Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
03/09/2021
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL REGULAR AND REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF MARCH 9, 2021 The regular meeting of March 9, 2021 was called to order at 3:00 P.M. and adjourned to 5:00 P.M. for lack of a quorum. The regular adjourned meeting of March 9, 2021 was called to order at 5:02 P.M. telephonically, pursuant to Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-29-20 (superseding the Brown Act related provisions of Executive Order N-25-20) in response to COVID-19. The meeting notice, agenda and related materials were duly posted on March 4, 2021. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Harry Sidhu and Council Members Stephen Faessel, Jose Diaz, Jordan Brandman, Avelino Valencia, and Trevor O'Neil (in person). Council Member Jose F. Moreno joined the meeting at 5:04 P.M. (via teleconference). STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Jim Vanderpool, City Attorney Robert Fabela, and City Clerk Theresa Bass INVOCATION: Council Member Jose Diaz FLAG SALUTE: Mayor Pro Tem Stephen Faessel ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDAS: None PUBLIC COMMENTS (all aaenda items. except public hearin City Clerk Theresa Bass reported that two (1) public comment was received electronically prior to 3:00 P.M. related to City Council agenda items and matters within the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Council. [A final total of two (2) public comments were received electronically and distributed to the City Council and made part of the official record]. — See Appendix. Jay Cole expressed appreciation for the $40,000 he received to move out of the Americana Motel but advised others should receive an appropriate amount because some are ineligible for Section 8 housing. He reported he would be homeless in a few days because his landlord would not allow him to bring others into his house as a guest. He expressed a passion for helping with the homeless crisis and advised he is going to Sacramento tomorrow trying to speak to Governor Gavin Newsom. He advised the City could do more by building housing and urged the City Council to vote for more housing and come up with creative housing solutions and encouraged more 3D -printed houses. He reported they are planning a campaign titled "Open Disneyland or We Will Die" and he encouraged more partnering with the faith community, including opening up church parking lots. Brian Kaye reported attending the Orange County Board of Supervisors meeting and encouraged more City officials to participate in those meetings if they are serious about protecting the public from COVID-19. He noted certain industries, including construction, are booming right now but stated the City is shirking its responsibilities and not following the rules. He addressed a pending case before the California Court of Appeals, former actions by the City regarding his mental health, and alleged actions by the Anaheim Police Department. City Council Minutes of March 9, 2021 Page 2 of 16 R. Joshua Collins, Homeless Advocates for Christ, encouraged City Council to work for more affordable housing, permanent supportive housing, and detox centers with no wait time. He urged the City Council to reopen the bathroom at La Palma Park and create a shelter with no wait time, like in the City of Santa Ana. He encouraged the City Council to work to better the City, noting it took lawsuits and activist work to bring the changes they have now. He advised housing is a basic need and should be considered a human right. Kenneth Batiste expressed opposition to Item No. 07 and questioned the need for $2,800,000 worth of security, noting the City did not have it previously. He reported people in Anaheim are suffering and he is speaking up on their behalf. He advised the City should represent the rights of the people and not businesses. He reported there is food insecurity in the City, and parents are stressed figuring out how to pay for rent and food. He noted the Council Members should be doing what they can to make it easier. He urged the City Council to never forget the world is about loving people, taking care of them, and helping them out. Vern Nelson reported a group is protesting outside to open these meetings up via Zoom or Webex video conferencing. He advised they will continue to fight for this and noted the Anaheim Democrats Club unanimously passed a resolution of support. He reported comments from the lobby are not available to people who have health problems during the pandemic. He advised Anaheim is the only City in Orange County that does not allow for videoconferencing and noted Assembly Bill 339 is being discussed in Sacramento clarifying how the public should be allowed to access these meetings, including at the minimum a teleconferenced public comment opportunity even during the State of Emergency. He advised they are also waiting for Sacramento to solve the City's problems by passing a bill to put a rent cap on mobile home parks to help seniors. He noted the recent passing of Rancho La Paz's Kathleen Fabry, who had been forced by John Saunders to sell her home at a big loss, causing significant stress. Fred Sigala Jr. reported that if his son could do an entire year of second grade virtually from home, his father should have had an opportunity to submit his comment via Zoom. He read the resolution passed unanimously by the Anaheim Democrats Club regarding City Council not allowing comments other than email during the pandemic and called to immediately open up the City Council meetings, noting many other Anaheim public meetings already do this. He advised the resolution urged the other Democratic Council Members to support Council Member Moreno on this issue as they promised to during their campaigns. Mark Richard Daniels advised it is time to open the meeting to a Zoom or Webex format. He noted Mr. Nelson has offered to pay the $192 cost to the City to use Webex and encouraged City Council to take him up on this offer. He advised they are starting to get a handle on the pandemic and encouraged the City Council to step forward to show its residents the City is open again. CITY MANAGER'S UPDATE: City Manager Jim Vanderpool announced the Maxwell Dog Park in west Anaheim is scheduled to open in May, following additional lawn -growing. He acknowledged and thanked the Public Works Operations Division for partnering with various non-profit organizations with food distribution events across the city, by providing labor, transportation, and equipment to move many pallets of food to Anaheim's most vulnerable residents, living up to their motto, "Always There." City Council Minutes of March 9, 2021 Page 3 of 16 CONSENT CALENDAR: At 5:31 P.M., the consent calendar was considered. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Faessel moved to waive reading of all ordinances and resolutions and adopt consent calendar as presented, in accordance with reports, certifications, and recommendations furnished each City Council Member and as listed on the consent calendar, seconded by Council Member O'Neil. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members Faessel, Diaz, Brandman, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0. Motion carried. 8105 1. Receive and file minutes of the Library Board meeting of January 11, 2021, the Public Utilities Board meeting of January 27, 2021, and the Sister City Commission meetings of October 26, 2020 and November 23, 2020. D180 2. Waive the sealed bid requirement of Council Policy 4.0 and authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to ACF Technologies, Inc., in the amount of $19,975 plus applicable tax, for an upgrade to the main Q -Flow software used by multiple departments in the city and the addition of new software modules to enhance public access to the system at City Hall. D180 3. Authorize the purchase of new VMWare Enterprise Software Licenses, support renewals, services, and maintenance from Dell Marketing L.P., in the amount of $751,664.42 plus applicable tax, to support network operations and Mobile Device Management for various departments throughout the city for a three year term (the agreement(s) will be based on pricing offered through the National Association of State Procurement Officials ValuePoint Cooperative Purchasing Program, Agreement No. MNWNC-108 established by the State of Minnesota). D180 4. Authorize the purchase of one Pierce fire engine from South Coast Fire Equipment, Inc., in an amount estimated not to exceed $800,000 plus all applicable taxes and fees, for the Anaheim Fire & Rescue Department (purchase is being made utilizing a cooperative purchase agreement established by the Houston -Galveston Area Council that was awarded to Pierce Manufacturing; the purchase is being made through their local authorized reseller as allowed by the terms of the agreement). D180 5. Accept the bid from Emergency Vehicle Group, Inc., in the amount of $189,450 plus tax, fees, and a 20% contingency, for the as -needed purchase of fire apparatus repair services for a one year period, with four one-year optional renewals; and authorize the Purchasing Agent to execute the renewal options in accordance with Bid #9489. AGR- 6. Award the construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder Fortte Construction, Inc., dba 12596 Fortte Engineering, in the amount of $311,279 plus a 10% contingency, for the construction of Mid -Block Pedestrian Signal Installation Project at Western Avenue (165' north of Tyler Avenue); authorize the Director of Public Works to execute the contract and related documents, and to take the necessary actions to implement and administer the contract; and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions. AGR- 7. Approve the First Amendment to Agreement with Lyons Security Service, Inc., increasing the 11404.1 total compensation of the agreement by an additional $2,879,289.60 and authorizing an additional not to exceed amount of $150,000 per year for additional security services on an as -needed basis, for security services at The Salvation Army emergency shelter and surrounding area and extending the term of the agreement by two years to January 15, 2023; and authorize the City Manager to execute the Amendment as well as any subsequent City Council Minutes of March 9, 2021 Page 4 of 16 amendments or documents necessary for the continuation or clarification of security services at The Salvation Army emergency shelter and surrounding area, provided they are approved by the City Attorney and do not increase the total compensation payable to Lyons Security Service, Inc. AGR- 8. Waive Council Policy 4.1 and approve an agreement with Carpi & Clay Inc., in the amount of 4279.D $5,000 per month, for federal advocacy services for 12 months with two one-year optional renewals and authorize the City Manager to approve the renewal options. R100 9• RESOLUTION NO. 2021-016 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ratifying the submission of a grant application and the acceptance of a grant on behalf of the City of Anaheim for the Fiscal Year 2020 Patrick Leahy Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant, authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute all required grant documents, and amending the budget for Fiscal Year 2020-21 accordingly (grant funds in the amount of $11,090.47). 10. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-017 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE R100 CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the Fire Chief or designee to accept distributions from the Department of Health and Human Services Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act Provider Relief Fund on behalf of the City of Anaheim and amending the budget accordingly (distribution amount of $531,281). R100 11. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-018 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing participation in the State Rental Assistance Program (Block Grant Award in a total amount not to exceed $11,211,172). D114 12. Approve minutes of the City Council meetings of May 12, 2020 and June 9, 2020. