.
.
.
You gotta hand it to Anaheim Mayor Harry Sidhu – he has a wicked sense of irony. A mere six hours after delivering a State of the City address last week, filled with lines like “It is not enough to say that we are going to invest in Anaheim neighborhoods. We need to partner with Anaheim residents so that they drive that investment. That starts with listening,” he and his four loyal klepto-henchmen set right into destroying an old neighborhood and pointedly NOT listening to the residents, cutting down their speaking time from ten minutes to two, scolding them not to repeat each other, and stubbornly doing exactly what the residents begged them not to do.
Nah, I don’t really think Harry has any sense of irony, wicked or otherwise. It’s impossible to tell what’s going on behind that “death-rictus grimace,” but the best guess is he says what he’s told to say, and does what he’s told to do, and lacks the self-awareness or curiosity to notice the contradictions between the two.
And more than that, when he talks about listening to residents, the residents he and his gang consider worth listening to are not the working-class residents who’ve been living and struggling in a neglected neighborhood for generations, but the well-connected La Habra “DEVELOPER” resident Greg McCafferty who’s intent on making millions off plopping an imposing 39-unit, 3-story edifice (“Downtown Anaheim 39”) on the one undeveloped sliver of this old distinguished community. Let’s fill you in on the details, as this snuck right up on most of us:
THIS went up at the LAST MINUTE, when the project was practically a fait accompli.
Can they squeeze $15+ million profit out of this skinny undeveloped strip? They believe so! (Click for larger view)
What’s variously called the “Northeastern Colony” or “Pauline Street neighborhood” is one of the classic neglected neighborhoods of Anaheim that were supposed to be helped by the heightened representation of district elections. A world away from the upscale Colony of Mitch Caldwell, Michelle Lieberman, and Meghan Shigo (on the west side of Anaheim Blvd) they voted heavily for reform Democrat Jose Moreno.
Like many other barrios and apartment neighborhoods in town, the area is packed solid with working class people, has a perpetual parking crisis, and is way overdue for infrastructure repairs. They are bordered on the east side by a railroad track, regularly and rattlingly traveled by Metrolink, Amtrak, and long freight trains.
Squeezed between this neighborhood and that railroad track is the long skinny (60 ft) strip of land you see to the right, currently occupied by a mobile home storage facility (and some say, a place where otherwise homeless RV owners stay the nights discreetly to keep off the streets.) In a city not starved for funds by kleptocratic councils, this could conceivably be a park, in an area otherwise deprived of open space..
But “developer” Greg McCafferty of Sagecrest Planning had a different vision of what could be shoehorned into this scrawny strip: a line of seven towering buildings containing 39 $500,000 town-houses overlooking the yards of Pauline Street residents.
I use quotation marks when I call McCafferty a developer, since as far as I can tell he’s not planning to build or develop anything himself, but to buy the property with a plan in mind, and sell it for a profit to the actual developer/builder, which would be KB Home. Realtors I know hazard a guess McCafferty would buy the property from the current owner for a cool million they couldn’t refuse, then pass it on to KB for maybe 3 or 4 million for a healthy profit, which KB should be happy to do if they really hope to sell all the units at $500k for a $15 million-plus profit. To my mind, that makes McCafferty more of a “speculator.” .
They want 39 of these, overlooking the neighbors, shoehorned between the alley and the tracks.
But it won’t be happening if McCafferty can’t guarantee several generous considerations from the city council – a negative mitigated declaration, a reclassification in the place’s zoning (from industrial to residential), a general plan amendment (from low to higher density), and a conditional use permit. Needless to say, there were good reasons for all these existing rules and codes, having to do with residents’ quality of life, and there is no compelling reason to change them, except the profiteering of McCafferty and KB Home. (Unless the reason is “gentrification.”)
