01/26/2021ANAHEIM CIN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2021
The regular meeting of January 26, 2021, was called to order at 3:08 P.M. in-person and
telephonically, pursuant to Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-29-20 (superseding the Brown Act
related provisions of Executive Order N-25-20) in response to COVID-19. The meeting notice,
agenda, and related materials were duly posted on January 21, 2021.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Harry Sidhu and Council Member Avelino Valencia (in-person).
Mayor Pro Tem Stephen Faessel and Council Members Jose F.
Moreno and Trevor O'Neil (via teleconference). Council Member Jose
Diaz joined the meeting at 3:11 P.M. (in person). Council Member
Jordan Brandman joined the meeting during Closed Session (in
person).
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Jim Vanderpool, City Attorney Robert Fabela, and City
Clerk Theresa Bass
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION:
City Attorney Robert Fabela announced this Closed Session was a biennial summary of litigation. He
further announced Item No. 03 pertained to a November 13, 2020, officer -involved shooting of Raul
Sanchez, and Item No. 04 pertained to an August 29, 2020, officer -involved shooting of Jesse Nava.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: None
CLOSED SESSION: At 3:12 P.M., Mayor Sidhu recessed to closed session for consideration of the
following:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of
California Government Code Section 54956.9: One potential case
(A copy of the claim against the City is included in the agenda packet and available for review
by contacting the City Clerk's Office and on-line electronically with the agenda at:
www. anaheim. nef/councilagendas.)
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of
California Government Code Section 54956.9: One potential case
(A copy of the claim against the City is included in the agenda packet and available for review
by contacting the City Clerk's Office and on-line electronically with the agenda at:
www. anaheim. net/councilagendas.)
3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of
California Government Code Section 54956.9: One potential case
City Council Minutes of January 26, 2021
Page 2 of 23
4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of
California Government Code Section 54956.9: One potential case
5. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of California
Government Code Section 54956.9: One potential case
6. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code
Name of Case: Valenzuela, Fermin v. City of Anaheim, et al., USDC Case No.
8:17-cv-00278 CJC
7. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code
Name of Case: Eisinger, Katrina, et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al., OCSC Case No.
30-2018 01035259
8. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code
Name of Case: Perkins, Teresa, et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al., USDC Case No.
8:19-cv-00315 JLS
9. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code
Name of Case: Hadley, Michelle v. City of Anaheim, et al., USDC Case No. 8:18-cv-01831
DOC
10. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code
Name of Case: D.R., by and through her guardian ad-litem, Vanessa Gonzalez, et al. v. City
of Anaheim, USDC Case No. 8:20-cv-00659 DOC
11. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code
Name of Case: Emmanuel, Elis, et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al., USDC Case No
8:20-cv-00482 SB
12. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code
Name of Case: Pelayo, Florintina, et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al., USDC Case No.
8:19-cv-02318 MCS
13. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code
Name of Case: Security National Insurance v. City of Anaheim, USDC Case No.
8:20-cv-00518 JVS
14. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code
Name of Case: Palmer, Ashlee v. City of Anaheim, OCSC Case. No. 30-2017 00938646
City Council Minutes of January 26, 2021
Page 3 of 23
15. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code
Name of Case: Kessner, Bonnie, et al. v. City of Santa Clara, et al., Santa Clara County
Case No. 20CV364054
16. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Gov5ernment Code
Name of Case: Turner Construction Company v. City of Anaheim, et al., OCSC Case No.
30-2017 00956538
17. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code
Name of Case: Peoples Homeless Task Force v. City of Anaheim, OCSC Case No.
30-2020-01174133
18. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code
Name of Case: Harrell, Andrew v. City of Anaheim, et al., OCSC Case No. 30-2020-
01166247
19. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code
Name of Case: Suarez, David v. City of Anaheim, OCSC Case No. 30-2020-0114746
20. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code
Name of Case: Lucero, Marco v. City of Anaheim, OCSC Case No. 30-2020-01154486
21. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code
Name of Case: Utzman, Cyndi, et al. v County of Orange, City of Anaheim, et al., OCSC
Case No. 30-2020-01174005
22. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code
Name of Case: Sialic Contractors, et al. v. City of Anaheim, OCSC Case No. 30-2020
01170500
At 5:01 P.M., Mayor Sidhu reconvened the Anaheim City Council.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Harry Sidhu and Council Members Jose Diaz, Jordan Brandman,
and Avelino Valencia (in-person). Mayor Pro Tem Stephen Faessel and
Council Members Jose F. Moreno and Trevor O'Neil (via
teleconference).
INVOCATION: Council Member Avelino Valencia
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Jordan Brandman
City Council Minutes of January 26, 2021
Page 4 of 23
PRESENTATION: Recognizing Anaheim Resident Robert Bruce Beamer's 100th Birthday on
January 29, 2021
Mayor Pro Tem Faessel noted it was appropriate to recognize a centenarian and veteran who has
lived most of his life in Anaheim.
Acceptance of Other Recognitions (To be presented at a later date):
Recognizing February 2021, as Black History Month
Recognizing February 2021, as American Heart Month
Recognizing February 2021, as Career and Technical Education Month
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA:
City Clerk Theresa Bass announced that, for Item No. 19, Council Member Brandman requested the
District 2 appointment to the Cultural and Heritage Commission be continued to a later date. Council
Member Valencia requested the District 4 appointment to the Housing and Community Development
Commission also be continued to a later date.
PUBLIC COMMENTS (all agenda items):
City Clerk Theresa Bass reported that seven (7) public comments were received electronically prior to
1:00 P.M. related to City Council agenda items and matters within the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City
Council. [A final total of eight (8) public comments were received electronically and distributed to the
City Council related to City Council agenda items and matters within the jurisdiction of the Anaheim
City Council and made part of the official record]. — See Appendix.
Brian Kaye congratulated Council Members Moreno and Valencia for their newly -appointed positions
on the City Council. He cited similarities between his family and that of Council Member Moreno,
alleged City Council was not receptive to his petitions, believed the City was not helping the
homeless, and criticized a lack of communication between leaders and residents.
S.R. Lockwood stated he would submit comments in writing.
Matthew addressed financial obligations and decisions made by the City Council, including the sale of
Angel Stadium, the debt of the City, pay raises for the Anaheim Police Department, and providing
$6,000,000 of federal relief funds to Visit Anaheim with no return of unused funds. He also addressed
a lack of accessibility to meetings as they were not conducted via Zoom and campaign donations
received by the newly -elected Council members. He believed much had been going on in the City
while keeping the public in the dark.
Donna Acevedo -Nelson stated her son, Joel, was killed by the Anaheim Police Department in 2012
and criticized the inability to address the City Council in person recently. She noted that, on July 25,
2020, a protester was hit by a police car and the public was unable to obtain the name of the officer;
she requested to know the name of the officer.
Vern Nelson stated 10 months was a long time not to have been able to comment directly and
advised every other town in Orange County had figured out how to receive comments via Zoom or
Webex. He congratulated Council Member Moreno on being inducted into the International
City Council Minutes of January 26, 2021
Page 5 of 23
Educator's Hall of Fame. He addressed the recent election and campaign contributions, particularly
from Disney, police and fire unions, and developers. He encouraged residents to get vaccinated. He
expressed hope that Council Members Diaz and Valencia would be honest.
CITY MANAGER'S UPDATE:
City Manager Jim Vanderpool announced the Anaheim Public Library has a new application allowing
patrons to manage accounts, keep track of reading history, renew books, and place holds. He further
noted the application includes enhanced searching capabilities, digital library card option, and noted
users can explore future events, find their nearest library, and can link multiple cards to one account.
The advised the application is available for download by searching "Anaheim Public Library" in online
application stores.
CONSENT CALENDAR: At 5:30 P.M., the consent calendar was considered with Council Member
Moreno pulling Item No. 11, Council Member Diaz pulling Item Nos. 13 and 15, and Council Member
O'Neil pulling Item No. 16 for separate discussion and consideration.
MOTION: Council Member Valencia moved to waive reading of all ordinances and resolutions and
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 Diaz. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu and Council
Members Faessel, Diaz, Brandman, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0. Motion carried.
8105 1. Receive and file minutes of the Library Board meeting of December 14, 2020.
AGR- 2. Determine, on the basis of the evidence submitted by PDC Anaheim Properties, LLC that the
10349 property owner has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of Development
Agreement No. 2015-00001 for the 2020 review period for the LT Platinum Center mixed-use
project located in the Platinum Triangle (northeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and State
College Boulevard).
D180 3. Waive the sealed bid requirement of Council Policy 4.0 and authorize the issuance of master
agreement(s), in a total amount not to exceed $300,000, as necessary to provide the pumping
services for trailers used for housing homeless individuals requiring isolation due to the
current pandemic for the period ending June 30, 2021.
AGR- 4. Award the construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Asplundh Construction LLC,
12545 in the amount of $11,660,963.38 plus a 10% contingency, for the construction of Underground
District No. 65 Phase 2 Santa Ana Canyon Road Project; authorize the Director of Public
Works to execute the contract and related documents, and to take the necessary actions to
implement and administer the contract; and authorize the Finance Director to execute the
Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions.
AGR
12546 5. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Hardy & Harper, Inc., in the amount of
$654,000, for the East Street Rehabilitation from La Palma Avenue to Burton Street Project;
authorize the Director of Public Works to execute the contract and related documents, and to
take the necessary actions to implement and administer the contract; determine the project is
categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Class 1,
Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; and
authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract
retentions.
City Council Minutes of January 26, 2021
Page 6 of 23
AGR- 6. Approve Amendment No. 1 to Cooperative Agreement No. MA -080-19010444 with the County
11151.1 of Orange for the Brookhurst Street Widening, Phase 2 Project, increasing the County's
contribution by $710,000 for a total of $3,210,000 and increasing Anaheim's pro -rata cost
share by $505,000 for a total cost of $720,000; changing the term of the agreement by
removing the time limits for construction; adjusting the City and County boundary; and
amending the County's contribution towards the landscape maintenance expense until right-
of-way boundary adjustments are finalized.
AGR- 7. Approve the Final Map and Subdivision Agreement with Avanti-Anaheim, L.P. for Tract No.
12542 18170, located at 100-394 W. Cerritos Avenue, to establish a one numbered condominium lot
map for 292 single-family attached condominium units.
AGR- 8. Approve a License Agreement with Orange County Transportation Authority, with a one-time
12543 license fee of $1,500, for a water main crossing at Tustin Avenue between Miraloma Avenue
and Jefferson Street; and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute the
agreement and related documents, and to take the necessary actions to implement and
administer the agreement.
