02/23/2016 ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL REGULAR
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 2016
The regular meeting of February 23, 2016 was called to order at 3:04 P.M. in the chambers of
Anaheim City Hall, located at 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard. The meeting notice, agenda and
related materials were duly posted on February 19, 2016.
PRESENT: Mayor Tom Tait and Council Members: Jordan Brandman, Lucille Kring, Kris
Murray and James Vanderbilt.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Paul Emery, City Attorney Michael Houston and City Clerk
Linda Andal.
WORKSHOP—SHORT TERM RENTALS (STRs): Mayor Tait announced staff would present
the workshop followed by the public comment period which would be limited to 1-1/2 minutes,
per speaker, in an effort to allow everyone to speak and for time for the regular council agenda.
David Belmer, Planning Director, stated his presentation would update Council on efforts to
gather input from the public and identify potential solutions on the issue of Short Term Rentals
(STR) in the city of Anaheim and for staff to present recommendations and an action plan for
going forward. He was joined by Jonathan Borrego, Planning Services Manager, and Sandra
Sagert, Preservation Manager, both of whom participated in the efforts being presented to
Council.
BACKGROUND: Council adopted the current STR ordinance in May 2014, which created a
legal basis for STRs in the city and established a permitting process and operational
requirements. That ordinance required operators to obtain an STR permit from the city and
remit transient occupancy tax (TOT) on a monthly basis and contained regulatory requirements
regarding how STRs were to be operated in the city. Those regulations included occupancy
limits, parking standards, and operational issues, most of which had been discussed at length at
prior council meetings. He noted when the ordinance was adopted, staff estimated there were
about 200 short term rentals already operating in the city, emphasizing the fact the city's
ordinance had not created STRs, the ordinance was the city's deliberate effort to recognize their
presence and provide reasonable regulations to insure they were operating responsibly and in a
manner that created as little impact as possible in the residential neighborhoods. He added that
at one point, it was estimated the city had about 400 STRs that were either licensed or had
applications pending and that number was now 380.
Community concerns began to surface regarding the operation of STRs about eight months
ago, with some of the salient points identified by the community including: noise impacts,
parking, lack of enforcement mechanisms, occupancy limits, the numbers of people occupying
STRs, and the fact those occupants were transitory in nature and residents were feeling they
were losing contact with their neighbors, and felt unsafe in a community of strangers coming
and going. Mr. Belmer added that some STR homes had been enlarged beyond what might be
considered compatible for the neighborhood in large measure to accommodate occupancies
because occupancy limits were set based on the number of bedrooms. Those concerns were
heard by the City Council who took action by adopting a moratorium in September of 2015,
extended in October until May 2016 and as those moratoriums were considered and adopted,
the Council was hearing both from STR operators and residents resulting in Council's direction
to staff to engage in outreach with both groups and start to look at solutions to this problem.
City Council Minutes of February 23, 2016
Page 2 of 33
Regarding code enforcement, the City Council appropriated an additional $200,000 to augment
code efforts to address calls which improved the situation. In addition, Mr. Belmer noted there
was also a dedicated hotline making it easier for those who were having impacts from STRs to
express their concerns while code enforcement staff was proactively patrolling neighborhoods to
address any issues.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH: Staff hosted a series of workshops from October through
December, created an online survey to gauge thoughts and ideas from the community on issues
and potential solutions, as well as a series of new vehicles, including a website. With regard to
the survey, Mr. Belmer reported it was crafted based on what was initially learned from
community workshops and from the 689 responses that were available online, which became a
helpful tool for staff and gave residents and operators an opportunity to share viewpoints. He
indicated there was common ground in some areas, middle ground where there was a potential
for common ground, and some areas where there were clearly divergent views.
BEST PRACTICES: In addition to outreach, Mr. Belmer remarked Anaheim was not the only
city dealing with this issue; it existed nationally as well as throughout the state and was inherent
in Orange County. Staff reviewed ordinances from numerous cities, including Huntington
Beach, Laguna Beach, Palm Springs, and Santa Barbara. Staff also spoke with many cities to
determine their challenges, how were they handling those challenges, and were they amending
their ordinances. He pointed out Anaheim's efforts in terms of best practices was to get a sense
for creative ideas and potential solutions knowing that ultimately Anaheim's solution would
probably need to be its own.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE: He indicated the advisory committee that resulted from the
workshops in December, included STR owners and residents electing their own representatives,
which included six residents and six STR owners/operators. He noted three of the
owner/operators also happened to be residents in Anaheim which offered a unique perspective.
The committee met three times between January and February and because there was not an
expectation that the members of the committee would reach consensus on all the issues to be
discussed, staff recognized they were going to need to acknowledge the diverse views of those
that represented the committee and wanted, as well, to talk about ideas and gain a better
perspective of each other's viewpoint to see if a solution was possible. A matrix was used to
help identify and track what the issues were, how the existing ordinance addressed those
issues, and best practices used from other cities, as well as suggestions from both the resident
members and the STR owner/operator members of the committee. Included on the matrix was
staff's recommendation as to how that particular issue should be handled. Mr. Belmer indicated
Council was given a copy of that matrix, and it had been available on the website for several
days; staff also had copies available for the public. Sixteen issues in total were listed on the
matrix ranging from how violations were handled, issues of safety, enlarging of STR homes, the
potential of creating new permits for the home-sharing model, the use of garages for game
rooms, and the banning of short term rentals.
THESIS STATEMENTS: The residents on the advisory committee believed: STRs were a
business, therefore they did not belong in residential neighborhoods; they were not compatible
and in their view the time from the adoption of the ordinance to the current date proved that;
they wanted a permanent ban on STRs which meant no permitting of new STRs and amortizing
out or eliminating the ones the city currently had. After discussing the potential of a ban, they
participated in how the ordinance might be amended, knowing if there was a ban and
City Council Minutes of February 23, 2016
Page 3 of 33
amortization, that Anaheim would need a new ordinance to guide and regulate those STRs
while they existed in the city of Anaheim.
Short term rental operators had a different viewpoint, i.e.; STRs were not a business, it was a
residential occupancy; STRs could be compatible in residential neighborhoods especially if strict
enforcement was practiced with an amended ordinance; enforcement action should be taken
against those not being operated responsibly; and STRs served an important role in the city,
through promotion of tourism industry and providing a solution for this form of travel and
tourism.
ACTION PLAN: The challenge, Mr. Belmer stated, was with the divergent views with residents
seeking a ban and a phase out of short term rentals and operators believing they had value and
should remain. Staff looked at reaching middle ground with an eventual compromise solution
that would allow both groups to achieve their goals. That middle ground developed into a four-
part plan that included the adoption of an amended STR ordinance which would ban short term
rentals in single family/multi-family neighborhoods going forward and adopt new operational and
enforcement standards to be assessed for 12 months. Existing STRs would not be phased out,
and in staff's recommendation they would continue to remain but no new STRs in a single family
and multi-family neighborhood would be allowed going forward until the amended ordinance
could be tested. The third item was to create a new type of permit where the resident resided
on the property and rented a portion of the home for less than 30 days, still requiring a permit
but the primary resident remained in the home. The fourth recommendation was to evaluate
Mixed Use and Commercial zones where STRs could exist and create no impacts and STR
owners could serve a need.
To amend the STR ordinance that would ban STRs in single family/multi-family neighborhoods
and implement new operational changes, Mr. Belmer stated that in using the matrix, there were
12 items that were impactful in the matrix and would affect STR operators: 1) increase minimum
age from 18 to 21, providing better contact information so residents could have easier access to
owner/operators; new parking restrictions and clarifying existing ones; allow the use of a garage
for a game room with restrictions; create "quiet" time from 10 P.M. to 9:00 A.M. with rules that
would define "quiet" time; limit expansions of STRs to prevent maximization, lower occupancy
limits, quicker and stiffer penalties for enforcement of violators with all violations identified, with
the ability to suspend or revoke the permit, hold occupants accountable for violations;
enforcement against hosting sites that promote or advertise illegal or non-permitted STRs,
addressing issue of safety by requiring operators to screen their tenants from public data bases
like Megan's law, and to increase fees to make sure the city is able to recover costs.
Regarding ordinance assessment, Mr. Belmer remarked that staff would develop objective
standards and over a 12 month period would carefully monitor and access the revised
ordinance to determine if it was effective, looking at code enforcement calls for service, police
calls for service, as well as some qualitative issues. Staff would talk with residents and
operators after 12 months to determine if the ordinance had been effective in their view, and
what worked and did not work. At that point, staff would report back to Council understanding
the ban would still be in place and would remain in place until or unless Council concluded that
the ordinance has demonstrated it was effective. At such time, Council could consider the
potential of allowing new STRs. Regarding the new permit for home sharing, Mr. Belmer
indicated they should still require a permit because there a potential for impact to neighbors still
existed, but there should be a separate ordinance that may include some of the operational
City Council Minutes of February 23, 2016
Page 4 of 33
standards in the current or proposed amended ordinance. The resident members on the
advisory committee did not oppose that recommendation.
Regarding the potential of allowing STRs in non-residential zones, Mr. Belmer pointed out there
were a number of mixed use zones in the downtown area where staff thought STRs could work
and could fit, although this would be a secondary effort; the first and primary focus was to
amend the current ordinance.
FOR THE FUTURE: Mr. Belmer pointed out the STR moratorium expired on May 3, 2016 and
staff would work with the city attorney's office to have that amended ordinance presented to
Council before the expiration date while the amended ordinance was being finalized. Staff
would concurrently work on the new ordinance for the owner-occupied STR model by also
evaluating mixed use zones in the city where STRs could potentially be permitted with an
anticipated August/September date for Council's consideration.
Staff believed the 4-Part Plan was a middle ground giving residents the assurance of knowing
there would be no new STRs in their neighborhoods until or unless the amended ordinance was
determined to be effective and would also know staff had the ability to take swift and severe
enforcement action for violators. For the operators, those with existing permits or had
applications pending before the moratorium could continue to operate and to prove their thesis
statement that they were compatible with residential neighborhoods. In addition to the ideas
included in the matrix, Mr. Belmer indicated there were certain STRs where their physical
location was not well suited within the neighborhoods, and staff could explore the opportunity for
the STR to be replaced elsewhere in town, an idea that was not on the matrix but worth
pursuing to address those STRs that had generated an inordinate amount of complaints.
Mayor Tait invited public to comment on the workshop, reminding the public that the period for
comments would be limited to 1-1/2 minutes per speaker in an effort to allow everyone to speak
and for time for the regular council agenda.
Bobby Donelson, Sherwood Village, stated the city neglected the "harm based business code"
which was not considered in the short term rental ordinance because there was heavy
involvement with the Anaheim Rental Alliance. He added there should be a course of action
included in which residents could take STR operators to court and reported that Judge Banks
who heard the Sherwood Village HOA litigation, stated short term rentals were a business and
their clientele were lodgers, no different from a hotel business and should not be allowed in a
residential area.
Gail Eastman remarked she was a neighborhood resident and a permitted STR owner with the
home-sharing model. Having lived next door to an STR for the past three years, she remarked
that when it was owner occupied there were far more problems with parties and extra cars than
when it was turned into a short-term rental. She believed there were reasonable changes to be
made to the existing ordinance which would ensure STRs could peacefully co-exist in
neighborhoods and submitted the remainder of her comments for the record.