The always-development-besotted city staff loves the project, and it sailed through the Council-appointed Planning Commission, opposed only by old-school real estate sage Steve White. Steve attempted to AT LEAST get McCafferty to agree to making the top-floor windows OPAQUE to preserve some privacy for the neighbors, but the speculator refused, claiming incredibly that his “profit margin was already going to be SO DAMN THIN.”
Typical afternoon on busy Pauline Street.
Council March 5
The days of councilmen like James Vanderbilt, sitting up on the dais, listening to both sides, asking probing questions and agonizing for 20 minutes before arriving at what he thinks is the right decision, are so over. Now it’s just like it was before the 2016 election – the majority walks in with their minds all made up, their instructions digested, their statements already composed by either themselves or their handlers. And the five-member majority KNEW it was going to back McCafferty’s project, no matter what any residents or other critics said.
In the alley… that ivy wall on the left is where the 39 units would go.
It was taken for granted that McCafferty, after a friendly staff introduction, would have as long as he wanted to hawk his proposal, power-point and all, both before and after public comments. But what to do about all the critical residents who showed up, dying to speak against it, and having been promised ten minutes each?? Mayor Harry REALLY didn’t want to have to hear them, so he immediately decreed their comment time be cut from TEN minutes to TWO minutes each. (And no it was NOT getting late, it was not even EIGHT yet.)
When Moreno had a chance, he protested this radical abridgement of residents’ free speech, but Harry insisted that “I’m pretty sure the rest of the council wants a two-minute limit.” (Huh? How would he know that? We sure hadn’t heard them discuss the question.) With a surprise (unintentional) assist from Trevor O’Neil, and with the help of Denise Barnes and Jordan Brandman, Jose at least managed to get the limit up to THREE minutes. An irritated Lucille Kring scolded the residents to at least not REPEAT each other’s points, so as not to bore her.
McCafferty pooh-poohs some concerns; pliant Anaheim staff at left.
But first of course, the highly-favored McCafferty, having already enjoyed unlimited time meeting with each councilmember over the past couple years, was granted even more unlimited time to make his case. Some of his assertions:
- He needs permission to reduce the “setbacks” – the distance between the front of his buildings and the existing apartments – from the traditional 150 feet to FORTY feet – and why? Because, obviously, this is a “very very constrained site” he is compelled to work in! (THIS is an argument for the project’s necessity??) Reminds me of how he also complains that he’s already spent hundreds of thousands planning, studying and selling the project. (Hey, isn’t that the “sunk cost fallacy” that kept us in Vietnam?) Furthermore he boasted that all his projects sell real well. (Wait, that’s an argument we should care about too?)
- The parking issue, he feels, shouldn’t be held against him. “The parking problem is city-wide, we didn’t cause it, and we are not going to exacerbate it.” Well, we beg to disagree. He does provide two parking spots for each unit, and a few extra. But he refuses to guarantee these units will only contain single families, and we highly doubt, at their high price, that they’ll be single families with no more than two cars, or that they’ll never have guests or PARTIES. In short, the project is GUARANTEED to exacerbate the neighborhood’s parking.
- Privacy. The current residents are really creeped out by the idea of their new neighbors gazing down into their yards, at their playing children, from their third-story windows. McCafferty says not to worry, some of those windows will be facing SIDEWAYS, not directly at them. The residents aren’t buying that.
Under repeated questioning from Moreno about how the project addresses Anaheim’s desperate need for AFFORDABLE housing, both McCafferty and the staff stammered their way to a new word, a substitute for “affordable” – “We feel that these units are … ATTAINABLE.” One pictures a couple, a family, scrimping, saving, working their fingers to the bone, hoping for good fortune, and just BARELY “attaining” a loan for a half-million dollar townhouse squeezed between a barrio and a railroad. And thence, embarking on a lifetime of going without. McCafferty makes a fetish of the typical purchaser being “a teacher from Anaheim High School who could walk to work.” Really, at $500K? NO. As his patience wore thin, he allowed as to how, “I’m not a creator of affordable housing, that’s a different skill set.”- He claims “the majority of residents we talked to,” and the “[six] ones we got letters from,” supported the project! The six who wrote in support actually signed a form letter McCafferty had given them, “but they signed it of their own free will, we didn’t compel them to!” (LOL, notice how he didn’t deny paying them to?) In any case it’s very hard to find anyone in the neighborhood who actually heard about the project and supports it; in fact there are a couple who claim they just said “yes” so that McCafferty and his Spanish-speaking sister would go away. While 106 close neighbors signed a petition against it.
