01/11/2022ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2022
TELECONFERENCE NOTICE
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953, Subdivision (b), the regular meeting included
teleconference participation by Council Member Jose Diaz from: 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., 7t" Floor,
Anaheim, CA 92805. This Notice and Agenda were posted at the teleconference location. Public
comment on the agenda from this address was allowed pursuant to Government Code Section
54954.3.
The regular meeting of January 11, 2022 was called to order at 3:03 P.M. in the Council Chamber of
Anaheim City Hail, iocated at 200 S. Anaheirn Boulevard. The meeting notice, agenda, and related
materials were duly posted on January 6, 2022.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Harry Sidhu and Council Members Trevor O'Neil, Gloria Ma'ae,
Avelino Valencia, and Stephen Faessel (in person). Council Member
Jose Diaz (via teleconference). Council Member Jose F. Moreno joined
the meeting in person at 3:12 P.M.
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 Closed Session Item No. 01 pertained to two recent
challenges by the California Housing and Community Development Department, specifically the City's
transitional housing program/Grandma's House of Hope and the stadium transaction.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:
City Clerk Theresa Bass reported that a total of nine (9) public comments were received electronically
prior to 1:00 P.M. related to Closed Session. [A final total of 11 public comments was received
electronically related to Closed Session, distributed to the City Council, and made part of the official
record]. — See Appendix.
Jackie Garibay encouraged City Council to represent Anaheim residents in their opposition to
Grandma's House of Hope. She noted she lives directly behind one of Grandma's House of Hope's
facilities and noted residents are not friendly with neighbors. She believed Je'Net Kreitner was
deceptive and one-sided in her interviews with local television stations and encouraged City Council
to fight for residents.
Carlos Garcia reported he lives adjacent to the proposed property for the transitional housing
development. He expressed concern regarding the way City Council and the City Manager handled
today's meeting, noting there was little public notification, and encouraged the City to do better in the
future. He expressed concern this sets precedent for other organizations to use the State to threaten
the City to concede. He encouraged City Council to fight for its residents.
Cheryl Pebley thanked City Council for denying the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed
transitional housing project. She advised the uncalled-for letter sent to the City by the State was a
slap in the face to the City Council. She expressed outrage that the State overruled the ruling of the
City Council. She advised residents are being discriminated against and limits must be set regarding
City Council Minutes of January 11, 2022
Page 2 of 15
how many transitional homes can operate in any given area. She encouraged City Council to put its
foot down and stop the destruction of family neighborhoods.
Pat Pebley advised the only people being discriminated against are the homeowners in the area who
are fighting to preserve family neighborhoods. She noted she found the letter from the State highly
demeaning and threatening. She advised Anaheim has spent millions supporting the underprivileged
and found it interesting that Ms. Kreitner did not mention the other properties City Council has
approved in her interview with Channel 4 news. She praised City Council for trying to protect its
residents and encouraged them to pursue litigation against the State.
Mary Dragieff reported there are 26 group homes within a half -mile radius of her home and noted
residents do not appreciate the neighborhood becoming commercialized. She advised Grandma's
House of Hope is funded by the State and the Health Department. She noted when Ms. Kreitner
contacted the State, she threw the residents of the neighborhood under the bus. She inquired how
the State can be impartial when it is the one funding the group home and noted she believes a
conflict of interest exists. She encouraged City Council to protect the community and fight back for
common sense, control, oversight, and accountability over Grandma's House of Hope and these type
of group homes in general.
Shelly Nichols thanked City Council for supporting residents and noted residents felt heard by the
City Council. She advised the residents' goal is to find a balance between the State and the City
Council. She encouraged City Council to stand for pausing to understand what is happening with
group homes in the City. She volunteered to go door-to-door to obtain an accurate count of group
homes in the area.
Paul Kott expressed opposition to the onslaught of group homes in the area. He expressed concern
regarding the tenor and content of the letter from the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) and questioned the legal validity of its intent. He advised if the letter
has no validity, the City needs to fight vigorously against it. He advised residents support the City
Council and will help the City fight all the way.
Mayor Sidhu thanked those who spoke and noted the City Council is fighting for its residents. He
advised it is unfortunate that HCD came to this conclusion. He encouraged residents to reach out to
their local Assemblyperson and State Legislators to voice their opposition.
CLOSED SESSION: At 3:25 P.M., Mayor Sidhu recessed to closed session for consideration of the
following:
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of
California Government Code Section 54956.9 and/or initiation of litigation pursuant to
paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 54956.9: Two
potential cases
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code)
Name of Case: Turner Construction Company v. City of Anaheim; et al, Orange County
Superior Court Case No. 30-2017 0000956538
At 5:42 P.M., Mayor Sidhu reconvened the Anaheim City Council.