Daniel Robbins, resident, addressed the STR operators' thesis statements, remarking that each
of these statements could be rebutted and proved wrong, because STRs were a business and
were operating illegally in residential zones and served no real need in the city.
Mike Robbins addressed the economic impacts the STRs had on the resort industry and the
quality of life issues in neighborhoods that must be corrected as soon as possible.
City Council Minutes of February 23, 2016
Page 5 of 33
Jeanine Robbins remarked that police department and code enforcement staff were
overwhelmed with STR complaints and it had now become the job of residents to enforce the
rules. She wanted the residents protected and the neighborhood quality of life restored and
wondered why the city was willing to negotiate with business owners who threatened to operate
illegally if the STRs were banned.
Tal Price appreciated the effort staff put into bringing their recommendations forward but felt the
plan was too restrictive and submitted his suggestions on a few amendments he would like to
see regarding the matrix. He added that the owners/operators wanted to work together in a
spirit of compromise on the plan.
Kim Constantine stated STRs could be operated effectively and efficiently as long as all laws
and local ordinances were followed. He added there were many conscientious property
managers that were in compliance and providing a quality and respectful lodging experience.
Alan Bynder remarked the Anaheim Rental Alliance had looked at the quiet time restriction and
believed it was too restrictive. He stated the normal noise ordinance allowed contractors,
gardeners and the like to begin at 7:00 A.M. and in an effort to compromise, proposed that 8:00
A.M. be used instead of 9:00 A.M. because they felt the 10:00 A.M. time period would create
violations that would be difficult to manage.
Cecile Eveland stated she lived next door to an STR and based on the noise alone, it was not
working. She asked Council to support its long term residents, protect the communities and
have the courage to ban STRs from residential areas with a reasonable time for phasing them
out.
Keith Olesen, resident, remarked the arguments made and the fact that the owners and
residents could not even agree on "quiet time" pointed out the fact that STRs were simply an
incompatible use in residential areas. He added downtown Anaheim and west Anaheim in
particular had to deal with the results of bad planning decisions from the past pointing out that
allowing STRs in residential areas was another bad planning decision. STRs should be dealt
with as a zoning and land use, an incompatible use and not allowed in residential zones.
Fred Cornejo, resident, urged Council to ban STRs pointing out that the problems
neighborhoods had were with the existing STRs. He concurred with banning all future STRs to
stop the problem from increasing however allowing existing STRs to continue to operate would
not solve the issues. He urged a complete ban on all short term rentals.
Chuck Robinson, resident, remarked in late 2014 he discovered the city permitted a nine
bedroom, seven bathroom STR constructed in a cul-de-sac of three bedroom homes. As a
result, he began holding community meetings on the issue of STRs in his back yard, with up to
60 people attending and with city staff represented at each of those meetings. At that point he
was asked to sit on a task force with residents and owner/operators to discuss STRs and their
impacts remarking that both sides were well represented on that committee and staff's efforts
were much appreciated.
Phillip Schwartze, representing the owner of the mid-rise Kraemer Building, explained that last
year the Kraemer Building went through a conditional use permit process to establish a STR
program that would slowly replace the apartments in that mixed use building. As apartments
became available, each unit was modernized, refurnished and then converted to a STR, a
successful program that would be a trouble-free operation for the city. Presently, he stated,
City Council Minutes of February 23, 2016
Page 6 of 33
there was a mix of apartment dwellers, STR visitors and ground floor businesses occupying the
building and despite the approved CUP, they were unable to complete the business plan due to
the STR moratorium and were forced to re-rent as apartments. He requested that the multi-
story, mixed use, commercial zoned operation be exempted from the present moratorium.
Austin Lynch, Hotel Workers Union, remarked they supported a ban on rentals of whole units,
but supported home-sharing where the owner was a permanent resident in the home and rented
out a part of their home. They also supported an advertising ban on hosting sites and to give
residents the right to litigation. He pointed out that some of the principles in the matrix were bad
ideas, such as allowing a one year window for STRs to expand up to 40 percent, an idea that
would have a negative impact on workers and schools, while contributing to the housing
shortage.
Martin Lopez, Sherwood Village, remarked the cluster of STRs had seriously disrupted the
integrity, peace and quietness of neighborhoods and many cities had now banned their
operation. He added there were many workers who needed to live in Anaheim but could not
because of the shrinking rental market and the lack of affordable housing. He urged Council to
listen to its residents who were saying STRs were not compatible in residential areas and ban
them.
Joan Miller, Sherwood Village, remarked she had six short term rentals directly impacting her,
due to a trail to the pool that passed by her home generating constant foot traffic. She added by
the time she could complain, the renters were gone because they checked in on Friday and
departed on Sunday. She no longer felt safe because she was no longer surrounded by
neighbors she once knew.
Larry Minery remarked that buying a townhouse had always been a more affordable housing
prospect for first time buyers, but now because of the proliferation of STRs in Sherwood Village,
this was no longer an option. Investors purchased the townhouses as soon as they went on the
market, resulting in the loss of potential new neighbors, the feeling of a community, and a loss
of affordable housing units in the city. He pointed out most STR owners did not live in the
community, did not participate in activities or volunteer for committees and offered none of the
many helpful things neighbors did for one another.
Steve Acteman, Della Ord neighborhood, remarked the residents of Anaheim had been going
through this experiment of managing STRs for two years and it was time to restore the
neighborhoods back to a community. He urged the permanent ban of STRs and phasing out
the existing neighborhood rentals.
Julie Brunette stated she lived near five STRs and initially wanted to ban them from residential
neighborhoods, however, after working with the owners, she no longer had complaints, other
than noise. She recommended pool hours in the summer from 10:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. and in
the winter 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M.
Robert Brunette indicated he was a co-owner with his son of a condominium in Sherwood
Village, a unit now located between two short term rentals that were rented every weekend.
The noise and the smoke from the adjacent patios affected the quality of life and particularly
impactful in a condominium complex versus a single family home. He recommended the pool
use hours begin at 10:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. in the summer and 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. in the
winter (from November 1st to March 1st), mirroring the actual hours used in many hotels. He
City Council Minutes of February 23, 2016
Page 7 of 33
added this would make a real difference in the noise impacts, especially when living next to five
STRs, as he and his wife did. He added the 8:00 A.M. time recommended by a previous
speaker would not work for most residents.
Maritza Gonzalez spoke of the direct impacts from an STR stating if she had known there would
be one in her neighborhood, she would not have purchased it. To have businesses in
neighborhoods, making money at the expense of peace and quiet for families, she felt was
wrong.
Mirvette Judeh explained she had been a realtor since 2002 and believed STRs did affect
property values, if not in the short term, in the long term because they compromised the integrity
of the neighborhoods in which they were located. She urged a complete ban on the STRs,
remarking other cities were doing the same; i.e., Aliso Viejo had a ban in place, Santa Monica
had removed 1,400 out of 1,700 STRs on the market, Laguna Beach had a moratorium and
West Hollywood a ban.
Len Beckman, resident, remarked the balance between residents and STR owners was a
challenge, with some operations successful and many not. He suggested the revenues in
transient occupancy tax would be put to better use by compensating the neighbors directly.
Crisna Raymond remarked that per the city's Municipal Code, home occupation regulations
stated members of a resident family engaging in home occupation could not increase pedestrian
traffic by more than eight people a day, yet STRs had a maximum of five persons per bedroom
with an average home having three bedrooms, or 15 people to a house. He added there was
an area south of the Convention Center that was predominantly STRs, asking why the city was
protecting property values over its residents.
Charlotte Seidnematollah, Rosebay Street, stated she had an STR behind her home, with 10
bedrooms, sleeping 32 per code, and rented constantly by large groups coming in every three to
five days. With bright flood lights illuminating this backyard resort, the light intruded through her
windows and had taken her quality of life away. She asked Council to ban these businesses
and give the residents back their lives.
Arturo Ferreras remarked he moved to Pepperwood Village in 2005 when his family emigrated
to the U.S. and appreciated the quiet neighborhood environment. Now with neighboring
Kaleidoscope Condominiums having more than 50 percent STRs and Pepperwood
Homeowners Association being sued by the STR owners to change policies that were in place
to protect the community, the atmosphere was no longer quiet. He pointed out Sherwood Village
was also involved in litigation in an attempt to allow STRs in that complex and urged Council to
ban the STRs and put an end to the problems associated with their operation.
William Fitzgerald claimed Disney Corporation sought to end STRs in Anaheim because of the
economic impacts to the hotel industry and that city council members would follow Disney's
lead.
Dr. DeVera Heard, Orange County Black Heritage Council, thanked the City Council and the
citizens of Anaheim for welcoming the African American community to the Black History Parade
and Cultural Affaire held on February 2nd in Downtown Anaheim. With over 7,500 in
attendance, an event recognizing and celebrating diversity locally and regionally was important
and the city's participation and support was appreciated.
City Council Minutes of February 23, 2016
Page 8 of 33
David Vill, Della Lane, believed the city had made a bad judgment call in permitting STRs with a
lot of neighborhoods that were once peaceful and quiet in turmoil and parents concerned about
the safety of their children. He emphasized neighborhoods were basic to the American people,
asking Council to revisit their decision and do the right thing for the residents.
Doug Zelmer, Pepperwood Village, recommended Council incorporate the recommended ideas
for managing STR, and if the problems could not be controlled, then do away with them.
Sam remarked he was an STR owner, a resident, a business owner with several employees
and had been operating his STR to the best of his ability. He claimed the Robbins family, who
lived next door, operated a baking business out of their home, yet were opposed to STRs.
An unidentified speaker remarked there were always exceptions to the rules, such as owners
converting to 10 bedrooms and a pool, and those environments that really disrupted
neighborhoods should be banned but others that were generating some income and were
responsible and respectful owners should be permitted.
Carol Rushman, realtor, remarked that STRs did not fit within the guidelines of home-based
businesses because they did not preserve the residential integrity of a neighborhood. She read
portions of the code and emphasized these rentals were in R-1 residential neighborhoods and
should not be allowed and supported a complete ban and allowing some reasonable time to
phase out the rentals.
Lynn Cudd, Ames Avenue, stated there were three STRs on her street, a community she
enjoyed living in for many years and was now seeing it turned into a resort area. She objected
to the changing environment and supported a ban that would bring back those residential
neighborhoods.
Victoria Michaels, resident, stated the City Council again had an opportunity to listen to the
residents of Anaheim and protect them from the effects of businesses that were allowed to
operate in residential areas. She opposed the goals of the Anaheim Rental Alliance that
requested donations to support STR owners and operators in their quest to have vacation
rentals permitted in Anaheim.
Laura Robbins clarified that her family's business operated out of the city of Costa Mesa adding
that several false code complaints had been issued against her family which were determined
invalid. She added that her neighbor, Sam, threatened residents who expressed concern about
noise from his vacation rental property.