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR: D116 13. Update on the City's Response to COVID-19: Mayor Sidhu advised the update is the most positive one yet and reported cases are down and vaccines are up across the City and County. He advised there is now a path forward for both Disneyland to be open in late April and the Los Angeles Angels to play baseball in front of fans on Opening Day (April 1, 2021) at Angel Stadium. He noted the City continues to push for safe reopening guidance for the Anaheim Convention Center and Honda Center. Mayor Sidhu reported there is still more work to do and residents should not let their guard down but reiterated the City is ready to see the pandemic through. He thanked the City Council, prior City Council, and staff for their leadership. He noted that the City declared the State of Emergency in the earliest days of the pandemic, enacted protections against evictions, adopted a mask requirement, provided $65,000,000 in help to residents and businesses, and was the first to open public testing at the Anaheim Convention Center. He advised the City brought testing directly to its most -impacted neighborhoods and was among the first in the State to open large vaccination sites. Mayor Sidhu reported he requested staff prepare a report about the progress of the Ad Hoc Public Health Advisory Task Force and noted the Task Force's eight-week tenure has been remarkable. He encouraged all residents to get vaccinated and to keep their guard up so the gains could continue. City Council Minutes of March 9, 2021 Page 5 of 16 Chief Communications Officer Mike Lyster presented the City's data reflecting drops in the case rate, positivity rate, and health equity metric citywide, along with declines in each of the seven zip codes except for 92806's case rate. He noted 92806 does have the City's lowest positivity rate at 2.4% which portends lower case numbers in days to come. He advised, should this trend continue, Orange County should move into the red Tier 2 by March 17, 2021 at the latest and noted vaccination rates could allow the County to move up a tier even sooner. Mr. Lyster advised 225,000 vaccinations had now been given in Anaheim, including 60,000 at the Anaheim Convention Center which only opened a week before. He noted 2,000 vaccinations have been done in neighborhood clinics, bringing the vaccine directly to where it is needed. He reported the Disneyland site converted yesterday to a drive-through, focusing on senior citizens and those with special needs. He reported today the Convention Center site became the first in Orange County to offer the single-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine. He advised staff is continuing to work with the County to bring more neighborhood clinics to the City. Mr. Lyster reported the first batch of data from the County on vaccines shows encouraging news. He reported Anaheim residents vaccinated by the County include between 20.3% and 32.7% of residents aged 65 and older in each of the seven zip codes. He advised the numbers of Hispanic seniors range from 18.5% to 26.4%, depending on the zip code. He praised how their percentages generally align with the general population and noted it is even higher in the 92805 zip code. He explained some of the data is not comprehensive, but Anaheim's vaccination rate of 21.7% is higher than both the California and United States rates of 18.5% and 18.1%, respectively. He added Orange County stands at 26.9%. Mr. Lyster reported the Task Force's initiatives include a Senior Vaccination Program led by the City's Community Services Department. He reported the City has had 3,000 seniors either get vaccinated or registered through CuraPatient's Othena, stemming from over 1,600 hours of help from Community Services. He advised the Task Force is looking to use this hands-on model to provide additional neighborhood assistance for working families and is working on a partnership to provide transit to vaccination sites similar to the Senior Mobility Program. He reported the other initiative is to assist in creating a Take It Outdoors Grant Program to help restaurants. Mr. Lyster provided a timeline since late December capturing highlights of the Task Force's accomplishments from public communications to ultimately vaccinations and expanded testing options. DISCUSSION: In response to Mayor Pro Tem Faessel's inquiry, Mr. Lyster reported there was an encouraging response today at the Convention Center to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine's debut. He advised many were eager to receive the Johnson & Johnson vaccine upon learning it was a more convenient single shot and reaches a high level of immunity quicker. He reported sometimes people will be able to select their vaccine provider, but this will not always be possible based on supply and location. He explained all three options are great and doctors advise to take the first one available. Council Member Valencia noted the positive report was heart-warming and advised the City's efforts were starting to pay dividends. In response to Council Member Valencia's inquiry, Mr. Lyster confirmed the Task Force has provided guidance that the City should seek to expand vaccines however possible. He added a major point of input has been neighborhood sites and noted the City has been challenged by supply. He advised they have been working with the County, although the County also has to work with the other cities. He advised they have been pursuing neighborhood clinics wherever they can and credited assistance City Council Minutes of March 9, 2021 Page 6 of 16 from partnerships with Latino Health Access and the school districts. He reported the Task Force's outreach program has been a way to increase access in neighborhoods through awareness and registration assistance even when they could not provide actual shots. In response to Council Member Valencia's inquiry, Mr. Lyster expressed pride in the efficiency of the sites and noted they hold Anaheim up as a model in the County, State, and country. He reported nurses generally administer about 20 vaccines per hour, which is three times higher than the national average. He advised they perform this with great customer service and bedside manner and noted the efficiency helps vaccinate the City's large population. He expressed pride in the efficiency and noted the Disneyland site will also now offer a drive-through service. Council Member Valencia thanked Congress members Ted Lieu, Young Kim, and Luis Correa for their letter to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) arguing for a FEMA site in Anaheim. He expressed pride in the work Anaheim is doing to keep the City safe. Council Member Moreno expressed his optimism and encouraged residents to remain vigilant so they could reopen the economy. He reported meeting with Disneyland President Ken Potrock and receiving assurance their primary focus would be the safety of employees, visitors, and those in the City. Council Member Moreno expressed concerns about the national -level discussion of whether or not a vaccinated individual could still spread the virus. He reminded residents they were not yet out of the woods so they should stay vigilant. He expressed appreciation to staff for positioning the City so well. He expressed appreciation for the school districts leading the way in providing facilities and parking. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Mr. Lyster confirmed the City does not have exact data on how many of the vaccinations in Anaheim went to Anaheim residents. He advised staff would continue to press the County for the figures and provide it when it becomes available. He explained the County has expressed it is a challenge to provide accurate data based upon residences. He added other providers are stepping up to provide vaccines, but noted the County remains by far the largest provider. He reported CVS Health is now second to the County, while Kaiser Permanente and Walgreen Company are also stepping up. He reiterated the City would continue to ask the County for data. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Mr. Lyster advised he does not have the County's color -coded map available. He clarified there are demographic factors to provide context to why other areas of the County have higher senior citizen vaccination rates than Anaheim. He reported those who have been vaccinated thus far are senior citizens, health care workers, and first responders. He explained some of the darker areas on the County map have a higher percentage of senior citizens and health care workers in their community than Anaheim. He cited the darker blue tone around Leisure World Seal Beach as an example of this phenomenon. He noted Group 1 B is about to start, encompassing 1,500,000 educators and food service workers, and stated Anaheim's overall numbers should rise significantly when those groups become eligible. He expressed pride in Anaheim being unique in Orange County for having two major vaccination sites. Council Member Moreno advised the map specifically shows the percentage of seniors who have been vaccinated and not the total population. He cited several Orange County communities where the senior population has been vaccinated at a much higher rate than Anaheim's despite the City having two Super Points of Distribution (POD). City Council Minutes of March 9, 2021 Page 7 of 16 Council Member Valencia advised the differences between the northern and southern portions of the County could be a matter of accessibility to registration. He explained this was why the City was reaching into its neighborhoods to help residents with accessibility issues, including transportation. Mr. Lyster advised the Task Force has recognized accessibility through registration and mobility are challenges in certain Anaheim communities. He reported there is also a Super POD at Soka University in the City of Aliso Viejo which also serves the southern portion of the County. Council Member Valencia reported these accessibility issues are being proactively addressed by the Task Force and noted they are focusing on their most impacted communities as best as they can. Mr. Lyster reported the City and the Task Force are looking at the dynamics of the City's unique challenges. He advised increasing access to vaccines in these neighborhoods has been the most discussed topic. Council Member Moreno recalled the beginning of the pandemic where it was difficult to get finite data from the County and there was a deficiency of testing in Anaheim's hardest-hit neighborhoods. He expressed pride in being able to open neighborhood clinics in Anaheim because of the work of Supervisor Doug Chaffee. He noted the City was unable to open clinics on its own because of a lack of vaccine supply. Council Member Moreno clarified his previously unanswered inquiry by expressing concern over how much the City is providing in resources for vaccines going disproportionately to residents of other cities. He expressed concern the City was being asked to reopen Disneyland as soon as possible for the good of the whole County yet the City's residents were less likely to be getting vaccinated. He asked the City Council to show the same anger and push the County and Governor to accelerate vaccinations for Anaheim residents. He pledged to continue to advocate with the County for more Anaheim vaccination opportunities. Council Member Valencia advised it has been his mission to get the Task Force up and running to bring vaccines to the City. He expressed pride in the Task Force's work and the progress seen over the past eight weeks. He encouraged focusing on the positives and not the past. He commended Council Member Moreno on the relationship he has forged with Supervisor Chaffee and encouraged him to demand more vaccines from the County. He advised he will second the charge if Council Member Moreno takes the lead and noted he has not personally heard from the County about the City's requested data. Council Member Moreno reminded Council Member Valencia that many of the things he referenced having occurred over the past eight weeks were already in progress prior to that time. He advised the PODs were in the works before the formation of the Task Force because Anaheim is a central location with large facilities. He advised all of the Supervisors have been asking for zip code vaccine data but the County is hesitant to release the information and noted it is an internal matter for the County. He reported the detailed data earlier in the pandemic only came out because of Supervisor Chaffee's advocacy along with Latino Health Access. Informational item - No action taken. City Council Minutes of March 9, 2021 Page 8 of 16 PUBLIC HEARING: C410 14. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION C280 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-00510 C350 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2016-00297 ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2020-00444 (DEV2016-00074) OWNER: Vasken Tatarian, 8469 Beach Circle, Cypress, CA 90630 APPLICANT: Sarkis Tatarian, 8469 Beach Circle, Cypress, CA 90630 PROJECT LOCATION: 0.36 -acre property located at 3175 West Ball Road at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Western Avenue. REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of the following land use entitlements to allow construction of an 11 -unit, three-story, multiple -family residential development: (i) a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential; (ii) a Zoning Reclassification from the General Commercial (C -G) to the Multiple -Family Residential (RM -4) zone; and (iii) an Administrative Adjustment to allow reduced street and interior setbacks. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City Council will consider whether a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental determination for this request under the California Environmental Quality Act. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Approved and recommended City Council approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (PC2021-003), General Plan Amendment No. 2016-00510 (PC -2021-004), Reclassification No. 2016-00297 (PC2021-005), and Administrative Adjustment No. 2020-00444 with an added condition of approval to state all lease agreements between the property owner/manager and tenants shall include a provision stating that all parking spaces shall remain open and available for the parking of vehicles at all times. This provision shall be overseen by an on-site resident manager (PC2021-006). VOTE: 5-2 (Chairperson Keys and Commissioners Armstrong, Lieberman, Mulleady and Vadodaria voted yes; Commissioners Meeks and White voted no). (Planning Commission meeting of January 20, 2021). RESOLUTION NO. 2021-019 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2016-00510, Reclassification No. 2016-00297, and Administrative Adjustment No. 2020-00444 (DEV2016-00074) (3175 West Ball Road). RESOLUTION NO. 2021-020 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the General Plan of the City of Anaheim (General Plan Amendment No. 2016-00510) (DEV2016-00074) (3175 West Ball Road) [amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to change the property's land use designation from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential]. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-021 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting proposed Administrative Adjustment No. 2020- 00444 (DEV2016-00074) (3175 West Ball Road) [to allow a reduced street landscape and structural setback, and a reduced interior structural setback for the project]. