callahan Britany Callahan Sig 6 of 8 10 Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name Mike Price DAN B. PERTER CHARLIE BUDDS Dina Darling Mihal Dol Victor Caballero Address Signature 1 mile fr 6 Mort Ch Buddy 512 (9) Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) (3 Name JOHN GREASON TIM BAKER ANDY PENG Address Sig 8 of 8 Signature Date 5/28/21 Baber 5/28/21 05/25/21 R. Pollgreen ① Matt Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 2020-
EASON TIM BAKER ANDY PENG Address Sig 8 of 8 Signature Date 5/28/21 Baber 5/28/21 05/25/21 R. Pollgreen ① Matt Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name Rick Pollgreen Sandra J. Pollgreen Hoang 1 Nguyễn Lien T Nguyen Nicole Hernandez Phillip H. Roberts Joan Roberts WALT COMMANS Martha Mandes BERTIE CHAWLA PAIR MANDAS MIKE SUTTON Dina Darling Rachelle Harman MARC KURZBARD ES SUDARIO Teresa Turgeon Address Tiruc Dis 5/29/21 Signature Date Ruck Pollgreen Sandra Hallgreen 5/26/21 5/28/21 Hom 5/29/21 5/29/21 Helly H 5/29/71 Joan Roberts 5/29/21 5/29/21 5/29/21 Baeto Chavele 5/29/21 5/29/21 Mire Sako 5/29/21 5/29/21 Rachelle Hur 5/29/21 529-21 Ma Me للسه 5/29/21, 5/29/21 Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name Address JOSE M MARTINEZ <211 6 HL To. A 31 Q Signature Terry Cressmia Naser Salen KEITH CLOYD Michele Duncan Pat · Rita Powers JOE DORNBACH MARK Matthews Rutherfar JONELLE ROTHEUS James McGuire Fred R.THFUSS William R Powell Card Powell Ellen Dunlap Lelia Bennett Date 5/28/21 5/23/21 Mas Sale 5/28121 Keith flas Bric 5 5-28-21 Ź es 5-28-21 5-28-21 Акли Fred Weffum & well Here Egen A 5-28-21 5-2821 5-28-21 528-21 5-23-21 5-28-21 5-28-21 ⑥ Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name Elizabeth Vesel Mohammadreza mitheid Salterary Zahra Azadbadi Julie Christensen Erin Dunlap Manuel Don Address , Date 5-28-21 5-28-21 5/28/21 Julie Christensen 5/28/21 Signature Marten Milher र्छ 5128121 Mamal 5/28/21 5/28/21 5/28/21 8/24 ктным
ry Zahra Azadbadi Julie Christensen Erin Dunlap Manuel Don Address , Date 5-28-21 5-28-21 5/28/21 Julie Christensen 5/28/21 Signature Marten Milher र्छ 5128121 Mamal 5/28/21 5/28/21 5/28/21 8/24 ктным Maddy Them Dan Wisol Beve NANCY WILSON W ✓ 5/28/21 5-28-21 Margery Dan JENNY THOMAS Rich MADDY THOMAS THOMAS m ② Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name Devrell Brown GARY Scott Thomas Wollam RUTH HOWARD ROBERT LYNCY Donna Lylidi Spencer Puskas Gayle Cornejo Danielle Weiter Rachel Weiler Christopher Weiler Address Signature Date вот BOT any bott C. Wall 5/28/21 5-28-21 5.28-21 Howa 5/28/21 5/28/21 Donna Synch 5/28/21 Spe 5/28/21 sayle come 5/28/21 307 Danielle Weiler 5/28/21 or Rachel Weller 5/28/21 107 celeila 5/28/21 ☐ Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name MICHAEL SARGENT Keith Row Michael A. Penn Ashleigh E. Aitken Whyte A.
Elizabeth Aith MONIKA SARGENT DAVID REYNOLDS Address Signature на man Date 5/31/21 5/3/21 5/31/2021 5.31.2021 5/31/2021 5/31/2021 5/31/2021 Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name Valerie Kruger Nick Kruger PETER DUNCAN Nonne und Afshin Nejad Address Signature あ Apphin Nejad 6-28-21 5-28:21 Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name Stacey Brock MARILYN GUERCIO Joe Guercio Address Telian Signature дас Date 5/28/2021 5/29/21 5/30/21 15
06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name Stacey Brock MARILYN GUERCIO Joe Guercio Address Telian Signature дас Date 5/28/2021 5/29/21 5/30/21 15 Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name Robin A. MAGuire Tracy J. Maguire Address Signature Ta . 5/31/2021 6/1/2021 Corby) Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name MICHAEL JANGFE SIDNEY JANOFF Sandy Jegers GERdd ZEGERS MICHAEL J.WHELA ELAINE P. Whelar R NIKVNS MODI NEVAL MUDI JITENORA V. KALYANI BORISMACK XAVIER mick Brenda Tapley Marc Tapley Jim Harrington Colleen Harrington Hang Do Marcas Wong Gel, Margulie Glenn Magalient Address Signature michal Janoff Sidney Janoff Sardy figer gegers HAM whelm P. Whelan July Nelica Pha Jatendra V. Kaligani Colleen Hayingh Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name THOMAS OWEN Morgan Own Beltha Doven WILLIAM LoupE JEANNETTE LOURE LauraSliter Sarah Sattar D GREA BANK Brandon Raulet, Harmor Redic Anna David Harlin Carolyn Harlin Matthew Harlin Darrell White Shan whilte Address Signature Thoms Owen Co Вика Ошен Welhane Lover Jeanne Supfore a Matt Hart Jamell White Shari White CORBY BRIGHT 102 Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name Cena Rivera Jason CARR Suzette Delazzer ры пост Дост Marky. Liul Basel Smith WILLIAM YI Lisa Easterbroe Тарил Ройки Robert Evans
05144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name Cena Rivera Jason CARR Suzette Delazzer ры пост Дост Marky. Liul Basel Smith WILLIAM YI Lisa Easterbroe Тарил Ройки Robert Evans RAY JORDEN Dae S Kary JULIE SARKIS ALEX MIRZA GARO ABOSHIAN MARAL TATARIAN ROBERT J GRANDOLFO Address Signature Con Date 5/27/21 5/28/21 3/292 5/28/4 5/28/21 jer polets with тих 5/28/2001 5/28/2011 کی تھی a en 5/28/2 Regas 5/28/21 3/28/21 5/28/21 5/28/21 5/28/21 5/285/27 1/4 ( 5/28/21 5/28/21 5/25/21 MARLA Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name GAY FONSTANTS; Address Signature Donna Morales Peggy Erf Paul E. EC CHARLES HERN SHIRLEY HERN Lynn Bright Donna Donna Montes L Eoff C.
الكيل Lepan Brijes Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name TIFFANY MELENDEZ SHELDON PRESTON Francisca Klos Thomas L Klos Jr Javier Servato Address CA 42826 Signature for maheim, CA 92307' Anaher Ca 92807 Nico Serrato Hanan Awad Raed Awad Grady Jaime Bonnie Vellaman!
Ricardo Roncancio Evelyn Guzman f 다 Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name JOHN AFFELD Linal Affeld Chr's Melicker Address Signature Chris Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name JohN LARSON Amy LARSON BOBLE JAYNE LITTLE JAch Lichtersten Gayle Lichtenstern CLARK SMITH RONALD BINNER ALICE BIHNER gay Майка Кінть WILLIAM KIRMIZ Richard Van Houter Address Signature
019-00172) Name JohN LARSON Amy LARSON BOBLE JAYNE LITTLE JAch Lichtersten Gayle Lichtenstern CLARK SMITH RONALD BINNER ALICE BIHNER gay Майка Кінть WILLIAM KIRMIZ Richard Van Houter Address Signature Gayle Lichtenstein Spazia Raby Date 5/29/2 05/09/2021 1/21 5/29/21 5/29/21 5/29/21 5/29/21 5/29/21 5/29/21 5/29/21 5/29/21 5/29/2021 5-30-21 Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name PATRICK GILDEA Stephanie Anaya Melissa Reed Susan Bekht JASON MILLARD Richard Rivera NATHAN ANAYA CORBY BRIGHT Address PAKED Quad a Signature Sugge Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name Tracie Malton Charks Melton PATRICK MAY Michelle May 15 dila Vega George Shirt Yvonne Shine Derry Mellott Laura Iwasaki Suc Chung Address Signature Seare hill Michelle The dila Vega Sh & mell Swasaki Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name THERESA DEWNEY Margaret Bowls King DOCOLES ONG JOHN J. BRUNELi 123 Address Signature Theresa Downey 7 AM Date 06/01/2021 6/1/2021 6/1/2021 6/1/2021 6/1/2021 Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name Charlyn Barton Matthew Young Address Signature Date Gnahein 92807 Charly bust 5/21/2021 aheim CA 92807 at 5/30/2021 # 92808 Megan Burg 5/30/21 Megan Burgess James Bajza Danielle Bajze Alicia Yoast herilyn Counter JOHN BARTON Dee U. Fisher Anahelm 92808 Anaheim 92808 Anaheim 92807 Anaheim, CA 92807 5/30/21
5/30/2021 # 92808 Megan Burg 5/30/21 Megan Burgess James Bajza Danielle Bajze Alicia Yoast herilyn Counter JOHN BARTON Dee U. Fisher Anahelm 92808 Anaheim 92808 Anaheim 92807 Anaheim, CA 92807 5/30/21 5/30/21 5/30/21 3/30/21 5/30/2 ANAHEIM, CA 92807 parter Anaheim Ca 92807 5/31/21 Public Comment From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Rick Pollgreen Tuesday, July 20, 2021 11:10 AM Public Comment Re: For Appeal of DEV2019-00172 My-appeal-speech.docx Oops! my speech did not attach! Try again.