AGR- 9. Approve the In -Lieu Treated Deliveries Agreement with the Metropolitan Water District of
10738.A Southern California and the Municipal Water District of Orange County to receive surplus
water supplies through 2027 when available and needed to preserve groundwater supplies;
and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager, or designee, to execute the agreement
and any related documents, including in -lieu treated water delivery purchase agreements and
other related written authorizations or requests, and to take the necessary actions to
implement and administer the agreement.
AGR- 10. Approve the Canine Transfer, Release and Indemnification Agreement with Officer Brian
12544 Bonczkiewicz transferring ownership of retired Police Service Dog "Ivan" to Officer
Bonczkiewicz, and authorize the Chief of Police to execute the agreement.
P124 12. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-005 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim certain real
properties or interests therein [City Deed Nos. 12399 (1430 E. Triad Street and 1589 E. Gene
Autry Way); 12407 (2357 W. Moro Place); 12408 (809 S. Knott Avenue); 12411 (2500 W. Eola
Drive); 12448 (908 N. Sabina Street); 12449 (2720 W. Lincoln Avenue); 12481 (1942 W.
Cerritos Avenue); 12482 (1802 E. Arbutus Avenue); and 12490 (500 N. Sunkist St.); for public
right-of-way purposes].
E127 14. ORDINANCE NO. 6505 (INTRODUCTION) AN (UN -CODIFIED) ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing the campaign contribution limit for the election cycle
commencing January 1, 2021, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 1.09.050
(campaign contribution limit increasing from $2,100 to $2,200).
M142 17. ORDINANCE NO. 6503 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
D154 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Chapter 1.05 of Title 1 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to
include Ambulance Operators as members in the exempt service [introduced at Council
meeting of January 12, 2021, Item No. 18].
City Council Minutes of January 26, 2021
Page 7 of 23
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-006 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing the Ambulance Operator job classification, rates of
compensation, and pay policies.
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-007 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 2016-033, as amended, adopting Personnel
Rules Covering Management, Confidential, and Non -Represented Part -Time Employees,
establishing a new employee group of Ambulance Operator, and defining terms and
conditions of employment [finalize and implement the Anaheim Emergency Medical
Transportation Program].
D114 18. Approve minutes of the City Council meetings of March 26, 2020 and April 7, 2020.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR:
R100 11. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-004 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the Director of Community Services or their designee to
submit an application to the State Department of Parks and Recreation for the Statewide Park
Development and Community Revitalization Program Grant for the expansion and renovation
of La Palma Park and if awarded, authorizing the acceptance of such funding on behalf of the
City and amending the budget accordingly (grant funds in the amount up to $8,500,000).
Interim Community Services Director Sjany Larson -Cash reported this item is to approve a grant
application to the State to expand and improve La Palma Park. She advised the $8,500,000 award
would cover 11 acres on the west side of the park including accommodations for special events,
dedicated soccer fields, improved restrooms, new playgrounds, walking paths, picnic areas, and a
safer connection to the parking lot across the street.
Ms. Larson -Cash reported these changes came from input provided at multiple community meetings
as the Master Plan was being developed and advised the estimated cost of the project is
$15,000,000. She reported the grant funds, if approved, would be used for the community -requested
improvements. She advised park in -lieu fees and proceeds would fund the remaining costs. She
advised the grant application is due in March with award announcements expected in late summer.
DISCUSSION: Council Member Moreno congratulated Ms. Larson -Cash for being named the Interim
Director of the Community Services Department and praised her work. He expressed excitement
about the project and appreciation that staff has been diligent about this being a community park. He
advised there is a vacant building north of the park and questioned its potential use. He thanked staff
for this project in District 3.
Council Member Brandman recalled walking the park years ago with Ms. Larson -Cash who
envisioned a better space. He noted that dream is manifested in this proposal, congratulated her, and
anticipated seeing what she has planned.
MOTION: Council Member Moreno moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2021-004 A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the Director of
Community Services or their designee to submit an application to the State Department of Parks and
Recreation for the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program Grant for the
expansion and renovation of La Palma Park and if awarded, authorizing the acceptance of such
funding on behalf of the City and amending the budget accordingly, seconded by Council Member
Brandman.
City Council Minutes of January 26, 2021
Page 8 of 23
DISCUSSION: Council Member Valencia stated it was always good to vote for more green space.
MOTION: Council Member Moreno moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2021-004 A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the Director of
Community Services or their designee to submit an application to the State Department of Parks and
Recreation for the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program Grant for the
expansion and renovation of La Palma Park and if awarded, authorizing the acceptance of such
funding on behalf of the City and amending the budget accordingly, seconded by Council Member
Brandman. AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members Faessel, Brandman, Diaz, Moreno,
Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0. Motion carried. Resolution approved.
M142 13. ORDINANCE NO. 6504 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adding Chapter 14.70 to Title 14 of the Anaheim Municipal Code
to prohibit participating in or being a spectator at a street race or reckless driving exhibition,
and repealing Sections 14.32.084 and 14.32.183 of the Code and relocating them as modified
in Chapter 14.70.
Police Chief Jorge Cisneros reported Anaheim had over 1,500 calls for service for street racing in
2020, which was an increase of 91 % from 2018 and 2019. He advised, that while not always reported
due to connection to illegal activity, 11 street racing -related traffic accident reports were written in
2020, including three (3) with injuries and three (3) hit -and -runs. He advised a December 2020 street
racing event at Wagner Avenue and Sunkist Street would cost the City over $3,000 in repairs. He
advised 60 individuals were either booked or cited in 2020 for their involvement in street racing or
exhibition of speed incidents.
Chief Cisneros reported the proposed ordinance has been used by other cities, including Ontario,
Fontana, San Diego, and Stockton, with positive effect. He advised the ordinance addresses
spectators and noted spectators can slow response times, cause accidents, and impact egress times.
DISCUSSION: Council Member Diaz advised he pulled the item because street racing is becoming
increasingly popular in Anaheim and it is very dangerous to all involved, including spectators and the
innocent bystanders living in neighboring homes. He noted there have been too many accidents, too
many lives lost, and thanked Chief Cisneros for introducing the item.
MOTION: Council Member Diaz moved to introduce ORDINANCE NO. 6504 AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adding Chapter 14.70 to Title 14 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code to prohibit participating in or being a spectator at a street race or reckless
driving exhibition, and repealing Sections 14.32.084 and 14.32.183 of the Code and relocating them
as modified in Chapter 14.70, seconded by Council Member O'Neil.
DISCUSSION: Council Member Valencia advised street racing has been an issue in the City at large.
He advised he has recently heard it just a block or two from his house several times. He reported
residents often express concerns about this issue, he expressed his appreciation for the Anaheim
Police Department's (APD) work on the ordinance, and advised he is open to exploring other
measures to eliminate the problem.
Mayor Pro Tem Faessel thanked Council Member Diaz for pulling the item so they can add some
comments. He advised he receives weekly calls about street racing. He noted the Wagner Avenue
incident mentioned by Chief Cisneros is near his residence and thanked APD for bringing the
ordinance forward.
City Council Minutes of January 26, 2021
Page 9 of 23
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Faessel's inquiry, Chief Cisneros advised the ordinance would create
a misdemeanor for spectating, with penalties of up to a year in jail or up to a $1,000 fine. He urged
citizens and businesses to continue to call the APD for a better response than over social media.
Council Member Moreno reported he also receives regular calls about street racing and expressed
his full support for the efforts to stop the problem. He expressed concerns about the spectator
question and someone simply being caught up in a crowd.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Chief Cisneros noted he did not want to speak for
the City Attorney but believed the City would be interested in pursuing penalties at the lower levels to
change behavior. He advised they want to make sure the roads are used for their intended purpose
and it is a safe environment for all individuals. He agreed with Council Member Moreno about there
being many young spectators but noted the events remain very dangerous and the presence of
spectators can hinder police pursuits. City Attorney Robert Fabela explained, in his prosecutorial role,
they often make discretionary decisions in the name of justice and this would be the sort of case they
would review. He advised he has spoken to other cities with similar ordinances and they have found
them to be a useful tool.
Council Member Moreno expressed concerns about starting a penal pipeline for young people who
make innocent mistakes. He encouraged it to be used as an educational tool to help learn about the
consequences of actions. He cautioned he would not like to see generally innocent bystanders or
otherwise good kids be over -punished.
MOTION: Council Member Diaz moved to introduce ORDINANCE NO. 6504 AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adding Chapter 14.70 to Title 14 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code to prohibit participating in or being a spectator at a street race or reckless
driving exhibition, and repealing Sections 14.32.084 and 14.32.183 of the Code and relocating them
as modified in Chapter 14.70, seconded by Council Member O'Neil. AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu and
Council Members Faessel, Brandman, Diaz, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0. Motion
carried. Ordinance introduced.
C280 15. ORDINANCE NO. 6506 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
C420 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Chapters 17.08 (Subdivisions); 18.04 (Single -Family
Residential Zones); 18.06 (Multiple -Family Residential Zones); 18.08 (Commercial Zones);
18.10 (Industrial Zones); 18.14 (Public and Special -Purpose Zones); 18.16 (Regulatory
Permits); 18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone); 18.24 (South Anaheim
Boulevard Corridor (SABC) Overlay Zone); 18.30 (Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) Overlay
Zone); 18.32 (Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone); 18.36 (Types of Uses); 18.38 (Supplemental
Use Regulations); 18.42 (Parking and Loading); 18.44 (Signs); 18.46 (Landscaping and
Screening); 18.56 (Nonconformities); 18.60 (Procedures); 18.62 (Administrative Reviews);
18.80 (Fees); 18.92 (Definitions); 18.114 (Disneyland Specific Plan No. 92-1 (SP 92-1));
18.116 (Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (SP 92-2)); 18.118 (Hotel Circle Specific Plan
No. 93-1 (SP 93-1)); 18.120 (Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan No. 2015-1 (SP 2015-1) Zoning
and Development Standards); and 18.122 (Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1 (SP
2017-1) Zoning and Development Standards) of Title 17 (Land Development and Resources)
and Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code; and finding and determining that this
ordinance is exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental
documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section
15061(b)(3) because it will not have a significant effect on the environment (Zoning Code
Amendment No. 2020-00175) (Adjustment No. 15 to the Disneyland Specific Plan No. 92-1
City Council Minutes of January 26, 2021
Page 10 of 23
(SP 92-1) (SPN92-1 U)) (Adjustment No. 12 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (SP
92-2) (SPN92-2BB)) (Adjustment No. 11 to the Hotel Circle Specific Plan No. 93-1 (SP 93-1)
(SPN93-1 K)) (Adjustment No. 11 to the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan No. 2015-1 (SP 2015-
1) Zoning and Development Standards (SPN2015-00001 K)) (Adjustment No. 4 to the Beach
Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1 (SP 2017-1) Zoning and Development Standards
(SPN2017-00001 D)) (DEV2020-00185) [Code Streamlining and Improvement Program
Zoning Code Amendment].