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 5 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members Diaz, Brandman, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 1 (Council Member Faessel); ABSTAIN — 1 (Council Member Moreno). Motion carried. City Council Minutes of March 9, 2021 Page 9 of 16 ORDINANCE NO. 6507 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the Zoning Map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to Zoning (Reclassification No. 2016-00297) (DEV2016-00074) [reclassify the property from the C -G (General Commercial) zone to the RM -4 (Multiple -Family Residential) zone]. Planning & Building Director Ted White reported this request is for a rezoning and Administrative Adjustment to construct an 11 -unit apartment complex. He advised the Planning Commission recommended approval on January 20, 2021 and noted the property is located at 3175 West Ball Road at the corner of Western Avenue. He reported surrounding uses include multi -family residential to the north and east, commercial and multi -family residential to the south across Ball Road, and a medical office and multi -family residential to the west across Western Avenue. He advised the 0.36 - acre property is currently zoned General Commercial (C -G) and has been vacant for over 20 years since once housing a gas station. Mr. White detailed the plan for the 11 -unit, three-story apartment building with a 27 -space parking garage on the ground floor. He advised ingress and egress would be on a single driveway off of Ball Road. He reported there would be 10 two-bedroom units and a single one -bedroom unit for a manager. He advised the plan would remove four existing driveways along with adding new sidewalks along both Ball Road and Western Avenue. Mr. White reported there would be 4,200 feet of recreation areas where only 2,200 square feet are required. He advised the 27 parking spaces exactly meet the requirements, with 14 of the spaces being tandem spaces. He explained that the requested rezoning to Medium Density Residential would allow for 36 units per gross acre and this project would have a density of 31. He advised the proposed amendment supports several General Plan policies in regards to addressing housing needs. Mr. White reported the new zoning would be Multiple -Family Residential (RM -4). He advised this requires street and interior setbacks of 20 feet but the proposed development is at 16 and 18, respectively. He reported staff observed area parcels are both much larger and typically have setbacks of only 10-15 feet. He advised the proposed reduced interior setback is mitigated by screening for privacy, and a condition of approval is the owner having to maintain this landscaping. He reported staff's recommended conditions of approval include specific landscaping requirements for the proposed street setbacks. He advised an additional condition of approval is for the three-foot front wall to allow for 18 inches of planting in front for a softer appearance and to deter graffiti. He reported the applicant has agreed to the conditions of approval. Mr. White discussed the stucco and brick finish and other exterior aspects of the proposed development. He advised staff assessed the design as high-quality and consistent with the General Plan. Mr. White reported the applicant hosted a community meeting on December 3, 2020. He reported community concerns were the loss of commercial land, insufficient parking, and overbuilding on the lot. He advised there were some concerns over rental housing, with a preference for single-family homes or townhomes. Mr. White reported the project would meet all development standards of the proposed zone except for the minor setback deviations. He noted it was compatible and complementary to the multi -family residential uses in the surrounding area, along with the scale of the project. City Council Minutes of March 9, 2021 Page 10 of 16 Mr. White advised a preliminary study in support of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared and the project would be reduced to levels considered less than significant from a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) perspective. He reported staff and the Planning Commission believe the project would provide a quality living environment, fits surrounding land uses, and is consistent with the goals of the General Plan to address the City's diverse housing needs. He reported staff recommends approval of the project. DISCUSSION: Mayor Sidhu noted the proposed project is in District 1. No Council Members disclosed ex parte communications. Council Member Diaz clarified he participated in the December 3, 2020 meeting mentioned by Mr. White when had he had been elected but not yet sworn in. He reported he did not ask questions but just wanted to listen to the residents' concerns. He advised he met with a group of residents last night for two hours to hear their concerns and noted he came to the process fully neutral but has some questions he would like to ask on behalf of the residents. In response to Council Member Diaz's inquiries, Mr. White advised there was a traffic analysis performed although the project does not meet the requirement of requiring one. He reported in the morning and evening peak hours, the number of trips would be six. He noted, if there was still an active service station on the site, the anticipated peak hour trips would be 166 in the morning and 184 in the evening. He advised, if traffic is a concern, a residential project would be the most desirable usage for a property of this size. He confirmed a commercial property generates significantly more trips than a residential one. In response to Council Member Diaz's inquiry, Mr. White explained overcrowding is a consequence of the affordability crisis the City is experiencing. He advised any unit constructed has the potential to add to overcrowding. He noted the management of the property can contribute to this, if poorly managed, but confirmed the project intends to have an on-site manager, which will help keep it well- managed. In response to Council Member Diaz's inquiry, Mr. White explained the first baseline staff looks at is if the building meets Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC) development standards and this one does, aside from the minor deviations on setbacks. He advised the setbacks do meet the community aesthetic for the area. He reported staff worked extensively with the applicant on the design quality and expressed his belief the project would meet the community's tastes and expectations for quality. In response to Council Member Diaz's inquiry, Mr. White clarified the AMC requires 2,200 square feet of open space. He advised, among the open spaces associated with this project, there is a common recreation room which is unusual in an 11 -unit complex. He noted there are also shared courtyards, exceeding the minimum size requirements of the AMC. In response to Council Member Diaz's inquiry, Mr. White advised the developer can speak more to the live-in manager but he confirmed it has been proposed. He noted it is not a zoning code requirement. He clarified the Administrative Adjustment is more development -based than operationally -based. He clarified the Planning Commission wanted the developer to agree the parking spaces have to be open and available in perpetuity, and the Adjustment says the on-site manager would be responsible for monitoring the parking. He clarified if the City went too far in requirements for an on-site manager they would be overstepping their role with the Administrative Adjustment which speaks primarily to the setbacks. He advised the applicant can speak to their interest in including a clause confirming there must be an on-site manager in perpetuity. City Council Minutes of March 9, 2021 Page 11 of 16 In response to Council Member Diaz's inquiry, City Manager James Vanderpool clarified one of the considerations for the staff recommendation was the viability of the site for commercial use. He explained the fact it was vacant for so long lends itself to it not being viable for commercial use. He advised staff is making a concerted effort to look at commercial uses on Beach Boulevard. He noted he has assembled a team from various departments and an economic consultant to discuss transitioning the Beach Boulevard corridor. He reported the City had an Economic Study done several years ago by Keyser Marston Associates and they are asking them to help envision the future of Beach Boulevard. He advised revitalizing Beach Boulevard's commercial uses is a priority. Council Member Diaz reported he ran for office because District 1 had been left behind and is economically depressed. Council Member O'Neil expressed his preference for for -sale properties over rental homes but noted rental homes are permissible. In response to Council Member O'Neil's inquiries, Mr. White confirmed the tandem parking spaces would be assigned to the same units by Code. He confirmed the project will have 14 tandem parking spaces, 10 standard parking spaces, and three guest parking spaces. He clarified the Code requires a quarter of a guest parking space per unit, accounting for the three required for this development. He clarified the Code requires 2.25 parking spaces for each two-bedroom unit. In response to Council Member O'Neil's inquiry, Mr. White confirmed the proposed development would have a comparable density to the surrounding properties, making it compatible. In response to Council Member O'Neil's inquiries, Mr. White stated the setbacks are in line with surrounding properties. He added a survey showed the surrounding setbacks are between 10 and 15 feet, whereas this proposed development would have a 16 -foot setback on the street sides. He noted the setback requirements were not as wide when those buildings were constructed. In response to Council Member O'Neil's inquiries, Mr. White confirmed the driveway onto Ball Road would be a right turn in and out only. He noted traffic engineering staff did not recommend a condition of approval requiring a sign for right turn only, but he stated this could be added as a condition of approval. He noted it would be an illegal maneuver to turn left out of the driveway onto Ball Road. He advised City Council could request a sign be added to the list of conditions. Council Member O'Neil stated if traffic experts studied it and did not identify a sign as an issue then it should not be an issue. He noted if the other Council Members disagreed, he would favor putting such signage there. In response to Council Member O'Neil's inquiries, Associate Planner Nick Taylor advised there is a slight relocation required to the bus stop on Ball Road to accommodate the driveway. He advised the traffic staff looked at this relocation and it appears to be satisfactory. In response to Council Member O'Neil's inquiries, Mr. White confirmed the setback adjustment would not impact the placement of the bus stop. He advised the setback only impacts the building and not the public right of way. He confirmed adjustments to the curb and sidewalk to accommodate the bus stop are at the developer's expense. In response to Council Member Valencia's inquiries, Mr. White confirmed medium density development allows for 36 units per acre and the proposed project would have a density of 31 units City Council Minutes of March 9, 2021 Page 12 of 16 per acre. He confirmed the proposal meets all elements of the zoning code aside from the Administrative Adjustment. Mayor Sidhu opened the public hearing. Applicant Sarkis Tatarian reported he is a first -generation immigrant born at Anaheim General Hospital. He thanked Mayor Sidhu, the Council Members, and City staff for doing their best for public health during the pandemic. Mr. Tatarian acknowledged this is his first development but expressed his confidence in the product being presented. He echoed Mr. White's comments on the regular collaboration with City staff, including the design. Max Ahmadi, a consultant for the applicant, advised the project is well -explained in the staff report. He reported the Planning Commission hearing addressed all of Council Member Diaz's concerns. He expressed his comfort with how Mr. White and Mr. Taylor represented the project and noted the project has been in the works for over four years. Mr. Ahmadi addressed Council Member Diaz's prior concerns and advised there has been no commercial activity on the site for 32 years because the lot is too small for any good use of a commercial nature and noted this means the General Plan concept of making the lot residential made sense. He explained a residential development would generate much less traffic than commercial usage and advised the project only has one driveway because they do not anticipate much traffic. He echoed Mr. White's comments denying concerns of overcrowding. He noted the quality of life would be high because they have tried to make the project better than the bare minimum requirements for open spaces and building materials. He explained the on-site manager's job is to watch their investment and not simply to ensure tandem parking is done properly. He reported each unit with an assigned tandem parking space would have it in the lease that they must use it. He advised he views the property as transitional rentals until people can save enough to buy a home as home prices are so high right now. He advised apartments were in demand right now because they are more affordable. Mr. Ahmadi confirmed they are willing to have a sign specifying right turns only from the driveway. He advised they would gladly take care of alterations to the bus stop and advised the design of the building is an effort to make it look fashionable. He noted it echoes the design of newer Downtown buildings and those near Angel Stadium. He reported they are trying to make the west side look like the upscale stadium area. City Clerk Theresa Bass reported that 27 