Here is my speech now!
Rick From: Rick Pollgreen Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 11:07 AM 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 was titled "CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 2020-05144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV201900172)".
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.
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 Dave 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
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, I 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
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
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.
il 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 made 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
HE 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 PROJECT 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 look 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
nd 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, I 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!
SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR.
STREET WITH A PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION 1 [LIGHTING CONCEPT: DITEROE LIGHTING LEGEND 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
an 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
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
hat 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 4th 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
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
uld 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. Just 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): I 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
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! CHECKED_O 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
ct 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: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Matthew Brady Tuesday, July 20, 2021 12:13 PM Jennifer L. Hall; Public Comment Tim Graham; Courtney Brady Written Opposition in Support of Appeal to Deny Holden Project (DEV2019-00172) 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
he 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 1 ANAHEIM HILLS RESIDENTS' APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISION'S APPROVAL OF THE HOLDEN PROJECT'S REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, AND SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL AT 5275 EAST NOHL RANCH ROAD PROPERTY Dear City of Anaheim City Council: The planned Holden Project ("HOLDEN PROJECT") at 5275 East Nohl Ranch Road in Anaheim, California, will have a substantial negative impact on the community and safety of Anaheim Hills, if it is allowed to be built. The project fails to comply with numerous governmental statutes regarding zoning, traffic, environmental impact, safety, and the City of Anaheim's ("City") General Plan. Therefore, we appeal the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim's Resolution No. PC2021-020 approving this plan (No. DEV2019-00172) and the applications for a Conditional Use Permit (No. 2019-06048), Variance (No. 2020-05144), and Specimen Tree Removal (No. 2021-00001).
I.
CEQA/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Planning Commission's Resolution No. PC2021-020 must be overturned because it failed to properly investigate the property at issue for unusual circumstances that justified removing the HOLDEN PROJECT property from being California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") exempt; thus requiring an Environment Impact Report ("EIR").
ssue 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
rthermore, 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 1 require a detailed CEQA analysis. The HOLDEN PROJECT should not be considered CEQA exempt and our appeal of the Planning Commission's resolution must be granted on that basis alone.
CEQA Guidelines section 15332 requires: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designations and regulations (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
(c) The project site has no value, as a habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
As discussed in detail below, the project is not consistent with the Anaheim General Plan nor the RH-3 applicable zoning designation. The property is less than five acres, but is surrounded by suburban uses, not urban uses. The trees on the property provide habitats for rare peregrine falcons and other birds. There will be significant negative effects related to traffic, noise and air quality as noted below.
The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (Bakersfield Citizens); Pocket Protectors v. City of
as noted below.
The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (Bakersfield Citizens); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 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.4th 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 selfgovernment." Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th 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.
2 II. FIRE DANGER-LIVES WILL BE AT RISK!
empt 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.
2 II. FIRE DANGER-LIVES WILL BE AT RISK!
The subject property is located in a "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone" and near the end of the evacuation route for Anaheim Hills. California Government Code section 51178 requires the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to identify "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones" using consistent statewide criteria. (See CAL FIRE's Orange County map at https://www.ocgov.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=8755) A close-up view of the map is below: 張: 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 3 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
rs. Many 3 residents, including us, tried to return home to pick up children from the local schools and/or family members to ensure their safety. Vehicles were left in the middle of the road and folks could not evacuate the area. Many of our neighbors lost their homes. The disaster would have been exponentially worse if not for the winds shifting.
The City claims that a new emergency plan that includes signs along East Nohl Ranch Road noting that it is the "evacuation route" will magically alleviate the gridlock are unrealistic. Here is a photo from the last wildfires where traffic was gridlocked up the evacuation route more than a mile before where the HOLDEN PROJECT would risk an epic disaster.
7AAD039 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.
AVENIDA FARO 4005 DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION EVACUATION ROUTE NO PARKING ANY TIME (Photo of the "evacuation route" sign on East Nohl Ranch Road) The Planning Commission was obligated make a finding of fact per Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.66.060 et seq. that the evidence presented, including the written objections and all oral objections made at the Planning Commission Hearing on May 24, 2021, and any such hearings regarding the PROJECT PLAN thereafter that each of the following conditions exist: 5 .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
h of the following conditions exist: 5 .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
y lives in danger due to extreme congestion in an area designed for low density when the next wildfires occur.
Granting the proposed conditional use permit is not reasonably necessary to safeguard and protect the public health and safety. It will only serve to make the area more dangerous due to increased traffic, stress, noise, environmental pollution, light pollution and clogging an important evacuation route.
Of note, the traffic generated by the HOLDEN PROJECT will include many large delivery trucks traveling on the streets that are specifically not designed to carry them in direct violation of Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.66.060.040. See photograph below of street sign on East Nohl Ranch Road prohibiting trucks weighing more than 6,000 pounds.
9 SPEED LIMIT 45 OVER 6,000 LBS NO PARKING ANY TIME The Planning Commission's findings of fact in this area are shockingly deficient and do not support the approval of the HOLDEN PROJECT.
III. THE CITY OF ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE PROHIBITS THE PROJECT PLAN'S REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Simply put, the HOLDEN PROJECT violates the intent of Anaheim's RH-3 Zoning, which states: Single-Family Hillside Residential. The intent of the "RH-3" Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment in keeping with the natural amenities and scenic resources of the area, with single-family dwelling units on a 7 minimum lot size of ten thousand (10,000) square feet. This zone implements the Low Density Residential land use designation in the General Plan. (Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.04.020.030) The HOLDEN PROJECT is the antithesis of every single element of RH-3 Zoning. The HOLDEN PROJECT is a monstrosity of a building that would be more than 30 times larger than
Code section 18.04.020.030) The HOLDEN PROJECT is the antithesis of every single element of RH-3 Zoning. The HOLDEN PROJECT is a monstrosity of a building that would be more than 30 times larger than the largest structure in the neighborhood (equivalent to the size of an average Walmart; that can't possibly be considered "attractive"); will decrease safety; will decrease the health of the environment via diesel fumes emitted by numerous emergency vehicles, constant sirens, noxious smells, and more; looks unnatural and nothing like the surrounding neighborhood; and will block existing views destroying the scenic resources of the area. Most importantly in regards to zoning, the HOLDEN PROJECT is not for single-family dwelling units on a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. It is described in their own prospecting marketing materials as a "resort." In fact, turnover is greater than 50% just like any large resort hotel. The HOLDEN PROJECT flagrantly violates the intent of the neighborhood's RH-3 Zoning and should be denied without further consideration.
Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.04.030 Table 4-A identifies the permissible uses, prohibited uses, and those that require a conditional use permit. The HOLDEN PROJECT indicates that Holden Community will be what amounts to a convalescent and rest home that will have 31 beds in "memory care dwelling units." Convalescent and rest homes are expressly prohibited in Anaheim's RH-3 Zone. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a rest home as "an establishment that provides housing and general care for the aged or the convalescent. (https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/rest%20home) Holden's own website FAQs for the proposed development states "Residents will receive help with activities of daily living, including: bathing,
https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/rest%20home) Holden's own website FAQs for the proposed development states "Residents will receive help with activities of daily living, including: bathing, dressing, grooming, medication management, assistance with ambulation...and 24 hour monitoring." Those are the services for the most able-bodied proposed residents. The memory care patients will be placed in "a secured wing for those impacted by dementia and dementia related diseases." (holdenanaheimhills.com/faq) The HOLDEN PROJECT's engineering consultants, EcoTierra Consulting, Inc., prepared a May 2021 CEQA exemption analysis for Andy Uk, Associate Planner for the City of Anaheim. The analysis concludes that "The Project qualifies as a project listed as a 'Convalescent & Rest Homes,' which considered based on State of California and City of Anaheim criteria." The analysis does not address the fact that convalescent and rest homes are specifically prohibited in Anaheim's RH-3 Zone.
The HOLDEN PROJECT's own engineers from Linscott, Law & Greenspan (LLG) have determined that this is a rest convalescent or rest home. In a November 18, 2020 LLG Technical Memorandum to Michael Wilborn of Alliance Realty Partners, it was stated that the HOLDEN PROJECT is "One of the uses included in the list is 'Convalescent & Rest Homes', which this Project is considered based on State of California and City of Anaheim criteria." (See attached LLG Technical Memorandum dated November 18, 2020) The HOLDEN PROJECT is clearly a convalescent and rest home; any other interpretation is disingenuous.
8 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
If the City Council concludes that this is a Senior Living Facility (Large), the applications should still be denied. The classification of uses that a Senior Living Facility (Large) would fall under is controlled by Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.36.020 which requires "uses that have similar functional characteristics or impacts upon the surrounding area." In this case, a Senior Living Facility (Large) IS DESIGNATED AS A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE under Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.36.040.190. There are zero Senior Living Facility (Large) businesses located in RH-3 zones as a result.
A non-residential business use should not be built smack dab in the middle of one of the nicest residential-only areas in Orange County. For context, this designation would fall under the same code section as a self-storage facility, sports arena or a sex club. No matter what nomenclature the HOLDEN PROJECT uses to attempt to fool the City with, there can be no doubt that a 118unit 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
at 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.
9 As the City of Anaheim recognizes in its overall General Plan:
those characteristics." The General Plan can easily be followed by preserving the current scenic views and denying the HOLDEN PROJECT.