Luisa Lam, Sherwood Village, remarked that the speaker that discussed the Kraemer Building
and the conversion of apartments to STRs was in a commercially zoned area and should not be
a problem. The problems only arose when rules were not followed and vacation rentals were
permitted to operate in residential neighborhoods, and why so many neighbors were speaking
out against them.
Pierre remarked he was a small business owner, restoring classic cars and because there was
welding, grinding and other noise impacts related to his business, he rented a shop in another
city where the zoning allowed businesses of this type. He added in residential areas, the
community wanted to live in peace and quiet and was the reason why zoning regulations were
created; he wanted a ban on STRs.
City Council Minutes of February 23,2016
Page 9 of 33
An unidentified speaker remarked if Council was going to prohibit STRs in the future, the ban
had to be for the existing short term rentals as well, because those were the businesses causing
the problems.
Mathew, Pepperwood Village, remarked that twice tourists accidentally walked into his house
not realizing it was the wrong address and for him, the issue was safety with his mother home
alone most days. He believed residents' concerns should take priority over vacation renters.
With no other comments offered, Mayor Tait closed this portion of the workshop.
Mayor Tait offered the following comments regarding short term rentals. While he appreciated
the concept of a shared economy, short term rentals had grown beyond that and had become
more akin to a business. He believed they changed the nature of a neighborhood and that even
a well operated rental was still a business that impacted residents. He indicated he would ask
staff to create a competing ordinance for Council's consideration that allowed home sharing
(where a homeowner stayed in the home while renting out a room or a homeowner going on
vacation could rent their home) but banned all future and current short term rentals with an
amortization schedule to ramp down the existing businesses, possibly two to three years. City
Attorney Houston understood the request and asked Mayor Tait to formalize that request during
council communications.
At 4:41 P.M. the workshop was adjourned. Mayor Tait reconvened the meeting at 5:04 P.M.
INVOCATION: Pastor Robin Kim, West Anaheim United Methodist Church
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Jordan Brandman
PRESENTATIONS: Recognizing Canyon High School Football Team as CIF Southern
Section Champions
Coach Mike Ogas introduced the athletic team and coordinators, acknowledging the great year
the team had, beating the league champions from every league on the way to the CIF finals. He
was proud of the team's accomplishments and prouder of the fact that out of a 64 man roster,
33 percent of the team made the Scholar Athlete List carrying a 3.5 GPA or better.
ACCEPTANCE OF OTHER RECOGNITIONS (To be presented at a later date):
Proclaiming February 28, 2016 - March 5, 2016, as Peace Corps Week
Proclaiming March 2016, as American Red Cross Month
Proclaiming March 2016, as Music in Our Schools Month
Dr. Linda Wagner thanked Council for their support of music in the Anaheim School District city
schools announcing that within two years every child in the school district would have music at
least once a week within the school day.
Proclaiming March 2016, as National Athletic Training Month
City Council Minutes of February 23, 2016
Page 10 of 33
Dale Miller, certified athletic trainer with Anaheim Union High School District, thanked Council
for recognizing athletic training as a valued profession. He reported on current legislation. AB
2007 and AB 1719, that was in the works to protect youth sports.
Proclaiming March 2016, as Professional Social Worker Month
Proclaiming March 2016, as Women's History Month
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS (all agenda items, except public hearing): Prior to receipt of public
comments, a brief decorum statement was provided by City Clerk, Linda Andal.
Cecil Jordan Corkern, Outreach Homeless Ministries, read a passage from the bible.
Bobby Donelson, Sherwood Village, requested the City Council support Mayor Tait's
recommendation for a ban on short term rentals (STR) and that the amortization period be
reduced to 18 months rather than three years. He was honored to have participated on the STR
task force and thanked residents of Sherwood Village for attending the workshop and voicing
their views. He recommended that the quiet time discussed, even during the amortization
period, should be from 10:00 P.M. to 10:00 A.M. in the morning.
Peter Page, Sherwood Village, supported the termination of STRs, remarking he had seen his
neighborhood change with the proliferation of STRs adding that his homeowner's association
was taking steps to end those businesses and hoped the city would do the same.
Clint Breads remarked that his neighborhood recently became inundated with cars parking
overnight and during the day because the street next to his had been given permit parking. He
wondered why the city did not go to the source of the problem to deal with parking problems
rather than push it onto adjacent streets with permit parking and why it took six to nine months
to apply for and be allowed to receive permits for streets. He asked that this process be
expedited in order to process permit parking for Sunkist that was now averaging 20 to 30 cars a
night on the main street into his neighborhood. He reiterated that the permit parking program
was perpetuating the problem and new developments that provided 1 1/2 cars per parking
spaces per unit, only added to the problem. Mayor Tait referred the speaker to Public Works
Director Natalie Meeks for assistance.
Steve Acterman, resident of Della Ord neighborhood, requested an immediate ban on STRs for
new and existing properties and to phase out those that were currently operating. He rebutted
the "benefits" of STRs, stating TOT revenues would still be coming to Anaheim because tourists
would stay at hotels and sales tax and restaurant revenues would increase accordingly as well;
and, the high cost of administering STRs with enhanced code enforcement efforts and the
significant surge in police calls would end. He urged Council to end this business immediately.
Jeanine Robbins, task force member, talked about the divergent views of the members and the
challenges of negotiating with owners who failed to recognize how their business operations
impacted neighborhoods. She emphasized that neighborhoods were never meant to
accommodate business operations and that STRs had been deemed a business operation in a
court of law and the conflict between residents and owner/operators had to end. She wanted a
ban on future and current short term rentals with a phase-out program and to have the
neighborhoods returned to the way they should be.
City Council Minutes of February 23, 2016
Page 11 of 33
Mike Robbins remarked his son had presented an economic breakdown of STRs to the city and
he wanted to enlarge upon the numbers. With STRs generating $2 million annually in TOT
revenues, he stressed it was actually a loss in revenues when balanced against the increased
costs for code enforcement and increased police calls for services. In addition, 1,800 legitimate
jobs were lost in the resort industry through STR operations. He wanted a complete ban on
STRs and to get his quality of life back.
Laura Robbins stated that 20 percent of the homes in her neighborhood were short term rentals
and her community was slowly eroding away. She asked the city to put a stop to these
businesses and return neighborhoods to families who wanted to enrich the community.
Danny Robbins stated the STRs debate had implications far beyond the concept of vacation
rentals; they were a threat to neighborhoods and the families that lived there and it was up to
the City Council to protect Anaheim's citizens against this threat.
Ruth Moore, resident, remarked the owners of STRs were allowing negative impacts to happen
in neighborhoods, i.e., noise, marijuana use, parking problems, and safety, asking Council to
support Mayor Tait's position and ban their use.
An unidentified STR owner remarked she and her husband came to city hall to find out exactly
what was needed in order to have a short term rental, and was told at that time, there were no
regulations in place. Since then, she had followed the city's regulations every step of the way
during this process and hoped Council would take that into consideration as well as the fact this
was one family operating the vacation rental, not a corporation.
Darwin Falk stated he lived next to the Convention Center and Disneyland and had been a
resident for 23 years. He asked Council to enforce the city's ordinance that prohibited home-
based businesses and specifically to ban STRs from neighborhoods. in his area there were 10
homes owned by an individual/corporation, another individual owned four homes and there was
also a "McMansion" there owned by Chinese investors. Using Google Map to pull up his
neighborhood, he saw that the house across the street from him was now listed as an Orange
County vacation rental. He emphasized that these were business operations with corporate
entities and felt that enough studying had taken place and urged a complete ban.
Tim Troung stated he managed apartments, single homes and also STRs and understood both
sides of the issue. From his perspective, apartment and single family home renters were more
apt to make noise than short term rental visitors, as those families were there to take advantage
of the tourism attractions and only used the homes to sleep. He urged residents and operators
to get to know each other and work out any issues.
An unidentified STR owner remarked vacation rentals provided a different experience for
families that enjoyed spending time together. She and her husband had saved for ten years to
purchase a home in Anaheim for use as a short term rental and were careful to rent to families
going to Disneyland and that rules put in place were followed. She hoped STRs and residents
would find a way to live together.
Cynthia Ward requested Item No. 5. be pulled from the consent calendar to provide more
information on Disney's 1996 development agreement remarking the city had been
rubberstamping this for 19 years and it was time to start looking at the entire agreement to make
sure they were in compliance. She indicated the finance agreement had not been honored, the
parking benefits in the Convention Center were being audited, and Disney's water reduction
City Council Minutes of February 23, 2016
Page 12 of 33
condition contained 13 separate items of compliance and only four were listed. She asked for
assurance that Disney was not being given a free pass on this matter. Regarding STRs, she
stated the general plan and zoning laws were in place to protect not only the Resort district but
neighborhoods from incompatible developments and there was no obligation for the city to give
property owners commercial property income for a residential zone property.
William Fitzgerald addressed the circumstances surrounding the death of Gustavo Najera.
Giovanni Valencia, resident and Disney Resort worker, pointed out the Resort hotels offered
accommodations for their special needs guests and families did not need to stay in STRs for
that purpose. She emphasized hotels depended on visitors renting rooms and that there was a
direct correlation between vacant hotel rooms and loss of wages for the workforce. She asked
Council to consider the long term consequences from this business to the city and its citizens.
June Jackson submitted a petition related to the cell tower on the property of First Christian
Church on South Street and expressed her concern of radiation, as well as the construction of
the tower.
Todd Raymond, resident, supported the efforts to ban STRs, stating if the practice continued, he
would have to move out.
Ada Briceno announced OCCORD stood for strong communities and good jobs and that STRs
did not provide for either of those objectives and OCCORD would stand strong with the
community to ensure STRs were banned.
Translation: Language, Spanish. Ana Lepe, Grand California employee, explained she was 18th
on the seniority list at the hotel and the previous day, only 15 employees were called to work
due to STRs impacting hotel stays. She pointed out her rent was $1,325 a month, and although
she shared the cost with a roommate, lost workdays made it difficult to meet that monthly
payment. She talked about the challenge of finding affordable rent, how neighborhoods and
families were impacted, and the expense and hardship for Anaheim's workforce to have to
move out of the city and commute to work and asked Council to enact a ban.
Joese Hernandez, OCCORD, stated that all the issues identified by earlier speakers; i.e.
residents and owners in serious discord, lack of affordable housing, the impact of the housing
crisis on the city, and neighborhoods no longer a community of families, was a disastrous
consequence of the short term rental industry hoping Council would take immediate action to
solve the problems.
Arturo Ferreras, resident, stated STRs were taking over his community, destroying
neighborhoods and forcing the working poor to look for affordable homes elsewhere and further
impacting the quality of their lives. He urged Council to give back the neighborhoods to
residents and to ban short term rentals.
Ron Bengochea, resident, offered a different perspective. He lived in a neighborhood with 10+
short term rentals, remarking they had greatly improved his community. The visitors were
families with children and his experience with the renters had been good. He believed by
enforcing the city's current policy, any problems could be solved, adding that he had more
concern with the development pertaining to Agenda Item No. 21, with big homes that infringed
on existing residences.
City Council Minutes of February 23, 2016
Page 13 of 33
Translation: Language, Spanish. Kristi Paniagua stated she had worked for Disney hotels for 27
years and experienced loss of work hours due to STRs taking business away from the hotels.