He flattered the Council as “visionaries” and tried to portray his 39 units as a “visionary” project akin to visionary achievements in Anaheim’s past. Conversely, he excused his project’s many shortcomings by pointing out that Anaheim has at some points greenlit other projects with at least as many problems. So why not now?- When questioned what sorts of benefits the project would have for Anaheim (besides the vague “people can walk to work!”) he mentioned sewage improvements that will also be helpful for “future projects in the neighborhood.” Jose immediately thought, like most of us, “What future projects?” So, this is apparently the first of several such projects envisioned for the area, the tip of the spear of what’s called GENTRIFICATION – whose endgame is the displacement of the neighborhood’s lifelong working-class residents either to Corona or onto the streets. No wonder they are resisting.
- Knowing the fussiness, indeed the allergy, of Mayor Sidhu and Mayor Pro-tem Kring to public displays of enthusiasm or disagreement, McCafferty pledged that “I have plenty of supporters here… but MY supporters won’t clap!“
Next it was the turn of seven or eight critical residents to speak, making points (as did the two People’s Councilmembers Moreno and Barnes) that I’ve already made here, since I agree with them. The painful part was watching them each try to squeeze 10 minutes of good prepared points into an unexpected three minutes.
After that came a few “shills” – I mean, McCafferty’s promised supporters. These folks, apparently tipped off to Mayor Harry’s drastic time reduction, read brief supportive statements off their phones. Bizarrely, two or three of them praised the “wisdom and courage” of “city leaders” for backing the project – it was a little 1984. (One supporter who spoke extemporaneously was Grant Henninger, a Kring-appointed former Planning Commissioner who ran for Council in the Hills last year AS A DEMOCRAT – except he lost a lot of us Anaheim Democrats’ votes to Patti Gaby, with his overly strident developer cheerleading. THIS time, Grant tried the impossible task of presenting these half-million-dollar townhouses as a partial solution to the homelessness crisis!)
And the vote, as foreordained, was 5-2, with only the People’s Councilmembers Moreno and Barnes dissenting. Mayor Harry laboriously recited a pre-written statement, comically including the line “We have heard all your concerns here tonight.” Mayor Pro Tem Lucille Kring, who seems to just get rougher around the edges every year, had already insulted neighborhood organizer Maritza Bermudez, dismissing the 106 anti-development signatures on her petition: “We have no idea where those really came from.” (They all came from within a block of the project and had addresses provided.) It turns out Lucille is an OLD friend of McCafferty, and she made sure to say, “I hate the word gentrification” while launching into a spirited defense of gentrification.
(Trevor in the middle.)
Councilman Trevor O’Neil, who looks like he could be married to a ‘60’s sitcom genie, expressed puzzlement over what an ALLEY is – he wanted us to know that they don’t have “alleys” in his upscale Hills district. He also made the unasked point that he hadn’t discussed the project with his colleagues. That was strange because it wasn’t true. Perhaps it had slipped his mind, but he had discussed it with Moreno, and given him the false impression that he’d be opposing the project since “To me, what residents want is most important.” Granted, Trevor probably had in the back of his mind an affordable housing project that his well-off neighbors didn’t want in the Hills, but shouldn’t the principle be the same here? I think I’ll ask him that at the meeting tonight.