City Council Minutes of January 11, 2022
Page 3 of 15
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Harry Sidhu and Council Members Trevor O'Neil, Gloria Ma'ae,
Jose F. Moreno, Avelino Valencia, and Stephen Faessel (in person).
Council Member Jose Diaz (via teleconference).
Invocation: Pastor Oona Casanova, Anaheim First Church of the Nazarene
Flag Salute: Council Member Gloria SahagOn Ma'ae
Presentation: Recognizing the 2022 Anaheim Beautiful Holiday Lights Contest Winners
Anaheim Beautiful President Lori Dinwiddie provided a brief overview of the organization and thanked
City Cound! for hosting the annual contest. She presented highlights of each of the 13 winning
properties.
Acceptance of Other Recognitions (To be presented at a later date]:
Recognizing January 11, 2022, as Human Trafficking Awareness Day
Anaheim Police Department Sgt. Juan Reveles thanked City Council for their continued support for
ending Human Trafficking.
Council Member Moreno thanked Sgt. Reveles for his work and advised residents that City Hall is lit
up in blue in recognition of Human Trafficking Awareness Day. He encouraged the City Manager to
keep City Hall lit blue all month.
Recognizing January 17, 2022, as Martin Luther King Jr. Day
Recognizing January 27, 2022, as World Holocaust Remembrance Day
At 5:57 P.M., Mayor Sidhu called to order the Anaheim Industrial Development Authority (Special
Meeting), the Successor Agency to the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, and the Anaheim Housing
Authority (in joint session with the City Council).
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDAS:
City Clerk Theresa Bass reported staff requested the continuance of Public Hearing Item No. 21 to
January 25, 2022, at 6:30 P.M. and encouraged the public to visit ww.anaheimredistricting.oto
view all submitted draft district maps.
PUBLIC COMMENTS [all agenda items. except public hearin
City Clerk Theresa Bass reported that a total of one (1) public comment was 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 1 public comment was received electronically, distributed to the
City Council, and made part of the official record]. — See Appendix.
Prior to receipt of public comments, an outline of rules for public comments and a brief decorum
statement was provided by Ms. Bass.
Mark Richard Daniels expressed concern there were four fentanyl-related deaths in the City. He
encouraged City Council to help address the crisis, especially for the Anaheim youth.
City Council Minutes of January 11, 2022
Page 4 of 15
R. Joshua Collins encouraged City Council to put their trust in God and he expressed disappointment
regarding the City's choices regarding the sale of Angel Stadium. He encouraged City Council to
support walk-in shelters, affordable housing, and other alternatives to shelters. He noted CityNet is
not always effective and he hoped the City would look for additional assistance.
Bob Donelson requested the City make the legal costs it has incurred defending the sale of Angel
Stadium public for transparency.
Bryan Kaye expressed concern City Council would not communicate with him regarding his concerns.
Joei Yesowitch reported he has an issue with feral cats in his apartment building and requested City
Council's assistance.
Cecil Jordan Corkern reported he has been working on the security reports for Disneyland and
requested City Council review them.
CITY MANAGER'S UPDATE: None
At 6:18 P.M., Mayor Sidhu recessed the Anaheim City Council, the Successor Agency to the
Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, and Anaheim Housing Authority.
At 6:29 P.M., Mayor Sidhu reconvened the Anaheim City Council.
CONSENT CALENDAR: At 6:29 P.M., the consent calendar was considered with Council
Member Diaz pulling Item No. 12, Council Member Moreno pulling Item No. 15, and Mayor Pro Tern
O'Neil pulling Item No. 17 for separate discussion and consideration.
MOTION: Council Member Faessel moved to waive reading of all ordinances and resolutions and
adopt the balance of the consent calendar, in accordance with reports, certifications, and
recommendations furnished each City Council Member and as listed on the consent calendar,
seconded by Council Member Ma'ae. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu and Council
Members O'Neil, Diaz, Ma'ae, Moreno, Valencia, and Faessel); NOES — 0; Motion carried.
B105 6. Receive and file minutes of the Library Board meeting of October 11, 2021 and the Public
Utilities Board meeting of November 17, 2021.