Planning and Building Director Ted White reported this is a City -initiated item to amend several
portions of the Anaheim Municipal Code as part of the City's ongoing code streamlining and
improvement program. He advised the Planning Commission reviewed these proposed changes and
recommended City Council approval.
Mr. White mentioned several of the more significant proposed changes. He reported the residential
changes include allowing for private residential greenhouses in RS -3 and RS -4 zones. He advised
sheds between 121 and 200 square feet and under eight (8) feet in height can be located five (5) feet
from side and rear property lines. He noted walls and fences up to seven (7) feet tall would now be
permitted if a rear or side yard faces an arterial street. He advised stand-alone pilasters with or
without light fixtures could be eight (8) feet tall.
Mr. White advised changes to commercial codes were to allow for more flexibility include reducing
setbacks, changes to freeway -oriented signs, the ability to add wall signs to architectural features,
new interior setbacks for the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan, expanded outdoor dining in the
Anaheim Resort, and permit streamlining for special events in areas like the Honda Center and Angel
Stadium which are transitioning to being privately -owned.
Mr. White recommended approving the amendments to help establish clearer standards, procedures,
and definitions.
DISCUSSION: In response to Council Member Diaz's inquiry, Mr. White stated the walls detailed in
sections 48 and 49 are common in the area for homeowner privacy. He advised this would allow for
existing walls to be one (1) foot taller than the current six (6) foot limit. He noted staff had originally
recommended an eight (8) foot wall but the Planning Commission recommended seven (7) feet as a
matter of aesthetics. He advised seven (7) feet is consistent with the height restriction which does not
require a building permit. He advised typically there need to be engineering plans for an eight (8) foot
wall.
Council Member Diaz advised it is a quality of life issue for residents. He explained one (1) extra foot
was not much for aesthetics but a huge difference for sound and was significant near main roads.
MOTION: Council Member Diaz moved to introduce the proposed ordinance, as amended, with a
revision to Section 48, Table 46-B, increasing the allowed height of fencing within the required side,
rear, or interior setbacks in the single-family residential zone from seven (7) feet to eight (8) feet,
seconded by Council Member Valencia.
DISCUSSION: Council Member Valencia echoed the remarks of Council Member Diaz about the
height of the walls.
Council Member O'Neil reported extensions to these walls were often not made with the same
material. He advised a concern about seven (7) feet is if someone who wanted to match his
neighbors at eight (8) feet and do things right would be told by the City they could not build past
City Council Minutes of January 26, 2021
Page 11 of 23
seven (7) feet. He noted eight (8) feet was more common and it made sense to remain consistent. He
thanked Council Member Diaz for raising this issue and expressed support for the motion.
Mayor Pro Tem Faessel stated appreciation for Council Member Diaz proposing the higher wall limit.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Faessel's inquiries, Mr. White advised the current code allows for
higher than six (6) feet with a sound attenuation study. He advised, under the proposal, anything over
eight (8) feet could still be constructed with a sound attenuation study and not need a variance. He
clarified the proposed code would allow for up to eight (8) feet before requiring a variance.
City Attorney Robert Fabela advised the original motion made by Council Member Diaz is the only
motion on the floor.
MOTION: Council Member Diaz moved to introduce ORDINANCE NO. 6506 (INTRODUCTION)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Chapters 17.08
(Subdivisions); 18.04 (Single -Family Residential Zones); 18.06 (Multiple -Family Residential Zones);
18.08 (Commercial Zones); 18.10 (Industrial Zones); 18.14 (Public and Special -Purpose Zones);
18.16 (Regulatory Permits); 18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone); 18.24
(South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor (SABC) Overlay Zone); 18.30 (Downtown Mixed Use (DMU)
Overlay Zone); 18.32 (Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone); 18.36 (Types of Uses); 18.38 (Supplemental
Use Regulations); 18.42 (Parking and Loading); 18.44 (Signs); 18.46 (Landscaping and Screening);
18.56 (Nonconformities); 18.60 (Procedures); 18.62 (Administrative Reviews); 18.80 (Fees); 18.92
(Definitions); 18.114 (Disneyland Specific Plan No. 92-1 (SP 92-1)); 18.116 (Anaheim Resort Specific
Plan No. 92-2 (SP 92-2)); 18.118 (Hotel Circle Specific Plan No. 93-1 (SP 93-1)); 18.120 (Anaheim
Canyon Specific Plan No. 2015-1 (SP 2015-1) Zoning and Development Standards); and 18.122
(Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1 (SP 2017-1) Zoning and Development Standards) of Title
17 (Land Development and Resources) and Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code; and
finding and determining that this ordinance is exempt from the requirements to prepare additional
environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section
15061(b)(3) because it will not have a significant effect on the environment (Zoning Code
Amendment No. 2020-00175) (Adjustment No. 15 to the Disneyland Specific Plan No. 92-1 (SP 92-1)
(SPN92-1 U)) (Adjustment No. 12 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (SP 92-2) (SPN92-
2BB)) (Adjustment No. 11 to the Hotel Circle Specific Plan No. 93-1 (SP 93-1) (SPN93-1 K))
(Adjustment No. 11 to the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan No. 2015-1 (SP 2015-1) Zoning and
Development Standards (SPN2015-00001 K)) (Adjustment No. 4 to the Beach Boulevard Specific
Plan No. 2017-1 (SP 2017-1) Zoning and Development Standards (SPN2017-00001 D)) (DEV2020-
00185), as amended, with a revision to Section 48, Table 46-B, increasing the allowed height of
fencing within the required side, rear, or interior setbacks in the single-family residential zone from
seven (7) feet to eight (8) feet, seconded by Council Member Valencia. AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu and
Council Members Faessel, Brandman, Diaz, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0. Motion
carried. Ordinance introduced, as amended.
C280 16. ORDINANCE NO. 6502 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
amending Chapters 18.42 (Parking and Loading), and 18.92 (Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning)
of the Anaheim Municipal Code and finding and determining that this ordinance is exempt
from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15061 (b)(3) (Zoning
Code Amendment No. 2019-00166) (DEV2019-00110) [modify residential parking standards
and the definition of a "bedroom"; introduced at Council meeting of January 12, 2021, Item No.
15].
City Council Minutes of January 26, 2021
Page 12 of 23
DISCUSSION: Council Member O'Neil reported they had received several public comments on the
issue of tandem parking. He advised several residents asked for the cap to be reinstated but he
noted there has never been a cap. He advised the Planning Commission recommended a 20% cap
but the City Council declined to implement it. He clarified this ordinance has nothing to do with
tandem parking but only revises the definition of a bedroom and increases the number of required
parking spaces for single-family residences in RS -4 zoned neighborhoods.
MOTION: Council Member O'Neil moved to adopt the ordinance as presented, seconded by Council
Member Valencia.
DISCUSSION: Mayor Pro Tem Faessel asked his colleagues to reconsider their votes from the last
meeting relative to tandem parking. He advised he is the only Council Member who has served on
the Planning Commission and acknowledged the experience may have given him a different
perspective on this item. He noted it was well -vetted by staff and was the result of two years of
outreach, including a pair of workshops. He noted the Planning Commission unanimously supported
the item. He advised tandem parking is a less desirable residential product and is seen as an
inconvenience.
Mayor Pro Tem Faessel reported there may be no item other than homelessness they hear more
about as Council Members than parking. He suggested the move should not be to eliminate tandem
parking but rather to improve the quality of the housing product. He relayed the Planning Commission
heard an item last week about a very dense housing project in West Anaheim with over 50% tandem
parking. He noted it was not supported by all of the residents. He noted one tool the Planning
Commission could have used to help improve the project could have been a maximum limit on the
tandem parking but the tool was not at their disposal.
Mayor Pro Tem Faessel noted the City has the potential for many in -fill projects. He expressed
uncertainty that allowing 100% tandem parking improves the quality of a project. He advised he
certainly continued housing projects as a Planning Commissioner to improve their quality. He
cautioned that every district would eventually be affected by this decision. He suggested a higher cap
than 20% if needed, but believed there should be consideration given to a limit. He encouraged his
colleagues to reconsider their votes.
Council Member Valencia noted Council Member O'Neil advised the issue of tandem parking was not
in front of them and they were not voting on it.
In response to Council Member Valencia's inquiries, Mr. White explained he did not have a
percentage but tandem parking was not very common in new developments as developments go by
the market-based consideration to use a traditional parking configuration. He advised they do see
tandem parking more often on lots with odd dimensions, but it remains less than half of the projects
overall. He advised, if land values continue to rise as well the cost of construction, he would expect
more developers to use a tandem configuration due to the efficiency of the design. He clarified
tandem parking does not require as much area as a traditional configuration and it can be a tool to
configure parking spaces efficiently. He advised tandem parking may also eliminate the need to either
build another level onto a parking garage or go subterranean for the extra level, both of which would
add costs. He explained tandem parking provides for greater efficiency in land usage, along with
making the units less desirable, both of which can potentially translate into the affordability of the
housing.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Faessel's previous comments, Council Member O'Neil explained they
were not voting on tandem parking, only the number of spaces in an RS -4 Zone and the definition of
City Council Minutes of January 26, 2021
Page 13 of 23
a bedroom. He advised Council Members could bring a separate item at a later date involving tandem
parking regulations.
Council Member Moreno agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Faessel. He advised he also sees the value of
the ordinance as currently written. He expressed appreciation for Mayor Pro Tem Faessel's tone and
acknowledgment of the many letters received about tandem parking over the past two weeks. He
advised several districts will only have in -fill projects squeezed into small acreage. He advised the
City Council can add measures to help make this housing more affordable.
SUBSIDIARY MOTION: Council Member Moreno moved to amend the motion to amend the
ordinance to reinstate the 20% cap on tandem parking as previously presented by staff.
DISCUSSION: City Attorney Robert Fabela clarified an amendment to an ordinance at the adoption
stage would be a reintroduction of the ordinance and there would have to be another meeting to
adopt the ordinance. He advised City Council should keep this in mind if considering revisions to the
ordinance.
Mayor Pro Tem Faessel expressed concern about a potential amendment. He agreed with Council
Member O'Neil's suggestion of specifically bringing the tandem parking back to City Council
independently in the future as opposed to complicating tonight's action. He stated, otherwise, he
would support Council Member Moreno's amendment.
The subsidiary motion failed for lack of a second.