The pro-gentrification majority was rounded off with Jordan Brandman and Steven Faessel, who dependably voted with their allies without uttering a word why, even though in their own districts they pass as guys who care about their residents. Would Jordan force an unwanted development like this on his voters in district 2? Would Steven force an unwanted development like this on his voters in district 5? Is it only okay because they’re forcing it on Jose’s voters? I think I will ask THEM THAT, as well, at tonight’s meeting.
Yes, at tonight’s (March 19) council meeting, some of the elements need to be voted on a second time (item 23 on the consent calendar.) Jose will pull that item for discussion, and we will try to delay and regroup against this unwanted development. At the least, Jordan, Steven, and Trevor should not be voting for the interests of out-of-town profiteers over the needs and desires of hundreds of lifelong Anaheim residents. See you there!
People on the right side of these issues care much less about them than people on the wrong sides do. Interesting that Jordan and Faessel are keeping quiet, though.
Good job, Chairman. Hope you don’T mind if I change all instances of “Greg” in the story to “McCafferty,” so it doesn’t give me a headache.
Oh, and — thanks for this, Disney! It’s in your tab.
Anaheim is open for business!
Please clap.
This is the new normal. Big houses on postage stamp lots. Cram as many as possible and negative externalities be damned.
This should have been an easy no vote. The only way to get into this site is via the alley.
Vern: what genius came up with “death-rictus grimace?”
Some ill-tempered sage. I believe he was fired by the county once for stepping on too many toes.
Oh, Trevor says “Alley? What’s that? We don’t have alleys where I live.”
I’m a Planning Commisioner for the City of Anaheim appointed from District 1. I voted in favor of this project because I thought it a good fit for an oddly located property that would raise property values in the neighborhood much like similar developments have throughout the city. I visited the location, read the Planning Departments reccomendations, read the neighborhood comments and listened to comments made from residents who attended the meeting. Most of their comments concerned the need for more parking, mostly brought on by the number of residents that rented out their garages. Parking is a “hot utton issue in Anaheim, but it’s not fair to punish a developer who takes great strides to insure that their development isn’t a contributing factor. After the meeting I talked with residents who said the night time goings on were a huge concern ( people parking cars from other areas, people sleeping in vehicles and issues with the homeless. They mentioned affordable housing as an alternative. None of these were addressed by our Planning Department prior to our vote. If the residents are on board with an affordable housing development in their neighborhood in place of what has been proposed I think it would be a win win situation and something I wholeheartedly would support. Hopefully our Council feels the same way. In the future I’m going to ask our various Council members to weigh in on their views on projects proposed in their particular Districts to express the views of those who elected them, that should be a consideration.
Mr. Armstrong, in my humble opinion you fell into the trap of solving the developer’s problems for him. Challenging site? Yeah, sure. It looks like abandoned UP right-of-way. So what?
There is no inherent right to a zone change or a General Plan Amendment and they shouldn’t be passed out without (at least) some commensurate benefit to the public and the vicinity. You say that this project will raise property values? Who wants a three story building right behind their one-story house? Obviously not the 100 people who signed the opposition petition. The ivy covered fence will be removed and they will get a 30+ ft high neighbor.
“In the future I’m going to ask our various Council members to weigh in on their views on projects proposed in their particular Districts to express the views of those who elected them, that should be a consideration.”
This is illegal.
Talk to your staff before making comments on blogs.
–Fmr Fullerton Planning Commissioner
That would be sort of backwards but why would it be illegal?
Can’t weigh in on a decision pending action as a member of a public body before the action is brought for a decision to that body.
Common law prohibition on prejudicial action. Given that these are quasi-judicial decisions and not political speech, members of the Planning Commission and the City Council have to follow rules.
In this case, aside from the comment that wasn’t wisely issued by Mr. Armstrong, he’s required to cast his vote based on the findings narrowly prescribed in the resolution as well as only the record presented to the Commission.
For example, he states he visited the location. While this isn’t technically illegal, it is prejudicial as his observations of the parcel and the community weren’t shared (at the same time and the same way) to the other members of the body as part of the record supporting the required findings.