public comments were received electronically prior to 7:00 P.M. related to Public Hearing Item No. 14 [A final total of 27 public comments were received electronically and distributed to the City Council and made part of the official record]. — See Appendix. DISCUSSION: In response to Council Member Diaz's inquiry, Mr. Tatarian explained the on-site management is necessary for the protection of their investment as much as for compliance with the AMC. He advised it is built into the budget and explained how having a full-time manager would help them reduce the cost of damages. He advised it is their intention to keep a manager throughout the life of the project. He noted this was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting and he agreed it was a legitimate concern. In response to Council Member Diaz's inquiry, Mr. White expressed confidence that tandem parking in a shared garage design would be used for parking and not for other uses. He advised there is not a lot of convenient street parking in the area, making the tandem spaces even more likely to be utilized. City Council Minutes of March 9, 2021 Page 13 of 16 Council Member Moreno reported there is a need for housing in the City to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers as assigned by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Mr. Ahmadi advised this would not be considered affordable housing because they are not building at the State's required density but noted they would not be overly concerned about the income levels. He advised he anticipates receiving a lot of applicants. He explained there is a trend in the market about who would qualify. He noted they would have an open market rate. He noted open market rate is much lower on the west side compared to Anaheim Hills or the stadium area. He advised they have an accountant who is putting rental packages together and the subject of price points had not come up as part of their application. He advised the market rate would be what the average for the neighborhood calls for, but right now they are still planning and not economic -ready. He reported he has a land -use consultant there to make sure the plans are approved. Mr. Tatarian advised the units should be going in the $1,900 to $2,100 range based on the area's going rates today. Council Member Moreno advised he is very familiar with the area as his wife is the principal at nearby Dale Junior High School. He reported the school has 1,000 middle school children of which 300-400 do not have stable housing. He advised there is a desperate need to provide stable housing environments in this area. He expressed hope that the economic conditions in the area would be considered and stated $1,900 a month seemed too high. He expressed skepticism over what sort of workforce on the west side would be able to afford this housing. Mr. Ahmadi clarified the number of children does not factor into the amount of rent paid. He advised, if they have the opportunity to develop a larger area in the future, they could include affordable units. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. Ahmadi reported he does a lot of work in Los Angeles where they have a similar program to Anaheim's Housing Authority's affordable housing vouchers. He confirmed they are open to all alternative payments and would not exclude people by policy if they have a voucher. He noted it is only 10 rental units so this was a very small project and the market is unpredictable right now because of the pandemic. He noted they are immigrants themselves and they would be open partners to those with vouchers. Mr. Tatarian thanked everybody who worked alongside him along with the City staff. He added it is as much their project as it is his and thanked the City Council for its time and consideration. Mayor Sidhu closed the public hearing. DISCUSSION: Council Member Diaz explained when he decided to run for Council it was based upon the economically depressed condition of District 1 and noted the infrastructure is behind the rest of the City. He reported District 1 has the lowest income per capita of any district. He advised he promised to change west Anaheim. He advised government alone cannot do this and must rely on the private sector. He advised residents regularly asked him while campaigning what the City is doing to provide housing. He explained the entire State is building less housing, which leads prices to go up and leads to overcrowding. Council Member Diaz thanked staff for their assistance, noted this is a great project for a lot that has been empty for 32 years, and recommended City Council should act. He expressed his support for having an on-site manager to protect the investment. City Council Minutes of March 9, 2021 Page 14 of 16 MOTION: Council Member Diaz moved to approve Public Hearing Item No. 14 as presented, seconded by Council Member Brandman. DISCUSSION: Mayor Pro Tem Faessel reported he listened to the Planning Commission hearing on this item. He noted it is a fairly dense project on a small lot and the Planning Commission worked hard to create the best possible project. He advised the Planning Commission observed how the week prior, the Council had removed one of their tools to make the project even better. Mayor Pro Tem Faessel noted the next RHNA cycle would force higher -density in -fill projects into their neighborhood whether they like it or not. He compared these developments to those in the 1980s by Young Lion Development, run by Victor and Hugo Vasquez. He advised they specialized in buying distressed single-family homes in the flatlands and building high-density four- and eight -unit stucco boxes. He reported they were not high quality when built and have not fared well 40 years later. He explained his record is to always support housing while finding the highest -quality project they could. Mayor Pro Tem Faessel advised this project is market rental and does not have an affordable component. He explained the State allows affordable units to receive a density bonus. He noted the only higher density developments than the proposed 31 units per acre here is in the Platinum Triangle. He advised reduced setbacks and reduced landscaping, both requested here, are permitted with affordable projects. He advised reduced parking is allowed with an affordable project and this applicant has not reduced parking but did choose a tandem parking model. Mayor Pro Tem Faessel explained it is important to continue to demand the highest quality project they can. He expressed his belief the Planning Commission attempted to do this here. He expressed support for the three actions dealing with General Plan amendments and underlying zoning changes. He noted the fourth action is an Administrative Adjustment requesting reduced landscaping and setbacks. He acknowledged it is a symbolic vote, but he intends to oppose Administrative Adjustment No. 2020-00444. Council Member O'Neil reported, as SCAG representative, RHNA is coming and more in -fill projects are on the horizon. He advised there would not be much they can do about these State mandates. He noted Orange County got the short end of the stick with RHNA and it is an unfortunate reality they would all have to face. He explained that nothing can change it short of an appeal to the Governor, which SCAG has refused to do. Mayor Sidhu thanked the public for sending their comments. He noted it is an interesting item because they have worked to bring all types of housing to the City, yet the State is pressuring for even more. He advised residents of west Anaheim have long felt neglected, sometimes correctly. He reported he has been working hard to fix this since he was elected and they are seeing signs of reinvestment in west Anaheim. He noted the 39 Commons project is moving forward, along with other developments, bringing 300 new housing units to the corner of Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue. He believes the desired increases in shopping, dining, and other amenities will follow. He asked residents of west Anaheim to stay the course with the City Council as they revitalize west Anaheim while keeping what they like. Mayor Sidhu reported the project tonight is a failed commercial site and a blight if left as is. He advised, if they keep it commercial, the site would not attract the kind of uses residents request due to its small size. He acknowledged the lot is a tight fit, but this proposal would continue the revitalization of west Anaheim by showing retailers west Anaheim is coming back. He reported they see this progress north of west Anaheim in the City of Buena Park and south of west Anaheim in the City Council Minutes of March 9, 2021 Page 15 of 16 City of Stanton and noted Anaheim needs to join the progress. He expressed support for the project. He advised, along with Council Member Diaz, he will keep an eye on the site and make sure it is an asset to the community after it is built. He reported City Council would act if the conditions of approval are not adhered to. MOTION: Council Member Diaz moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2021-019 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2016-00510, Reclassification No. 2016-00297, and Administrative Adjustment No. 2020-00444; RESOLUTION NO. 2021-020 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the General Plan of the City of Anaheim (General Plan Amendment No. 2016-00510); RESOLUTION NO. 2021-021 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting proposed Administrative Adjustment No. 2020-00444; and introduce ORDINANCE NO. 6507 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the Zoning Map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to Zoning (Reclassification No. 2016-00297), seconded by Council Member Brandman. ROLL CALL VOTE (Resolution Nos 2021-019 and 2021-020; and Ordinance No. 6507): AYES — 6 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members Faessel, Diaz, Brandman, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 1 (Council Member Moreno). ROLL CALL VOTE (Resolution No. 2021-021): AYES — 5 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members Diaz, Brandman, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 1 (Council Member Faessel); ABSTAIN — 1 (Council Member Moreno)). Motion carried; ordinance introduced. PUBLIC COMMENTS (non-aaenda items): None COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS/AGENDA REQUESTS: Council Member Moreno expressed to the hardest-hit areas of Anaheim to continue to be vigilant with social distancing, wearing masks, and washing hands and noted there was a light at the end of the tunnel due to vaccines. He advised his office would continue to advocate the Orange County Supervisors and legislators the prioritization of the hardest-hit areas of the city to bring vaccines to the workers, educators, and seniors in the hardest-hit areas. He requested two agenda items: 1) a resolution declaring May 29 as Anaheim Graduates Day to honor high school graduates, college/university graduates, and promotees at all Anaheim schools; and 2) a proclamation declaring April 2021 as Sexual Assault Awareness Month, as requested by Casa De La Familia (both requests failed for lack of concurrences). With the openings of the Resort and surrounding businesses in April and some school districts returning to on -campus instruction following Spring Break, he asked all to be mindful and hoped there would not be another COVID-19 surge. Council Member Diaz reported he met virtually last Friday with Magnolia School District Superintendent Dr. Frank Donovan and learned about the wonderful classes, programs, training, and recognitions held throughout the pandemic. He congratulated all the district teachers and staff and wished them luck as they prepare to re -open campuses in April. He announced March 7-13 as Orange County Restaurant Week and encouraged all to support local restaurants by dining outside or ordering take-out, with more information available at: www.ocrestaurantweek.com. He congratulated Karen Clark Yamamoto, Western High School Social Science Department Chairperson, for her recognition for excellence in teaching by the California Council of Economics Education. Council Member Valencia requested the meeting adjourn in memory of Maestro Gabriel Barrios Zavala, long-time Anaheim resident, creator of Rhythmo Mariachi Academy, and District 4 Senior Citizen Commissioner, who died of complications due to COVID-19 on February 26, 2021. He thanked the Anaheim Police Department for providing bilingual resources on the city's website and social media platforms regarding the recent uptick in fraud trends. He thanked the Community City Council Minutes of March 9, 2021 Page 16 of 16 Services and Public Works Departments for hosting a virtual meeting for the Haster/Orangewood neighborhood, and the entire City team for their incredible work serving the community. He acknowledged improving numbers but stated we were not yet out of the pandemic and recommended safety precautions continue to be followed and encouraged all to obtain vaccines. He wished all a happy belated International Women's Day. Mayor Pro Tem Faessel acknowledged it had been nearly a year since he was in the Council Chamber for a meeting and it was an honor to be back serving with his former and new colleagues. In addition to Maestro Zavala, he requested the meeting adjourn in memory of Mario Cuevas Zamora, Consul of Mexico based in Santa Ana; Jim Wingert, co-founder of Anaheim Glass; and Joseph Trejo, long-time Anaheim Union High School District employee and St. Anthony Claret parishioner who died due to COVID-19. Mayor Pro Tem Faessel thanked John Woodhead, Community, and Economic Development Director, for his almost 25 years of service to the City and welcomed Grace Stepter as the Interim Director. He wished Council Member Brandman an early Happy Birthday. He announced the closure of Anaheim Brewery at the end