Mayor Sidhu advised there was a lot of discussion at the first reading of the ordinance and noted the
amendments made were the correct ones. He agreed with those who believe increasing tandem
parking would contribute to the housing shortfall. He noted staff could find no hard evidence of
tandem parking causing overflow into neighborhoods. He advised the issue of tandem parking could
come back for further discussion in the future.
MOTION: Council Member O'Neil moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 6502 (ADOPTION) AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Chapters 18.42 (Parking and Loading), and
18.92 (Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code and finding and determining
that this ordinance is exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental
documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Sections 15060(c)(2)
and 15061 (b)(3) (Zoning Code Amendment No. 2019-00166) (DEV2019-00110), seconded by
Council Member Valencia. AYES — 6 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members Faessel, Brandman, Diaz,
Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 1 (Council Member Moreno). Motion carried. Ordinance
adopted.
8105 19. Consider (re)appointments to certain city Boards and Commissions to serve terms through
December 31, 2022, and December 31, 2024; consider District 2 appointment of an
unscheduled vacancy on the Cultural and Heritage Commission for a term ending December
31, 2022; and consider (re)appointments to the Sister City Commission to serve terms through
June 30, 2023 (continued from Council meeting of January 12, 2021, Item No. 17; with the
exception of the District 2 Cultural and Heritage Commission vacancy).
Budget, Investment and Technology Commission (3 appointments):
District 1 appointment: Paul Dallura (December 31, 2024)
City Council Minutes of January 26, 2021
Page 14 of 23
Council Member Diaz nominated Paul Dallura.
DISCUSSION: In response to Mayor Sidhu's inquiry, City Clerk Theresa Bass confirmed
appointments must be ratified by a majority.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members Faessel, Diaz, Brandman,
Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0. Nomination approved.
District 4 appointment: John Noteboom (December 31, 2024)
Council Member Valencia nominated John Noteboom. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu
and Council Members Faessel, Diaz, Brandman, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0.
Nomination approved.
District 5 appointment: David (D.R.) Heywood (December 31, 2024)
Mayor Pro Tem Faessel nominated David (D.R.) Heywood. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor
Sidhu and Council Members Faessel, Diaz, Brandman, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0.
Nomination approved.
Community Services Board (3 appointments):
District 1 appointment:
District 1 appointment continued to a later date.
(December 31, 2024)
District 4 appointment: Craig Farrow (December 31, 2024)
Council Member Valencia nominated Craig Farrow. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu and
Council Members Faessel, Diaz, Brandman, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0. Nomination
approved.
District 5 appointment: Ryann Higgins (December 31, 2024)
Mayor Pro Tem Faessel nominated Ryann Higgins. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu and
Council Members Faessel, Diaz, Brandman, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0. Nomination
approved.
Cultural and Heritage Commission (4 appointments):
District 1 appointment:
District 1 appointment continued to a later date.
(December 31, 2024)
District 4 appointment: Aleiandrina Arellano (December 31, 2024)
Council Member Valencia nominated Alejandrina Arellano. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor
Sidhu and Council Members Faessel, Diaz, Brandman, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0.
Nomination approved.
City Council Minutes of January 26, 2021
Page 15 of 23
District 5 appointment:
District 5 appointment continued to a later date.
Unscheduled vacancy:
District 2 appointment: _
(vacancy of Karl Squitier)
District 2 appointment continued to a later date.
(December 31, 2024)
(term ending December 31, 2022)
Housing and Community Development Commission (5 appointments):
District 1 appointment:
District 1 appointment continued to a later date.
District 4 appointment:
District 4 appointment continued to a later date.
(December 31, 2024)
(December 31, 2024)
District 5 appointment: Timothy Houchen (December 31, 2024)
Mayor Pro Tem Faessel nominated Timothy Houchen. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 6 (Mayor Sidhu
and Council Members Faessel, Diaz, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 1 (Council Member
Brandman). Nomination approved.
At large -Tenant Seat: (December 31, 2022)
(vacancy of John Gatti)
At large -Tenant Seat appointment continued to a later date.
At large -Tenant Seat: Linda Adair (December 31, 2024)
(Incumbent: Linda Adair)
Mayor Sidhu nominated Linda Adair. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu and Council
Members Faessel, Diaz, Brandman, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil; NOES — 0. Nomination approved.
Parks and Recreation Commission (3 appointments):
District 1 appointment: Ryan Balius (December 31, 2024)
Council Member Diaz nominated Ryan Balius. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 6 (Mayor Sidhu and
Council Members Diaz, Brandman, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil; NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 1 (Mayor
Pro Tem Faessel). Nomination approved.
District 4 appointment: Tony Flores (December 31, 2024)
Council Member Valencia nominated Tony Flores. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu and
Council Members Faessel, Diaz, Brandman, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0. Nomination
approved.
City Council Minutes of January 26, 2021
Page 16 of 23
District 5 appointment: Lynn Cudd (December 31, 2024)
Mayor Pro Tem Faessel nominated Lynn Cudd. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu and
Council Members Faessel, Diaz, Brandman, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0. Nomination
approved.
Planning Commission (3 appointments):
District 1 appointment: Michelle Lieberman (December 31, 2024)
Council Member Diaz nominated Michelle Lieberman. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu
and Council Members Faessel, Diaz, Brandman, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0.
Nomination approved.
District 4 appointment: Luis Andes Perez (December 31, 2024)
Council Member Valencia nominated Luis Andres Perez. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 6 (Mayor Sidhu
and Council Members Faessel, Diaz, Brandman, Moreno, and Valencia); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 1
(Council Member O'Neil). Nomination approved.
District 5 appointment: Kimberly Keyes (December 31, 2024)
Mayor Pro Tem Faessel nominated Kimberly Keyes. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu and
Council Members Faessel, Diaz, Brandman, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0. Nomination
approved.
Public Utilities Board (3 appointments):
District 1 appointment: Abdulmageed Abdulrahman (December 31, 2024)
Council Member Diaz nominated Abdulmageed Abdulrahman. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor
Sidhu and Council Members Faessel, Diaz, Brandman, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0.
Nomination approved.
District 4 appointment: Norma Kurtz (December 31, 2024)
Council Member Valencia nominated Norma Kurtz. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu and
Council Members Faessel, Diaz, Brandman, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0. Nomination
approved.
District 5 appointment:
Ernesto Medrano
(December 31, 2024)
Mayor Pro Tem Faessel nominated Ernesto Medrano. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu
and Council Members Faessel, Diaz, Brandman, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0.
Nomination approved.
City Council Minutes of January 26, 2021
Page 17 of 23
Senior Citizen Commission (4 appointments):
District 1 appointment:
District 1 appointment continued to a later date.
(December 31, 2024)
District 4 appointment: Gabriel Zavala (December 31, 2024)
Council Member Valencia nominated Gabriel Zavala. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu
and Council Members Faessel, Diaz, Brandman, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0.
Nomination approved.
District 5 appointment: Janet Brown (December 31, 2024)
Mayor Pro Tem Faessel nominated Janet Brown. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu and
Council Members Faessel, Diaz, Brandman, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0. Nomination
approved.
Sister City Commission:
Scheduled vacancies with eligible incumbents:
Appointment: Kevin Barrot
(term ending June 30, 2023)
(Incumbent, Kevin Barrot)
Appointment: James Dinwiddie II
(term ending June 30, 2023)
(Incumbent, James Dinwiddie II)
Appointment: Elizabeth Jabaz
(term ending June 30, 2023)
(Incumbent, Elizabeth Jabaz)
Scheduled vacancies:
Appointment: Lori Dinwiddie
(term ending June 30, 2023)
(vacancy of Lori Dinwiddie)
Appointment: Dara Maleki
(term ending June 30, 2023)
(vacancy of Mark Roeske)
Council Member Valencia nominated Dara Maleki.
DISCUSSION: In response to Council Member Brandman's inquiry, City Clerk Theresa Bass
confirmed all incumbents were eligible except for Mark Roeske who did not show interest in
reappointment. She advised all other incumbents were eligible and interested in reappointment.
Council Member Brandman nominated all eligible incumbents.
Mayor Pro Tem Faessel nominated Kevin Barrot.
City Council Minutes of January 26, 2021
Page 18 of 23
Council Member Moreno agreed with Council Member Brandman's nomination of all incumbents
willing to be reappointed to such a difficult Commission. He praised their willingness to serve and
expressed support for Ms. Maleki replacing Mr. Roeske, and Ms. Jabaz from District 3.
In response to Mayor Sidhu's inquiry, Ms. Bass confirmed the vote is for the four incumbents seeking
reappointment along with Ms. Maleki, which would fill the City's five seats. ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members Faessel, Diaz, Brandman, Moreno, Valencia, and
O'Neil); NOES — 0. Nominations approved.
D116 20. Update on the City's Response to COVID-19:
DISCUSSION: Mayor Sidhu reported Anaheim has hit the ground running in the new year. He
advised the Mayor's ad hoc Public Health Advisory Task Force has focused on efforts to increase
public education and outreach on best practices and how to access services. He reported Council
Member Valencia, Mayor Pro Tem Faessel, and the City's communications team have been
particularly important. He advised they have done a tremendous job of communication throughout the
crisis but those efforts are only being enhanced.
Mayor Sidhu reported the focus of the task force the past two weeks has been the rollout of vaccines,
of which the City has given out over 50,000 so far. He advised many of the shots have gone to those
who live and work in Anaheim. He advised the City helped Orange County set up some of the first
vaccine sites and noted the vaccine super point of distribution (Super POD) at Disneyland was the
State's first to open. He noted the City has opened other smaller sites in addition to the Orange
County Super POD. He advised the vaccines cannot come fast enough because getting an
appointment is not always possible. He acknowledged this can be difficult even though they are
vaccinating about 5,000 people daily in Anaheim.
Mayor Sidhu remained optimistic that things would continue to improve. He reported the City has
urged its State and federal partners to keep the vaccines coming to Anaheim where they are being
put to work efficiently and effectively. He advised the City is seeing progress, although noting cases
remain high. He reported the State lifted the regional stay-at-home order, which had included
Anaheim, allowing more flexibility for Anaheim's businesses to operate. He urged residents to support
local businesses but to do so safely.
Mayor Sidhu reported the goal is to save lives, lower cases, and reopen the City when the time is
right. He advised everyone is tired of the pandemic but 2021 is a year of hope.
City Manager Jim Vanderpool reported the City launched its first vaccine site on January 6, 2021,
vaccinating more than 5,000 people at Anaheim Fire & Rescue's (AF&R) North Net Training Center.