She requested City Council prohibit short term rentals.
Isabel Barrera, resident, spoke in opposition to STRs, remarking they belonged in the Resort
area and neighborhoods should be kept for families raising children. She recognized Council
had the ability to solve these problems and the city needed that solution now.
Translation: Language, Spanish. Maria Munoz, resident and Convention Center employee,
explained she felt the impact of short STRs by the increasing high prices in homes for rent,
pointing out that she had limited options for places to live and urged Council to take action and
ban the STRs.
Clara Turner, OCCORD, spoke in favor of a ban on STRs, remarking every single house that
investors purchased meant there was one less house on the market for people who worked in
Anaheim and wanted to raise their families and become part of the community. She addressed
the tradeoff of transient occupancy revenues coming into the city and the expense of dealing
with STRs through code enforcement and police calls for services. Added to that, a severe
housing shortage in Anaheim and countless residents voicing their distress over businesses
operating in residential neighborhoods. She emphasized residents and their concerns about
safety and quality of live should be more important to the city than investors concerned about
their profit.
Crisna Raymond, Elm Place, remarked it took a long time for her and her husband to save
enough to purchase a home in Anaheim in a residential zone where business was not allowed.
She was surprised to find that STRs were permitted in residential zones and impacted the
community security and wellbeing. She was not opposed to STRs, just wanted them out of
residential zones.
Ada Tomayo, resident/Unite Here Local 11, pointed to the many orange shirts in the council
chambers that was a reflection of short term rental owners and operators. She added the STRs
were taking jobs away from the working class and shrinking the housing market in the city
where 3-bedroom homes rented out for$3,100 a month, a challenge for any worker in the hotel
industry to find and be able to come up with the rent. She felt the current situation was
unenforceable and that STRs must be banned.
Isela Lopez, resident/employed in Anaheim, objected to STR owners employing housecleaners
for STR operations or providing other services with wages that that were low and offered no
benefits. She supported a ban stating if people wanted to go on vacations, they should pay for
lodging at the hotels.
Valerie Van de Silver remarked she managed about 23 STRs in Anaheim and would address
some of the comments made, i.e., there was no truth to the statement that when a home was
sold, the appraiser had to disclose if there was a short term rental nearby; insurance companies
did not provide separate insurance rates for short term rentals; and there was no truth to the
statement that if a home was sold, disclosure of a nearby STR was required. She refuted other
statements made as well and pointed out there were 350,000 people in the city of Anaheim and
the same 25 individuals continued to speak over and over again.
Martin Lopez pointed out Ms. Van de Silver managed an STR near him and in his opinion, was
neither a good neighbor nor good operator, explaining the reasons why. He supported the
City Council Minutes of February 23,2016
Page 14 of 33
Mayor's recommendation for a complete ban on the short term rentals and asked the City
Council to do the same.
Ana Martinez spoke in support of banning vacation rentals. She pointed out STR housekeepers
were hired as self-employed contractors, were unaware of what that entailed in terms of self-
employment taxes, and that many did not speak English nor understand their rights.
Gabriel Choufas, resident, remarked his nice, quiet neighborhood had changed because of the
proliferation of short term rental homes. At first he thought the value of his home would
increase with the first two or three STRs, however, with an STR now behind him and the house
next door for sale, he expressed his fear that it might be converted to a short term rental. He
wanted the STRs banned adding that he no longer feels right in his own house and was now
considering moving.
Translation: Language, Spanish. Marguerite Hernandez spoke against STRs, remarking they
affect not only community members but those that also worked in the Resort district. She
indicated there were 30-40 housekeepers that were competing for hours in hotels and that she
was 20th on the list. Weeks would go by when she had no hours which she attributed to STR
operations. She hoped the city would listen to those who lived and worked near the Convention
Center in the Resort area.
Donna Acevedo spoke of the death of her son and the treatment she received from the Police
Department. She stated that Gustavo Najera was fatally killed a couple of weeks ago asking
why this was still happening in 2016. She requested the city manager to take action against the
officer who was harassing her main witness related to the death of her son.
An unidentified speaker asked for the video taken of Gustavo Najera because he wanted justice
for his death and wanted to understand what really happened.
Robert Williams remarked he was candidate for District 4 and had been threatened and yelled
at about whether or he supported the STRs. He suggested having the Chief of Police attend
council meetings and report on what's happening in the community and the Mayor use his
power to bring peace and unity in the city and get things done.
Will Godsey, STR operator, asked the city to consider a balanced approach to STRs with an
appropriate level of STRs in the right location with the right rules in place to create an
environment where both the visitors and the city could benefit.
Translation: Language, Spanish. Eva Mendoza, resident, felt the STRs had affected her quality
of life and strongly opposed the business.
Marisol Ramirez, resident/OCCORD, spoke in support to Mayor Tait's proposal to ban short
term rentals. Working within the community and living here, she saw the negative impacts from
STRs and strongly supported the ban.
An unidentified contractor remarked he had put his life savings into a house, improving and
upgrading it with plans to convert it to a short term rental and should Council take action to ban
these homes, it would destroy him and so many others like him. He asked Council to come up
with a plan to give time to unwind the investment because if it was banned completely and
immediately, property values would plummet.
City Council Minutes of February 23,2016
Page 15 of 33
Mark Daniels opposed STRs, emphasizing they should not have been allowed in the first place
in residential zones and that he supported the ban. Regarding the police involved fatalities, he
remarked other communities released their body camera videos over a reasonable amount of
time and Anaheim should do the same to bring about unity and stop the animosity.
Linda Labados, resident, objected to the shooting of Gustavo Najera and stood in solidarity with
Donna Acevedo and Caesar Cruz's mother. She remarked there were other crimes that
happened in the city that no one talked about such as the sexual abuse crime against her
daughter. She wanted the case reopened and reinvestigated because the police did not do
their job.
Tal Price, STR owner, remarked that the workshop on STRs this afternoon was exactly what
Council asked staff to do, research short term rentals, hold community outreach meetings for
both sides of the issue, receive feedback, create an advisory committee, and bring back
findings. He added staff heard residents and the operators, spoke with more than 20 cities and
researched their programs, policies and ordinances on STRs, and based on months of their
time, came up with recommendations. He expressed concern that after staff had put in this time
and effort and had become experts in STRs, that one of the responses received was to also
consider a ban even when the Director stated he was not recommending a ban at this time. He
urged Council to consider staff's valuable recommendations
Tammy explained she was not a corporation but a stay-at-home mother who took out a loan on
the family's 401K plan to put a down payment on a property in Anaheim to turn it into a short
term rental after checking with the city as to whether it was possible or not. She explained her
specific situation and why Anaheim should allow short term rentals to accommodate tourist
visitors.
Nancy West, resident, requested the city conduct a real investigation of a stalker problem she
faced three years ago and surfaced again this year. She provided detail on incidents that
occurred, asking for the city's help.
Julie King remarked she was a stay-at-home mother operating three vacation rentals to put her
children through college. She added that at the previous council meeting there were many STR
supporters and out of respect for the City Council's time, did not encourage speakers to come
out again. She submitted letters from guests praising her vacation rentals and read another
excerpt of support letters received.
Jean Kelly remarked that she lived on Houston Avenue between Gilbert and Magnolia, a strip
that used to belong to the county. She remarked that area had no sidewalks asking what the
process was to provide sidewalks on that street. Mayor Tait asked the Public Works Director to
meet with Ms. Kelly and to submit a report to Council on how to address the request.
An unidentified speaker remarked this was the 4th top tourist destination in America and that
Council was not only answering to its 350,000 residents but also to the 23 million visitors that
brought tourism to the city. She added that Orlando had 225,000 residents and 7,000 STRs
and they made it work. She asked Council to consider that this was an issue important to many
and not to the 100 residents who were seeking a ban.
Victoria Michaels, resident, strongly supported the community's request to ban the short term
rentals and for Council to come up with a solution that was equitable to both sides. She pointed
out people attending this meeting wearing orange shirts were soliciting donations on their
City Council Minutes of February 23, 2016
Page 16 of 33
website to have the funds to fight Anaheim's residents and warned that no contributions from
this organization should be made to council candidates or incumbents.
Fred Cornejo supported a ban on STRs, but preferred a private right of action versus holding
occupants accountable for violations. Phasing the STRs out, he did not understand, because
owners should sell their properties or rent them at market rate so they had options. He
submitted a petition from his neighborhood supporting a ban on STRs, remarked that even
though some of them may not show up to a meeting and voice their opinions, they were still
against STRs.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
Mayor Tait requested an alternative ordinance banning future and current short term rentals with
an amortization period for current STRs with the exception of owner-occupied short term
rentals, i.e. home-sharing as recommended by staff. He further requested the RFP for the
Anaheim Tennis Center be placed on the March 1 agenda for discussion and action.
CITY MANAGER'S UPDATE:
City Manager Paul Emery provided information about the investigation process as it pertained to
officer involved shooting; i.e., the process involved concurrent reviews by several departments
and agencies and that staff would coordinate with the Public Safety Advisory Board regarding
the Office of Independent Review findings. He also responded to Mayor Tait's request relating
to the Anaheim Boysen Park Tennis Center RFP for this spring and Council Member Murray's
remark that this item had been approved by the City Council as part of the adoption of the
current budget.
CONSENT CALENDAR: At 7:50 P.M., Council Member Vanderbilt pulled Item No. 3 for further
discussion. Mayor Tait removed Item No. 5 and declared a conflict of interest on Item No. 14 as
his firm had done work this past year with OCTA.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Kring then moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and
resolutions and to adopt the balance of the 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 Brandman. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES
—5: (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Kring, Murray and Vanderbilt.) NOES —0.
Motion Carried
8105 1. Receive and file minutes of the Sister City Commission meetings of October 26, 2015
and November 23, 2015.
2. Approve recognitions to be presented at a later date recognizing the 3rd Annual
D116 Anaheim's OC Fest of Ales donation to Anaheim Cops 4 Kids, the honorees of the OC
Hispanic Bar Association's 38th Annual Scholarship Fundraiser, Joseph Jackson, Jr. for
his civil rights activism, and proclaiming Play Ball Summer in May 2016.
D117 4. Approve the Investment Portfolio Report for January 2016.
City Council Minutes of February 23,2016
Page 17 of 33
D175 6. Revise the construction schedules for the Brookhurst Street Widening Improvements
Project from 1-5 to SR-91 and the State College Boulevard and La Palma Intersection
Improvements Project from fiscal year 2015/16 to fiscal year 2017/18.
D175 7. Approve amendments to the Seven Year Transportation Capital Improvement Program
for fiscal years 2014/15 and 2015/16.
D182 8. Adopt the 2016 Update to the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Policy for the City
which includes the Enforcement Plan, and Renewable Energy Resources Plan
(Procurement Plan), and authorize and direct the Public Utilities General Manager, or
designee, to prepare, execute, and submit any and all documents as are necessary or
advisable to implement the RPS Policy, as updated, consistent with the mandates of
state law.