9 As the City of Anaheim recognizes in its overall General Plan: Since the 1960s, the Hill and Canyon Area has become home to thousands of hillside residents and one of Orange County's most desired communities. Scenic views, well-planned residential development, access to a variety of natural, scenic and recreational resources like the Santa Ana River, Deer Canyon Park Preserve and the Anaheim Hills Golf Course, all contribute to the sense of pride felt by area residents. The General Plan seeks to preserve those characteristics that make the Hill and Canyon Area a special place and to provide current and future residents with adequate community services and facilities. It is further intended to encourage and maintain living areas which preserve the amenities of hillside living and retain the overall lower density, semi-rural, uncongested character of the Santa Ana Canyon Area.
Careful planning and protection of the area's scenic views, lower density, and uncongested character are what makes this area of Anaheim Hills one of Orange County's most desired communities. Allowing the HOLDEN PROJECT will irreparably harm all of the qualities that make the area so desirable.
IV.
TRAFFIC WILL BE DANGEROUS!
The HOLDEN PROJECT will further exacerbate the significant traffic problems in the area. Our community witnesses numerous traffic collisions often and near-collisions on a daily basis at the intersection of East Nohl Ranch Road and South Royal Oak Road. Vehicles frequently run the stoplight at this intersection at high speeds. City Traffic staff reported at the Planning
daily basis at the intersection of East Nohl Ranch Road and South Royal Oak Road. Vehicles frequently run the stoplight at this intersection at high speeds. City Traffic staff reported at the Planning Commission meeting that no deliveries should be made via the driveway on South Royal Oak Road. However, the HOLDEN PROJECT calls for all deliveries and utilities to use the South Royal Oak Road driveway.
Additionally, a massive business of this size will need large delivery trucks to make their deliveries of food, goods, supplemental oxygen, etc. These trucks are not permitted on the local roads with very limited exceptions. The proposed HOLDEN PROJECT will only create more traffic on a dangerous stretch of road through an increased number of vehicles on the road due to employees, medical service providers, emergency vehicles, delivery vehicles, entertainment and visitors.
The prospecting developer has provided a traffic study that does not accurately reflect the true conditions of the area. The traffic study was conducted in early March 2020 when the world was quite literally shutting down. The study does not take into account for the numerous emergency vehicles that will come to the site on an hourly basis, nor additional medical care needed for dialysis and other care.
Here is a photo of a tractor trailer (big rig) truck making a delivery to the Meridian senior complex, which is in a commercial zoned area. This truck drove through oncoming traffic lanes on East Nohl Ranch Road as it left the facility. Thankfully, no vehicles were traveling in the 10 opposite direction at the time otherwise a horrific collision would have taken place. Allowing the HOLDEN PROJECT will permit similar near-misses and potential catastrophes.
Anaheim Hills Rd Sexy V.
0 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.
Anaheim Hills Rd Sexy V.
PARKING WILL SPILL ONTO NEIGHBORING STREETS AND CREATE DANGEROUS CONDITIONS - THE PARKING STUDY IS FLAWED Since the HOLDEN PROJECT does not comply with the City of Anaheim General Plan nor its Municipal Zoning Code, the developers are seeking a variance. The plan readily admits that the proposed parking for the site is well below the amount that is required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. In fact, it only provides for 55 of the 102 required parking spaces in an area that is not accessible by mass transit, walking is impractical, and bicycling is possible only for those in the best physical shape. The reality is motor vehicles will take up lots of parking on the adjoining residential streets where children are omnipresent.
The "Updated Parking Demand Analysis for the Proposed Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community Project" portion of the HOLDEN PROJECT dated February 19, 2021, is full of misleading statements and outright fiction. It purports to identify three similar development for comparison regarding parking. To say that these comparisons are "apples and oranges" is an extreme understatement.
11 Most recently, the HOLDEN PROJECT claims they "found" four additional parking spaces.
How did they do this? By removing trees they claimed would be planted on the site to make up for the dozens of trees that they will be cutting down on the property.
The first identified comparison is located at 18922 Delaware Street in Huntington Beach, California. This facility is located next door to an 11-story medical complex and apartment
wn on the property.
The first identified comparison is located at 18922 Delaware Street in Huntington Beach, California. This facility is located next door to an 11-story medical complex and apartment buildings. The area is comprised of shopping centers, other convalescent and rest homes, and car dealerships. It is also located approximately one block west of Beach Boulevard in the heart of Huntington Beach with lots of mass transit availability. Quite simply, this is a deceitful comparison to the site located in Anaheim Hills.
The second comparison is at 433 W. Bastanchury Road in Fullerton, California. That facility is located across the street from the St. Jude Medical Center complex that encompasses numerous city blocks, multiple convalescent and rest homes, restaurants, and shopping centers. It is also located on a six-lane highway with many available forms of mass transportation. This is a deceitful comparison to the site located in Anaheim Hills.
The third comparison was allegedly located at 630 The City Drive South also in Fullerton, California. The developers had to file an addendum correcting their mistakes that they tried to pass off on the Planning Commission. Their fix was to compare the site to one in Orange, California. The new site that the parking study company claims is comparable is a three-story facility in a commercial area next to the 22 Freeway with immediate access to medical facilities, restaurants and shopping at the Outlets at Orange. Basic common sense and logic tells us that these are not comparable sites.
The "updated analysis" also purports that employees are encouraged to walk or bike to work.
Clearly, these folks have no idea how steep the terrain is in this area. Mass transit is also non-
le 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 nonexistent 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 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
act No. 8418 and 8647, a one (1) story height overlay zone is hereby established and imposed upon those certain lots abutting the area known as "Peralta Hills," and located on the north side of Valley Gate Drive, the east side of Sleepy Meadow Lane north of Forest Glen Road, and the north side of Forest Glen Road and Old Bucket Lane between Sleepy Meadow Lane and Nohl Ranch Road, and further described as Lot Nos. 65 through 79, inclusive, of Tract No. 8418 and Lot Nos. 24 through 46, inclusive, of Tract No.
8647. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, the maximum structural height on said lots shall not exceed one (1) story or twenty-five (25) feet, whichever is less, except as otherwise permitted in this subsection .020. The term "One-Story," as used in this subsection, shall mean a single habitable floor, and shall not permit any loft, mezzanine, balcony or similar habitable floor or area above such single habitable floor.
In keeping with the City's previous actions in this community prohibiting two-story buildings above single family homes below, the HOLDEN PROJECT should be denied as it will destroy the community's privacy.
VII.
THE SITE IS IN A PROTECTED SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE AND IT SUPERSEDES ANY REGULATIONS THAT ARE INCONSISTENT THEREWITH The area where the site is located is in a protected Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. As stated in Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.18.010 et seq.: Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone, is to provide for and promote orderly growth in certain areas of the City designated as being of distinctive, scenic importance, while implementing local governmental agency actions for the protection, preservation and enhancement of the unique and natural scenic assets of these
nated as being of distinctive, scenic importance, while implementing local governmental agency actions for the protection, preservation and enhancement of the unique and natural scenic assets of these areas as a valuable resource to the community. This area has been designated as an area of distinctive natural and rural beauty, characterized and exemplified by the interrelationship between such primary natural features as the rolling terrain, winding river, Specimen Trees, and the profusion of natural vegetation.
This site at issue is subject to the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, which is defined as: The area of the City designated as being within the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone is defined as that area lying easterly of the intersection of the State Route 55/Costa Mesa and State Route 91/Riverside Freeways, westerly of the Orange County line, southerly of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad right-of13 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
Corridor Overlay Zone must be denied. People driving from miles away will be able to see it hideously sticking out on the hillside. The City of Anaheim is required to protect and preserve the natural scenic assets of the area. As such, the HOLDEN PROJECT must be denied.
The HOLDEN PROJECT is a prohibited use, not subject to consideration of a conditional use permit because it is a convalescent or rest home. Holden speciously claims this is a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly. "Other terms used to refer to this level of care are assisted living facilities, board and care homes, rest homes and that component of Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs) that provide personal care and supervision." [emphasis added] (canhr.org/RCFE/rcfe_what.htm) The City Staff's Recommendation ignored that the HOLDEN PROJECT is a convalescent or rest home which is specifically not permitted in RH-3 Zoning per Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.04.030 Table 4-A. Planning Commissioner Meeks requested a legal opinion from the Assistant City Attorney at the May 24, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting as to this exact issue and the Assistant City Attorney did not respond. The Assistant City Attorney literally sat there and said nothing when asked to provide a legal opinion on this issue.
Again, this is a rest home that is specifically written in the zoning code as a prohibited use in the area's RH-3 Zone. Therefore, the HOLDEN PROJECT's applications for conditional use permit, variance, and specimen tree removal must be denied by the City Council.
The Planning Commission's Resolution also fails to mention that it is a NON-RESIDENTIAL use (a.k.a. business). A massive, nearly 100,000 square foot business in the middle of a
ed by the City Council.
The Planning Commission's Resolution also fails to mention that it is a NON-RESIDENTIAL use (a.k.a. business). A massive, nearly 100,000 square foot business in the middle of a protected low density residential neighborhood with a scenic overlay makes no sense whatsoever.
There is also the specious claim in the Planning Commission Resolution that "The services provided on-site is limited to assistance with daily living activities, and does not include medical services." (Enumerated paragraph 2 on page 2 of the Resolution) However, the California Department of Health Care Services who licenses ALW (Assisted Living Waiver) residents in Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE) basic requirements state "facilities are required to have licensed nursing staff." Will ALW customers be immediately kicked out of the resort once they need medical care? Further, the HOLDEN PROJECT admits in their March 12, 2021 correspondence to Planning Department Staff that services will include "Access to health and medical services." (Attachment 2 to the City staff's recommendation) Their presentation to 14 the City Council also touts "top-of-the-line care" on slide 10. However, they are quick to point out that "top-of-the-line care" does not include medical care. The HOLDEN PROJECT's claims are completely contradictory and incompatible with the Planning Commission's Resolution.