He advised the Disneyland Super POD opened on January 13 and is currently at over 40,000
vaccines distributed, with up to 5,000 administered daily. He noted many Anaheim residents and
those who work in the City have been vaccinated at the Super POD. He advised two neighborhood
centers opened over the past weekend and delivered over 700 vaccines to eligible senior citizens. He
advised the Community Services Department was working closely with the Orange County Office on
Aging to bring more senior clinics to the City in the coming weeks, targeting central and west
Anaheim. He advised the City is doing more than 5,000 tests a week at the Anaheim Convention
Center and three walk-up kiosks around the City. He reported on February 3, 2021 mobile testing
would begin at Danbrook Elementary School, bringing testing to one of the City's hardest-hit
neighborhoods.
City Council Minutes of January 26, 2021
Page 19 of 23
Mr. Vanderpool thanked the City's partners at 360 Clinic and Latino Health Access. He advised the
Public Health Task Force would meet again next week. He reported last week the task force stressed
the successful launch of vaccines and the need to continue testing with all necessary resources. He
advised staff would respond to this directive and he hoped to have details to share soon on their
progress.
Fire Chief Pat Russell reported things are going well at the Super POD after two weeks of operation.
He reported they have vaccinated approximately 50,000 people despite challenges of vaccine supply
and weather. He advised a second Orange County Super POD was now open at Soka University in
Aliso Viejo. He reported there was a large commitment of City employees at the Disneyland Super
POD with the support of the City Manager. He advised the site is managed by AF&R and the City is
also providing paramedics. He advised first responders who got their first shot at North Net are now
getting their second shots at the Super POD for logistical purposes. He advised Orange County
Health is also providing personnel, but the City will continue to be involved for a while.
Communications Specialist Lauren Gold reported it was one year ago today that the first COVID-19
cases were reported in Los Angeles and Orange County. She advised staff was cautiously optimistic
about a downward trend in case numbers, the positivity rate, and the health equity metric. She
advised the number of hospitalizations was stabilizing both in Orange County and statewide and
noted the County was presently in the purple tier. She advised hospitals were forecast to continue
improving over the next four weeks and should reach 33% of Intensive Care Unit beds being
available by a month from now. She reported it was the first time in several reports where all seven
Anaheim zip codes were trending downwards and specifically noted the dramatic decline in zip code
92804.
Ms. Gold stated staff was cautiously optimistic as there were still deaths being reported in both the
County and City, and there would be more from the winter surge. She stated the messaging is to not
let your guard down, keep doing things to remain safe, and fight COVID-19.
Mayor Pro Tem Faessel advised he was impressed by the 50,000 vaccinations thus far but noted it
was only about 14% of the City's population. He advised not everybody will choose to be vaccinated.
He stated 5,000 a day was a step in the right direction.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Faessel's inquiry, Mr. Vanderpool reported staff was in discussions
about alternatives at Disneyland and elsewhere to find more weather -resistant venues. He advised
staff would keep the City Council and residents updated. He noted concerns of high winds and rain
are real and they are working with the County to address them.
Council Member Diaz began sharing his Council Communications, stopping after Council Member
O'Neil raised a point of order regarding the order of the agenda.
Council Member Valencia expressed his pride in the City and Public Health Task Force's efforts to
combat the virus. He thanked the City's team and noted there were still challenges securing a
vaccine appointment but advised many residents praised the streamlined process on-site. He noted
Latinos in Anaheim were testing positive for COVID-19 at a higher rate and were also significantly
behind in the vaccination rate. He recommended focusing efforts on improving these numbers. He
thanked the City's team for helping get the City back on track and save lives.
Council Member Brandman echoed the comments of his colleagues and encouraged staff to keep up
the great work. He reported people were still leaving him messages scared and concerned but the
City Council Minutes of January 26, 2021
Page 20 of 23
tone had changed to hopeful and eager to get their vaccines as soon as possible. He thanked staff
for helping make the process as seamless as possible for Anaheim and Orange County residents.
Council Member Moreno thanked Anaheim Police Chief Jorge Cisneros and Mr. Vanderpool. He
advised they had recently received a heightened amount of reports about nightclubs remaining in
operation and becoming super -spreader events in violation of State orders. He reported Police Chief
Cisneros and Mr. Vanderpool immediately addressed the matter and expressed hope they would
continue to be diligent about bars and nightclubs hosting events. He reported the events were
promoted on social media and were arrogant and irresponsible. He praised the bars that were acting
responsibly. He advised having 400-500 people at nightclubs without masks puts everyone at risk.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. Lyster reported they do not have City -level data
on the 50,000 people who have been vaccinated at the Disneyland Super POD. He reported they
have requested this from the County to get a clearer idea of how many Anaheim residents have been
vaccinated. He confirmed you have to either work or live in Orange County to be eligible. He advised
he has seen many Anaheim residents and Anaheim -based workers come through the site on days he
has been working there but cannot provide an exact number.
Council Member Moreno advised they did not get City -level data from the County until June 2020 and
noted how shocking it was to see how deeply the pandemic had already entered the City by that
stage. He advised getting the City -level data now was also critical to ensure those areas being the
hardest hit were also getting the vaccine.
Council Member Moreno reported a University of California - San Francisco study found the deadliest
jobs during the pandemic were restaurant and agricultural workers with the chances of death
doubling to 40% and advised Latinos within those industries had a 60% chance of death. He advised
the study showed warehouse and delivery workers were also dying at a higher rate, followed by
grocery and retail employees. He urged the Public Health Task Force and County to get the vaccine
to not only those most at risk for contracting the virus but also those most likely to die from it.
Council Member Moreno reported Latinos make up 45% of those infected by COVID-19 in Orange
County even though they only comprise 35% of the total population. He advised the County has
administered 178,000 doses of vaccine thus far but only 11 % have gone to Latinos. He noted this
was distressing for a city of Latino essential workers and urged the Public Health Task Force to push
hard for mobile clinics in Latino neighborhoods. He praised Orange County Supervisor Doug Chaffee
and his staff for their work in this area and allocating 200 doses directly to the City's hardest-hit area.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. Vanderpool confirmed a staff member can be
on an upcoming conference call about how cities can pick up where counties left off with the
discontinued Project Roomkey.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. Lyster advised City and County staff share a
commitment to bringing vaccines to all areas and particularly those hardest hit. He reported the
County was still working through the hundreds of thousands of people eligible for a vaccine in the
current Phase 1A, which are health care workers, first responders, and those 65 years of age or
older. He advised only a Super POD can assist with so many people. He advised they were working
to bring pop-up clinics to areas where seniors may have a harder time getting to a Super POD and
advised those may also be particularly hard-hit areas. He advised the County was putting the same
emphasis on health equity as the City and noted none of it can come fast enough due to the supply.
Mr. Vanderpool advised he is in almost daily communication with County Executive Officer Frank Kim
and vaccine distribution equity is in almost every conversation and a priority to the County.
City Council Minutes of January 26, 2021
Page 21 of 23
Council Member Moreno urged residents to communicate with the County Board of Supervisors to
relay how Anaheim has been especially hard hit by the pandemic.
Council Member Moreno reported on a study from Texas which found non-smoking individuals who
have contracted COVID-19, regardless of symptom level, have lungs that look like they have smoked
for over 20 years. He encouraged those who have had COVID-19 to include chest X-rays in their
future regular health care to monitor the long-term damage wrought by the virus.
Council Member Moreno reported even those who have been vaccinated can still spread COVID-19
so they need to continue to be cognizant of best practices such as social distancing. He urged Mr.
Lyster to encourage the vaccinated population to remain diligent about protecting others from the
spread.
Council Member Valencia echoed Council Member Moreno's acknowledgment of the collaboration
between the City and the County and noted the County has put forth a righteous effort.
In response to Council Member Valencia's inquiry, Mr. Lyster reported the City's vaccination process
began with AF&R in late December 2020 with the creation of the North Net POD. He advised North
Net was one of three early PODs in the County, along with ones in Huntington Beach and Irvine. He
advised Anaheim vaccinated 5,000 people at its relatively small site led by AF&R with support from
the City Manager and the fire agencies from the cities of Fullerton, Brea, Orange, and others. He
advised the North Net team, and the City's Community Services staff, became the core launch team
for the Disneyland Super POD. He advised many County staff have joined them and he praised their
efforts for allowing the Super POD to succeed. He reported the task force and Mr. Vanderpool have
pledged whatever is needed to make it successful.
Informational item - No action taken.
Council Member Brandman left the Council Chamber at 7:20 P.M. and joined the remainder of the
meeting via teleconference.
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS:
City Attorney Robert Fabela reported Closed Session Item No. 22 was not heard.
PUBLIC COMMENTS (non-aaenda items): None
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS/AGENDA REQUESTS:
Mayor Pro Tem Faessel recognized the virtual opening of Be Well OC, a public/private partnership
between the County and healthcare providers, of an approximately 100 -bed facility to provide mental
health care services, and he looked forward to a tour when possible. He reported his participation in a
mask distribution to seniors at the Downtown Anaheim Community Center and as well as at a
meeting regarding a new nonprofit foundation that could add to feeding hungry families in Anaheim,
with more information to come. He asked everyone to be safe every day.
Council Member Diaz announced two Zoom virtual community meetings on January 27 and February
4 at 6:00 P.M. regarding a proposed mixed-use, mixed -income development on the southeast corner
of Beach Blvd. and Lincoln Ave. For more details, residents can contact Kevin Clausen at 714-765
4306. Council Member Diaz announced the new Community Care Response Team had begun its
City Council Minutes of January 26, 2021
Page 22 of 23
work and responded to over 250 calls for service, about 50 of which would have previously had a law
enforcement response. He encouraged residents to report homeless issues by calling 714-7820-9090
or send a report through Anaheim Anytime. He reminded residents that the Anaheim Public Library is
a source for many needs and activities, the Haskett Library is open most weekdays 11:00 A.M. — 7:00
P.M., a food distribution would be on January 28 from 3:00 P.M. — 5:00 P.M., and more information
could be found at www.anaheim.net/library.
Council Member Moreno reminded everyone to stay vigilant until all people are vaccinated or there is
enough community immunity to help avoid regressing and to battle the different strains of the virus.
He asked the community to report businesses such as nightclubs and bars that were operating
outside the regulations and thanked Chief Cisneros for addressing previous reports. He requested
the City Manager include information in the next COVID-10 update regarding where Anaheim stands
within the federal proposals for $350 billion to reimburse states and cities to help with their budgets,
rent relief, and moratorium extensions, as well as the $160 billion for safe school reopenings. He
asked everyone to communicate with the Board of Supervisors to ensure equity in vaccine
distribution, thanked the Public Health Task Force for their work, and reminded them to ensure voices
were heard at the County level. He expressed his appreciation of staff and volunteers for all their
work and efforts over the past year.