AGR-13286 7. Waive Council Policy 4.1 and approve the agreement with Chuck Schroth dba JSM Support
Services, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $150,000 annually, to manage and provide the
deployment and maintenance of law enforcement investigative technological platforms for a
one year period, with up to two consecutive one-year renewals; and authorize the Chief of
Police to exercise the renewal options and to take the necessary actions to implement and
administer the agreement.
AGR-13287 8. Waive Council Policy 4.1 and approve the agreement with Savage Training Group, in an
amount not to exceed $53,600, for training services; and authorize the Chief of Police, or his
designee, to administer the agreement and execute any amendments under the terms and
conditions of the agreement.
City Council Minutes of January 11, 2022
Page 5 of 15
AGR-13288 g. Award the construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Onyx Paving Company, Inc.,
in the amount of $295,000, for the Arterial Sidewalks Removal and Replacement at Various
Locations — Phase 6; authorize the Director of Public Works to execute the contract and any
other related documents, and to take the necessary actions to implement and administer the
contract; determine that the project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental
Quality Act pursuant to Sections 15301, Class 1, and 15302, Class 2, of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations; and authorize the Finance Director to execute the escrow
agreement pertaining to contract retentions.
AGR-13289 10. Award the construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Baltazar Construction, Inc.,
in the amount of $379,363, for the Concrete Facilities Removal and Reconstruction - Citywide
Phase 7 Project; authorize the Director of Public Works to execute the contract and any other
related documents and to take the necessary actions to implement and administer the
contract; determine that the project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental
Quality Act pursuant to Sections 15301, Class 1, and 15302, Class 2, of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations; and authorize the Finance Director to execute the escrow
agreement pertaining to contract retention.
AGR-13290 11.
Approve Design -Build Master Agreements for Electric Projects with prequalified Design -Build
AGR-13291
Entities, each in a not to exceed award amount of $3,000,000 per work order package, plus
AGR-13292
change order authorization in an amount not to exceed 10% of the work order package price
for a five-year term with an extension of up to 12 months, as necessary, to complete
AGR-13293
outstanding work order packages in progress; authorize the Public Utilities General Manager,
AGR-13294
or designee, to execute the agreements and to take the necessary actions to implement and
AGR-13295
administer the agreements; authorize de minimis changes that do not substantially change the
AGR-13296
terms and conditions of the agreements, as long as such changes are determined to be de
minimis by the City Attorney; and determine that the projects to be performed under the
agreements shall be categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act,
Sections 15301, 15302, 15303, and/or 15304 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations
(Asplundh Construction, LLC; EE Electric, Inc.; Hampton Tedder Electric Co.; Hot Line
Construction, Inc.; Parkia, Inc.; Southern Contracting Company; Tri-Technic, Inc.; and such
other prequalified design -build entities).
R100 13.
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-002 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM which certifies that the City Council has authorized the project list
submittal for Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021
(CRRSAA) funding through the Orange County Transportation Authority 2021 Pavement
Management Relief Funding (PMRF) Program and amend the budget for the fiscal year
accordingly (acceptance of funds in the amount of $1,037,763; Knott Avenue Rehabilitation
Project from Ball Road to Orange Avenue).
R100 14.
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-003 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the Director of Public Works or designee to submit two
improvement project grant applications to the Orange County Transportation Authority for
funding under Project O - the Regional Capacity Program under Measure M2 on behalf of the
City of Anaheim, and if awarded, authorize the acceptance of such grant on behalf of the City
and amend the budget for the fiscal year accordingly (grants funds in the total amount of
$5,550,000; Lincoln Avenue Street Widening Project from East Street to Evergreen Street and
Lincoln Avenue and Harbor Boulevard Intersection Improvements Project).
City Council Minutes of January 11, 2022
Page 6 of 15
M142 16. ORDINANCE NO. 6522 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending Section 18.040.020 (Intent of Individual Zones) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the
Anaheim Municipal Code to clarify that the "RS-4" Single -Family Residential Zone may be
used to implement the Corridor Residential General Plan Land Use Designation for projects
with proposed densities that are no greater than 13 dwelling units per acre (Development
Project No. 2019-00139).
ORDINANCE NO. 6523 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending the Zoning Map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code
relating to zoning (Development Project No. 2019-00139) (910 South Western Avenue)
[Reclassification No. 2019-00325, reclassifying the subject property from the "T" Transition
Lone to the "RS-4" Single -Family residential Zone].
Determine that the Project qualifies for a Class 32 — In -Fill Development Project Categorical
Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code,
Sections 21000-21189.57) as set forth in Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines
(California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387).