VIII. SLOPE STABILITY NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED All Anaheim Hills residents know that the slopes in the area are subject to sliding. Even the engineering firm and developers know that the property is in "an area of landslide hazard risk" as noted in the WQMP. A slope stability analysis should be performed to determine the
sliding. Even the engineering firm and developers know that the property is in "an area of landslide hazard risk" as noted in the WQMP. A slope stability analysis should be performed to determine the dangers to the surrounding neighborhood, especially those north of the project who would be crushed in a landslide.
It is unclear if the Santiago Geologic Hazard Abatement District ("GHAD") has been consulted regarding the HOLDEN PROJECT, but it stands to reason that they should be given that they were created to monitor geologic hazards after landslides in an adjacent area of Anaheim Hills.
IX. THE SOUND ATTENUATION STUDY IS FLAWED AS IT DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA - IT WILL SOUND LIKE A HELICOPTER IS HOVERING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.40.090.010 states, "Residential developments involving the construction of two (2) or more dwelling units, or residential subdivisions resulting in two (2) or more parcels, and located within six hundred (600) feet of any railroad, freeway, expressway, major arterial, primary arterial or secondary arterial, as designated by the Circulation Element of the General Plan, shall comply with the provisions of this section." Nohl Ranch Road, which the site is located adjacent to, is a second arterial, which makes this code section applicable if the HOLDEN PROJECT is considered to be residential (which it should not be as described above).
However, if this project is considered to be residential, Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.40.090.020 requires that a sound study be performed: A noise level analysis shall be performed for any new residential development or subdivision to determine the projected interior and exterior noise levels within the
s that a sound study be performed: A noise level analysis shall be performed for any new residential development or subdivision to determine the projected interior and exterior noise levels within the development. The study shall include mitigation measures that would be required to comply with applicable City noise standards, as identified in this section. The study shall be provided by the applicant, at its sole expense, to the City at the time of application for development of the residential development or subdivision.
The PROJECT PLAN materials made available to the public via the City of Anaheim website do not include a noise level analysis of what heavy machinery will sound like in the surrounding residential community for the years it would take to build the proposed development. As such, the requested variance should be denied.
The acoustical analysis only shows the potential impact on the properties north of the property.
(See Attachment No. 5 to the City Staff Recommendation) The impacts upon the west and south are not delineated in the study and are not blocked by a sound wall. Figure 3 in Attachment No.
5 shows that 99 decibels of noise will be sent directly towards homes to the south and west where there are no sound barriers. 100 decibels is equal to a helicopter hovering 100 feet above 15 your head. (https://www.purdue.edu/ehps/rem/documents/programs/HCP.pdf - Purdue University' Hearing Conservation Report - Appendix F) I, Matthew Brady, personally invited representatives of Alliance and Curt Pringle & Associates to my property to conduct the sound study, but my invitation was not accepted.
X.
SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL - FURTHER REVIEW IS NEEDED The HOLDEN PROJECT application includes a "study" of the specimen trees that are present at
uct 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. 202100001) must be further reviewed.
XI.
THE COMMUNITY REACTION IS COMPLETELY AGAINST THE HOLDEN PROJECT Every single resident in the affected area who has commented on the HOLDEN PROJECT is opposed to it. Every single one. There are now over 800 community residents who have objected to the HOLDEN PROJECT in writing! We urge you to listen to the community and not allow a massive business in neighborhood that it will endanger.
XII.
COUNCILMEMBER JORDAN BRANDMAN MUST RECUSE HIMSELF FROM VOTING ON THE HOLDEN PROJECT According to the concurrently served Declaration of Anaheim Resident Rick Pollgreen, Councilmember Jordan Brandman verbally accosted Mr. Pollgreen regarding the Public Records Act request Mr. Pollgreen made to the City for documents related to the HOLDEN PROJECT.
Councilman Brandman cannot possibly be impartial in this matter if he is calling residents to intimidate them for conducting perfectly legal requests from their City government. There is a clear conflict of interest in this matter for Councilman Brandman that demands he recuse himself from voting on this appeal.
XIII.
cting 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 6, 2021. Mr. Brady stated that he had a pre-paid vacation planned for the week of the City Council hearing scheduled for July 20, 2021, and requested a continuance to the next City Council hearing. Each of the other two appellants, Richard Pollgreen and Corby Bright, have agreed to our request for a continuance. Unfortunately, the agent denied our request for a one-meeting continuance and denied our ability to participate in the hearing.
16 We also requested the opportunity to participate remotely in the hearing via telephone or Zoom.
This request was denied by Anaheim City Clerk's office. This was despite the fact that the City Planner for the HOLDEN PROJECT participated telephonically during the Planning Commission hearing on this issue.
XIV.
CONCLUSION Our appeal of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim's Resolution No. PC2021-020 approving the HOLDEN PROJECT (No. DEV2019-00172) and the applications for a Conditional Use Permit (No. 2019-06048), Variance (No. 2020-05144), and Specimen Tree Removal (No. 2021-00001) should be granted. The HOLDEN PROJECT should not be allowed for each of the reasons stated above.
As thoroughly described above, the proposed conditional use permit must be denied as it violates every applicable zoning code section to this area. The proposed conditional use permit also
ated 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 17 Declaration of Richard (Rick) Pollgreen I, Richard Pollgreen, declare and state as follows: 1. 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. I reside at 414 South Rolling Hills Place in Anaheim, California 92807.
n are known to me personally, and if called upon to testify in a court of law, I could and would competently testify thereto.
2. I reside at 414 South Rolling Hills Place in Anaheim, California 92807.
3. I have lawfully served a California Public Records Act ("PRA") request upon the City of Anaheim on June 15, 2021 for documents related to the planned Holden Senior Center.
4. Councilman Jordan Brandman called me on my cell phone from telephone number on June 17, 2021, at 6:30 p.m.
5. Councilman Brandman began the conversation by stating that he was "very shocked" that I had filed the PRA. He said that by filing the PRA I had made myself an "adversary" of the whole City Council of Anaheim.
6. I told Councilman Brandman I thought it was a perfectly fine and legal thing to do in order to gather data in my attempt to oppose the Holden project. I was merely doing my due diligence.
7. Councilman Brandman told me that I never should have filed the PRA and that I was now "in trouble" for doing so.
8. Councilman Brandman then proceeded to tell me, "By the way, I am super good friends with Curt Pringle and he is my mentor." He was clearly implying that I was seeking damaging information regarding Curt Pringle and therefore I was an enemy of Councilman Brandman because of that. I surmised this was because I asked for communication between Curt Pringle and Associates and the city regarding this project.
9. The phone call from Councilman Brandman lasted for 11 minutes.
10. I was left stunned and concerned by Councilman Brandman's intimidation tactics.
11. I was shocked at Councilman Brandman's hostility towards me and was very intimidated. I immediately contacted others in my group to share my concerns and to warn them.
dman's intimidation tactics.
11. I was shocked at Councilman Brandman's hostility towards me and was very intimidated. I immediately contacted others in my group to share my concerns and to warn them.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 10th day of July, 2021, at Anaheim, California.
Richard Pollgren Richard (Rick) Pollgreen PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (WQMP) HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY SECTION III SITE DESCRIPTION PHYSICAL SETTING III.1 Planning Area/ Community Name: Anaheim Hills Senior Living Community MARCH 13, 2020 Address: Project Area Description: Land Use: Zoning: Acreage: Predominant Soil Type: Impervious Conditions: City of Anaheim Drainage District No.: 5275 Nohl Ranch Rd, Anaheim, CA 92807 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.
Low Density Residential RH-3: Single-Family Hillside Residential SC: Scenic Corridor Overlay 3.1 ac HSG D Existing Impervious: 60% (40% Pervious) Proposed Impervious: 67% (33% Pervious) Drainage District No. 37 III.2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS Precipitation Zone: Topography: Existing Drainage Patterns/ Connections: Proposed Drainage Patterns/ Connections: Soil Type, Geology, and Infiltration Properties: Hydrogeologic (Groundwater) Conditions: 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 areas. Existing grades range from 1% to 5% throughout pedestrian areas, parking lots, drive aisles, and the church building to 40% to
the highest variation in elevation are mostly within the perimeter 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.
See Section II.1 for a complete description of existing and proposed drainage patterns and connections.
See Section II.1 for a complete description of existing and proposed drainage patterns and connections.
According to Figure XVI-2a of the TGD, the site is located in an area of HSG D soils and an area of landslide hazard risk.
The historic groundwater within the project site was reported to be over 30 feet below ground surface.
A site-specific geotechnical report will be conducted during the Final WQMP to validate these assumptions from the TGD.
ALLIANCE REALTY PARTNERS, LLC 10 SITE DESCRIPTION From: To: Alyssa Tapley Cc: Subject: Date: Brenda Tapley Jose Moreno; Kimberly Keys; [email protected]; 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 Re: NO TO HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS - Case # CUP2019-06048 / DEV # DEV2019-00172 Wednesday, July 14, 2021 5:07:02 PM 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 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. I am against this project for the following reasons:
d 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 the traffic.
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 AGAINSTthe building of this structure. Please reconsider.
Thank you, Alyssa Alyssa Tapley From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Mike Price Planning Commission; Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Stephen Faessel; Jose Diaz; Jordan Brandman; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Trevor O'Neil Mike Price Fwd: No to Holden Monday, July 19, 2021 9:20:45 PM 70096C24-EBA5-4556-A1CD-661466E4C067.png 7CB42AF3-3EED-41B7-B9A7-08CF5246E3C4.png 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.
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.