Council Member Valencia expressed his appreciation to his colleagues for supporting his boards and
commissions recommendations, thanked all the applicants, and thanked the new and current
appointees for their eagerness to serve the City. He reported his attendance at an Orange County
Water District (OCWD) Zoom forum focused on access to affordable and clean water for residents,
hosted by Fullerton Council Member Ahmad Zahra and Council Member/OCWD Director Jordan
Brandman, and thanked Anaheim Public Utilities for their efforts in this regard. He reiterated the
importance of taking precautions against the COVID-19 virus.
Mayor Sidhu reiterated that COVID-19 was not over and encouraged everyone to remain vigilant,
keep a six-foot distance, wear masks, not host parties, and stay home as much as possible to help
save lives. If visiting open businesses, please follow guidelines to ensure numbers continue to
reduce. He noted vaccine distribution is being operated by the County, almost 5,000 per day are
being administered in Anaheim, and more distribution, including to neighborhoods, will be
forthcoming. He suggested several facilities were available to assist with massive vaccination plans,
pending state, and federal guidelines and distribution, and the need for health care workers to
administer the vaccines. He applauded the efforts of staff and volunteers in Anaheim in the
distribution.
Council Member Brandman thanked and agreed with Mayor Sidhu on his comments. He thanked
Council Member Valencia for his kind words and for attending the OCWD town hall on water and
thanked the staff of Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Fullerton. He emphasized vigilance and getting through
the pandemic together through hard work.
City Council Minutes of January 26, 2021
Page 23 of 23
ADJOURNMENT:
At 7:42 P.M., with no further business before the Council, Mayor Sidhu adjourned the City Council
meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
4CIer
ss, CMC
City
Public Comment
From: Edgar Arellano
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 6:02 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: I agree with Diaz re: wall height code 18.?
Yes. Great idea
Public Comment
From: Matthew Gelfand <admin@caforhomes.org> on behalf of matt@caforhomes.org
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 11:39 PM
To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Stephen Faessel; dbarnes@anaheim.net; Jordan Brandman; Jose
Moreno; Avelino Valencia; Trevor O'Neil; Public Comment
Cc: Ted White; Robert Fabela
Subject: Correspondence from Californians for Homeownership
Attachments: 2021-1-25 - Californians Letter to City Council.pdf
To the City Council:
Please see the attached correspondence regarding Agenda Item 16 being considered at your upcoming meeting.
Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand
Matthew Gelfand
Counsel, Californians for Homeownership
525 S. Virgil Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90020
nlG tI:.{ r>cGiforteoraaes.ori
...........
Tel: (213) 739-8206
Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that works to address California's housing crisis through
impact litigation and other legal tools.
0NIE
CALIFORNIANS FOR
HOMEOWNERSHIP
January 25, 2021
VIA EMAIL
City Council
City of Anaheim
200 S Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
Email: hsidhu@anaheim.net; sfaessel@anaheim.net; jodiaz@anaheim.net;
jbrandman@anaheim.net; jmoreno@anaheim.net; avalencia@anaheim.net;
toneil@anaheim.net; publiccomment@anaheim.net
RE: January 26, 2021 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 16
To the City Council:
MATTHEW GELFAND, COUNSEL
MATT@CAFORHOM ES.ORG
TEL: (213) 739-8206
Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization devoted to using
legal tools to address California's housing crisis. I am writing as part of our work monitoring local
compliance with Government Code Section 66300, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. This letter
follows up on our May 26, June 8, July 6, and July 20 letters to the Planning Commission on the
same subject.
At your January 26 meeting, you will consider the second reading of an ordinance that
would increase parking requirements in the City. It is puzzling that the City is considering
increasing parking requirements despite the near -universal agreement among today's professional
planners that minimum parking requirements are misguided, bad policy. Minimum parking
requirements lead to increased traffic and vehicle use; they don't help anything.
In any event, the City's draft ordinance is unlawful under the Housing Crisis Act because
it would "lessen the intensity of housing" developable on the City's residential lots. See Gov.
Code § 66300(b)(1)(A). And the City has conducted an inadequate review of its environmental
impacts. Accordingly, we are considering litigation against the City to invalidate the ordinance
and challenge its environmental review if it is adopted.
525 S. Virgil Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90020
Our concerns are detailed in the attached letters to the Planning Commission. We urge you
January 25, 2021
Page 2
to abandon this misguided and outdated effort.
Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand
cc: Ted White, Planning and Building Director (by email to tedwhite@anaheim.net)
Robert Fabela, Esq., City Attorney (by email to rfabela@anaheim.net)
525 S. Virgil Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90020 CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP
ATTACHMENT
0NIE
CALIFORNIANS FOR
HOMEOWNERSHIP
May 26, 2020
VIA EMAIL
Planning Commission
City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
1 st Floor, Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Email: jarmst253�; kimberly.keys6l mlieberman
natalieaeek, ; rmullead dhiruhv
awhitstmanningcommission ana eim.net
RE: May 27, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting, Agenda Item 4.
To the Planning Commission:
MATTHEW GELFAND, COUNSEL
MATT@CAFORHOM ES.ORG
TEL: (213) 739-8206
Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization devoted to using
legal tools to address California's housing crisis. I am writing as part of our work monitoring local
compliance with Government Code Section 66300, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which was
established by SB 330, Stats. 2019 c. 659 § 13.
At your May 27 meeting, you will discuss an ordinance that increases parking requirements
for new residential units in the City. The ordinance violates the Housing Crisis Act because it
lessens the intensity of residential use allowed in the City's residential zones. We urge you to
reject this unlawful proposal.
Under the Housing Crisis Act, an "affected city" is prohibited from "enact[ing] a
development policy, standard, or condition that would have any of the following
effects:... [R]educing the intensity of land use within an existing general plan land use
designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning district below what was allowed under
the land use designation and zoning ordinances of the affected county or affected city, as
applicable, as in effect on January 1, 2018 ...." Gov. Code § 66300(b)(1)(A). "For purposes of
this subparagraph, `less intensive use' includes, but is not limited to, reductions to height, density,
or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, or new or increased
setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot coverage limitations, or
anything that would lessen the intensity of housing." Id.
525 S. Virgil Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90020
May 26, 2020
Page 2
Anaheim has been deemed an "affected city" by the state Department of Housing and
Community Development.'
The proposed ordinance would make three changes increasing the City's residential
parking requirements:
• It would increase the parking requirements for homes with four or more bedrooms in
the RS -4 Zone. Proposed A.M.C. § 18.42.030.0403.
• It would redefine "bedroom" throughout the City's residential zones to increase the
number of "bedrooms" in typical floorplans, thus increasing parking requirements. Proposed
A.M.C. § 18.42.030.0102.
• It would reduce by 80% the number of parking spaces that can be provided in a tandem
configuration, requiring a drastic increase in the space dedicated to parking with no increase in the
number of parking spaces actually available to residents. Proposed A.M.C. § 18.42.030.0205.
These changes violate the Housing Crisis Act because they have the effect of lessening the
intensity of housing that can be developed in the City's residential zones in at least two ways.
First, by increasing parking requirements and increasing the amount of space that must be
dedicated per parking space (by limiting tandem parking), the ordinance would increase the
amount of lot space and structural footprint dedicated to parking. By necessity, this would
decrease the lot space and structural footprint that can be dedicated to housing, resulting in a
decrease in housing units or bedrooms built per square foot of lot space or enclosed space. The
staff report before you acknowledges that "developable land in Anaheim is becoming harder to
find while the demand on housing continues to increase," but puzzlingly requires developers to
dedicate more space to parking and less to housing.
Second, they would drastically increase the per-unit cost of developing a typical
multifamily housing project in the City. The impact of parking requirements on residential
development costs is well-documented. The cost of developing a single parking space in a
multifamily dwelling's parking garage is $25,000–$50,000.3 One of the stated purposes of the
ordinance is to increase by 60% (from 1.25 spaces/unit to 2 spaces/unit) the parking requirements
for a popular studio apartment floorplan commonly built by developers. For a multifamily building
with 50 such units, the increase in costs could reach $1,500,000. Because parking requirements
mandate the above -market production of parking—they would be unnecessary otherwise
builders cannot recoup these costs by charging directly for parking. The result of this ordinance
would be a reduction in unit or bedroom counts of future proposed projects to allow those projects
to "pencil out."
https://www. hcd. ca. gov/community-development/docs/Affected-Cities.pdf.
See Donald Shoup, The High Cost of Free Parking, Updated Edition (2011).
https://www. strongtowns. org/journal/2018/ 11/20/the-many-costs-of-too-much-parking.
525 S. Virgil Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90020 CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP
May 26, 2020
Page 3
We urge you to abandon this unlawful plan. To allow us to monitor the City's conduct, we
request that the City include us on the notice list for all future public meetings regarding this
ordinance or any other change to the City's residential parking requirements.
Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand
cc: Nick Taylor, Associate Planner (by email to njtaylor@anaheim.net)
David See, Principal Planner (by email to dsee@anaheim.net)
Robert Fabela, Esq., City Attorney (by email to rfabela@anaheim.net)
525 S. Virgil Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90020 CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP
0NIE
CALIFORNIANS FOR
HOMEOWNERSHIP
June 8, 2020
VIA EMAIL
Planning Commission
City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
1 st Floor, Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Email: jarms kimberly.keys mlieberma
natalieameek rmullead dhiruh
awhitst p anningcommission@anaheim.ne
RE: June 8, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting, Agenda Item 4
To the Planning Commission:
MATTHEW GELFAND, COUNSEL
MATT@CAFORHOM ES.ORG
TEL: (213) 739-8206
Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization devoted to using
legal tools to address California's housing crisis. I am writing as part of our work monitoring local
compliance with Government Code Section 66300, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which was
established by SB 330, Stats. 2019 c. 659 § 13. This letter follows up on our May 26 letter on the
same subject.
At your June 8 meeting, you will again discuss an ordinance that increases parking
requirements for new residential units in the City. As we explained in our prior letter, the
ordinance violates the Housing Crisis Act because it lessens the intensity of residential use allowed
in the City's residential zones.
The new staff report before you suggests that the ordinance is lawful because it imposes
only objective criteria and does not limit the number of housing units that can be approved. Neither
of those features changes the fact that the ordinance would unlawfully lessen the intensity of
housing that can be developed in the City's residential zones. Several of the policies that are
expressly listed in Government Code Section 66300(b)(1)(A)including reductions in height or
floor area ratio and increased open space and lot coverage requirements—can be implemented
without reducing unit count, through reductions in unit size, bedroom count, and the like. Which
is exactly what developers will have to do in Anaheim to build units on the same lot or building
footprint, or with the same amount of money. The Legislature designed the Housing Crisis Act to
cover this broad range of changes, not simply reductions in density.