D114 18. Approve minutes of the City Council meetings of April 27, 2021 and May 11, 2021
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR:
R100 12. RESOLUTION NO. 2022-001 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ratifying the submission of a grant application and the acceptance of a
grant on behalf of the City of Anaheim.for the Bureau of Justice Assistance Fiscal Year 2021
Connect and Protect: Law Enforcement Behavioral Health Responses Grant, authorizing the
Police Chief or his designee to execute all required grant documents, and increasing the
budget for Fiscal Year 2021-22 accordingly (grant funds in the amount of $550,000; FY
2021/22 budget amendment increase in the amount of $398,287).
Police Chief Jorge Cisneros reported the item is a Law Enforcement Behavioral Health Grant in the
amount of $550,000 from the Bureau of Justice Assistance. He advised the grant would cover the
funding for two (2) Homeless Outreach Team (HOT) Officers and a contracted project evaluator. He
advised the two HOT Officers would assist with cases where there is mental illness and a criminal or
safety nexus. He noted the Anaheim Police Department (APD) would work with the Orange County
Health Care Agency (OCHCA), CityNet, the City's contracted homeless service provider, and the
contracted project evaluator to evaluate the Community Care Response Team (CCRT) project.
DISCUSSION: Council Member Diaz thanked Police Chief Cisneros for being creative in finding
funding sources for the program.
In response to Council Member Diaz's inquiries, Police Chief Cisneros explained Peace Officer
Standards and Training Program (POST) requires peace officers to go through 24 hours of
Perishable Skills Training in a 24-month period to continue their POST certification. He advised APD
requires their officers to go through 100 hours of training per year.
Council Member Diaz expressed his pride for APD. He noted one of his reasons for running for office
was to help residents and this is a perfect example.
MOTION: Council Member Diaz moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2022-001 A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ratifying the submission of a
City Council Minutes of January 11, 2022
Page 7 of 15
grant application and the acceptance of a grant on behalf of the City of Anaheim for the Bureau of
Justice Assistance Fiscal Year 2021 Connect and Protect: Law Enforcement Behavioral Health
Responses Grant, authorizing the Police Chief or his designee to execute all required grant
documents, and increasing the budget for Fiscal Year 2021-22 accordingly (grant funds in the amount
of $550,000; FY 2021/22 budget amendment increase in the amount of $398,287), seconded by
Mayor Pro Tern O'Neil.
DISCUSSION: Council Member Moreno congratulated Police Chief Cisneros for successfully
pursuing the funds for the program and for his progress in de-escalating APD.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Police Chief Cisneros explained that part of the
requirement of accepting the grant frurn the Bureau ui Justice Assistance is to have a contracted
project evaluator. He confirmed the grant does require a 20% match from the General Fund for the
first two (2) years and a 40% local match for the third year. He estimated $600,000 of City funds
would be needed over the next three (3) years.
Council Member Moreno clarified for the record that this item commits future City funds and
expressed support for the item.
In response to Council Member Faessel's inquiry, Police Chief Cisneros clarified that Be Well OC
would be included in the overall mission of the CCRT but noted the agreement with Be Well OC was
not complete when the grant was approved so they were not included in the staff report.
MOTION: Council Member Diaz moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2022-001 A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ratifying the submission of a
grant application and the acceptance of a grant on behalf of the City of Anaheim for the Bureau of
Justice Assistance Fiscal Year 2021 Connect and Protect: Law Enforcement Behavioral Health
Responses Grant, authorizing the Police Chief or his designee to execute all required grant
documents, and increasing the budget for Fiscal Year 2021-22 accordingly (grant funds in the amount
of $550,000; FY 2021/22 budget amendment increase in the amount of $398,287), seconded by
Mayor Pro Tern O'Neil. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members O'Neil,
Diaz, Ma'ae, Moreno, Valencia, and Faessel); NOES — 0; Motion carried.
D106 15. RESOLUTION NO. 2022-004 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
SA162 CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Budget to increase the Economic
Development Department budget and decrease the Community and Economic Development
Department budget by an equal amount ($42,887,141).
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-005 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing and directing the City Manager or his designee to represent
the City in matters pertaining to the preparation of former Redevelopment Agency properties
for sale and/or development and distribute proceeds from the sale of former Redevelopment
Agency properties to the Orange County Auditor Controller (proceeds in the amount of
$3,560,000).
Economic Development Director Sergio Ramirez reported the item is an amendment to the Fiscal
Year 2021/22 budget. He explained the item transfers $42,900,000 from the Community and
Economic Development Department budget to the newly formed Economic Development Department
for funding for the remainder of the fiscal year. He advised no increase in funding is being proposed.