9. Approve an agreement with David Taussig &Associates, Inc., in the annual amount of
AGR-7179.A $49,000, including expenses, for Mello-Roos special tax administration services for five
Community Facilities Districts and consulting services to provide administration for the
City's annual assessment on the Anaheim Resort Maintenance District for the 2016,
2017 and 2018 calendar years, with three one-year optional extensions, and authorize
the Finance Director to take the necessary actions to implement and administer the
agreement.
AGR-6705A 10. Approve an agreement with PKF Consulting USA, LLC, in an amount not to exceed
$110,000, for updating the City's existing Transient Occupancy Tax market demand
analysis study for budgeting purposes for FY 2016/17, FY 2017/18, and FY 2018/19,
with an option to extend an additional three years, and authorize the Finance Director to
take the necessary actions to implement and administer the agreement.
11. Approve and authorize Public Utilities General Manager to execute and take the
AGR-9830 necessary action to implement and administer an agreement, and related documents,
with Invoice Cloud, Inc., for a one-time implementation fee of$54,000 and an annual not
to exceed amount of$209,000 with authorized Consumer Price Index increases, for
electronic bill payment and kiosk payment services for a three year period with the
option to renew annually.
12. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-040 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
P124 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim
certain real properties or interests therein (City Deed Nos. 11919, 11920, 11923, and
11930).
13. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-041 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
0175 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM designating Dogwood Avenue from Dresden Street to Loara
Street as "Permit Parking Only" street within Permit-Eligible Parking District No. 17
("Anaheim Memorial").
14. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-042 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
D175 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the Anaheim Director of Public Works or her
designee to submit a grant application on behalf of the City of Anaheim to OCTA for
City Council Minutes of February 23, 2016
Page 18 of 33
Measure M2 Project V (Community-Based Transit/Circulators Program) funding and if
awarded, authorizing the acceptance of such funding on behalf of the City and amending
the budget accordingly.
Mayor Tait abstained on this item. ROLL CALL VOTE:AYES— 4: (Mayor Pro Tern Kring and
Council Members Brandman, Murray, and Vanderbilt). NOES— 0. ABSTENTION— 1: Mayor
Tait. Motion Carried.
P110 15. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-043 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM declaring its intention to vacate certain public streets, highways
and easements (Abandonment No. ABA2013-00324) (portions of Anaheim Boulevard
adjacent to 1110-1150 North Anaheim Boulevard and 115-125 West La Palma Avenue)
(Public hearing scheduled for Council meeting of March 22, 2016).
C420 16. ORDINANCE NO. 6361 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending paragraph .0201 (Application) of subsection .020 (Signs-General)
of Section 18.114.130 (Sign Regulations) of Chapter 18.114 (Disneyland Resort Specific
Plan No. 92-1 (SP 92-1) Zoning and Development Standards) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the
Anaheim Municipal Code to substitute a coordinated sign program approved in
conjunction with a certain conditional use permit in the place and stead of existing
regulations for business and identification signs for Area 'A' of the Anaheim Gardenwalk
Overlay based upon the finding and determination that said amendment is categorically
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant
to Section 15311 of the State CEQA guidelines (Zoning Code Amendment NO. 2005-
00131) (Adjustment No. 8 to the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 (SP 92-1))
(Introduced at Council meeting of February 9, 2016, Item No. 14).
C280 17. ORDINANCE NO. 6362 (ADOPTION) 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. 2015-00276) (DEV2014-00095)
(establishing a Mixed Use Overlay Zone for parcels at 1110-1116 North Anaheim
Boulevard and 115-125 West La Palma Avenue) (Introduced at Council meeting of
February 9, 2016, Item No. 18).
C280 18. ORDINANCE NO. 6363 (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. 2015-00277) (DEV2015-00002) (420 and
440 North Magnolia Avenue) (rezoning from Transition and General Commercial Zones
to Single Family Residential Zone).
C280 19. ORDINANCE NO. 6364 (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. 2015-00282) (DEV2015-00071) (2337-
2415 South Manchester Avenue) (rezoning from Transition-Mobile Home Park Overlay
and General Commercial Zones to Multiple Family Residential Zone).
0114 20. Approve minutes of Council meetings of January 12, 2016 and January 26, 2016.
City Council Minutes of February 23, 2016
Page 19 of 33
END OF CONSENT:
3. Authorize staff to move forward with the development of the 2016 fireworks sales
D116 program utilizing a partnership with Anaheim Arena Management that would allow all
interested Anaheim nonprofits with the opportunity to raise funds for their organizations
through fireworks sales at the Honda Center and a second store location in West
Anaheim.
Greg Garcia, Deputy City Manager, reported this item was to receive direction from Council on
the Anaheim Fireworks Program and authorization for staff to move forward with the
development of the 2016 fireworks sales program in partnership with Anaheim Arena
Management. This program would allow all interested Anaheim non-profits the opportunity to
raise funds for their organizations through firework sales as well as consideration of a second
sale site in West Anaheim.
He noted that after the passage of Measure E, Council considered two ordinances to allow for
the implementation of a fireworks program in Anaheim, one dealt with the sales and the
locations of the sales and the other identified the when, where, and enforcement provisions. He
pointed out the sales ordinance amended the code to allow for sales to occur at one site, the
Honda Center, for the location of a large store but that it was always discussed there could be a
possible expansion of the single site concept in the future. Mr. Garcia indicated that Anaheim
Arena managed all the sales at the Honda Center using their employees and also provided a
program where qualified nonprofits throughout the city were able to receive a percentage of
those sales. The sales and use ordinance also established a designated sales period, from
June 28th to July 4th, designated the hours of sale and also allowing sale of fireworks to occur
on the 4th of July, as well as the use of safe and sane fireworks only on the 4th of July day. In
addition, the ordinance also prohibited fireworks in the wildland urban interface area, the area
east of the 55 freeway and south of the 91 and made it unlawful to discharge safe and sane
fireworks in other areas, including public properties, city parks, any property within a commercial
zone or industrial zone of the city.
Regarding enforcement, Mr. Garcia explained the ordinance established two categories for
fines, one for illegal fireworks and one for violations of safe and sane fireworks. The penalties
and fines adopted as part of the ordinance identified $1,000 for the first violation for illegal
fireworks and $500 for a safe and sane violation and escalating from there for any additional
fines. He stated there had been multiple enforcement teams of police, fire and code
enforcement officers on duty from 6:00 P.M. to midnight on the 4th with the city receiving a high
volume of calls for service related to both safe and sane fireworks as well as those that were
illegal. No fires or injuries were reported in Anaheim; however the city did assist with two
fireworks related incidents in nearby cities.
NON-PROFIT PARTICIPATION: Mr. Garcia remarked staff had worked with Anaheim Arena
Management (AAM) to design a program that would offer all Anaheim nonprofits the opportunity
to raise funds as opposed to subjecting the nonprofits to a lottery where a small group of
organizations would benefit. The ordinance defined qualified organizations as: any tax-exempt
nonprofit based in Anaheim for at least one year that provided benefits and or services to
citizens of Anaheim; or a school within Anaheim or any student group, club, or organization
officially recognized by the school. The program was established with AAM providing nonprofits
with 30 percent of sales generated by the nonprofit supporters to the program and that this
support was shown by the purchaser presenting a flyer or other document referencing the
City Council Minutes of February 23, 2016
Page 20 of 33
nonprofit they were supporting with this purchase. Additionally AAM agreed to remit 10 percent
of gross firework sales to the Anaheim Community Foundation for support of local community
events and organizations. He also pointed out that nonprofits did not have to enter and win a
lottery to participate; it was open to all, and they did not have to staff the stand for the week, did
not have to find a location and pay for insurance and other costs associated with staffing a
stand, but still had the ability to raise funds for their organizations with this program.
Mr. Garcia noted that the total proceeds to the community from the first year pilot program were
just over $85,000, with the amount given directly to the nonprofits a little over $24,000, while the
Anaheim Community Foundation was given slightly more than $20,000 for community programs
as well as $40,000 for sponsorship of the Anaheim Hills fireworks show. Fifty-three groups
ended up receiving funds through the first year of the program receiving about $12,000 matched
by a grant from the Community Foundation which doubled the amount received ranging from a
few hundred dollars to $2,400.
Staff surveyed the participating non-profits receiving positive feedback received as well as
identifying two major concerns; i.e., the need for a second location in west Anaheim closer to
some of the organizations and to allow more time prior to July 4th for the organizations to
mobilize and educate their group of supporters. Therefore, he remarked, staff recommended
moving forward with the same model but beginning in February to inform the nonprofits of the
program and to authorize a second location on the west side.
He informed Council the Police and Fire Departments had taken the lead on the operations plan
and after the 4th of July, conducted a debriefing on ways to improve the program. Those
recommendations were as follows:
• To increase the overall number of city enforcement teams, fire, police, code enforcement,
and community services in order to provide a more effective deterrent to illegal fireworks
prior to the 4th of July;
• To get out in front of the problem earlier this year as well as on the day of the 4th of July;
• To increase overall citywide operational staffing needs; i.e., dispatch centers, to make sure
they were staffed appropriately;
• To increase communication efforts in advance of 4th of July in order to better educate
Anaheim residents on the rules and regulations with regard to the discharge of safe and
sane fireworks;
• To make available all communication materials in multiple languages, not just Spanish;
• To provide community nonprofits with more time in advance of the holiday to prepare, to
ramp up support and mobilize their membership to purchase fireworks on their behalf,
including working with Anaheim Arena Management in developing a strong communications
plan to assist nonprofits with their marketing efforts; and
• To consider the addition of a second store in west Anaheim so those nonprofit groups and
supporters could more easily access fire sales.
Staff also had some minor recommendations for the ordinance, as follows:
• Removing the requirement that a notice of violation be issued and instead proceeding to
immediate citation. This would mean, on the 4th of July enforcement teams were not
providing a notice of violation before actually giving real citations;
• Streamline the citation process and decrease the amount of fines for safe and sane
fireworks to start at $250 rather than $500;
City Council Minutes of February 23,2016
Page 21 of 33
• Removing the prohibition of setting off fireworks on residential streets because most people
preferred using the street in front of their homes;
• Having a gradual scheduling where fines increased for repeat violations even if those
violations had taken place in a prior year; and
• If permissible, have code enforcement officers issue citations for penal code violations.
Council Member Vanderbilt requested clarification on the fines with Mr. Garcia responding there
were two separate fines, one for the use of illegal fireworks and a lower fine for violations with
the use of safe and sane fireworks. For instance, he explained, safe and sane fireworks could
only be used on the 4th of July and if an individual was found to be using them any other day
within the city limits, there would be a $500 fine while anyone found to be using illegal fireworks
would receive a $1,000 fine. Chief Bruegman remarked there had been a lot of activity with
safe and sane fireworks before the 4th of July, and a few citations were issued with most of the
activity coming from young kids. He recommended looking at minimum fines for a second
citation on safe and sane firework violation but wanted the ability to be able to cite immediately
when illegal fireworks were used. Council Member Vanderbilt suspected he had heard a
significant number of illegal fireworks last year, hoping for a greater effort highlighting the
possible fine for the use of those illegal fireworks and would be supportive of implementing that
as part of the program. Chief Bruegman concurred that illegal fireworks were problematic and
along with the need to publicize the city's fines to curb that use. Next year his department would
employ a different strategy to be more effective in the educational element which then spoke to
the need of communication using multiple languages, not just Spanish and English, one of the
recommendations going forward.