The Hand The City Lis Company Fin CAL FIRE - Fire Hazard Threat Zone 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
at 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. 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
er 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.
3D PERSPECTIVES - NORTH EXISTING NEAR 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.
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
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
one of them are in residential neighborhoods and they all have street parking surrounding them. Additionally the employee count provided in the parking study does not match the employee count provided by the developer when this project was proposed to the city.
The developer stated: "60 Total Employees" 30 staff members from 6am to 2pm 25 staff members from 2pm to 10pm 5 staff members from 10pm to 6am The parking study indicates: “45 Total Employees" 28 staff members from 6am to 2pm 13 staff members from 2pm to 10pm 4 staff members from 10pm to 6am So which numbers are we to believe, the developer or the parking study? The parking study fails to account for many of the amenities this resort like business is offering. There are no employees listed for the Bistro, Therapy room, Salon, 2 driver, Theater, etc.... Either way there is no doubt that this project will not have enough onsite parking to support this LARGE facility. This means all overflow cars will be forced to park on residential streets.
ND 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
l 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 |
ause 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 | 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: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Elizabeth Busick Friday, July 9, 2021 11:27 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Stephen Faessel; Jose Diaz; Jordan Brandman; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Trevor O'Neil; Joanne Hwang; Scott Koehm; Niki J. Wetzel YES to Holden Anaheim Hills YES to Holden Anaheim Hills.docx Elizabeth Busick CA Senior Legislature: Sr. Assembly Member Sr. Citizens Advisory Council Secretary 1 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
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 lowincome 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: FW: NO TO HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS - Case # CUP2019-06048 / DEV # DEV2019-00172 Begin forwarded message: From: Brenda Tapley Date: July 14, 2021 at 12:52:12 PM PDT Natalie Meeks Cc: Kimberly Keys Rosa Mulleady Dave Vadodaria Lucille.King >, Luis Andres Perez Steve White Subject: NO TO HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS - Case # CUP2019-06048 / DEV # DEV2019-00172 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 Nohl Ranch and Royal Oak in Anaheim Hills.
I am a homeowner (on Honeywood Lane) and am directly impacted by your project. I have some major
sting 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 (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
lls. 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 AGAINST the building of this structure. Please reconsider.
Thank you, 1 Edwards Brenda Tapley Edwards Lifesciences life is now Healthcare Solutions | Associate Manager, GPO Contracts | www.edwards.com 2 Jennifer L. Hall Subject: Attachments: FW: Shadow Run HOA -- Response to Decision re: Holden Development NoOnHolden071421.pdf Begin forwarded message: From: Lisa Veloz Date: July 14, 2021 at 2:13:08 PM PDT 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 the day.
' Thank you, and have a wonderful rest of EMAILS ARE NOT REGULARLY MONITORED. FOR AFTER-HOURS EMERGENCIES, PLEASE CALL Sincerely, Lisa Veloz (DRE Lic. #01889432) Office Manager/Lease Administrator Interpacific Asset Management (DRE License #01073855) Westminster, CA 92683 Office: Fax: Email:
S EMERGENCIES, PLEASE CALL Sincerely, Lisa Veloz (DRE Lic. #01889432) Office Manager/Lease Administrator Interpacific Asset Management (DRE License #01073855) Westminster, CA 92683 Office: Fax: Email: 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 1 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.
2 July 14, 2021 Shadow Run Anaheim Homeowners Association Mayor & Council Members City of Anaheim Re: Shadow Run Homeowners Association -- No on Holden Dear Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Council Members: I am writing on behalf of the Shadow Run Homeowner's Association, which encompasses 144 houses located east of Royal Oak Rd. and north of East Honeywood Lane. At our May 26, 2021 Board meeting, the Board voted unanimously to file an appeal to the planning commission's disappointing decision to approve the development of the Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility at 5275 E.
Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim. While the Board voted to sponsor the appeal, the $450 filing fee was paid through individual donations, not association accounts.
Our board members and homeowners have several specific concerns: Size and Location of the Project The current building is approximately 17,000 square feet with a large open area and parking lot with over 40 mature trees, all of which will have to be removed. The proposed building will be
e 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.
Tele: INTERPACIFIC ASSET MANAGEMENT | DRE Lic. #01073855 Fax: ( 3 E-mail: Westminster, CA 92683 https://interpacificmgmt.sharepoint.com/sites/FileCabinet/Shared Documents/ShadowRun754/BOD/NoOnHolden071421.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
on 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. During the planning commission hearing someone said that if there were any parking related
ng within walking distance. The result will be over flow parking spilling on to adjacent residential streets. During the 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.
Tele: INTERPACIFIC ASSET MANAGEMENT | DRE Lic. #01073855 E-mail: Fax: Westminster, CA 92683 https://interpacificmgmt.sharepoint.com/sites/FileCabinet/Shared Documents/ShadowRun754/BOD/NoOnHolden071421.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
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 Tele: INTERPACIFIC ASSET MANAGEMENT | DRE Lic. #01073855 Fax: E-mail: Westminster, CA 92683 https://interpacificmgmt.sharepoint.com/sites/FileCabinet/Shared Documents/ShadowRun754/BOD/NoOnHolden071421.docx Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Jolynn Mahoney Friday, July 16, 2021 5:41 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia Ted White; Scott Koehm Support the Holden Best in Class Senior Living Center at Knohl 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
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 naïve 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.
Jolynn Mahoney 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Cathy Wills Saturday, July 17, 2021 5:48 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia Ted White; Scott Koehm
Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Cathy Wills Saturday, July 17, 2021 5:48 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia Ted White; Scott Koehm 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 naïve 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 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Cathy Wills Saturday, July 17, 2021 5:55 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Stephen Faessel; Avelino Valencia; Jordan Brandman; Trevor
hy Wills, Real Estate Broker 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Cathy Wills Saturday, July 17, 2021 5:55 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Stephen Faessel; Avelino Valencia; Jordan Brandman; Trevor O'Neil; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno Ted White; Scott Koehm 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 naïve 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 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Cathy Wills Saturday, July 17, 2021 5:58 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz;
ience.
Best, Andy Plisko MD 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Cathy Wills Saturday, July 17, 2021 5:58 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Avelino Valencia; Jose Moreno Ted White; Scott Koehm 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 naïve 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 1 Jennifer L. Hall Subject: FW: Holden Anaheim Hills Begin forwarded message: From: Pat Soldano Date: July 18, 2021 at 3:03:48 PM PDT
me at your earliest convenience.
Best, Jessica Sandra Wills-Plisko 1 Jennifer L. Hall Subject: FW: Holden Anaheim Hills Begin forwarded message: From: Pat Soldano Date: July 18, 2021 at 3:03:48 PM PDT 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 notified by Mailtrack
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 notified by Mailtrack 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: rkitsigianis Monday, July 19, 2021 8:11 AM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm 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 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: g w Monday, July 19, 2021 8:59 AM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Yes to Holden and Senior Living Mayor Sidhu, Mayor Pro Tem Faessel, and City Councilmembers: I am writing today to urge you to vote YES on Holden Anaheim Hills.
velino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Yes to Holden and Senior Living Mayor Sidhu, Mayor Pro Tem 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 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Mayor and City Council, Tina Monday, July 19, 2021 12:54 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Support Senior Living 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 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To:
oject 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 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: ana Crruz Monday, July 19, 2021 12:59 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm 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 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: JANET CASAS Monday, July 19, 2021 1:05 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm 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
ting 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 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: Victor Gonzalez Monday, July 19, 2021 1:05 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm 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
y 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 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: Ernesto Macias Monday, July 19, 2021 1:08 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm 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?
1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: Rosa Monday, July 19, 2021 1:18 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Support for Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Center Dear Mayor and City Council,
r); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm 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, Rosa C.
1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: Woodin Family.
Monday, July 19, 2021 1:20 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm 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
pact 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 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: Michael Huang Monday, July 19, 2021 1:21 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm 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 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: William Usey Monday, July 19, 2021 1:22 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Support for Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Center
021 1:22 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm 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 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: Mike L Monday, July 19, 2021 1:25 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm 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
ng 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 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: Andrew Pineda Monday, July 19, 2021 1:26 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm 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, -andrew 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: Jonathan Anton Monday, July 19, 2021 1:26 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Holden Anaheim Hills Project
Anton Monday, July 19, 2021 1:26 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm 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 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: Ronaldo Mendez Monday, July 19, 2021 1:46 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm 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
iving 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. support it in the best interest of the City and for the seniors.
Thank you, Ronaldo Mendez 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: Jared Davlin Monday, July 19, 2021 1:55 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm 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 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: Nicole Angene Monday, July 19, 2021 1:59 PM
mmediate homes behind the church, it's still a good use of the property. Good neighbors!
Thank you, Jared Davlin 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: Nicole Angene Monday, July 19, 2021 1:59 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm 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 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: Isabel Berry Monday, July 19, 2021 2:01 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm 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.
rt 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 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: Eliz Parra Monday, July 19, 2021 3:45 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm 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 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: Rebeca Villarreal Monday, July 19, 2021 3:46 PM
ty. Good neighbors!
I thank you for your time and consideration on this matter.