City Council Minutes of January 11, 2022
Page 8 of 15
Mr. Ramirez reported that new economic development programs and projects would be proposed
throughout the FY 2022/23 budget adoption process. He advised the item also seeks authorization
from the Orange County Auditor -Controller for eight (8) properties sold to date for $3,500,000. He
reported a separate agenda item would be forthcoming to City Council to modify the name of the
Community and Economic Development Department to avoid confusion moving forward.
DISCUSSION: In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Mr. Ramirez explained many of
the properties were conveyed to the City as right-of-way properties and that payment is the tax
payment that belongs to the Auditor -Controller of part of the sale. He explained the transfer of funds
would increase the budget of the newly formed Economic Development Department and reduce the
budget of the Community and Economic Development Department by an equal amount.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Interim Community and Economic Development
Director Grace Stepter reported that $42,900,000 represents 19% of the Community and Economic
Development budget. She explained the majority of the department's budget is for Section 8 use and
would remain. Mr. Ramirez clarified approximately $33,000,000 is from the California Department of
Finance with the remainder coming from the General Fund.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Ms. Stepter reported the Community and Economic
Development Department has no General Fund money in its budget.
MOTION: Council Member Moreno moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2022-004 A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the Fiscal Year
2021/22 Budget to increase the Economic Development Department budget and decrease the
Community and Economic Development Department budget by an equal amount ($42,887,141) and
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-005 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM authorizing and directing the City Manager or his designee to represent the City in matters
pertaining to the preparation of former Redevelopment Agency properties for sale and/or
development and distribute proceeds from the sale of former Redevelopment Agency properties to
the Orange County Auditor Controller (proceeds in the amount of $3,560,000), seconded by Mayor
Pro Tern O'Neil.
DISCUSSION: Council Member Moreno thanked Mr. Ramirez for responding to residents' requests
regarding new businesses. He encouraged City Manager Jim Vanderpool to consider increasing
resources for the Community and Economic Development Department during the next budget cycle.
MOTION: Council Member Moreno moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2022-004 A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the Fiscal Year
2021/22 Budget to increase the Economic Development Department budget and decrease the
Community and Economic Development Department budget by an equal amount ($42,887,141) and
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-005 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM authorizing and directing the City Manager or his designee to represent the City in matters
pertaining to the preparation of former Redevelopment Agency properties for sale and/or
development and distribute proceeds from the sale of former Redevelopment Agency properties to
the Orange County Auditor Controller (proceeds in the amount of $3,560,000), seconded by Mayor
Pro Tern O'Neil. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members O'Neil, Diaz,
Ma'ae, Moreno, Valencia, and Faessel); NOES — 0; Motion carried.
City Council Minutes of January 11, 2022
Page 9 of 15
M142 17. ORDINANCE NO. 6524 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending Title 17 (Land Development and Resources) and Title 18 (Zoning) of the
Anaheim Municipal Code (Code), including Chapters 17.08 (Subdivisions); 18.04 (Single -
Family Residential Zones); 18.06 (Multiple -Family Residential Zones); 18.08 (Commercial
Zones); 18.10 (Industrial Zone); 18.14 (Public and Special -Purpose Zones); 18.20 (Platinum
Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) 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); 18.62 (Administrative Reviews); 18.92
(Definitions); 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 the Anaheim Municipal Code; and making findings
in connection therewith (Development Project No. 2021-00216) (Adjustment No. 12 to the
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan No. 2015-1) (Adjustment No. 5 to the Beach Boulevard
Specific Plan No. 2017-1) [reflect recent changes in State law related to Senate Bill No. 9].
Determine that the above actions are exempt from the requirements to prepare additional
environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
Section 15061(b)(3); and the Legislature has declared that this ordinance, which implements
the provisions of Government Code Section 65852.21, is not a project under CEQA or the
CEQA Guidelines.
Mayor Pro Tem O'Neil explained the reason the item is on the agenda is that the State passed
Senate Bill (SB) 9 last year, which allows residential lots to be split. He further explained that while
the City must comply, it could impose certain requirements for lots, which will help a lot retain the
same compatibility as much as possible for the rest of the neighborhood. He advised SB 9 does
require three (3) years of owner occupancy before a residential lot can be split so there would not be
speculators or developers coming and drastically changing communities.
Planning and Building Director Ted White reported SB 9 was signed into law on September 16, 2021.
He explained it gives the City the option to default to state law or adopt local regulations consistent
with state law. He noted that adopting local regulations allows the City to adopt local guidelines above
and beyond what is included in state law.