Mayor Pro Tern Kring expressed concern about removing the prohibition for fireworks on
residential streets and the impact on pets. Chief Bruegman responded that using backyards for
safe fireworks was problematic as well and that it would be safer on asphalt and concrete
versus vegetation in the back yards.
Mayor Tait spoke to a recent article in the Register that stated $375,000 was generated and of
that only about $24,000 went to the 53 nonprofits participating. He remarked as a pilot program
he opposed it at the time it was considered, and in his opinion, the nonprofits did not raise
nearly the amounts of money generated in other cities. He added when the measure passed, he
believed the public thought there would be for-sale booths around town, worked by volunteers to
raise funds for charities and he believed the city should return to that concept rather than use a
centralized site at the Honda Center. Mr. Garcia responded that he had heard from the
nonprofits that they were pleased with the program as it required no effort from them and no
out-of-pocket expenses.
Council Member Murray remarked no nonprofits were turned away and the only concern she
had heard was there was not enough time to get the program off and running. She asked that
Council approve the program with enough advance time for the nonprofits but that she would
prefer the prohibition against using streets for safe and sane fireworks remain. She worried
there could be larger gatherings in the streets without ample security for kids and residents
while drivers tried to navigate the streets. She added that Anaheim Arena Management did not
make a large profit on this program as they had used their resources, funding and manpower
and were willing to add an additional facility is west Anaheim and she would support the
program.
City Council Minutes of February 23, 2016
Page 22 of 33
MOTION: Council Member Murray moved to approve Agenda Item No. 3 with an amendment to
retain the prohibition of fireworks on city streets, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Kring.
DISCUSSION: Council Member Vanderbilt remarked he would prefer to follow staff's
recommendation to remove the ban on the use of fireworks on public streets, adding that his
vote would be based on that position. Council and staff continued to discuss the removal of the
ban on using public streets for fireworks display with Mayor Pro Tem Kring suggesting the pilot
program continue for another year and be re-evaluated at that time.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 3: (Mayor Pro Tern Kring and Council Members Brandman and
Murray.) NOES —2: (Mayor Tait and Council Member Vanderbilt). Motion Carried to approve
Item No. 3 and include a prohibition of fireworks on city streets.
5. Determine, on the basis of the evidence submitted by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts
AGR-1516 U.S., Inc. that the property owner has complied in good faith with the terms and
conditions of Development Agreement No. 96-01 for the 2015 review period for the
Disneyland Resort project.
Mayor Tait remarked that an earlier speaker asked that the development agreement be
available online, requesting staff to place it on the city's website. Council Member Vanderbilt
remarked that in reviewing the staff report and response from Disneyland (the applicant), the
map that was included showed the Resort area as it was in 1996, rather than the current
expanded site. He asked if it was feasible to modify the map and include the current property
owned as part of the agreement. Jonathan Borrego, Planning Services Manager, responded
staff would include the updated exhibits in the future.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Kring moved to approve Item No. 5, seconded by Council Member
Murray. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 5: (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Kring,
Murray and Vanderbilt). NOES — 0. Motion Carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: At 8:33 P.M., the public hearing was considered.
C280 21. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00280
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05804
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17882
(DEV2015-00057)
OWNER: En K. Ha, 3200 Watermark, Irvine, CA 92612
APPLICANT: Jeff Weber, Silveroak Capital Corporation, 19100 Von Karman Avenue,
Suite 400, Irvine, CA 92612
LOCATION: 1609 and 1615 West Cerritos Avenue
REQUEST: To rezone the property from the Single-Family Residential (RS-2) zone to
the Single-Family, Residential (RS-4) zone and to permit and establish an 11-unit small-
lot single family residential subdivision.
Environmental Determination: The City Council will consider whether to find the
project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 32 (In-Fill Development Projects) Categorical
Exemption
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved Reclassification No. 2015-00280 (Resolution No. PC2015-102), Conditional
City Council Minutes of February 23, 2016
Page 23 of 33
Use Permit No. 2015-05804 (Resolution No. PC2015-103) and Tentative Tract Map No.
17882 (Resolution No. PC2015-104) VOTE 6-1. Chairman Lieberman and
Commissioners Bostwick, Dalati, Henninger, Ramirez and Seymour votes yes;
Commissioner Caldwell voted no (Planning Commission meeting of December 14, 2015)
(Appealed by Linda Owen and Stephanie Burglin, residents)
(Continued from the Council meeting of February 9, 2016, Item No. 17)
ORDINANCE NO. 6365 (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. 2015-00280) (DEV2015-00057).
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-044 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-
05804 and determining that said action is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act pursuant to Section 15332 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations
(DEV2015-00057) (1609 and 1615 West Cerritos Avenue).
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-045 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving Tentative Tract Map No. 17882 (DEV2015-00057)
(1609 and 1615 West Cerritos Avenue).
Jonathan Borrego reported this item was an appeal of a request to permit an 11 unit single
family residential project. The zoning entitlements for the project included a zone change, a
conditional use permit and a subdivision map. The Planning Commission reviewed this
proposal at its December 14, 2015 public hearing and after receiving public testimony both in
favor and in opposition to the project, the Commission approved the requested actions by a vote
of 6:1. He indicated an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was subsequently filed by
Linda Owen and Stephanie Burglin.
Project Detail: Mr. Borrego provided the following project details:
• The 1.9 acre project site was located on the north side of Cerritos Avenue just east of
Euclid Street, was developed with two single family homes with surrounding land uses that
included single family homes located in the RS-2 zone in all directions.
• The applicant proposed to construct 11 detached single family homes with access to the
homes to be provided by a new private street accessed from Cerritos Avenue. The private
street would include five on-street parking spaces and all but one home would have a three
car garage and a driveway with two open parking spaces. Overall, the development would
supply 61 parking spaces which exceeded the 44 spaces required by code.
• The two story homes would have elements of traditional Tuscan and Italian style
architecture and would range from about 3,000 square feet to 3,500 square feet in size
with three different floor plans proposed consisting of 4-5 bedroom units with an option for
a 6th bedroom in floor plan 3.
• The property was located in the RS-2 single family residential zone, and a reclassification
or rezoning to the RS-4 zone was being requested because it allowed for lot sizes smaller
than the 7,200 square feet required under the existing zoning. The proposed lots ranged
from between 5,482 square feet and 6,853 square feet in size, and averaged 6,400 square
feet.
• The general plan land use designation for the project site was low density residential and
the allowable density range for this site was up to 6.5 units per acre with the project being
proposed less than the allowed amount at 5.7 units per acre.
City Council Minutes of February 23, 2016
Page 24 of 33
• Although the proposed RS-4 zoning was not listed as a typical implementing zone for the
low density residential designation, the general plan allowed typical implementation zones
to be substituted provided that the general plan density was not exceeded. Therefore the
RS-4 zone could be applied to areas with low density general plan designation as had
been done most recently with the residential project approved on the former Riverdale
Elementary School site.
• Single family residential development in the RS-4 zones was allowed subject to the
approval of a conditional use permit and therefore the Planning Commission approved the
permit.
• A tract map was required to subdivide the property to accommodate the proposed use and
included 11 numbered residential lots and four lettered lots designated for the private street
and landscaped areas that would be maintained by the homeowners association. The tract
map complied with all applicable regulations and was consistent with the density allowed
under the general plan.
Public Outreach: Mr. Borrego reported City staff and the developer hosted three community
meetings with homeowners residing in the surrounding neighborhood. From those meetings, he
indicated residents expressed a variety of concerns regarding the proposed development.
Based on the feedback received, the developer then dropped one lot from the subdivision which
had the effect of increasing the average lot size from 5,700 to about 6,400 square feet and also
reduced the project density down from 6.3 units to the acre to the 5.7 units to the acre currently
proposed. He noted one additional issue that came up during the public outreach was the issue
of short term rentals as this neighborhood was in an area that had numerous vacation rentals
and in response to the concerns raised, the applicant agreed to include a provision in the project
CC&R's to prevent their use as short term rentals. That condition of approval was included in
the resolution for the tentative tract map.
Appellant's Concerns: The written appeal filed on this matter listed the areas of concerns and
each of the concerns were carefully reviewed and were addressed in the staff report prepared
for this item and presented for council's information as follows:
• Proposed RS-4 zone was not consistent with Low-Density Residential General Plan
designation.
• Approval of RS-4 zone would allow smaller easements (setbacks) which would
infringe upon the privacy of the neighbors.
• Concern regarding contact that the developer had with the Planning Commission
before its hearing, even if it was not against the law.
• Lack of sidewalk connections along Cerritos Avenue.
• Development would set a negative precedence for the area.
• Required notification process was not followed.
Mr. Borrego commented that one issue residents had identified in community meetings was the
gaps in the sidewalk along Cerritos Avenue, and he stated, the applicant would be required to
install full sidewalk and parkway improvements in front of the project site. There would be a
couple of remaining sidewalk gaps to the west of the project site which Public Works
Department had recently secured grant funding to address the sidewalk gap on the south side
of the street and would pursue future grant funds to close the remaining gap on the north side of
Cerritos Avenue.
City Council Minutes of February 23,2016
Page 25 of 33
Traffic impacts had also been a point of discussion with area residents with Mr. Borrego stating
that based on trip generation estimates, it was determined that a traffic study was not required
for the proposed project as it did not meet the City's Traffic Study threshold of 100 or more peak
hour vehicle trips. He pointed out the project's estimated trip generation was calculated in two
ways; the first used the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook (which
was standard practice) and based on the rates in the handbook, the proposed project was
estimated to generate 6 new trips in the AM Peak hour and 9 new trips in the PM Peak Hour.
The second method used traffic counts and both estimates, he stated, were fairly close in
numbers.
In response to residents' concerns about traffic on Cerritos Avenue and the surrounding streets,
Mr. Borrego reported the City received four Traffic Calming Petitions as well as three Spillover
Parking Petitions in the same vicinity. Traffic Engineering staff held a neighborhood meeting on
February 3, 2016 at the Downtown Community Center with over 800 invitations mailed out to
affected residents. The meeting was attended by approximately 50 residents who learned
about the various city programs available to them. Residents were also able to voice their traffic
related concerns and ask questions; they were asked to volunteer to be part of their
Neighborhood Traffic Committee to work closely with city staff to develop a Traffic Calming Plan
to address all their issues.
Lastly, Mr. Borrego stated the Planning Commission carefully considered all testimony received
in support and in opposition to the project and both staff and the Commission determined that
the project was designed to offer a quality living environment for its future residents and was
compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood and consistent with the city's General
Plan. Staff recommended that the City Council deny the requested appeal and uphold the
Planning Commission's approval of this request.
Mayor Tait opened the public hearing for comments, providing guidelines for the public on the
process.
Mayor Tait disclosed he had met a couple of weeks ago with the applicant on this matter and
had received written communications from a number of the residents in the area. Council
Member Brandman stated he had also met with the applicant and received the same
communications from residents and had also spoken by phone with several residents in the
area. Council Member Vanderbilt added that the applicant had requested a meeting at city hall
that he attended along with staff, and he also received the same communications as others as
well as visiting the site today.