Eilz Parra Concerned citizen 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: Rebeca Villarreal Monday, July 19, 2021 3:46 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm 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 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: Pat Mahoney Monday, July 19, 2021 5:22 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm Support for Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Center Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
n Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm 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
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 multifamily, 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 2 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: Steve Kitsigianis < Monday, July 19, 2021 9:29 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm 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
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 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: lisa granillo Tuesday, July 20, 2021 6:44 AM 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 1 Public Comment From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Richard Bright Tuesday, July 20, 2021 2:28 PM Public Comment City Council Hearing regarding Holden Anaheim Hills Development scan0033.pdf HiI 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 1 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
, Richard Corby Bright 1 Holden Development Appeal to City Council This appeal was filed on behalf of the Shadow Run Homeowner's Association which encompasses 144 single family residences located east of Royal Oak Rd. and north of East Honeywood Lane. At our May 26, 2021, board meeting the board voted unanimously to file an appeal to the planning commission's disappointing decision to approve the development of the Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility at 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim. While the board voted to sponsor the appeal, the $450 filing fee was paid through individual donations, not association accounts.
Our board members and homeowners have several specific concerns: Size and Location of the Project The current building is approximately 17,000 square feet with a large open area and parking lot with over 40 mature trees, all of which will have to be removed. The proposed building will be approximately 98,000 square feet with 118 units and will require a new retaining wall and backfill to allow for minimal parking spaces that do not comply with the number required by code.
The property in question is in a residential area which is zoned RH3 for single family houses on a minimum of a 10,000 square foot lot and has been home to a church for over forty years. There are no other commercial projects or medical facilities in the immediate area so any of the residents needing to shop or receive medical treatment, which will not be offered on-site, will need to be transported by vehicle. There are three other facilities similar to the one proposed operating within two miles and a fourth one is under construction. All are in areas zoned for commercial development and offer access to shopping and medical offices.
1
ies 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-B or 4-C is not permitted." Tables 4-B 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
lanning 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 2 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
er 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
other facility in a similar location amid residential neighborhoods because they would never receive approval for construction.
There are other Assisted Care Facilities at Nohl Ranch and Anaheim Hills Road, a mile from the proposed development. They are in a commercial area with adjacent parking available. During one of our Wednesday evening opposition rallies at the church site a passerby stopped to sign our petition and told me she recently sold her office complex at Tustin Ave. and Lincoln, two miles from the Holden site. She said someone showed up at her business and made an offer she could not refuse to buy her property to put in an assisted care facility. The site, at 1301 E. Lincoln in Orange is under construction and will be an Assisted Living and Memory Care facility, the same as the Holden Development, with 93 units in 74,000 square feet and will have 62 parking spaces as well as adjacent on street parking. Smaller facility, more parking spaces.
Through this entire process the planning department has seemed intent on getting this project approved. Numerous citizen concerns have been brushed aside. When the subject of emergency vehicles responding to and from the facility with sirens was brought up at the commission hearing Ms.
Hwang said it would not be a problem because sirens are turned off when the vehicles enter a neighborhood. That is absurd-sirens are turned off when they are no longer needed and, in this case, the "neighborhood" begins at the entrance to the facility. When asked about traffic concerns Ms. Hwang called on a gentleman in the audience who said he was from traffic engineering. He said he called the police department and they said they did not have an abnormal number of accidents reported at the intersection of 4
eman in the audience who said he was from traffic engineering. He said he called the police department and they said they did not have an abnormal number of accidents reported at the intersection of 4 Royal Oak and Nohl Ranch. That does not qualify as a traffic study. I personally have had three vehicles go through the garden wall in my front yard at Royal Oak and East Honeywood in the years I have lived here and have witnessed numerous other traffic accidents. Does that qualify as a traffic study?
While everyone from the planning department has been co-operative with us it has been apparent that this project was pre-approved. Numerous people, including several associated with the city, have told us that the decision to approve the project was pre-ordained. They said Curt Pringle, who is working with the developer to push this project through, has tremendous influence and if he supports it no one will challenge it. Several used the term "bought and paid for." I prefer to believe that Mr. Pringle and the developer have good track records with the city and that is why everyone seems to bend over backwards to push this through. Alliance does operate another facility in Anaheim, at 1731 Medical Center Way, which is in a commercial area surrounded by a mobile home park, the 91 Fwy., a car dealership and a community college campus. Absolutely no comparison to the Nohl Ranch location.
I contacted Scott Koehm in the city planning office and asked if there were any other similar projects in the city of Anaheim because I wanted to see how they impacted local neighborhoods. His response, "I am not aware of other senior living facilities in Anaheim on properties zoned RH-3. I found one that is zoned RM-4, which is residential Multiple-Family." That helps
al neighborhoods. His response, "I am not aware of other senior living facilities in Anaheim on properties zoned RH-3. I found one that is zoned RM-4, which is residential Multiple-Family." That helps explain why the parking study couldn't come up with similar facilities for comparison-no one approves these types of facilities in residential areas.
The current residents are going to experience increased traffic, noise and light pollution and spend two years living in a construction zone for a project that benefits no one other than the developer. People are going to lose their views, have their privacy encroached on and, for those living closest to the facility, suffer significant losses due to decreased property values.
5 No one has yet offered an explanation as to why building this facility is a benefit to our neighborhoods. The area is not zoned for it, there are no adjacent businesses or medical facilities to support it and the project will not contribute anything positive to our area.
We have been told repeatedly that the planning commission and the council don't consider the financial impact on the city when approving projects. That does not make sense to me as a resident and, if true, when it comes to this project approval it means we lose equity in our houses solely to profit the developer. That sounds like a seizure by the city to benefit the developer in violation of the 5th 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
in circles trying to justify why this development is suitable for this location. They argue it is not a commercial development, which also would be prohibited, even though they need a business license to operate and it is a for-profit operation. They claim it is a residence with 118 units, but it is not a multi-family development because by code that would require a minimum of a five-acre site. The proposed building does not meet the standards for an RH-3 zone. So, what is it? Let's say I walk in to a rental office at a large apartment complex with my German Shepard Bruno and I tell him we are looking for an apartment. The rental agent says they accept cats but not dogs so I tell him this is actually my cat, Tabby. Call it what you want, it is still a dog and the Holden development is still a huge building that does not belong in a residential area.
We have collected almost 800 signatures from people opposed to this project. I have been personally involved in collecting 161 of those and all were from Anaheim residents, the vast majority living within a mile of the project. Many people have put in countless hours and donated thousands.
of dollars to stop this project. The opposition will not stop until we have exhausted all legal means to stop it.
6 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.
hether the council is too quick to support businesses over residents. It sends the message to everyone in the city that the concerns of area residents, along with zoning restrictions, are meaningless.
Or you can vote to deny the conditional use permit and send the message that neighborhoods and the city residents do matter. Should you deny the CUP there are two churches that have pending offers, both over the original asking price, that want to continue using the site as a church. A representative from the Mormon Church says that they now have a need for the building for a Spanish speaking ward and he would recommend that if the sale does not go through the Church keep the property. We would be thrilled with any of the church options.
Thanks for your time and please vote to deny the Conditional Use Permit.
Sincerely, Corby Bright President - Shadow Run Home Owners Association Attachments: 18.04 Single Family Residential Zones 18.18.070 Multiple-Family Residential Zones-Standards Letter From Shadow Run Home Owners Association to Council Petition Sheets with 39 Signatures (Additional 122 signatures turned in with Rich Polgreen's Appeal) 7 7/20/2021 Sections: Chapter 18.04 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES Chapter 18.04 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES 18.04.010 Purpose.
18.04.020 Intent of individual zones.
18.04.030 Uses.
18.04.040 Lot area.
18.04.050 Lot width.
18.04.060 Lot orientation.
18.04.070 Structural heights.
18.04.080 Floor area.
18.04.090 Lot coverage.
18.04.100 Structural setbacks.
18.04.105 Street wall facades.
18.04.110 Parking.
18.04.120 Signs.
18.04.130 Landscaping.
18.04.140 Fences, walls and hedges.
18.04.150 Refuse storage and recycling facilities.
18.04.160 Development in the RS-4 Zone.
wall facades.
18.04.110 Parking.
18.04.120 Signs.
18.04.130 Landscaping.
18.04.140 Fences, walls and hedges.
18.04.150 Refuse storage and recycling facilities.
18.04.160 Development in the RS-4 Zone.
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 4-1.
18.04.010 PURPOSE.
The purpose of this chapter is to describe allowable land uses and property development standards, including density of development, for the single-family residential zones to create healthy, safe and attractive neighborhoods in the City of Anaheim, consistent with the policy direction in the Anaheim General Plan. The intent of each of the single-family residential zones is described below. (Ord. 5920 § 1 (part); June 8, 2004.)
18.04.020 INTENT OF INDIVIDUAL ZONES.
The single-family residential zones consist of the following.
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/anaheim/latest/anaheim_ca/0-0-0-65574 1/5 7/20/2021 Chapter 18.04 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES .010 "RH-1" Single-Family Hillside Residential Zone. The intent of the "RH-1" Single-Family Hillside Residential Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment of a spacious and semi-rural character, with single-family dwelling units on a minimum lot size of forty three thousand five hundred sixty (43,560) square feet. This zone implements the Estate Residential land use designation in the General Plan.
.020 "RH-2" Single-Family Hillside Residential Zone. The intent of the "RH-2" Single-Family Hillside Residential Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment of a spacious and semi-rural
"RH-2" Single-Family Hillside Residential Zone. The intent of the "RH-2" Single-Family Hillside Residential Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment of a spacious and semi-rural character, with single-family dwelling units on a minimum lot size of twenty two thousand (22,000) square feet. This zone implements the Estate Residential land use designation in the General Plan.
.030 "RH-3" Single-Family Hillside Residential Zone. The intent of the "RH-3" Single-Family Hillside Residential Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment in keeping with the natural amenities and scenic resources of the area, with single-family dwelling units on a minimum lot size of ten thousand (10,000) square feet. This zone implements the Low Density Residential land use designation in the General Plan.