Mr. White reported there are two (2) main components to SB 9. He advised the first mandates
ministerial approval of one (1) additional housing unit on an existing lot, which is known as a Two -Unit
Development. He advised the second mandates the approval of lot splits into single-family zones,
referred to as an Urban Lot Split. He noted that SB 9 provisions are different and separate from the
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Law that allows three (3) units.
Mr. White reported SB 9 prohibits Affordable Housing, Tenant Occupied within the last 3 years,
Rental Terminated within the last 15 years, Hazard Waste Sites, Natural Community Conservation
Planning Act (NCCP) sites, Conservation Easement, and Historic District sites from implementing
either a Two -Unit Development or an Urban Lot Split. He advised the City is allowed to deny a
development if the development would have a significant impact on public health and SB 9
development would not be allowed in a Sewer Deficient Area. He reported SB 9 allows the City to
prohibit, with exceptions, Very High Fire Hazard, Severity Zone Earthquake, Fault Zone Special Flood
Hazard Zone, and Regulatory Floodway from implementing either a Two -Unit Development or Urban
Lot Split. He noted a large area of the City would be prohibited from implementing SB 9.
Mr. White provided a brief overview of the Two -Unit Development and SB 9 requirements. He
reported the proposed City standard would allow two (2) units, allow for a minimum of 400 square feet
City Council Minutes of January 11, 2022
Page 10 of 15
and a maximum of 800 square feet for the unit size, require a 10 feet separation between units, allow
for the new unit to use the height requirements of the underlying zone for Two -Unit Development,
allow a maximum height of one (1) story or 16 feet, allow side and rear setbacks of four (4) feet,
require one (1) parking space or no parking space if the unit is within a half -mile walking distance of a
high -transit corridor, allow the conversion of common existing structures, require design requirements
consistent with code for single-family zones, require new units are metered separately from the main
unit for utilities, and advised all applications are ministerial.
Mr. White provided a brief overview of the Urban Lot Split and SB 9 requirements. He reported the
proposed City standard would require ministerial approval, lot split on any single-family residential
zone not prohibited, require the minimum lot size to be 1,200 square feet or 40% of the existing lot
before the Urban Lot Split, whichever is greater, a maximum number of two (2) units, require all new
lots that have a frontage directly on a public or private street to have a lot width of 25 feet, and require
three (3) years of owner occupancy before an Urban Lot Split.
DISCUSSION: In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. White advised the requirement
would be that the owner would have to live on the property for an additional three (3) years once the
lot is split.
Mr. White continued with the proposed City standard for Urban Lot Splits which also prohibits a lot to
be split after the initial split, prohibits Urban Lot Splits on adjacent properties that have already been
split and owned by the same owner, and requires each lot to provide separate utility connections. He
noted since SB 9 requires ministerial review, procedural changes would need to be incorporated into
the City's Municipal Code to create an administrative review process and would be processed as a
building permit with a fee. He reported that would be brought back to City Council at a future meeting.
Mr. White reported two general standards apply to both Two -Unit Development and Urban Lot Splits.
He explained that any rental unit under SB 9 must be rented for longer than 30 days and that ADUs
are not permitted as additional units so the maximum number of units on a split lot would be four (4).
Mayor Pro Tern O'Neil expressed concerns regarding maintaining design standards in existing
neighborhoods.
Mr. White reported that, per Mayor Pro Tern O'Neil's request, he investigated any design standards
that could be implemented per SB 9 and reviewed those changes which include building facades
shall include articulation along street frontages by using color, arrangement of facade elements, a
change in materials, or other architectural devices, buildings shall conform to the following design
standards: (a) On a site already developed with an existing residential unit, the new unit shall be
constructed using the same architectural style; (b) If residential development is proposed on a lot
where no residential units currently exist, the units shall be constructed using the same architectural
style; (c) Upper story windows located within 10 feet of an interior property line that face or overlook
an adjoining property shall be installed a minimum of 72 inches above the finished floor, or installed
with obscure glass and upper story doors shall be located on building walls facing the other on -site
unit.
Council Member Moreno thanked Mr. White for clarifying misinformation for the public.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Mr. White explained that Anaheim has five (5)
Historic Districts and SB 9 would not be allowed within those districts or properties that have been
granted a historic designation and clarified it would apply to the entire district. He explained that City
Council has the privilege of designating a Historic District. He explained he had not reviewed the
City Council Minutes of January 11, 2022
Page 11 of 15
impact of designating the entire City a Historic District thus exempting the entire City from SB 9 and
would have to further review. He advised there are Secretary of Interior standards that would have
been met in addition to public hearings, but in theory, they could be found from state law.