Stephanie Burglin, co-appellant, explained she was a lifelong resident of Anaheim and resided
in the area of the project personally using Cerritos Avenue on a daily basis. She represented
the many hundreds of homeowners near the proposed development, presenting the city with
petitions containing 749 signatures and over 80 letters collected in opposition to this proposed
rezoning and project. She noted the community was strongly opposed because they wished to
maintain the integrity of existing low density community consisting primarily of single story mid-
century design homes and to protect the rights of privacy, and quality of life issues (noise and
visual intrusion) along with the property values of the bordering homes. She emphasized that
the only Planning Commissioner who concurred with the residents was Mitchell Caldwell and
she could not understand why staff and the Commissioners did not understand the impacts of a
massive development so near to existing residential homes. She pointed out this area was low
density homes set in the RS-2 zoning, with similar easements and setbacks, as well as similar
City Council Minutes of February 23, 2016
Page 26 of 33
mapping, bulk, scale and orientation. She then played a video of Mr. Santana who lived next to
the developer's project on Orange Avenue, Silver Oaks Collage, who told of experiencing
impacts of a similar project as the one proposed for her neighborhood.
She asked Council to prevent what happened to residents who bordered the Orange Avenue
development who were impacted by loss of privacy, visual and sight line intrusion, noise and
loss of property values. This request was based on Title 18 of the Municipal Code that
contained nine development condition requirements to be met in order to approve conditional
use permits required in RS-4 zones. She emphasized at least three of the nine requirements
were not being met; i.e., new buildings or structures related to the project must be compatible
with scale, map, bulk, and orientation of existing buildings in the surrounding area; the size and
shape of the site proposed for the use was adequate to allow full development of the proposed
use in a manner not detrimental to the area, and the impact upon surrounding area had been
mitigated to the maximum extent possible. She added that residents had not been properly
notified and the community meetings were presentations of the project, and not a negotiation.
She stated most residents were not against development but were in favor of responsible
development and asked Council to recognize that those conditional use permit requirements
were not met with this development plan.
Linda Owen, co-appellant, remarked she lived within a few feet of the property being developed
and believed the development was in conflict with the surrounding lots and would tower above
existing homes. She remarked the rear setbacks did not meet minimum code of 15 feet and the
California Room with a possible upper deck further reduced those setbacks to 12 to 13 feet
while they were presented as ranging from 16 to 42 feet in width. She stated the California
Room, although advertised as optional, was an integral part of the structure and in the Orange
Avenue development, every home was built with that option setting the homes even closer to
the back walls. She pointed out three different plans were available; however the developer
wanted ten of the largest homes built with only one of smaller 3,000 square foot home, adding
to the massing effect. In addition, the developer reduced the number of homes from 12 to 11
but changed the mix for his own benefit, the square footage was only reduced 283 square feet
however the developer increased the number of large homes adding the California Room to his
advantage and she did not feel that any of the concerns from neighbors had been taken into
consideration. Ms. Owen also pointed out there were some two story homes in her existing
neighborhood but they were less than five percent of the total and did not invade the privacy of
the surrounding homes. She emphasized that setbacks, massing, and orientation of the
development made the project incompatible and disrespectful to the neighbors and was not a
good fit. She requested Council consider the neighborhood's concerns and preserve and
protect the rights of the existing citizens.
Terry Palmer, resident, explained that his background as a planner was slightly different but he
appreciated the need for buffering when the nature and character of adjacent uses were
changed. He explained the proposed development with boxier homes on the backs and sides
of the parcels and a roofline profile that was bulkier and larger should have a transition area so
the residents immediately adjacent to the development would not be impacted by the mass of
these homes. He presented slides showing the original proposed plan with a mixture of seven
4-bedroom homes and five of the larger ones and the revised version that changed from 12 to
11 homes with an equivalent amount of square footage with the same setbacks. He stated the
neighborhood was more interested in having setbacks increased and pointed out the promised
setbacks would not be achievable with the dimensions shown on their plan.
City Council Minutes of February 23,2016
Page 27 of 33
Stephanie Burglin requested Mayor Tait allow additional time for Mr. Palmer as he was one of
the primary persons on this effort and because his property edged the back of the fence line;
Mayor Tait granted additional time.
Jeff Webber, Silver Oak Investment, stated he was in complete agreement with the staff report
as presented to support the rationale for denial of the appeal. He spoke of the benefits of the
proposed project, as listed:
• Removal of several homes that had become magnets for transients and trash on the site;
• Widening of Cerritos Avenue including the addition of sidewalk and landscaping along the
front and filing in the sidewalk gaps on the north side of the street;
• Working with the Fire Department to provide those vacant homes for training exercises;
• To address short term rental concerns expressed in public meetings, the CC&R's would
contain language that no owner could lease a home for any purpose for fewer than 30 days
or any other purpose inconsistent with the provisions of the declaration;
• Several outreach community meetings had taken place during this process, however the
first time he heard residents' concerns was at the Planning Commission hearing resulting in
a revision to the previous application to revise the map that had a density of 6.3 dwelling
units per acre to the current 11 lot plan with a density of 5.6 units per acre;
• In November another outreach meeting took place in which he tried to address some of the
concerns about traffic raised, and the reason for the permit parking requests in process for
Cerritos;
• He showed the original 12 lot plan and the 11 lot plan, adding that the plan complied with all
setbacks for rear and side yards in the RS-2 zone. Silver Oak did ask for a reclassification
to an RS-4, adding that the rear and side yard setbacks complied with RS-2 zones and the
only setback that did not meet the requirement was the front setback because the design of
the homes was to push them forward to create larger rear yards for more privacy;
• He indicated the Planning Commission approved the proposed project on a 6:1 vote, with
Commissioner Caldwell in opposition. He had met with Mr. Caldwell after the December
14th hearing to discuss some of his comments which resulted in Silver Oak volunteering to
take five feet from the side yard of lot 6 and add it to the side yard of lot 8, thereby
increasing that setback from 8 feet to 10 feet and reducing the setback on lot 6 from 10 feet
to five feet, still meeting the requirements of RS-2 zoning. He stated this would create an
opportunity for additional privacy between the existing neighborhood although he pointed
out there was about 35 feet between the proposed homes and the existing neighborhood's
homes;
• He had also met with Terry Palmer after the Planning Commission meeting to discuss his
concerns with the rental unit he owned with Mr. Palmer offering several suggestions that
were not economically feasible for Silver Oak, some of which would require a variance. He
indicated to Mr. Palmer that Silver Oak could ask for a reduced setback on these lots for the
driveways reducing them from 20 feet to 18 feet and to push those houses up more or
return to Public Works and ask them to reduce the street down to 25 feet;
• He also told Mr. Palmer that Silver Oaks would plant 24 inch box trees at 15 feet of center
along the northern property line to create privacy, using Lots 5, 6 and 7 to block any sight
lines, adding he had done the same on the Collage project on Orange Avenue. He was
also proposing to put in trees along the eastside of Lot 8, with its increased side yard, for
more screening adding that the setback between Lot 8 and the existing home was about 50
to 55 feet.
City Council Minutes of February 23, 2016
Page 28 of 33
Terry Palmer noticed that both the RS-2 and RS-4 setback regulations permitted buildings to be
very close and very high showing a diagram that could allow a home 35 feet in height at the roof
peak and ten feet from a back wall. The 25 foot setback was the primary setback in RS-2
zones, with Mr. Palmer stating that many communities used a stepped-back setback in those
cases. He felt there was a lack of practical criteria that could be used to help planners decide
whether or not the proposed parcels and projects complied with intrusion with the proximity of
low density to medium density projects. He suggested substituting some Plan 3 models for the
Plan 1 home, which was 10 feet narrower and moving the homes forward 10 to 20 feet. He then
suggested the city could develop sight line criteria that could be measured and used to maintain
a certain degree of privacy with existing resident's homes. Mayor Tait asked for clarification on
what that criteria would be with Mr. Palmer responding in design terms, ratios, height and
distance were considered with a 1:1 ratio related to "enclosing" and that a 2:1 ratio maintained
an imposing element, 3:1 starting to look better and with a 4:1 ratio the homes were no longer
an imposing element. He added that typically his design business used a 3:1 ratio for distance
to height to keep a project from being overbearing. He remarked that screening and separation
was used in an effort to not be intrusive and to address those concerns raised about privacy
issues. In addition, the California Room had a balcony option that put residents within about 12
feet of a wall and he believed that option should be pulled off the table.
Tommy Moreno stated he lived directly between both properties and initially was not concerned
about development of the sites. As he began to understand the proposed project plans his
concern in addition to the height of the homes was the traffic related to Disneyland access off
Katella and Cerritos which was exacerbated in the summer months. He felt the impacts would
be too much for the existing community and that reasonable development standards should be
employed.
Pat Palmer emphasized the residents were not against development, they looked forward to the
existing homes being removed but wanted development to be respectful to the existing
neighborhood conditions and did not feel huge structures were respectful in any shape or form.
She added that several realtors advised that current residents bordering the property lines
would see a drop in their property evaluation because the scale, bulk and massing of the
development was out of whack with the neighborhood. In addition, the screening proposed with
single trunk trees would not provide an adequate screen and Arborvitae or Brush Cherry should
be used, reflective of tall shrubbery rather than what was proposed and the fence should be a
block wall to block out noise rather than a short vinyl fence.
Julie Brunette remarked she was here representing an elderly disabled neighbor who opposed
the project on the basis of no rezoning, too many houses and too much traffic; she submitted
her letter for the record. Personally, she added that she had been asking the city for years to
clean up those lots and put sidewalks in and was not against development but that living within
500 feet of the project would overwhelm and impact her neighborhood on many levels. She
suggested the development contain no two-story homes.
Mark Frazier, Silver Oak president, offered a counter to statements made about his integrity and
character offered. He stated he had been a resident in Anaheim for 15 years, and in 1989 as a
member of the board of directors of Canyon Acres, spearheaded a $600,000 expansion plan for
this facility for abused children, which was still in operation and serving the city. During his 42
years in residential real estate development, he worked with Henry Mello and Mike Roos to
pass Mello Roos legislation and built the first two schools with funds received from the first
Mello Roos Community Facilities District in 1983. Without that legislation, he pointed out,
City Council Minutes of February 23,2016
Page 29 of 33
schools and major public improvements for parks, fire stations and community centers might not
have happened.