of the month and thanked Greg and Barbara Gerovac for their 20 years of service to Anaheim, wishing them well in retirement. He reported his participation in a Ball/Sunkist project webinar on February 17 and thanked residents for calling in; a donation by the Apartment Association of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) units to Higher Ground at Lincoln School on February 19; and the virtual kick-off of the YMCA project on Manchester on February 19. He thanked all residents for participating in the District 5 webinar with Neighborhood Services and reported he presented to the Rotary Club on Anaheim's history and Rudy Boysen. He congratulated all women on International Women's Day. Mayor Sidhu reported there was good news this week but everyone should still keep their guards up to keep Anaheim safe and get out of the pandemic. He acknowledged the toll it was taking on families, friends, and children. He thanked all the City staff for their hard work, especially with the vaccine PODs, and encouraged everyone to have patience in finally getting out of the pandemic. ADJOURNMENT: At 7:53 P.M., Mayor Sidhu adjourned the City Council meeting in memory of Mario Cuevas Zamora, Jim Wingert, Gabriel Barrios Zavala, and Joseph Trejo. Respectfully submitted, —The�esa9Bass, CMC. City Cierk�� Y T Public Comment From: Edgar Arellano Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 4:10 PM To: Public Comment Subject: Item 6 council meeting 3-9-2021 This is awesome. Great to see Anaheim continue to lead some of these missing sidewalk & related efforts. I hope there is a continued committal to programs like these & those related to Safe Routes To Schools (SRTS). I'Mr, 57 Public Comment From: Raymond Wascher Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 7:36 PM To: Public Comment Subject: Skateboard noise and nuisance Help! Attachments: IMG -1293 S. Roberts St 92802-3.JPG; S. Roberts St 92802-1.JPG; S. Roberts St 92802-2.JPG Council members of concern. My name is Ray Wascher. I have been enduring very noisy skate boarding activities outside my apartment residence S Roberts St 92802 for days now.It sounds like a construction site & zone.This group is even setting up lighting for after dark nuisance noise. The landlord for the property has done little to help. I think I need to exercise some kind of ordinance to bring back normal living here. What can be done? Sincerely, RayW 0 W4 14 I r 1p of 01. i Public Comment From: Fred Fix Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 7:29 AM To: Public Comment Subject: Fw: 3175 W. Ball Rd. - Letter in opposition to the 11 unit three story apartment building development March 4, 2021 Members of the Anaheim City Council, My name is Alfred "Fred" Fix and I am writing to you concerning my opposition to the proposed development of an 11 -unit three story apartment structure at 3175 W. Ball Rd. which is a vacant parcel located on the northeast corner of Western Avenue and Ball Road. I have been a resident on the block of West Teranimar Dr since 1966. 1 have seen major changes to our city and my neighbor while I studied at CSU -Fullerton to earn a Master's Degree in Public Administration with an emphasis in Urban Land Use and Planning while also having a successful 32 year career working for 5 Orange County cities in the Planning and Community Development Departments. Based upon my personal, professional, education, knowledge and experience I am opposed to this development on the basis that this parcel is too small to accommodate such a large development. There is no on street parking on either Ball Road nor on Western Avenue and we already have an influx of parking in the single-family residential neighborhoods from the overcrowded apartment structures that were built on both Ball Rd and Western Ave. I urge you to drive both Ball Rd. and Western Ave. for yourselves to see that street parking is a premium. You will also notice that all new development on Ball Rd. west of Beach Blvd to the west city limit along with development on Western Ave are either single-family detached homes or town homes. This is the type of development that I would support at 3175 W. Ball Rd. that home ownership in either single-family homes or townhouses will have a positive effect on our area which is becoming blighted by the over development of high-density apartments. When the White Rocket gas station at this location was closed and demolished in 1988 another gas station was also demolished at Western and Orange Avenues. Not only at City Hall but in the neighborhood, we were all told that both lots would be developed as single-family detached homes. Pleases see the below photos of the single-family detached homes developed at 603 — 615 W. Western Ave. that were built on the former gas station lot across from Western High School at Western and Orange Avenues. This exact same type of development should be the development sought for the 3175 W. Ball Rd. vacant 4 parcel. _ _ _aA_.ai: 603 — 615 S- Western Avenue Front Elevation View from the Southwest intersection of Western Avenue and Orange Avenue Orange Avenue Front Elevation: Another appropriate use of the 3175 W. Ball Rd. vacant parcel would be the development of townhouses. Below are photos of 3213 — 3223 W. Lincoln Ave. A four -unit townhouse structure was built along the east property line, a two -unit townhouse was built along the west property line and additional on-site parking exists to the rear of the property. 3213 — 3223 W. Lincoln Avenue front elevation: Front Elevation of 4 townhouse structure: 4 Front Elevation of 2 townhouse structure with additional rear on-site The construction of single-family homes is very profitable and desirable for the area as 32 single family homes were just built on the 3200 block of West Donovan Ranch Rd which is on the opposite side of Western Ave. from this proposed development. The houses are currently valued at nearly $800,000. realto .com 13uy Sell Rent Mortgage Find Reanorst, Fly Hors Ne PrS & Instgmss &.y: w Anaheim, CA x E Califorrwa crane County "hem Q000van-Ranch Rd 9 4 3 2,323 3,519 Mop . beds batha sq h sqh tot Con+muie Time 3200 Donovan Ranch Rd. Anaheim, CA 92804 Be Ready to Buy. How Much Can You Barrow" Est $7930700o 1�:p View up to 3 home estimates In the past I have joined my neighbors from Glen Holly Dr., Harding St., Rome Ave. and Tera nimar Dr. to oppose the development of 828 S. Western Avenue (a .99 acre parcel) to be developed as a 33 unit apartment complex and later a 14 unit condo complex. Past Anaheim Planning Commissioners worked with us and agreed that this parcel at Western Avenue and Teranimar Drive will be developed as five single-family two-story homes. I encourage you to review the photos that I have provided and to visit the single-family homes at 803 — 615 S. Western Ave. along with the town homes at 3213 — 3223 W. Lincoln Ave. I am confident that you will find either of these two types of developments to be a more appropriate and beneficial development of the existing vacant parcel at 3175 W. Ball Rd. to add value to the community and reduce future blight while encouraging home ownership in Anaheim. Please do not hesitate to contact me at Thank you, Alfred "Fred" Fix 6 Public Comment From: KATHY CHANCE Sent: Sunday, March 7, 2021 4:24 AM To: Public Comment; Council; Jose Diaz Subject: OPPOSED Agenda Item 14: 3/9/2021 Anaheim City Council Meeting Anaheim City Council and City Councilperson for District 1, Jose Diaz: I am OPPOSED to Agenda Item #14 on your Anaheim city council agenda for Tuesday, March 9, 2021. I have to live with all of the over -packed and unregulated amounts of people being jam-packed into one and two bedroom apartments at Knott and Ball with their overflow traffic coming into my tract. Many of these apartment dwellers are even from Buena Park, since we are on the border. Buena Park went to permitted parking a year or two ago, so now these apartment dwellers J -walk across busy Ball Rd to get to our tract to retrieve their vehicles. The situation is SG BAD over here, that a couple of vehicles drive most of apartment dwellers in on weekday mornings to pick up their work trucks and extra vehicles. These vehicles line our streets; it is so bad, residents are having to leave their trash cans out all week to save themselves some parking in front of their own home!! These cars and work trucks remain here ALL WEEKEND, even blocking the ADA ramps at each cornea! And let's talk about TRASH! Yes, trash all over our streets, not to mention oil seeping out of their eye -sore vehicles in front of our homes! I have discussed this AT LENGTH with the APD Traffic Division, who states it's ok for them to J -Walk, and even had a meeting with the Traffic Engineer for the City of Anaheim. And their response is: "Raise $500 and submit an application to go to permitted parking!" YES, this is the BS that the city and APD hand 1 us: "There is nothing we can do!" At one point APD had the city errect NO J -WALKING signs; but when there is no APD to enforcer what is the use? They expect US to canvas our area to speak with residents and raise $500 just to get an opportunity to vote for permitted parking. Then the city wants US to self -monitor the permitted parking and call APD when there are violators! Yeah, right, we can't even get APD to respond when something REAL NOTEWORTHY TO APD is happening around here! Oh, and then the City of Anaheim wants us to pay a yearly permitted parking fee to do THEIR JOB FOR THEM! It's a SCAM!!! We are PRISIONERS in our own homes!!! The apartment dwellers, as well as criminal transients, have taken over our streets and community, and the city does NOTHING! There is not enough room in these apartment complexes to house the 13 cars and work vehicles per one bedroom apartment buildings!!! There are NO REGULATIONS on how many people these apartment dwellers are packing into one small apartment! The city and police offer us long-time residents NO SUPPORT ON THIS ISSUE! If you want to see the aftermath of what this will look like if apartments go up, contact me and I will take you on a Field Walk of my neighborhood!!!! Oh, I know, you are all too busy for that, right? I urge you to vote against item 14 so that the residential tracts surrounding BALL/WESTERN, doesn't become another BALL/KNOTT! 0 If the Tatarian family wants to build apartments on a small lot to make a quick buck, let them do it in Cypress where THEY LIVE!! 14. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-00510 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2016-00297 ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2024-40444 (DEV2016- 00074 OWNER: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-00510 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2016-00297 ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2020-00444 (DEV2016- 00 OWNER: Vasken Tatarian, 8469 Beach Circle, Cypress, CA 90630 APPLICANT: Sarkis Tatarian, 8469 Beach Circle, Cypress, CA 90630 PROJECT LOCATION: 0.36 -acre property located at 3175 West Ball Road at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Western Avenue. REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of the following land use entitlements to allow construction of an 11 -unit, three-story, multiple -family residential development: (i) a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential; (ii) a Zoning Reclassification from the General Commercial (C -G) to the Multiple - Family Residential (RM -4) zone; and (iii) an Administrative Adjustment to allow reduced street and interior setbacks. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City Council will consider whether a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental determination for this request under the California Environmental Quality Act. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION- Approved and recommended City Council approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (PC2021-003), General Plan Amendment No. 2016-00510 (PC -2021-004), Reclassification No. 2015-00297 (PC2021-005), and Administrative Adjustment No. 2020-00444 with an added condition of approval to state all lease agreements between the property owner/manager and tenants shall include a provision stating that all parking spaces shall remain open and available for the parking of vehicles at all times. This provision shall be overseen by an on-site resident manager (PC2021- 006). VOTE: 5-2 (Chairperson Keys and Commissioners Armstrong, Lieberman, Mulleady and Vadodaria voted yes; Commissioners Meeks and 'White voted no). (Planning Commission meeting of January 20, 2021). RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration forrrooposed General Plan Amendment No. 2016-00510, Reclassification No. 2016-00297, and Administrative Adjustment No. 2020-00444 (DEV2016-00074) (3175 West Sall Road . RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the General Plan of the City of Anaheim (General Plan Amendment No. 2015-00510) (DEV2016-00074) (3175 West Ball Road) [amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to change the property's land use designation from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential]. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM aonrovina and adopting proposed Administrative Adjustment No. 2020-00444 (DEV2016-00074) (3175 West Ball Road) [to allow a reduced street landscape and structural setback, and a reduced interior structural 4 setback for the projectI. ORDINANCE NO. (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the Zoning Map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to Zoning (Reclassification No. 2016-00297) (DEV2016-00074} reclassifv the oronerty from the C -G (General Commercial) zone to the RM -4 (Multiple -Family Residential) zonel. Kathy Chance 31 -year resident, W Anaheim Knott/Ball Public Comment From: jodiemosley Sent: Sunday, March 7, 2021 9:50 AM To: Public Comment Subject: opposing item 14 I'm writing to you to oppose item 14- the proposed project at 3175 W. Ball Rd. I oppose this project for the following reasons: - this project is entirely too dense. The lot is too small for a project of this size. - the surrounding area is already parking deficient. Adding additional apartment units will only increase parking issues that will pit residents against one another. This is why residents asked for a cap on tandem parking. This project has a significant amount of tandem parking which a majority of residents do not support. Several cities in ©range County limit or don't allow tandem for this very reason. - Anaheim continues to add housing to district 1 despite us being the densest district. All of this new housing, yet no new retail or green space. - this project has very little amenities for the residents. We deserve better. - if approved, the developer gets to walk away. But my neighborhood will feel the negative effects for years to come. -the project asks for several variances. Why have codes if developers don't have to abide by them? - we are already losing commercial space along Beach Blvd. now you're asking us to give up more. While Anaheim is giving up this space, West Anaheim residents are spending their money in neighboring cities like cypress and Buena Park. Simply put- this is not a duality project and not the type of housing our community has asked for. It is not consistent with what our neighborhood wants. There's nothing forcing this council to re zone this space. When the residents of Anaheim hills spoke out against the project in their community, council did not approve it. Will my district be given the same treatment? After decades of fighting for west Anaheim., will residents ever get what THEY want? I do not have any agenda, I am only concerned with what is best for my immediate neighborhood. Thank you. Jodie Mosley Sent from my T -Mobile 5G ©cvicc Public Comment From: jodiemosley Sent: Sunday, March 7, 2021 9:52 AM To: Public Comment I'm writing to you to oppose item 14- the proposed project at 3175 W. Ball ltd. I oppose this project for the following reasons: - this project is entirely too dense. The lot is too smalt for a project of this size. the surrounding area is already parking deficient. Adding additional apartment units will only increase parking issues that will pit residents against one another. This is why residents asked for a cap on tandem parking. This project has a significant amount of tandem parking which a majority of residents do not support. Several cities in Orange County limit or don't allow tandem for this very reason. - Anaheim continues to add housing to district 1 despite us being the densest district. Alt of this new housing, yet no new retail or green space. - this project has very little amenities for the residents. We deserve better. - if approved, the developer gets to walk away. But my neighborhood will feel the negative effects for years to come. -the project asks for several variances. Why have codes if developers don't have to abide by them? - we are already losing commercial space along Beach Blvd. now you're asking us to give up more. While Anaheim is giving up this space, West Anaheim residents are spending their money in neighboring cities like cypress and Buena Park. Simply put- this is not a quality project and not the type of housing our community has asked for. It is not consistent with what our neighborhood wants. There's nothing forcing this council to re zone this space. When the residents of Anaheim hills spoke out against the project in their community, council did not approve it. Will my district be given the same treatment? After decades of fighting for west Anaheim, will residents ever get what THEY want? I am only concerned for our neighborhood, as a long time resident, I do not have an agenda...I love my neighborhood and only want it to be be supported. Thank you Jodie Mosley Sent from my T -Mobile 5G Device Public Comment From: Jack Fix Sent: Sunday, March 7, 2021 5:17 PM To: Public Comment Subject: Opposition to the development of the vacant lot at Ball Rd. and Western Ave., 3175 W. Ball Rd. as an 11 -unit 3 story apartment complex. Dear Members of the City Council, I am a resident of Anaheim since 1952 and have lived in my current home on the block of W. Teranimar Dr. for 55 years. I am opposed to this development of the vacant lot at Ball Road and Western Avenue, 3175 W. Hall Rd. as an 11 -unit 3 story apartment complex. This development is too dense for such a small parcel. There will be no outdoor space that will be adequate for such a densely populated development. In addition, there is no parking on either Ball Rd. or Western Ave. We already have a parking problem with lack of parking on both streets due to over populated apartment complexes. Parking will to overflow onto Western Avenue and within our neighborhood. Our quality of life already is impacted by the blighted motels on Beach Blvd. This poor use of the land will impact our property values and quality of life in an even more negative manner. Please do not rezone this lot for such a dense apartment complex. I would support commercial development on this lot, single family homes or a town house/condo complex. Jack Fix 1 Public Comment From: KATHY CHANCE Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 6:08 AM To: Public Comment Subject: OPPOSE AGENDA Item #14: Photos -Neighborhoods filled with apartment dweller's vehicles This is a taste of what it looks like when there is NO regulation as to how many people can be jam- packed into one apartment unit with not enough apartment building parking stalls for all of them. Between 6-8 am every weekday morning, floods of apartment dwellers from Buena Park and West Anaheim will J -walk across Ball Rd, and enter this tract to retrieve their vehicles and work trucks. There are NO APD Traffic motor cops handing out tickets, and one of these days someone will get hit and killed by an oncoming vehicle. As well, we have "drive-in's" from as far away as a mile away off-loading additional apartment dwellers to retrieve their vehicles. How do I know this? Because I ask them where they live. Our residents can't even place their trash cans out on Monday morning until the apt dwellers move their vehicles (see photo). Trash and oil are left all over our streets. Many cars cause blight to the homes they park in front of. This is what BALLIWESTERN will become in the surrounding residential tracts if you allow this agenda item to pass. am OPPOSED to item #14 on the TWE 3/912021 city council agenda. 1 H N C) M N Oo L' 1 - l Q Q u 1 ( 1 F' s s � r ipm N s iIn- OL L WL Ad A� s Iv _ r s !� n� i r� l .ri 0 H �4 W Cd Cd I LA .I Public Comment From: Lauren Torres Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 9:00 AM To: Public Comment Subject: FW: Western and Bali objection item From: jodiemosley Sent: Friday, March 05, 202111:58 AM To: Council <council@anaheim.net> Subject: Western and Ball objection item From my neighborhood: https.//nextdoor.com/p/xjBqhZBG7cZ ?utm content=a&utrn source=share&extras=OTczNT(-1%3D OK Here we are again! City council decides if they will rezone the property on western and ball in district one to allow an overbuilt apartment building to go in. Originally already zoned commercial the planning dept ok'd this to come to council, and I'm here to say NO, WE DO NOT WANT IT REZONED, WE DO NOT WANT ANOTHER OVERBUILT DENSE APARTMENT BUILDING. We have been to a million meetings and not one time have people said we need more cheap, dense apartments, not once! We made it clear what we neex you to listen to us.. We are park poor in district 1, we need places to go, places to shop, eat and spend our money, so we don't need to spend it in Cypress, Buena Park or another city. We never asked for it, we already voted years ago for this lot to be commercial. I oppose the lot on Western and ball that's being proposed to be rezoned. I do not take the side of the developer. It isn't fair ---- what have you done for district 1? What have you done? We have not gotten one NOT ONE commercial property built. So if you approve this you are saying to our district 1 residents that you listen to the developers before the residents. I live here, not you, or the developer, and as we sit here watching dirt in 39 Commons blow in the wind, we've watched Stanton, plan, build, and create a very successful Rodeo 39, stealing almost the same name. And we haven't gotten one business yet. I'm dare you to look me in the face and say you are supporting the developers and not the residents_ all I'm asking for is for you to listen to me somebody who lives in this neighbourhood. Changing what already exists as a zoned commercial property to residential will forever change this neighborhood even more and it's unfair for you to make that decision when our neighbourhood is begging you not to do it. Sent from my T -Mobile 5G Device 1 Public Comment From: Lauren Torres Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 9:00 AM To: Public Comment Subject: FW: Western and Bail From: jodiemosley Sent: Friday, March 05, 202112:49 PM To: Carol Jang Adriana Gonzalez Camelia Merhi Amanda (Policy Aide to ANA Council Faessel) Heather Porretta Nancy Welt Kathy Tran Carmen Westberg Ab Abdul rahman Katie Lovato Orlando Perez Rod Pierson ; Gloria Ma'ae Tracy Urueta (W ANA NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH) jodiemosley Denise (W ANA DIST 1 CITY COUNCIL} <dbarnes@anaheim.net>; Darryl & Katie Lovato (SW ANA NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH) Council tcouncil@anaheim.net>; Lucille Kring Kathy Chance (SW ANA NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH) ; Harry Sidhu - Mayor <Harry@harrysidhu.com]; Shirl (SW ANA NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH) Nam Bartash <NBartash@anaheim.net>; michelle steel@ocgov. corn <michelle.steel@ocgov.com>; harrysidhu@harrysidhu corn <harrysidhu@harrysidhu.com>; Jim Vanderpool EJVanderpool@anaheim.net>; Judy Fletcher Elaine VERDI David Klawe Matt Cunningham Subject: Western and Ball tdogg1304 Western and Ball. The next council meeting this is being voted on. PLEASE write a letter opposing rezoning on Western and Ball (and forward to other residents) to allow another dense cheap 3 story 11 apartments building to go in...and send it to council. It passed through planning and I know the residents of district do not want this. PLEASE write TO ALL CITY COUNCIL OPPOSING THIS!!!! Here is my letter: OK Here we are again! City council decides if they will rezone the property on western and ball in district one to allow an overbuilt apartment building to go in. Originally already zoned commercial the planning dept ok'd this to come to council, and I'm here to say NO, WE DO NOT WANT IT REZONED, WE DO NOT WANT ANOTHER OVERBUILT DENSE APARTMENT BUILDING. We have been to a million meetings and not one time have people said we need more cheap, dense apartments, not once! We made it clear what we need you to listen to us.. We are park poor in district 1, we need places to go, places to shop, eat and spend our money, so we don't need to spend it in Cypress, Buena Park or another city. We never asked for it, we already voted years ago for this lot to be commercial. I oppose the lot on Western and bail that's being proposed to be rezoned. I do not take the side of the developer. It isn't fair .... what have you done for district 1? What have you done? We have not gotten one NOT ONE commercial property built. So if you approve this you are saying to our district 1 residents that you listen to the developers before the residents. I live here, not you, or the developer, and as we sit here watching dirt in 39 Commons blow in the wind, we've watched Stanton, plan, build, and create a very successful Rodeo 39, stealing almost the same name. And we haven't gotten one business yet. I dare you to look me in the face and say you are supporting the developers and not the residents. All I'm asking for is for you to listen to me somebody who lives in this neighborhood. Changing what already exists as a zoned commercial property to residential will forever change this neighborhood even more and it's unfair for you to make that decision when our neighbourhood is begging you not to do it. Jodie Mosley District 1 resident Sent from my T -Mobile 5G Device Public Comment From: Lauren Torres Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 9:01 AM To: Public Comment Subject: FW: Rezoning NO From: Kitty Hawk Sent: Friday, March 05, 20212:06 PM To: Council <council@anaheim.net> Subject: Rezoning NO I OWN A HOME HERE AND DON'T WANT REZONING. I LIVE IN A GREAT NEIGHHBORHOOD AND DON'T WANT HAVE APARTMENTS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. Public Comment From: Lauren Torres Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 9:01 AM To: Public Comment Subject: FW: Rezoning of lot on Western and Bali From: linda frame Sent: Friday, March 05, 20216:41 PM To: Council <council@anaheim.net>; Harry 5idhu (Mayor) <HSidhu@anaheim.net> Subject: Rezoning of lot on Western and Ball Anaheim Mayor Sidhu and City Council, I ask you once again to listen to your constituents instead of a non resident developer. The city council must decide whether they will rezone the property on western and ball in district one to allow an overbuilt apartment building to go in. Originally already zoned commercial the planning dept ok'd this to come to council, and I'm here to say NO, WE DO NOT WANT IT REZONED, WE DO NOT WANT ANOTHER OVERBUILT DENSE APARTMENT BUILDING. We have been to numerous meetings and not one time have people said we need more cheap, dense apartments, not once! We made it clear what we need you to listen to us. We are park poor in district 1, we need places to go, places to shop, eat and spend our money, so we don't need to spend it in Cypress, Buena Park or another city. We never asked for it, we already voted years ago for this lot