.040 "RS-1" Single-Family Residential Zone. The intent of the "RS-1" Single-Family Residential Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment with single-family dwelling units on a minimum lot size of ten thousand (10,000) square feet. This zone implements the Low Density Residential land use designation in the General Plan.
.050 "RS-2" Single-Family Residential Zone. The intent of the "RS-2" Single-Family Residential Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment with single-family dwelling units on a minimum lot size of seven thousand two hundred (7,200) square feet. This zone implements the Low Density Residential land use designation in the General Plan.
.060 "RS-3" Single-Family Residential Zone. The intent of the "RS-3" Single-Family Residential Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment with single-family dwelling units on a minimum lot
3" Single-Family Residential Zone. The intent of the "RS-3" Single-Family Residential Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment with single-family dwelling units on a minimum lot size of five thousand (5,000) square feet. This zone implements the Low Density Residential and LowMedium Hillside Density Residential land use designations in the General Plan.
.070 "RS-4" Single-Family Residential Zone. The intent of the "RS-4" Single-Family Residential Zone is to provide for and encourage the development of high-quality residential units on small lots, in order to provide additional housing choices and use land efficiently. This zone implements the Low-Medium Density Residential and Low-Medium Hillside Density land use designations in the General Plan. (Ord. 5920 § 1 (part); June 8, 2004.)
18.04.030 USES.
.010 Primary Uses. Table 4-A (Primary Uses: Single-Family Residential Zones) identifies allowable primary uses, listed by classes of uses, as defined in Section 18.36.030 and Section 18.36.040 of Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses).
.020 Accessory Uses. Table 4-B (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
each zone are established by letter designations as follows: .0401 "P" designates classes of uses permitted by right; .0402 "C" designates classes of uses permitted with a conditional use permit; and .0403 "M" designates classes of uses permitted with a minor conditional use permit; and https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/anaheim/latest/anaheim_ca/0-0-0-65574 2/5 7/20/2021 Chapter 18.04 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES .0404 "N" designates classes of uses that are prohibited.
.050 Interpreting Classes of Uses. The provisions for interpreting the classes of uses in Tables 4-A, 4-B 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-B 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 PRIMARY USES: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES Residential Classes of Uses Alcoholism or Drug Abuse P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required N=Prohibited RH-1 RH-2 RH-3 RS-1 RS-2 RS-3 RS-4 Special Provisions Recovery of Treatment PPPPPPP Community Care FacilitiesP P P P P P P Licensed (Small) Community Care FacilitiesP 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 Detached
Community Care FacilitiesP P P P P P P Licensed (Small) Community Care FacilitiesP 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 Detached Mobile Home Parks N N N N N 0 N Senior Living Facilities P P P P P P P (Small) Table 4-B ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required M=Minor Conditional Use Permit Required N=Prohibited ☐ RH-1 RH-2 RH-3 RS-1 RS-2 RS-3 RS-4 Spovisions https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/anaheim/latest/anaheim_ca/0-0-0-65574 3/5 7/20/2021 Accessory Living Quarters P Chapter 18.04 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES P P P N N Subject to 18.04.080.020 Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P P P Accessory Dwelling Unit - Junior P P P P P P P Agricultural Workers Quarters P P N N N N N & 18.38.020 Subject to 18.38.015 Subject to 18.38.015 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 Accessory Structure. Any detached structure that is used to accommodate an accessory use listed in Table 4-B (Accessory Uses and Structures: Single-Family Residential Zones), and that is more than one hundred twenty (120) square feet in total floor area, shall not have metal, vinyl, or plastic siding, unless the main structure has similar metal, vinyl, or plastic siding.
Table 4-C TEMPORARY USES AND STRUCTURES: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required N=Prohibited
main structure has similar metal, vinyl, or plastic siding.
Table 4-C TEMPORARY USES AND STRUCTURES: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES P=Permitted by Right C=Conditional Use Permit Required N=Prohibited RS-2 RS-3 RS-4 Special Provisions Contractor's Office & Storage P P P P P P P Subject Real Estate Tract Office P P P P P P P to 18.38.105 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 Special Events P P P Subject to Chapter 18.44 P P P P P P P Subject .110 Additional Restrictions for Temporary Uses.
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/anaheim/latest/anaheim_ca/0-0-0-65574 to 18.38.240 4/5 7/20/2021 Chapter 18.04 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES .1101 Cargo containers may be permitted for the storage of construction materials only when building permits have been issued for substantial construction on the site. The containers shall not be used for the storage of furniture or other household items, and shall not block vehicular or pedestrian access to the property.
.1102 Portable canopies, sunshades, sails, tarps or similar shade apparatus are not permitted if visible from a public right-of-way and shall not be used as a permanent shield or patio cover where visible to residential uses.
.1103 Window and door awnings or similar shade structures are not considered temporary structures when they are attached to residential structures. Said window and door awnings or similar shade structures shall be permanently attached to the residential structure and limited in width to 120% of the window or door they are shading. (Ord. 5920 1 (part); June 8, 2004: Ord. 5998 § 1; October 25, 2005: Ord. 6000 $
e permanently attached to the residential structure and limited in width to 120% of the window or door they are shading. (Ord. 5920 1 (part); June 8, 2004: Ord. 5998 § 1; October 25, 2005: Ord. 6000 $ 1; November 8, 2005: Ord. 6007 § 1; November 11, 2005: Ord. 6030 § 1: August 22, 2006: Ord. 6031 § 2: August 22, 2006: Ord. 6101 § 2 (part); April 22, 2008: Ord. 6289 § 1; October 8, 2013: Ord. 6299 § 2; May 13, 2014: Ord. 6351 § 1; December 15, 2015: Ord. 6419 § 2; August 29, 2017: Ord. 6432, §§ 1, 2; April 10, 2018: Ord. 6461 §§ 1, 2; April 16, 2019: Ord. 6483 § 1; June 9, 2020: Ord. 6493 § 1; September 29, 2020: Ord. 6506 § 3; February 9, 2021.)
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/anaheim/latest/anaheim_ca/0-0-0-65574 5/5 7/19/2021 18.18.050 RESIDENTIAL ZONES - USES.
18.18.070 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES - STANDARDS.
The provisions of this section shall apply in addition to, and where inconsistent shall supercede, any site development standards of the underlying multiple-family residential zone in which the property is located: .010 Minimum Site Area. The minimum project area shall be five (5) acres.
.020 Structural Setback. On all lots adjacent to freeways, expressways, arterial highways and railroad rights-of-way, buildings and mobile homes shall be located no closer than fifty (50) feet to the right-of-way line. Said setback may be used for landscaping, recreation and open space, or for open parking and vehicular accessways; provided that a minimum ten (10) foot wide screen planting, which may include trees and shrubs, a minimum thirty-six (36) inch high landscaped earthen berm, or any combination thereof, shall be maintained adjacent to the right-of-way line.
.030 Roof-mounted equipment, including exterior mounted radio and television antennas and
gh 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.
1/1 14 July 14, 2021 Shadow Run Anaheim Homeowners Association Mayor & Council Members City of Anaheim Re: Shadow Run Homeowners Association -- No on Holden Dear Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Council Members: I am writing on behalf of the Shadow Run Homeowner's Association, which encompasses 144 houses located east of Royal Oak Rd. and north of East Honeywood Lane. At our May 26, 2021 Board meeting, the Board voted unanimously to file an appeal to the planning commission's disappointing decision to approve the development of the Holden Anaheim Hills Senior Living Facility at 5275 E.
Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim. While the Board voted to sponsor the appeal, the $450 filing fee was paid through individual donations, not association accounts.
Our board members and homeowners have several specific concerns: Size and Location of the Project The current building is approximately 17,000 square feet with a large open area and parking lot with over 40 mature trees, all of which will have to be removed. The proposed building will be
e 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 | DRE Lic. #01073855 Tele: (714) 891-8804 Fax: (714) 894-5643 E-mail: [email protected] 5505 Garden Grove Blvd., #150, Westminster, CA 92683 https://interpacificmgmt.sharepoint.com/sites/FileCabinet/Shared Documents/ShadowRun754/BOD/NoOnHolden071421.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
ds 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
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 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 | DRE Lic. #01073855 Tele: (714) 891-8804 Fax: (714) 894-5643 E-mail: [email protected] 5505 Garden Grove Blvd., #150, Westminster, CA 92683 https://interpacificmgmt.sharepoint.com/sites/FileCabinet/Shared Documents/ShadowRun754/BOD/NoOnHolden071421.docx
l: [email protected] 5505 Garden Grove Blvd., #150, Westminster, CA 92683 https://interpacificmgmt.sharepoint.com/sites/FileCabinet/Shared Documents/ShadowRun754/BOD/NoOnHolden071421.docx Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name Ryan Fudo Haleigh Evelo ERIC BUTLER Sarainier Address Signature DATE 7-4-2 7.4.21 7.4.21 7.4.21 7.4.21 Ariel Phillips ShukiShare Kern Helper Rohini Desai Uditi Desai Frank they dis Leslie Murray KEN KOSONEN Carly Freeman Lisa Gramstad Gabriella Rivera Daniel Ruiz Samantha Frank Oliver Runtz 7/7/2024 7/4/21 RP Desar 7/4/21 7 Udite 1/4/21 7/4/2 7/4/21 7/4/21 7-4-21 7/4/2081 9/4/2021 7/4/2021 7/4/2021 7/4/201 Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name Diane DUDAniec JOHN BIALE ELENA BIALE Helen R. Sullia.