The staff report also confusingly references the Housing Crisis Act's limitations on
moratoria and changes to density, which are not the subject of our correspondence.
525 S. Virgil Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90020
May 26, 2020
Page 2
Additionally, the staff report refers to a discussion with staff at the Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD). With the exception of the Housing Crisis Act's limitations
on moratoria, HCD is not authorized to permit a local jurisdiction to ignore the Act's restrictions.
The proposed ordinance is unlawful.
The City's environmental review of the proposed ordinance is also insufficient. The staff
report before you appears to acknowledge that the ordinance is a "project" for the purposes of
CEQA, but asks you to determine that the ordinance qualifies for the "common sense" exception
under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). But the ordinance does not qualify for the "common
sense" exception because it cannot "be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the
[ordinance] may have a significant effect on the environment ...." To the contrary, a cursory
review suggests that the ordinance could have a significant impact on the environment, for at least
two reasons.
First, the region is operating at a significant housing deficit. Overcrowded dwelling units
and homelessness are common. By reducing the buildable number of units and bedrooms in the
City, for the reasons identified above, the City will push the effort to meet regional housing needs
farther from the region's j ob centers, increasing emissions and other environmental impacts driven
by distant commutes. This push will be especially acute for larger families, who bear the highest
burdens under the proposed ordinance.
Second, by forcing developers to build parking at levels above the market demand for
parking, the City is forcing developers and residents alike to pay for parking they might not
otherwise choose to use. This incentivizes and subsidizes the use of personal automobiles even
for those who would otherwise be inclined to use public transit. Anaheim is a transit -rich city,
with a strong bus network provided by OCTA and ART. And because of the City's combined
access to both the Metrolink and Amtrak rail trunk lines, the City has better public transit access
to the region's major job center in Downtown Los Angeles than many Los Angeles County
communities. At the center of the City's transit infrastructure is ARTIC, a crown jewel in Southern
California's multimodal transit system and a future connection point to the state's high-speed rail
system. The City's decision to incentivize car use despite its strong public transit connections will
have a serious environmental impact.
If the City moves forward with this unlawful proposal, we may initiate litigation against
the City.
Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand
cc: Nick Taylor, Associate Planner (by email to njtaylor@anaheim.net)
David See, Principal Planner (by email to dsee@anaheim.net)
Robert Fabela, Esq., City Attorney (by email to rfabela@anaheim.net)
525 S. Virgil Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90020 CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP
0NIE
CALIFORNIANS FOR
HOMEOWNERSHIP
July 6, 2020
VIA EMAIL
Planning Commission
City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
1 st Floor, Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Email: ja-ms Wkimberly.keys6l mliebnatalieameermullead hawhitst ningcommission@anaheim.ne
RE: July 6, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting, Agenda Item 3.
To the Planning Commission:
MATTHEW GELFAND, COUNSEL
MATT@CAFORHOM ES.ORG
TEL: (213) 739-8206
Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization devoted to using
legal tools to address California's housing crisis. I am writing as part of our work monitoring local
compliance with Government Code Section 66300, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. This letter
follows up on our May 26 and June 8 letters on the same subject.
At your July 6 meeting, you will again discuss an ordinance that would increase parking
requirements for new residential units in the City. For the reasons identified in our prior letters,
the ordinance violates the Housing Crisis Act, and the environmental review conducted by the City
has been insufficient. If the City moves forward with this unlawful proposal, we may initiate
litigation against the City to invalidate these changes.
We write now to make a comment based on our further review of staff's account of their
discussion with staff at the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
The staff report says:
HCD believes that the proposed amendments would not be in conflict with the
following criteria for SB 330:
a) change the General Plan or zoning to reduce density
b) impose a moratorium on housing
c) impose design standards that are not objective, or
d) limit number of housing units that can be approved
This appears to be a strawman. We did not suggest that the City's ordinance would do any
of those thin&s. Instead, we expressed concerns that the ordinance would unlawfully "lessen the
525 S. Virgil Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90020
July 6, 2020
Page 2
intensity of housing" developable on the City's residential lots. See Gov. Code § 66300(b)(1)(A).
It seems that staff's discussion with HCD ignored the law's prohibition on "lessen[ing] the
intensity of housing" and instead focused on density, presumably because the ordinance is tailor-
made to "lessen the intensity of housing" without decreasing the stated density of a zoning district.
The Legislature structured the Housing Crisis Act to prohibit any change that would "lessen the
intensity of housing"—and not just reductions in density—precisely to handle these sorts of
backdoor exclusionary zoning efforts.
In any event, as we have said, HCD is not authorized to permit a local jurisdiction to ignore
the Act's restrictions on "lessen[ing] the intensity of housing." The proposed ordinance is
unlawful and exposes the City to the serious risk of litigation.
Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand
cc: Nick Taylor, Associate Planner (by email to njtaylor@anaheim.net)
David See, Principal Planner (by email to dsee@anaheim.net)
Robert Fabela, Esq., City Attorney (by email to rfabela@anaheim.net)
525 S. Virgil Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90020 CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP
WINE
-- MATTHEW GELFAND, COUNSEL
■'■CALIFORNIANS FOR MATT@CAFORHOMES.ORG
HOMEOWNERSHIP TEL: (213) 739-8206
July 20, 2020
VIA EMAIL
Planning Commission
City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
1 st Floor, Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Email: jarms kimberly.keylieberma
natalieameeksM=planrningcommission@anahei
rmullea iruh
awhitst m.ne-
RE: July 20, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting, Agenda Item 2.
To the Planning Commission:
Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization devoted to using
legal tools to address California's housing crisis. I am writing as part of our work monitoring local
compliance with Government Code Section 66300, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. This letter
follows up on our May 26, June 8, and July 6 letters on the same subject.
At your July 20 meeting, you will again discuss an ordinance that would increase parking
requirements for new residential units in the City. For the reasons identified in our prior letters,
the ordinance violates the Housing Crisis Act. The City has never addressed our actual concern
regarding the ordinance's compliance with the Act, instead arguing that the ordinance is consistent
with other aspects of the Act that we never raised as concerns.
The environmental review conducted by the City has also been insufficient. The City has
never made any effort to argue otherwise.
If the City moves forward with this unlawful ordinance, we may initiate litigation against
the City to invalidate it.
Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand
cc: Nick Taylor, Associate Planner (by email to njtaylor@anaheim.net)
David See, Principal Planner (by email to dsee@anaheim.net)
Robert Fabela, Esq., City Attorney (by email to rfabela@anaheim.net)
525 S. Virgil Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90020
Public Comment
From: Keith Olesen
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 8:44 AM
To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Stephen Faessel; Jennifer Diaz; Jordan Brandman; Trevor O'Neil;
Avelino Valencia; Jose Moreno
Cc: Jodie Mosley; Kathy Tran; Sally Feldhaus; Carol Jang; Carol Sundman; Gloria Maae; Vic
Real; Ab Abdulrahman; Heather Porretta; Rod Pierson; Judy Fletcher; ryan
Tracy Urueta; Amanda Edinger; Public Comment
Subject: Re: Item 16
Good morning Mayor and City Council Members -
My plan was to write a note to you this morning regarding the tandem parking issue, however given Amanda's
perfectly articulated statement I'll just add a few comments on the subject.
First, tandem parking has been an issue for decades in the downtown area. It has created parking problems not
solved them. In the 1980's when developers were demolishing affordable single family homes to build 4-plex
rental units tandem parking was a favorite feature exploited by developers at the expense of quality of life in our
neighborhoods. In a perfect world tandem parking would not be allowed at all. A 20% cap is, as Amanda stated,
a "fair compromise". Anything beyond that trades quality of life in our neighborhoods for developer profits.
And, again as stated below, the cap on tandem parking will have absolutely no impact on a developers decision
to build in Anaheim. What it will do is require a higher quality development—something Anaheim and all
Anaheim residents deserve.
All too often our development standards are minimal at best. Eliminating the cap on tandem parking guarantees
only one thing the quality of allowable developments in Anaheim will be lowered substantially and the quality
of life in our residential neighborhoods will be negatively impacted to a very significant degree.
Let's learn from the mistakes of the past. Let's put the quality of life in our residential neighborhoods at the top
of our list of priorities. I urge you to support the 20% cap on tandem parking.
Thank you,
Keith Olesen
District 3 Resident
On Jan 25, 2021, at 7:31 PM, Amanda wrote:
Mayor Sidhu and Council Members,
As a lifelong resident of West Anaheim who has advocated for quality residential
projects, I ask you to please reconsider your vote on item 16 related to parking
modifications in residential developments.
At the first reading of this ordinance at the January 12 meeting, the council voted 5-2
(Faessel and Moreno voting no) to REMOVE the 20% cap on tandem parking.
This process started back in 2018 and involved two workshops, resident input, staff
input and the unanimous approval of all seven planning commissioners. As stated in the
staff report, tandem parking is not highly desired among home buyers. The
inconvenience often results in residents choosing to park off site rather than utilizing
tandem parking spaces.
The 20% cap is a fair compromise between developers and residents and helps to
ensure that our new residential projects are a quality product. Staff stated in their report
that "it is advisable and reasonable to have a cap on the maximum amount of tandem
parking to ensure there is a mix of parking options within a project and to lessen the
potential impact for off-site parking."
The cap on tandem parking will not significantly impact whether developers build in
Anaheim. Not supporting the 20% cap, however, will significantly impact the quality of
life for residents citywide.
Please support the 20% cap on tandem parking.
Thank you.
Amanda Edinger
District 1 resident
Public Comment
From: jodiemosley
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 8:51 AM
To: Keith Olesen; Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Stephen Faessel; Jennifer Diaz; Jordan Brandman;
Trevor O'Neil; Avelino Valencia; Jose Moreno
Cc: Kathy Tran; Sally Feldhaus; Carol Jang; Carol Sundman; Gloria Maae; Vic Real; Ab
Abdulrahman; Heather Porretta; Rod Pierson; Judy Fletcher; ryane Tracy
Urueta; Amanda Edinger; Public Comment
Subject: Re: Item 16
Please cap the tandem parking at 20%. There is no good reason why anyone wouldn't.
Please look to the future of west Anaheim, remember the past poor planning mistakes and the consequences
they created.
I believe its in your hands to set the rules, and its up to you but it is district 1 residents that will live in the
choices you make.
Please, remember what WE want.
Thank you.
Jodie Mosley
Senn from my "l, obile .5G Device
-------- Original message --------
From: Keith Olesen .