to be commercial. I strongly oppose the proposed rezoning of the lot on Western and Ball. I disagree that this will in any way benefit the residents of district 1. It isn't fair .... what have you done for district 1. We have not gotten one NOT ONE commercial property built. So if you approve this you are saying to our district 1 residents that you listen to the developers before the residents. I live here, not you, or the developer, and as we sit here watching dirt in 39 Commons blow in the wind, we've watched Stanton, plan, build, and create a very successful Rodeo 39, stealing almost the same name. And we haven't gotten one business yet. I dare you to look me in the face and say you are supporting the developers and not the residents. All I'm asking for is for you to listen to me somebody who lives in this neighborhood. Changing what already exists as a zoned commercial property to residential will forever change this neighborhood even more and it's unfair for you to make that decision when our neighbourhood is begging you not to do it. Linda Frame District 1 resident Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail on Android Public Comment From: Lauren Torres Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 9.01 AM To: Public Comment Subject: FW: item 14 apposition From: jodiemosley Sent: Saturday, March 06, 202112:07 PM To: Council tcouncil@anaheim.net>; Harry Sidhu (Mayor) <HSidhu@anaheim.net> Subject: item 14 opposition I'm writing to you to oppose item 14- the proposed project at 3175 W. Ball Rd. I oppose this project for the fallowing reasons: this project is entirely too dense. The lot is too small for a project of this size. - the surrounding area is already parking deficient. Adding additional apartment units will only increase parking issues that will pit residents against one another. This is why residents asked for a cap on tandem parking. This project has a significant amount of tandem parking which a majority of residents do not support. Several cities in Orange County limit or don't allow tandem for this very reason. - Anaheim continues to add housing to district I despite us being the densest district. All of this new housing, yet no new retail or green space. - this project has very little amenities for the residents. We deserve better. - if approved, the developer gets to walk away. But my neighborhood will feel the negative effects for years to come. -the project asks for several variances. Why have codes if developers don't have to abide by them? - we are already lasing commercial space along Beach Blvd. now you're asking us to give up more. While Anaheim is giving up this space, West Anaheim residents are spending their money in neighboring cities like cypress and Buena Park. Simply put- this is not a quality project and not the type of housing our community has asked for. It is not consistent with what our neighborhood wants. There's nothing forcing this council to re zone this space. When the residents of Anaheim hills spoke out against the project in their community, council did not approve it. Will my district be given the same treatment? After decades of fighting for west Anaheim, will residents ever get what THEY want? It's simple to me, why is it so hard for you not to agree? I just care for my district and want the best, which we haven't never gotten. Please listen to the residents who live right here, where we are talking about. Thank you for listening. Jodie Mosley Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device Public Comment From: Lauren Torres Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 9:02 AM To: Public Comment Subject: FW: Opposition to Item 14 - the proposed project at 3175 W. Ball Rd From: Alice O'Keefe Sent: Saturday, March 06, 202110:10 PM To: Council tcouncil@anaheim.net>; Harry Sidhu (Mayor) <HSidhu@anaheim.net> Subject: Opposition to Item 14 - the proposed project at 3175 W. Ball Rd I strongly oppose Item 14 - the proposed apartment complex at 3175 W Ball Rd for many reasons. I have lined in West Anaheim for over 40 years and the last thing we need is another apartment building, especially on a small lot with tandem parking. There is not enough parking in this area now and we don't need to add to it. District 1 is also the densest district in Anaheim and this project just adds to that as well. This project is not what the community wants or needs. Please do not go forward with this project. Thank you. Alice O'Keefe Public Comment From: Lauren Torres Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 9:02 AM To: Public Comment Subject: FW: Western and Bail Road - Item 14 From: Judy Fletcher Sent: Sunday, March 07, 20216:45 PM To: Council <council@anaheim.net>; Harry Sidhu (Mayor) <HSidhu@anaheim.net>; Jennifer Diaz <1Diaz@anaheim.net> Subject: Western and Ball Road - Item 14 I respectfully submit that the proposed project is too dense for this small corner. It will add many cars to parking that is already hard to fine —forcing people to park in our neighborhoods. Tandem parking is NOT an answer. My son experienced tandem parking first hand at his complex and PEOPLE ONLY USE ONE PARKING PLACE. Tandem parking is too inconvenient — requires shuffling of cars. People won't do it. Instead of rezoning — how about cleaning up West Anaheim? We are over run with homeless individuals setting up camp wherever they want, leaving enormous amounts of trash. We have tweakers and prostitutes. I regularly find condoms on the street entering into my neighborhood (Halliday and Ball Road). I have found a needle. Is this acceptable to you? I know that this would not be acceptable in other parts of Anaheim. We pay taxes just like they do. Clean up before you build up. Judy and Allan Fletcher West Anaheim residents voters since 1987 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Public Comment From: Lauren Torres Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 9:03 AM To: Public Comment Subject: FW: Proposed Project -----Original Message ----- From: Cecilia Chavez Sent: Sunday, March 07, 20219:18 PM To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor) <HSidhu@anaheim.net>; Council <council@anaheim.net> Subject: Proposed Project Council Members: I'm writing to you to oppose item 14- the proposed project at 3175 W. Ball Rd. (Empty lot on western and ball) I oppose this project for the following reasons: - this project is entirely too dense. The lot is too small for a project of this site. - the surrounding area is already parking deficient. Adding additional apartment units will only increase parking issues that will pit residents against one another. This is why residents asked for a cap on tandem parking. This project has a significant amount of tandem parking which a majority of residents do not support. Several cities in Orange County limit or don't allow tandem for this very reason. - Anaheim continues to add housing to district 1 despite us being the densest district. All of this new housing, yet no new retail or green space. - this project has very little amenities for the residents. We deserve better. - if approved, the developer gets to walk away. But my neighborhood will feel the negative effects for years to come. -the project asks for several variances. Why have codes if developers don't have to abide by them? - we are already losing commercial space along Beach Blvd. now you're asking us to give up more. While Anaheim is giving up this space, West Anaheim residents are spending their money in neighboring cities like cypress and Buena Park. Simply put- this is not a quality project and not the type of housing our community has asked for. It is not consistent with what our neighborhood wants. There's nothing forcing this council to re zone this space. When the residents of Anaheim hills spoke out against the project in their community, council did not approve it. Will my district be given the same treatment? After decades of fighting for west Anaheim, will residents ever get what THEY want? Sincerely, A Proud West Anaheim Resident Public Comment From: Eleanor Fix - Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 11:31 AM To: Public Comment Subject: 3175 W. Ball Rd. - Letter in opposition to the 11 unit three story apartment building development Dear Anaheim City Council, I am sending this email as I am apposed to the proposed 11 unit three story apartment building development at 3175 W. Sall Road. There is no parking that exists on either Ball Road or Western Avenue at this location. Parking is already a premium on bath of these streets due to the overcrowded existing apartments. Vehicles from this location will be forced to find parking on the nearby streets of the single family homes. To eliminate parking problems I would prefer that this apartment complex be limited to a senior citizen complex of ages 55 and over who residences would have fewer vehicles than a family unit. Sincerely, Eleanor Fix 1 Public Comment From: KATHY CHANCE Sent: Sunday, March 7, 2021 6:42 AM To: Public Comment Subject: OPPOSED Agenda Item #14: 3/9/2[]21 Anaheim City Council Meeting This item needs to be removed from council vote for Tuesday, 3/9/2021, because both the Submitter (aka Tatarian) and the city of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT FAILED to find the error in document "JUSTIFICATION FOR RECLASSIFICATION page 2, bullet item 5: "Project is located at the northwest corner of Ball Road and Western Avenue...." I (This project is located on the NorthEAST corner) Public Comment From: kathy trap Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 4:05 PM To: Theresa Bass; Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Jose Diaz; Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Trevor O'Neil; Public Comment Subject: Oppose Agenda Item # 14. Hello Mayor and Council members, I would like to Oppose agenda Item # 14 because: 1) Please do not allow rezone this property from commercial to residential zone because: - District 1 is the densest district in all of Anaheim - Not enough park space, extremely poor green space for residents in District 1. - In the Beach Specific Plan, we gave up commercial spaces along Beach blvd and eventually will turn to residential zones. - We further gave up more commercial acreage at 39 Common Project Site to allow for town houses. -And now the City want us to allow another commercial location to be amended to allow for more housing? Please do not destroy the quality of our life in District 1. 2) This specific corner Western and Ball is already plagued with overcrowded parking issues. Allowing a three story apartment building at this corner will only magnified this difficult situation. 3) Dear Mayor and Council members, Please remember the residents in District 1 are voters, not owner or developer of this project, therefore your vote regarding this project would directly effect tremendously the quality of our life, also it would directly effect your next election in 2022. Please consider for the quality of residents in District 1, the district has and continue to endure with all the homeless and densest and poorest district in Anaheim. Thank you, Sincerely, Kathy Tran, Resident in District 1. Sent from my iPhone Public Comment From: Tiffany Welt Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 9:16 PM To: Public Comment Subject: Rezoning the property at Western/Ball Hello City Council, As a very active and long term resident in District 1, ! want to express my opposition to the rezoning of this property. The fact that we are even considering changing another commercial property to residential and so many residents are against this, is yet again no one really taking into consideration what the residents want in THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. Not only are we rezoning commercial space, but we are stacking more people on top of each other with no parking allotments. We are over capacity with zero parking as is. And then we are supposed to be getting 10 more houses next door to this property as well. We are in desperate need of quality commerical business not more apartments or dense housing. My biggest concern is also that this property owner, who has owned this property for decades all of a sudden just wants to build dense apartments and hasn't even looked into building anything commercial How are we as a city going to allow the rezoning when the owner hasn't even looked into commercial businesses. I hope the city council votes no on rezoning this property and takes into consideration that no one in this district wants more housing, let alone dense apartments. Keep Commercial spaces commercial and bring actual thriving businesses back to district 1. Thanks! Tiffany Randel Sent from my iPhone Public Comment From: Tracy U rueta Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 12:14 AM To: Public Comment Subject: City Council Meeting 3-9-21, Agenda Item #14 To: City Council and Mayor Sidhu wish to express my concerns regarding agenda item #14 (regarding proposed new development at location of 3175 West Ball Road), which is on the agenda for the City Council Meeting to be held on March 9, 2021. With the high cost of living, most households have at least 2-3 cars, as it is. My concern is that there will not be enough parking to accommodate for this development. I live in the Twila Reid neighborhood, across the street from the Anaheim Mobile Horne Estates, and we have cars from the mobile homes parking in our neighborhood, as it is. They not only park in our neighborhood, but there is always trash left in the street/gutters, surrounding those cars. I don't understand why the trash is there, but it's not on the other parts of the streets in my neighborhood, where those cars do not park. This is already not a good scenario for the homes in that section of my neighborhood, and I am concerned that adding 11 more apartment units will further compound this issue. am hopeful that you would take this into much