Council Member Moreno requested staff provide additional information regarding the criteria for how
to designate an area as a Historic District. He respected the intent of SB 9 and appreciated staff's
effort to protect local control.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. White explained that in most of the flatlands of
Anaheim parking is exempted because of their proximity to high -quality transit and the City would not
be allowed to require additional parking as part of the proposed ordinance.
Mayor Pro Tern O'Neil provided a brief overview of his experience with the historic preservation
process and State requirements.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern O'Neil moved to introduce ORDINANCE NO. 6524 AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Title 17 (Land Development and Resources) and Title 18
(Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Code), including Chapters 17.08 (Subdivisions); 18.04
(Single -Family Residential Zones); 18.06 (Multiple -Family Residential Zones); 18.08 (Commercial
Zones); 18.10 (Industrial Zone); 18.14 (Public and Special -Purpose Zones); 18.20 (Platinum Triangle
Mixed Use (PTMU) 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); 18.62 (Administrative Reviews); 18.92 (Definitions); 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 the
Anaheim Municipal Code; and making findings in connection therewith (Development Project No.
2021-00216) (Adjustment No. 12 to the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan No. 2015-1) (Adjustment No.
5 to the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1) and determine that the above actions are exempt
from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3); and the Legislature has declared
that this ordinance, which implements the provisions of Government Code Section 65852.21, is not a
project under CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines, seconded by Council Member Ma'ae.
DISCUSSION: In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. White clarified that under the
proposed ordinance residents would be allowed to add solar power roofing. He further clarified the
standards speak to consistent roofing materials on a single property. He noted there are exceptions
in state law that limit the City's ability to dictate or preclude solar installations. Council Member
Moreno believed the roofing materials might be too restrictive for homeowners.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. White explained the building materials
language would help maintain consistency between both properties on the lot. He explained there is a
lot of design flexibility in designing a new home. He noted there may be Homeowners Associations
that may require consistency between units.
Council Member Moreno believed that some of the proposed changes allow too much control by the
City over property owners.
Mayor Pro Tern O'Neil noted he understood Council Member Moreno's concern and may consider
entertaining a friendly amendment but deferred to Mr. White for additional information.
City Council Minutes of January 11, 2022
Page 12 of 15
Mr: White explained staff worked with the City Attorney who determined that as long as staff stays
objective with the word "the same" staff would have broad discretion.
Mayor Pro Tem O'Neil proposed an amendment that would remove the roofing materials and exterior
building materials from Sections A and B.
Council Member Moreno offered language that would state "using a similar architectural style which
may include roofing materials and exterior building materials and finishes". City Attorney Robert
Fabela explained that is the language the City was trying to avoid and noted staff was comfortable
with the language proposed to comply with SB 9.
Council Member Moreno proposed the language "that may include roofing materials". Mr. Whiie
would like to have criteria that set up staff and residents for success and does not require staff to
interpret the language for years to come.
Council Member Moreno withdrew his friendly amendment.
Council Member Ma'ae seconded Mayor Pro Tern O'Neil's amendments to the ordinance.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern O'Neil moved to introduce ORDINANCE NO. 6524 AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Title 17 (Land Development and Resources) and Title 18
(Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Code), including Chapters 17.08 (Subdivisions); 18.04
(Single -Family Residential Zones); 18.06 (Multiple -Family Residential Zones); 18.08 (Commercial
Zones); 18.10 (Industrial Zone); 18.14 (Public and Special -Purpose Zones); 18.20 (Platinum Triangle
Mixed Use (PTMU) 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); 18.62 (Administrative Reviews); 18.92 (Definitions); 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 the
Anaheim Municipal Code; and making findings in connection therewith (Development Project No.
2021-00216) (Adjustment No. 12 to the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan No. 2015-1) (Adjustment No.