That’s a big no-no. It would take a member of the impacted community to sue, but if a member wanted, based on Mr. Armstrong’s own comment, they have a reason to claim the Commision violated their right to due process by basing (at least his vote) on prejudicial information not in the record.
Proper remedy is to invalidate the vote and re-vote with Mr. Armstrong removed from the discussion and vote.
“he’s required to cast his vote based on the findings narrowly prescribed in the resolution”
Is that codified, or is it based on some sort of legal precedent.
That’s part of the challenge process for an appeal to the judicial system.
The findings have to support the vote and the findings have to be true (the vote is typically assumed to validate truth, but if the findings are clearly not reasonably true, the vote is invalidated.)
A vote that clearly ignores the facts (as documented) and the findings (as documented) required to support the vote is not a valid vote. If a Commissioner casts a vote *based on information beyond the what’s recorded in the resolution* the proper action is to amend the resolution to include the facts and findings, along with how those facts/findings impact the general plan as required.
^^^ That’s my recollection, but I presume I’m no longer a Commissioner for a reason. Maybe misstating how I’m supposed to vote is why.
With all due respect Mr. Armstrong, the assumption that the parking issues is due to the garages being rented out, was made by McCafferty. Unfortunately, McCafferty has made many arguments without having complete understanding or knowledge of our neighborhood. He is there to make a profit, so he will say whatever needs to be said to get his project approved.
It’s sad, very sad to see our elected officials from our City, fall for his manipulation. A lot can be said for a developer that reaches out to all the Planning Commissioners and Council members, except for those in District 3, where the project is being proposed. A reputable developer, would have started with the Planning Commissioner and Councilman of District 3.
I guess he figured, he could easily manipulate the rest of them and not the ones that are actually there to fight for the residents. In Anaheim, big business’ come first, not the residents quality of life.
Interesting. People in Orange who don’t want district elections are using this post as an example of why they don’t work…
https://www.facebook.com/groups/OrangeTalk/permalink/2733074543399804/
As if this wouldn’t be happening under an at-large system.
District elections are better — but they can’t beat Disney’s millions. Orange doesn’t have that problem.
Ryan Cantor, many of the Commisioners visit sites to better understand the layout of properties and who and who would not be affected. We disclose this at the start of the meeting, same with prior meetings with developers. I personally have never attended a private meeting because I feel we should get the same information the public is presented with, no more no less.
There was no “100 signature petition” presented to the Planning Commission. Much of the information I received in opposition came from talking with people I assumed were residents after the meeting. We also require obstructed views into neighbors yards ( obscured glass, angles etc) and would be written into a proposal before anything would be built. I don’t look for ways to solve builders problems, I look for ways to improve neighborhoods while impacting the fewest residents as possible.
“I don’t look for ways to solve builders problems…”
Perhaps not intentionally, but you sure helped enrich a speculator who either bought, or who has an option on a piece of marginal property. The government entitlement action here provides a big dividend to the “developer,” but what does anybody else get out of it? Right now the use (vehicle storage behind a vine covered eight foot fence) seems congruent with the zone and the location – along side the railroad tracks).
That’s certainly your prerogative.
If I were a staff member in Anaheim and I had Planning Commissioners making independent site visits and having independent discussions outside of a public hearing, I’d be concerned about my findings surviving a court challenge.
No visit = no challenge, but again, you do as you’d like.
Ryan, you’ve lost me there. There is no reason why a decision maker can’t make an independent site visit and talk to anybody he wants to; otherwise you’d only get the BS peddled by “staff” that has already been bought and paid for by Mr. Developer.
I did it all the time.
Did you log onto a blog afterwards and declare your mind was made up after your personal site visit and before the public hearing concluded?
Ryan, some folks are wondering if you didn’t realize the Planning Commission is done with this. Armstrong (who I do think made the wrong decision) can say whatever he wants now.
Meh, yes and no.