consideration before making any decisions that would cause more cars to be parked in our neighborhood. do not agree that this property should be rezoned to accommodate for the proposed medium density residential housing. This lot already has a number of apartments surrounding it, and I have the concern that there will be more parking issues for my neighborhood, and its surrounding area. thank you Very much for your consideration and time looking into these matters. Respectfully, Tracy Urueta Anaheim, 92804 1 Public Comment From: Rod Pierson Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 9:57 AM To: Public Comment Subject: Item #a`14 - Western & Bal! Rd. Council Members: Please consider my comments below regarding tonight's public hearing. Thanks! Rod Pierson Sent from Outlook From: Rod Pierson Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 20212:27 AM To: Jose Diaz <jodiaz@anaheim.net> Subject: Tonight's Zoom - Western & Ball Rd. Dear Councilman Diaz: I appreciate your willingness to meet via zoom this evening with West Anaheim residents to discuss our concerns about the proposed project at Western and Ball Rd. Opinions were expressed - most with strong conviction, and some with extreme frustration. You were patient throughout and handled the exchanges calmly. I do not envy you for being in a position to make a decision that is sure to disappoint one side (residents) or the other (owner/developer). Having spoken with you over the phone during your campaign, I sincerely believe that you deeply care about the City of Anaheim, especially West Anaheim —the neighborhood in which you live and were elected to represent. You obviously spoke and met with many members of the community who also believed in your sincerity enough to vote for you. Please understand that West Anaheim residents are extremely frustrated with the blight, crime, oversaturated and overpopulated apartments, insufficient parking, and homelessness. We have fought (some for decades) to maintain — and yes, even improve our neighborhoods and most feel it has been a losing battle. While we've witnessed decades of favoritism for Anaheim Hills and The Resort District, we've also witnessed a continuing deterioration of our West Anaheim neighborhoods. I attended a city council meeting a few years ago when this was acknowledged by city council members who agreed that it is now our turn to get the attention we deserve. A burst of hope came on the scene when several of us were invited to participate in developing the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan. Most of us hoped and even dared to believe that the site at the NE corner of Beach and Lincoln would finally be developed into quality commercial establishments after decades of blight. We were promised there would be no housing on that site and in fact, housing would not be possible due to the complexities and liabilities associated with building housing on a former landfill. About a year later, we were told that not only could housing be built along the Lincoln Ave. portion of that property, but that housing would be required in order to add sufficient "rooftops" for quality commercial establishments to invest in the area. Most of us reluctantly softened our positions on that point, believing that site development would be improved and accelerated by doing so. All the while, we've watched Porto's and the Butterfly Pavilion in Buena Park being built, and the site on the NW corner of Beach and Garden Grove Blvd. in Stanton, being demolished and now almost totally rebuilt (commercial and housing) while we have continued to live with the eyesore vacant site at Beach and Lincoln. Our questions continue to be met with one excuse after another— still nothing — not even attractive signage! Why is it that Buena Park and Stanton can do such a beautiful job with the development of their sections of Beach Blvd., and Anaheim remains stagnant in this area? So, should it be any surprise that West Anaheim residents who truly care about their communities become emotional, frustrated, and even cynical when unappealing and problematic projects are being planned for our neighborhoods? Councilman Diaz, another burst of hope came to us when you were elected as West Anaheim's representative city council member. You conducted a strong campaign, and spoke with many of us in person or by phone. We believed (and still believe) you are our hope in advancing quality and appealing projects, reducing blight, and mitigating problems of overcrowding and overflow parking— all while reducing homelessness in our area. Quite a tall order I understand, but we are all ready, willing, and able to stand with you, while you stand with us. In regards to the subject of the Zoom meeting this evening — the proposed project at Western and Ball Rd: I implore you to encourage the city council to delay the vote on this project. Doing so wilt provide additional time to seriously consider whether the proposed 11 -unit apartment building with two (tandem) parking spaces for each unit is really the best use for this parcel. While West Anaheim residents would much prefer that this parcel be developed for appealing commercial purposes, we are not unreasonable, and understand the need to be open to having that parcel rezoned for an appealing housing project (preferably single-family homes or condos/townhomes). The West Anaheim resident's concerns with an apartment building (especially an 11 -unit building) for the proposed site came through loud and clear this evening: Overcrowding in apartment units. Due to economic realities of the area - very high rents, and a high number of minimum wage job holders - it is quite common for an excessive number of people to share one apartment. This presents many challenges for the neighborhood, not the least of which is vehicle parking. You responded to this concern by reminding us that the project requires an on-site manager. Is it realistic to expect that this will eliminate the potential problem or even continue into the future after the project has been approved, built, and the current owner/developer are long gone? How could/would this "requirement" be remembered or enforced two, three, or five years down the line? Parking. Most workers in Orange County must have a vehicle to get to their places of work, and most apartments were not designed to accommodate 3 plus parking spaces per unit. This results in overflow of vehicles into surrounding neighborhoods, creating competition with those homeowners for parking spaces and complicating trash pick-ups. Many of the people who park in these overflow neighborhoods are driven to and from their vehicles by friends and family members, creating congestion, litter, noise, and potential altercations with residents. While apartments that were built decades ago may not have been able to for -see this situation, we all know it is a massive problem today. Why would Anaheim continue to approve projects that are sure to exacerbate this problem? When the question was raised as to why the owner/developer wasn't considering single family homes or condos/townhouses, you responded that it was his property and that we could not tell him what to build. Maybe so, but that doesn't mean we have to approve what has been proposed if we do not believe it is in the best interest of the area. If this project is not approved, perhaps the owner will then consider more appropriate and acceptable uses) for the property. If not, the owner has the option to let the property sit dormant (highly unlikely) or sell to someone who has plans that are more consistent with the needs of the area. What was lacking in this evening's exchange was any strong justification as to why this project should be approved in this area. Is an opinion that the project "looks nice" or that it is better than having an empty parcel, or that we can't tell the owner of the parcel what to build on his property really good enough reasons to approve a project that may very well prove to be problematic in the end? It makes good business sense for property owners and business people to seek to maximize the profit from their projects. If successful they will take their profits and move on, leaving the resulting problems for others to live with. It appears that is what is happening here with an "okay" project and minimal parking provisions. When this is the case, it is the responsibility of local jurisdictions to set standards (and stick to them, without constantly granting variances), and place reasonable limitations on the plans. if we cannot depend upon our elected officials to do this, what hope can we have? I was pleased to hear that you would be willing to survey the subject area in the early morning hours to assess the current situation that was described this evening. I wonder how many planning commission members surveyed, or even visited the area before casting their votes.. The same question would apply to city council members. Councilman Diaz, this is your opportunity to demonstrate to the residents of West Anaheim that you are listening to our concerns —they are real and they are significant, and that you really do have our best interests (over a single property owner or developer whose only interests are to make a profit and then leave the area) at heart. Please do the right thing for your constituents, and at least delay the vote to provide adequate time to address the concerns. Respectfully, Rod Pierson Sent from Outlook Public Comment From: Heather Porretta Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2021 1:28 PM To: Public Comment; Council; Jose Diaz; Harry Sidhu (Mayor) Subject: 03/21 Agenda Item 14 Property at Ball and western Good afternoon, am writing to include my comments to oppose Agenda Item 14, the proposed rezoning for an apartment complex on the corner of Ball and Western. I oppose more high density rental properties in District 1. We have enough high density apartments in our district that create overcrowding, traffic, and parking issues. Please support a better project such as lower density townhomes/condos or other commercial/retail that can better serve the wants and needs of area residents. Heather Porretta 1 Public Comment From: jodiemosley Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2021 1:33 PM To: Council; Public Comment Subject: item 14 Last night after a 2 hour discussion with Jose Diaz, he said his mind is made up because lie thinks the project is pretty. That was real, not a joke, he actually said that. When asked who has influenced him, he said no one, but there were residents who wanted this project. Who??? He could not tell us, but it certainly wasn't anyone who lived near the site. We were on the phone with him. I am completely ashamed of our representative, and our city. Shame on you for all you should have done to help us in district one but helped themselves instead. Our district hasn't gotten ZERO help, now Jose has turned into one of them as well. We don't have any hope left because you haven't given us any. Rod Pearson's letter was very articulate, and if Jose decided to favor the developer and not the residents, what more do we need? I'm so done. Good luck. Jodie Mosley Sent from my T -Mobile SG Device 1 Public Comment From: Heather Parretta Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 2:05 PM To: Public Comment; Council; Jennifer Diaz; Harry 5idhu (Mayor) Subject: 03/09/21 Agenda Item 14 _ opposes 1 am writing to express my opposition to agenda item 14 to rezone the Small parcel at Ball and Western to apartments. District 1 is the most dense district and we do not need more high density housing that will add to existing parking and traffic issues. Residents do not want more apartments. Please consider how to redevelop our district to include more commerciallretail options that we want. Alex POrretta Public Comment From: Edgar Arellano Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 4:15 PM To: Public Comment; Jordan Brandman; Jose Moreno; Jose Diaz; Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Stephen Faessel; Trevor O'Neil; Avelino Valencia Subject: Item 14 City council meeting 3-9-2021 5o great to see landowners take interest in providing much needed housing stock to our community. I support the Tatarian's application & all the resolutions that will make their envisioned project a reality. Kudos Public Comment From: Edgar Arellano Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 6:27 PM To: Public Comment Subject: item #14 city council 3-9-3031 Please no invasive plants in the landscape design. Particularly bad grassy invasives like Pampas grass. I really hope to see this project came into fruition. Jennifer L. Hall From: Edgar Arellano Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 6:37 PM To: Jose Diaz; Public Comment Subject: Item #14 city council 3-9-2021 What happened to pro business, pro growth council, resident concerns re: traffic & crowding are minimal and can be mitigated with enhanced connectivity to the alternative transit choices serving the area. A great bike route passes up the site and can be marketed & supported with on site secured parking. The crowding problem continues to get out of control due to the rent issue. The apartment & condos & similar projects that this council has approved in the recent years have not impacted the communities negatively, the lack of affordable housing is impacting our communities negatively with multiple families occupying a single family residence. Come on, what happened to the pro growth guys, smh. Jennifer L. Hall From: Edgar Arellano Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 6:48 PM To: Public Comment Subject: Item # 14 City council meeting 3-9-2021 Economic viability in the ball western areas will be enhanced & usage may be increased with more residents in the area. There's a bus stop serving various commercial nodes on that ball route alone. Density is good. Where are the progrowth candidates at?