Peter Witte Mary Witte Sharon Cecchi Janet Rene Gesseck Mike Cushing Address Signature Idance John Bri Date 5/31821 8/1/21 Elena Bide 6/1/21 Кет Witte 6/2/21 Chor leach 06/03/21 6/2/21 Janet 6/3/21 6/3/21 Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name Mae MasroRi Greg ANDERA Adriana Herrands RICHARD HERMONET Ignacio RIVERA Address Signature DATE 17/4/21 7/4/21 1/4/21 Appeal of 5/24/2021 decision on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06048, VARIANCE NO. 202005144 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name Reza Arabi Bruce Human Shapin Rabi Acm ParkH Jaime alefosio Address Signature PROM Stream Hills G ANAHEIM jan ab Jennifer L. Hall Subject: Attachments:
MOVAL PERMIT NO. 2021-00001 (DEV2019-00172) Name Reza Arabi Bruce Human Shapin Rabi Acm ParkH Jaime alefosio Address Signature PROM Stream Hills G ANAHEIM jan ab Jennifer L. Hall Subject: Attachments: FW: Re Holden Proj re Holden Devel..doc Begin forwarded message: From: Chris W Date: July 14, 2021 at 2:02:58 PM PDT Subject: Re Holden Proj Please see attachment, thank you 1 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 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
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 1 Jennifer L. Hall Subject: FW: HOLDEN DEVELOPMENT Begin forwarded message: From: rfarano Date: July 18, 2021 at 1:40:18 PM PDT 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"
cing 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.
1 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
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.
ing 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 2 Public Comment From: Sent: To: CC: Subject: Mike Price Tuesday, July 20, 2021 2:45 PM Public Comment Mike Price Fwd: No to Holden Holden Anaheim Hills 2575 E. Nohl Ranch Road CUP No. 2019-06048 Variance No. 2020-05144 Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2021-00001 (DEV 2019-00172) Mayor Sidhu and Anaheim City Council Members, We ask that you please do not approve this project! We are opposed to the Planning Committees May 24, 2021 approval of the Holden Project at 5275 E. Nohl Ranch Road.
This oversized large commercial business will bring many problems.
* It will endanger lives in an emergency evacuation in the event of a catastrophic wild fire. Adding a high density business on an already overcrowded evacuation route makes no logical sense!
* Complete lack of privacy to neighbors who share the property line. It will essentially be a three story building on the north side at a whopping 37' tall staring directly into backyards. We will no longer be able to enjoy our swimming pools/yards with any reasonable privacy!
* Lack of the code required parking for the employees, daily services, 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
y 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.
1 TORBA LINDA THORPE AVE LA PALMA AVE Fire Hazard Threat Zone City Limits TARANASANTONRO PALMA AVE CAVE CAL FIRE - Fire Hazard Threat Zo Mies Source: Caitama Dapate of Farsity and Proto 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 2 * 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
anyon 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 3 4 After view 5 6 I requested renderings of what the view would be from my backyard and the below perspectives were shown to me in a presentation by the developer on 7/6/21 at Curt Pringles office. As I suspected it appears they have manipulated these renderings in a way that is very deceiving! I asked them for an updated view from the back of my house and they said that was the best they could do without violating my privacy with the drone. I found that rather funny, if they actually cared about my privacythey wouldn't be trying to build a 37' high structure that will tower over my private yard. Iwas in the parking lot of the church meeting with Trevor O'Neil, when Zeshaan had the gentleman flying the drone. He could have easily asked me for my permission. I don't buy this excuse for one
ard. 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 SoCal Gas 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.
7 3D PERSPECTIVES - NOR 8 0 9 3D PERSPECTIVES - NORTH PROP It was also brought to their attention multiple times that new retaining wall they are proposing to build two feet off of the north property line that will be backfilled almost to the top, is creating a serious safety concern. This will easily allow someone to jump down into our yard and access our swimming pool as the sloped section is not currently secure. At the meeting we had on 7/6/21, they agreed this was a valid concern and stated they would properly secure the open end of the slope on the Royal Oak side. However, the current revised site plans that are part of the resolution do not show this. They also offered to raise the generator cabinet by two feet so it matches the wall at the top of the parking lot and that hasn't been changed either.
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
lta 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
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
s 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
cumented 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 Ananeim, CA. 92807 12 12 Public Comment From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Mike Price Tuesday, July 20, 2021 3:10 PM Scott Koehm; Public Comment Mike Price Re: Holden Anaheim Hills Project Case: CUP2019-06048 / DEV Number: DEV2019-00172 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 to be visible from Royal Oak! I would like this entire email chain to become part of the public record along with the att Mike Scott Koehm 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
become part of the public record along with the att Mike Scott Koehm 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.
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 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 2 3 NG BELOW EASEMENT 18 ED BELOW EASEMENT 19 5 ED BELOW EASEMENT 19 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 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' Mike, a six foot wall is what is allowed by Code.
Scott From: Mike Price < Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 5:34 PM Cc: Mike Price Subject: Re: Holden Anaheim Hills Project Case: CUP2019-06048/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.
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, 2021 4:56 PM Cc: Mike Price Subject: Re: Holden Anaheim Hills Project Case: CUP2019-06048/DEV 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
ject: Re: Holden Anaheim Hills Project Case: CUP2019-06048/DEV 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 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, 2021 4:41 PM 7 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 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 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?
70 3' High Retaining Wall +6' High CMU Wall (Screening) See Civil Section E/4 12'08"W 380.39' Mike 6
t of screening wall making the total height 9'. Can you confirm the finished visible height for me?
70 3' High Retaining Wall +6' High CMU Wall (Screening) See Civil Section E/4 12'08"W 380.39' Mike 6 Sloped Area 478 On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 12:16 PM Mike Price Hi Scott, 9 wrote: Thank you! Can you make sure the resolution gets updated to include this. It still shows the old one.
Mike 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 Cc: Mike Price Subject: Holden Anaheim Hills Project Case: CUP 2019-06048/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 Good morning!
wrote: 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 Good morning Mike,
operty line at the bottom of the slope. Perhaps they haven't submitted these changes yet? Please advise.
Mike Good morning Mike, Attached is the revised site plan.
Sincerely, G. Scott Koehm, AICP Principal Planner Planning and Building Department Planning Services City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Suite 162 Office (714) 765-5395 Mobile Email [email protected] 11 From: Mike Price⚫ Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2021 6:56 PM Cc: Mike Price Subject: Holden Anaheim HillsProject 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 12 ■ dropbox.COM Joanne Hwang From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Friday, November 20, 2020 10:00 AM Cesar Morales; Kyle Sherman; Joanne Hwang Gladys Bowen; Mark Nero; Zeshaan Younus RE: CUP2019-06048 E Nhl Ranch Road - Walls AH Team: Let's try to be fair with this issue. I don't want to kill a deal over 9' of retaining wall over 350' of frontage. He please.
Lets review this together later today.
Michael Sent: Friday, November 20, 2020 9:58 AM
review this together later today.
Michael Sent: Friday, November 20, 2020 9:58 AM Subject: RE: CUP2019-06048 E Nhl Ranch Road - Walls Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: William Leming ⚫ Tuesday, July 20, 2021 3:00 PM Jennifer L. Hall letter to Mayor & City Council Members 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 Lic #00512127 WJL, Inc.
Anaheim, CA 92807 1 July 20, 2012 The WILLIAM L. LEMING Real Estate Company Anaheim Hills, CA 92807 Mobil Number e-mail 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 CUP, 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.
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, William L. Leming William Leming License No: 00512127 Broker ✓ SPECI OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 200 S. ANAHEIM BOULEVARD, ANAHEIM, CA 92805 (714) 765-5166 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 Infill 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
lopment).
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 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.
INFORMATION AVAILABLE: WHERE IS THE MEETING?
WHO TO CONTACT?
IMPORTANT NOTE: 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.
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 [email protected], prior to the hearing.
Further information may be obtained from the Planning & Building Department,
the City Clerk, at 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite 217, Anaheim, CA 92805 or to [email protected], prior to the hearing.
Further information may be obtained from the Planning & Building Department, Anaheim City Hall, 1st Floor, or by contacting Scott Koehm, [email protected] or (714) 765-5395.
Please refer to CUP 2019-06048 when you call or write regarding this property.
NOTE: 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 certify 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 in the U. S. Mail, postage fully-prepaid.
BY ORDER OF THE ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL Theresa Bass, CMC City Clerk Mailed by: July 8, 2021 Brenda Tapley Planning Commission; Joanne Hwang Kimberly Keys; Lucille [email protected]; Natalie Meeks; Rosa Mulleady; Luis Andres Perez; Dave Vadodaria; Steve White HOLDEN ANAHEIM HILLS - Case # CUP2019-06048 / DEV # DEV2019-00172 - AGAINST PROJECT Monday, May 24, 2021 4:20:27 PM image001.png From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: 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 Nohl Ranch and Royal Oak 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
d 127 beds to be built on the corner of Nohl Ranch and Royal Oak 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
esult 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 AGAINST the building of this structure. Please reconsider.
Thank you, E Edwards Brenda Tapley Edwards Lifesciences life is now Healthcare Solutions | Associate Manager, GPO Contracts | www.edwards.com Jennifer L. Hall Subject: FW: No to Holden Begin forwarded message: From: "Joe A. Rodriguez" Date: July 14, 2021 at 11:43:41 AM PDT 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
t 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 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: Darlene .
Tuesday, July 20, 2021 6:04 PM Trevor O'Neil; Public Comment 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 OCellBRE# 00910009 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: Christopher Crippen Monday, July 19, 2021 1:12 PM
nce of our neighborhood!!!
Darlene Kearney-Broker Capital Real Estate & Investments OCellBRE# 00910009 1 Jennifer L. Hall From: Sent: To: Subject: Christopher Crippen Monday, July 19, 2021 1:12 PM Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Ted White; Scott Koehm 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 1