On this decision, I didn’t look at the recitals, but there probably isn’t anything here that directly contradicts those facts and findings.
This, on the other hand, is a problem: “In the future I’m going to ask our various Council members to weigh in on their views on projects proposed in their particular Districts to express the views of those who elected them, that should be a consideration.”
I get the intent, but this can’t happen.
Ryan I agree about private discussions but I would want ANY Planning Commissioner anywhere making a planning decision based solely on photographs, to many variables that need to be seen in person.
You aren’t alone in that opinion.
You’re gathering information, showing due diligence. You can declare your “ex parte” meetings. Looking at a site for yourself makes eminent good sense.
Basing your decision on the public record makes good sense.
If the record isn’t good enough to make a decision, then the item should be continued.
Sitting behind you RIGHT NOW Vern.
Take a fucking shower, you silly, dirty fool. Bleach your beard and brush your teeth. How can any one take you seriously Rocco…..
You are fucking gross.
Larry Betral
You have Nothing to offer, you are really upset because Vern Nelson was blocking your view of Trevor O’Neil.
LOL. I was sitting with Spencer Custodio when I saw this comment in spam. I said “Look at the sort of fan mail I get every day! Should I approve it?” We were both laughing, he said, “Approve it, it’s hilarious!”
I deleted the part about Donna’s son.
Hate to say it, but nobody who can afford a half million dollar townhouse is going to move into a unit wedges between a train track and an underparked barrio where the only access is by alley. Which means this project is likely to become inhabited by several struggling families without other options splitting the rent and further impacting the parking issues. I know Greg McCafferty and have always believed him to be a good guy who does good projects but I think he is off his nut with this one.
That said, the villain here is not the applicant, it is the merry band of elected officials who ignored their constituents who arent saying what they want to hear, in order to push an insane project to benefit a politically connected pal.
I loved Denise Barnes calling out Harry for claiming he wants to hear from Anaheim residents and that he “is listening” while he is clearly blowing them off. The whole thing makes me sad. This is an area clearly in need of improvement, not a project that makes it worse. So much for “public service.”
” This is an area clearly in need of improvement, ” Well said, but even more so regarding THE COUNCIL DIAS. !
Sounds like a good place for a Trader Joe’s, though — amirite?
LOL. or at least to “imagine one” ! Oh, wait, wrong district.
Kudos to Denise Barnes for joining the residents last night at Rancho La Paz apartments, the subject of this particular story – https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019/03/21/proposed-400-a-month-rent-increase-has-seniors-in-anaheim-nervous/
That particular complex is about 60-70% Anaheim, 30-40% Fullerton. Some of the residents are ‘nervous.’ Apparently others are ‘suicidal.’ There’s precious few sources of information about these kinds of fights other than OJB…where Vern tracked the players for years.
I have been thinking about this, Vern. I think calling it the “Sidhu majority” gives the assclown too much credit for establishing it. As you correctly observe, he says what he is told to say. The fact is that this piece of corrupt assemblage art was created by others to whom they all owe fealty and for whom Sidhu et. al. are just bag men (and King). Klepto Krew?
I really want to recall him next year, as his sins add up. So I’d like to lay all the sins of his majority at his feet. That’s my thinking.
The Dems made it even harder to recall Dems. And Repubes, too.
I am new to the city and state. Had so much excitement to cast my vote in the last election. I read news, websites, flyers(Nobody even had my address yet but my mailbox was filled every day lol) and even older videos of town hall meetings. From the town halls i watched there seemed to be a lot of bickering but I felt there were good debates.
Now with Darth Sidhu there, he just force chokes anyone who opposes. He and his storm troopers are ruining Anaheim. Moreno and Barnes are being silenced and so are their communities. Sidhu must be stopped. Why did yall vote for this guy??
He did get elected by a minority, one of many things he has in common with Trump.
You aware of the Recall effort? Join us, we need everyone! https://www.facebook.com/RecallSidhu2020/