For the Collage project on West Orange Avenue, he had an opportunity to buy 14 parcels from
nine different owners, an underutilized piece of land with eight tear down houses one of which
had a marijuana nursery inside and turned that six acres into the new home development in
Anaheim. He noted 27 homes had sold since July on one of the few parcels that remained for
new development, with many selling over$800,000 and one over $900,000. He emphasized
the community might not see it today, but they would be the beneficiaries of that development in
the future. He added in the last five years, he had projects approved in and around Anaheim
totaling 185 lots developed with much-needed upscale and medium priced homes that funded
$1.5 million in school fees and hundreds of thousands of dollars in park fees, and water, sewer
and road improvements. He added the densities on those sites were 11 to the acre, 9 to the
acre, 6.4 to the acre and 12 to the acre compared to the density on this proposed project which
was only 5.7 homes to the acre. He stated that the residents had made many misstatements of
fact and false assertions and he believed the real issue was that they were against development
of any kind. The lots at 6,500 square feet were not much different than the neighboring 7,200
square feet, at least eight of the 11 homes had rear yard setbacks from 27 to 42 feet, not the 12
to 15 feet as claimed by the residents, the side yard setbacks of 5 feet were the same as the
existing residents as was the rear yard setbacks. In addition, he had met with Esther Wallace
and WAND many times and had tried to meet with the resident committee but they failed to
show up. He added that Silver Oaks would plant screening trees and look at other ideas in
discussion with the Planning Department, emphasizing Anaheim had one of the most talented
planning departments in the county and the beneficiaries of that talent was reflected throughout
the city.
Jimmy La Marca, resident, read a letter by his neighbor dated May 7, 2000, thanking residents
who voiced their concern or submitted letters at the May 2, 2000 Planning Commission hearing
in which staff recommended denial of a waiver permitting a proposed cultural and media center
at 1609 W. Cerritos Avenue to keep the neighborhood as it was, a pleasant residential area. He
also spoke on his own behalf, asking how the city would handle traffic and safety for kids in the
neighborhood resulting from traffic that backed up in front of his house (from Euclid to
Disneyland) and was a challenge for him to exit his driveway every morning. He pointed out
that the State had not fixed the signal at Euclid and Cerritos for 15 years which contributed to
the problem. In addition, he pointed out a previous project considered 16 years ago had been
turned down because of traffic concerns, which was still the case and now with 11 homes and
the numerous cars those homes would support proposed for this property, there would be no
parking available as well.
William Fitzgerald remarked this project was not for the public good, it would degrade and
devalue the nearby homes, and offered his opinion on why it would be approved by the City
Council.
Ethel Halpern objected to city council members having ex parte communications with the
developer, stating it was against the Brown Act. She added the notification requirements had
not been met, and objected to staff's statement that the project would provide quality living for
future residents and be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods and consistent with the
general plan. She pointed out residents were told the project did not meet the minimum 100 car
threshold for a traffic analysis report but had also stated that 8,030 cars passed through that
area in a 24 hour period, which meant that 335 cars an hour passed through, and in her opinion
City Council Minutes of February 23, 2016
Page 30 of 33
exceeded the minimum for a traffic analysis. She asked Council to keep the essence of the
neighborhood intact and approve the appeal of this development.
Nick Blethrow, resident to the east of the proposed development, stated his main concern was
with the traffic and for the privacy for those homes directly bordering the development, hoping
some sort of landscaped screen would be built if the project was approved.
Cheryl Blethrow remarked she purchased her home in 1987 and while she was not within 300
feet of the development, she was never noticed about the project until it had come to her
attention through neighbors. Her concerns had to do with the close proximity of the new homes
to some neighbors who were elderly, whom had lived in the area for 50 years and never
expected this kind of development to be on the other side of the fence. She hoped there could
be some concessions made, such as creating a front porch rather than place a balcony on the
back overwhelming nearby residences. She pointed out that two of the existing neighbors to the
east of their property wanted to sell their land to the developer which would then provide more
acreage to reconfigure the street and lots and appease the encroachment over existing
neighbors, adding these modifications and improvements would make a difference and beautify
Cerritos Avenue.
Randy Allison, sales person on the project on Orange Avenue and the previous project on Ball
Road built by the developer, explained he had met with the adjacent neighbors on those
projects who were initially concerned about new development. However, he pointed out, once
the construction began they recognized the good quality of the product and believed it would
raise their home values. He emphasized that Silver Oak Investment was willing to remove the
deck option if that was something Council would like to consider.
REBUTTAL: Linda Owen stated the development did not satisfy three of the nine required
development conditions in the Anaheim Municipal Code regarding scale, mass, bulk, orientation
and its effects on the surrounding area. She felt the size and shape of the site was not adequate
and the project would be detrimental to the existing area and that the scale, mass, bulk and
orientation of the buildings were not compatible as well and that the impact to the surrounding
area was not mitigated to the maximum extent possible. She restated that the community was
not notified about the Planning Commission hearings, including the resident who would have
three units constructed behind his house. She felt provisions should have been in place months
ago regarding setbacks, greenbelts or landscape screening, elimination of the flat deck,
acceptable building materials, wall heights and an attractive street presence on Cerritos plus
undergrounding of utilities. She urged Council to consider the existing residents of Anaheim
when making their determination.
With no other comments offered, Mayor Tait closed the hearing.
Mayor Pro Tern Kring asked staff to speak to the statement there were no notifications sent with
Jonathan Borrego remarking that early on in the process when comments were made about the
notification process for the Planning Commission hearings, staff double-checked process and
found that Planning Commission staff had certified that mailings were done correctly, that the
mailing list was correct, and the notices were mailed according to the law for the typical 300 foot
radius. Ms. Kring remarked the developer appeared to be making concessions, dropping one
house from the design, agreeing to drop the deck option and willing to provide landscape
screening and appeared to be trying to work with the residents as opposed to comments offered
by residents. She then read an email received from Esther Wallace, who praised Jeff Webber
City Council Minutes of February 23, 2016
Page 31 of 33
and Silver Oak Corporation as an outstanding builder, one who listened to the community and
built homes with class as could be seen in his new home development west of Euclid. Ms.
Wallace added he was considerate about neighboring residences ensuring good design and
window placement, included parking that exceeded requirements offering a project with 5.7
housing units to the acre. Mayor Pro Tern Kring added with those comments from an individual
who had been looking out for the community of west Anaheim for years and only wanted the
best for the city, she would support denial of the appeal.
Council Member Vanderbilt requested clarification on the Orange Avenue project and the
comments made by a resident of that project. Mr. Borrego stated he believed the residents
were trying to draw a correlation between the two projects although there were many differences
between the two. Mr. Borrego added the setbacks were greater on this project and that Mr.
Webber had discussed increasing the side setback on the home which abutted a rear yard,
which would further decrease that setback. To Council Member Vanderbilt's remark on the
number of two-story homes in the existing neighborhood, Mr. Borrego stated there were a
number of two story homes in the neighborhood and some were upwards of 5,000 square feet
and he pointed out staff did take that into consideration when the project was initially reviewed in
terms of neighborhood compatibility. Council further discussed the size of the lots, RS-2 versus
RS-4, parkway standards, and the size of the proposed two story homes.
Mayor Tait remarked the homes were designed with the architectural amenities in the front with
the back and sides more stark expressing some concern about the size and mass of the
structures on Lot 1 and Lots 4 and 8 with side yard setbacks that were more like two back yards.
Mr. Borrego stated that staff looked at Lot 8 closely in terms of its interface with the property to
the rear, to see whether or not there would be any direct visual impacts. And as mentioned by
the developer, he was proposing to increase the setbacks from 5 feet to 10 feet for the lot in the
corner and in addition to that plant some trees along that property line as well to mitigate
privacy. Mayor Tait remarked he was more concerned with the other lot with Mr. Borrego
responding that the way the home was placed on the lot, it did not actually sit on the complete
rear yard of this lot and that was something else staff took into consideration as well. Mayor Tait
wondered if the zoning remained at RS-2, how many lots would there be on the property with
Mr. Borrego estimating there would probably be about eight lots, with four lots loaded on each
side of the private street and likely widened and the first six lots coming off Cerritos Avenue.
Council Member Murray remarked that Esther Wallace had been a leader in west Anaheim for
decades and was hypersensitive to projects that impacted neighborhoods and had strongly
supported this developer. Regarding the development, she pointed out these were high-end
homes that would improve the comparable values for residents and there were significant
needed infrastructure improvements imposed that would otherwise have happened at city
expense. She was also concerned about traffic issues raised, requesting Public Works
Department look into that and see what could be done in terms of signal light improvements or
other safety measures that could help that community. She pointed out Anaheim had state and
federal mandates to continue to provide infill housing in the city and this was private property
that with some minor modifications, the developer appeared to be trying to accommodate
concerns raised. She would be supporting the project and disclosed she had not met with the
applicant nor taken any campaign contributions nor planned to do so. She stated her decision
was based on her analysis and review of the materials provided.
Mayor Tait remarked he had listened to the well-presented appeal and felt the concerns raised
were reasonable as far as the massing of the homes versus the setbacks and when a zone
City Council Minutes of February 23, 2016
Page 32 of 33
change was involved, he gave the project strict scrutiny. He pointed out if the developer came
up with one less lot, the project would seem more reasonable to him and as is, he thought the
development would impact the value of the homes behind it. He would prefer to have the
developer revise the site plans and reduce the housing units because of the side yards and the
view off Cerritos Avenue and for that reason would vote to uphold the appeal.
Council Member Brandman disclosed he had one conversation with the applicant who indicated
Commissioner Caldwell had an issue with setbacks but that he, (the developer) was working to
address Commissioner Caldwell's concerns. In addition, he also received the letter from Esther
Wallace. Mr. Brandman had also spoken to Commissioner Caldwell who explained his
concerns and that they had not been met and if he had been presented with the changes that
were now made, he would have voted in favor of the project. Council Member Brandman
remarked he had heard the concerns of the existing residents, but believed that all else being
equal, this development would be a benefit to the community and that he had seen Mr.
Webber's work all over the county and in West Anaheim and would not uphold the appeal.
MOTION: Council Member Brandman moved to deny the appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision to rezone the property at 1609 and 1615 West Cerritos Avenue from RS-2 zone to RS-
4 zone and to permit and establish an 11-unit, small-lot single family residential subdivision by
the following actions:
1) to find the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 32 (In-Fill Development Projects)
Categorical Exemption; and
2) to introduce ORDINANCE NO. 6365 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. 2015-00280) (DEV2015-00057); and
3) to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2016-044, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-
05804 and determining that said action is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act pursuant to Section 15332 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations
(DEV2015-00057) (1609 and 1615 West Cerritos Avenue)
4) to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2016-045, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving Tentative Tract Map No. 17882 (DEV2015-00057)
(1609 and 1615 West Cerritos Avenue).
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES - 3: (Mayor Pro Tern Kring and Council Members Brandman and
Murray). NOES — 2: (Mayo Tait and Council Member Vanderbilt). Motion Carried.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
Mayor Pro Tern Kring spoke of her attendance at the launch of the Tres Estrellas Bus Service
and the CUPA Conference, and requested the meeting be adjourned in memory of Phyllis
Boydstun, former Planning Commissioner.
Council Member Murray spoke of her attendance at the launch of the Tres Estrellas Bus Service
and expressed her condolences for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia.
Council Member Brandman expressed his condolences for the family of Phyllis Boydstun.
Mayor Tait reported his attendance at the US Conference of Mayors Leadership Meeting in
Miami.
City Council Minutes of February 23,2016
Page 33 of 33
ADJOURNMENT: At 10:49 P.M., Mayor Tait adjourned the meeting in memory of Phyllis
Boydstun and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia.
r- .-ctfully submitted,
41110
el
Linda N. Andal, CMC
City Clerk