Date: 1/26/21 8:43 AM (GMT -08:00)
To: hsidhu@anaheim.net, Stephen Faessel <sfaessel@anaheim.net>, jdiaz@anaheim.net, Jordan Brandman
<jbrandman@anaheim.net>, toneil@anaheim.net, avalencia@anaheim.net, Jose Moreno
<j moreno@anaheim. net>
Cc: Jodie Mosley Kathy Tran Sally Feldhaus
Carol Jang Carol Sundman Gloria
Maae Vic Real Ab Abdulrahman
Heather Porretta - Rod Pierson Judy Fletcher
ryan Tracy Urueta Amanda
Edinger publiccomment@anaheim.net
Subject: Re: Item 16
Good morning Mayor and City Council Members -
My plan was to write a note to you this morning regarding the tandem parking issue, however given Amanda's
perfectly articulated statement I'll just add a few comments on the subject.
First, tandem parking has been an issue for decades in the downtown area. It has created parking problems not
solved them. In the 1980's when developers were demolishing affordable single family homes to build 4-plex
rental units tandem parking was a favorite feature exploited by developers at the expense of quality of life in our
neighborhoods. In a perfect world tandem parking would not be allowed at all. A 20% cap is, as Amanda stated,
a "fair compromise". Anything beyond that trades quality of life in our neighborhoods for developer profits.
And, again as stated below, the cap on tandem parking will have absolutely no impact on a developers decision
to build in Anaheim. What it will do is require a higher quality development—something Anaheim and all
Anaheim residents deserve.
All too often our development standards are minimal at best. Eliminating the cap on tandem parking guarantees
only one thing the quality of allowable developments in Anaheim will be lowered substantially and the quality
of life in our residential neighborhoods will be negatively impacted to a very significant degree.
Let's learn from the mistakes of the past. Let's put the quality of life in our residential neighborhoods at the top
of our list of priorities. I urge you to support the 20% cap on tandem parking.
Thank you,
Keith Olesen
District 3 Resident
On Jan 25, 2021, at 7:31 PM, Amanda wrote:
Mayor Sidhu and Council Members,
As a lifelong resident of West Anaheim who has advocated for quality residential
projects, I ask you to please reconsider your vote on item 16 related to parking
modifications in residential developments.
At the first reading of this ordinance at the January 12 meeting, the council voted 5-2
(Faessel and Moreno voting no) to REMOVE the 20% cap on tandem parking.
This process started back in 2018 and involved two workshops, resident input, staff
input and the unanimous approval of all seven planning commissioners. As stated in the
staff report, tandem parking is not highly desired among home buyers. The
inconvenience often results in residents choosing to park off site rather than utilizing
tandem parking spaces.
The 20% cap is a fair compromise between developers and residents and helps to
ensure that our new residential projects are a quality product. Staff stated in their report
that "it is advisable and reasonable to have a cap on the maximum amount of tandem
parking to ensure there is a mix of parking options within a project and to lessen the
potential impact for off-site parking."
The cap on tandem parking will not significantly impact whether developers build in
Anaheim. Not supporting the 20% cap, however, will significantly impact the quality of
life for residents citywide.
Please support the 20% cap on tandem parking.
Thank you.
Amanda Edinger
District 1 resident
Public Comment
From: Judy Fletcher
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 10:06 AM
To: Keith Olesen; Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Stephen Faessel; Jennifer Diaz; Jordan Brandman;
Trevor O'Neil; Avelino Valencia; Jose Moreno; jodiemosley
Cc: Kathy Tran; Sally Feldhaus; Carol Jang; Carol Sundman; Gloria Maae; Vic Real; Ab
Abdulrahman; Heather Porretta; Rod Pierson; ryan Tracy Urueta; Amanda
Edinger; Public Comment
Subject: Re: Item 16
Dear Mayor and Council members,
Please cap tandem parking at 20%. It truly is a less desirable parking arrangement for anyone.
My son lived at a condo complex with tandem parking. It was a pain. It was very unhandy for the
person parked "further in" causing the juggling of cars and ultimately - just finding a place to park
somewhere else. In the case of West Anaheim - that would be our neighborhoods. This is
unacceptable.
Please consider the quality of life here in West Anaheim and cap tandem parking at 20%
Sincerely,
Judy and Allan Fletcher
West Anaheim since 1987
On Tuesday, January 26, 2021, 08:51:25 AM PST, jodiemosley
wrote:
Please cap the tandem parking at 20%. There is no good reason why anyone wouldn't.
Please look to the future of west Anaheim, remember the past poor planning mistakes and the consequences they
created.
I believe its in your hands to set the rules, and its up to you but it is district 1 residents that will live in the choices you
make.
Please, remember what WE want.
Thank you.
Jodie Mosley
Sent from my 1 Muablle 5G IDev�ce
-------- Original message --------
From: Keith Olesen
Date: 1/26/21 8:43 AM (GMT -08:00)
To: hsidhu@anaheim.net, Stephen Faessel <sfaessel@anaheim.net>, jdiaz@anaheim.net, Jordan Brandman
<jbrandman@anaheim.net>, toneil@anaheim.net, avalencia@anaheim.net, Jose Moreno <jmoreno@anaheim.net>
Cc: Jodie Mosley Kathy Tran Sally Feldhaus
Carol Jang Carol Sundman Gloria Maae
Vic Real - Ab Abdulrahman feather Porretta
Rod Pierson _ Judy Fletcher
ryan Tracy Urueta Amanda Edinger
publiccomment@anaheim.net
Subject: Re: Item 16
Good morning Mayor and City Council Members -
My plan was to write a note to you this morning regarding the tandem parking issue, however given Amanda's perfectly
articulated statement I'll just add a few comments on the subject.
First, tandem parking has been an issue for decades in the downtown area. It has created parking problems not solved
them. In the 1980's when developers were demolishing affordable single family homes to build 4-plex rental units tandem
parking was a favorite feature exploited by developers at the expense of quality of life in our neighborhoods. In a perfect
world tandem parking would not be allowed at all. A 20% cap is, as Amanda stated, a "fair compromise". Anything beyond
that trades quality of life in our neighborhoods for developer profits. And, again as stated below, the cap on tandem
parking will have absolutely no impact on a developers decision to build in Anaheim. What it will do is require a higher
quality development—something Anaheim and all Anaheim residents deserve.
All too often our development standards are minimal at best. Eliminating the cap on tandem parking guarantees only one
thing—the quality of allowable developments in Anaheim will be lowered substantially and the quality of life in our
residential neighborhoods will be negatively impacted to a very significant degree.
Let's learn from the mistakes of the past. Let's put the quality of life in our residential neighborhoods at the top of our list of
priorities. I urge you to support the 20% cap on tandem parking.
Thank you,
Keith Olesen
District 3 Resident
On Jan 25, 2021, at 7:31 PM, Amanda
Mayor Sidhu and Council Members,
wrote:
As a lifelong resident of West Anaheim who has advocated for quality residential
projects, I ask you to please reconsider your vote on item 16 related to parking
modifications in residential developments.
At the first reading of this ordinance at the January 12 meeting, the council voted 5-2
(Faessel and Moreno voting no) to REMOVE the 20% cap on tandem parking.
This process started back in 2018 and involved two workshops, resident input, staff
input and the unanimous approval of all seven planning commissioners. As stated in the
staff report, tandem parking is not highly desired among home buyers. The
inconvenience often results in residents choosing to park off site rather than utilizing
tandem parking spaces.
The 20% cap is a fair compromise between developers and residents and helps to
ensure that our new residential projects are a quality product. Staff stated in their report
that "it is advisable and reasonable to have a cap on the maximum amount of tandem
parking to ensure there is a mix of parking options within a project and to lessen the
potential impact for off-site parking."
The cap on tandem parking will not significantly impact whether developers build in
Anaheim. Not supporting the 20% cap, however, will significantly impact the quality of
life for residents citywide.
Please support the 20% cap on tandem parking.
Thank you.
Amanda Edinger
District 1 resident
Public Comment
From:
Sent:
To:
Lauren Torres
Tuesday, January 26, 2021 12:37 PM
Public Comment
Subject: FW: Please Keep 20% Tandem Parking
From: Stephan Muecke
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 202112:31 PM
To: Council <c¢aun_cil_(nhient>
Subject: Please Keep 20% Tandem Parking
Hi, I am writing to you as a resident of District 1. 1 as that the council please re -instate the 20% tandem parking cap as it
is a fair compromise for residents and builders.
Regards,
Stephan Muecke
owl
Accountant 11, A/R
NNE
Notable News Read the lclesNexGen(W Advisors hog rcccwi-ert deyeltme my in
healthcare with President Biden's Healthcare e Policv AL�end a
This message, and any documents attached hereto, may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the
addressee(s) named above or may contain information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for
delivering it to the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any
copies immediately thereafter. Thank you for your cooperation.
Public Comment
From:
Lauren Torres
Sent:
Tuesday, January 26, 2021 12:37 PM
To:
Public Comment
Subject:
FW: Tandem parking
From: Brandon Nguyen
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 202111:51 AM
To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor) Council <cauncii................................>
_.._ __.
Subject: Tandem parking
Mayor Sidhu and Council Members, As a resident of West Anaheim who has advocated for quality residential
projects, I ask you to please reconsider your vote on item 16 related to parking modifications in residential
developments. At the first reading of this ordinance at the January 12 meeting, the council voted 5-2 (Faessel
and Moreno voting no) to REMOVE the 20% cap on tandem parking.
This process started back in 2018 and involved two workshops, resident input, staff input and the unanimous
approval of all seven planning commissioners. As stated in the staff report, tandem parking is not highly desired
among home buyers. The inconvenience often results in residents choosing to park off site rather than utilizing
tandem parking spaces.
The 20% cap is a fair compromise between developers and residents and helps to ensure that our new
residential projects are a quality product. Staff stated in their report that "it is advisable and reasonable to have
a cap on the maximum amount of tandem parking to ensure there is a mix of parking options within a project
and to lessen the potential impact for off-site parking."
The cap on tandem parking will not significantly impact whether developers build in Anaheim. Not supporting
the 20% cap, however, will significantly impact the quality of life for residents citywide.
Please support the 20% cap on tandem parking.
Thank you.
Brandon Nguyen
District 1 resident
Public Comment
From:
Tasheena Boyce
Sent:
Monday, January 25, 2021 2:53 PM
To:
Public Comment
Subject:
La Palma Park Restrooms
Hello
Please open the bathrooms at La Palma park. I would like to be able to take my family to the park to enjoy the
park safely - which involves washing hands. Other parks we have visited in Anaheim are not only unlocked but
fully stocked with soap and toiletries.
Thank you,
Tasheena B - resident of District 4