5 to the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1), as amended, to add language to page 55 of the
Ordinance for Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.38.255.0503 to read: Building Design. Building
facades shall include articulation along street frontages by using color, arrangement of facade
elements, a change in materials, or other architectural devices. Buildings shall conform to the
following design standards: (a) On a site already developed with an existing residential unit, the new
unit shall be constructed using the same architectural style. (b) If residential development is proposed
on a lot where no residential units currently exist, the units shall be constructed using the same
architectural style. (c) Upper story windows located within 10 feet of an interior property line that face
or overlook an adjoining property shall be installed a minimum of 72 inches above finish floor, or
installed with obscure glass. Upper story doors shall be located on building walls facing the other on -
site unit, and determine that the above actions are exempt from the requirements to prepare
additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
Section 15061(b)(3); and the Legislature has declared that this ordinance, which implements the
provisions of Government Code Section 65852.21, is not a project under CEQA or the CEQA
Guidelines, seconded by Council Member Ma'ae. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu and
Council Members O'Neil, Diaz, Ma'ae, Moreno, Valencia, and Faessel); NOES — 0; Motion carried;
ordinance introduced, as amended.
City Council Minutes of January 11, 2022
Page 13 of 15
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR
D116 19. Update on the City's response to COVID-19.
Mayor Sidhu reported there is a wave of Omicron cases in the City and reported meeting with Dr.
Clayton Chau of the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHA). He advised there are six (6) City
testing sites and provided an overview of testing statistics. He advised the City continues to offer
vaccinations and boosters. He reported the City is buying 4,000 at-home test kits that will be
distributed to the community and City employees and he hoped to have the tests available in the
coming days. He urged residents to follow best practices.
Chief Communications Officer Mike Lyster provided a brief overview of the City's response to COVID-
19. He reported weekly case counts are increasing due to Omicron. He reported the case rate is
currently at a pandemic high and the positivity rates are much higher than usual. He advised health
equity is sustaining and vaccinations continue to increase. He reported the City's cases are on the
rise in alignment with what is being seen across the county although the City's positivity rate is slightly
lower than the county.
Mr. Lyster reported the City was prepared for the Omicron wave and the six (6) testing sites are
conducting record numbers of tests and vaccinations and he provided statistics. He thanked frontline
workers for working 7-days per week and serving the community. He reported the City has been
carefully managing appointments to provide good service to the community. He reported vaccinations
continue to increase and are being administered at City Hall and Brookhurst Community Center. He
confirmed 4,000 test kits would be distributed to the community and City staff beginning next week.
Mr. Lyster provided an overview of Omicron's impact on the City and reported the first case was seen
on December 28, 2021. He reported those at the highest risk are those who are not vaccinated. He
noted hospitalization records are lower than last year and are faring slightly better than last year.
Mr. Lyster provided an overview of the impact of Omicron on the City's workforce and reported 5% of
the City's workforce has been impacted by COVID due to illness or exposure risk. He reported 57% of
the City's workforce have been vaccinated. He provided examples of the impact of Omicron on the
United Kingdom and South Africa that showed there was a rapid peak but also a rapid decline in the
wave. He noted there is hope the county has seen the peak but they would not have definitive data
for a few weeks.
DISCUSSION: In response to Council Member Valencia's inquiries, Mr. Lyster reported at-home
testing use is on the rise, some do not report those numbers to the OCHA, and estimated that it is
probably a 5% margin of those who test positive that are not reported in the official numbers. He
reported it is currently taking a few days to receive a testing appointment. He encouraged residents
to sign up for an appointment and if a test is needed sooner they could show up to a site for a walk-
up test. He reported Anaheim tests are run with a priority and are generally returned within 24-hours.
Council Member Valencia thanked all frontline workers for their service to the City and wished
everyone good health.
Council Member Faessel thanked Mr. Lyster and his staff for rolling up their sleeves and working with
frontline workers to administer tests to the community.
City Council Minutes of January 11, 2022
Page 14 of 15
Council Member Moreno also thanked Mr. Lyster and his staff for helping to administer tests and for
their work for the City and its residents. He thanked Mr. Lyster for quickly providing the statistics for
City staff, which helps to show the impact on City staff that in turn may impact City services.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Mr. Lyster explained COVID Clinic is a non-profit
and charges for other tests because it helps keep the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test free. He
noted that other clinics may offer free testing but may have problems getting reimbursed by the
federal government or obtaining testing resources. He further explained COVID Clinic has a high
degree of stability and a great supply of resources. He explained a PCR is approximately 99%
accurate in determining positivity but the antigen test is a better indicator in determining if the person
is still infectious. He advised there are no metrics to determine the percentage of at-home tests that
are positive and that his 5% report is an educated guess. He advised he would reach out to OCHA to
seek additional numbers. He advised staff is in the early stages of a plan for distributing the test kits
but there has been discussion of using existing Family Resource Centers.
Informational item; no action taken.
B105 20. District 5 appointment of an unscheduled vacancy on the Budget, Investment and Technology
Commission to serve a term ending December 31, 2024.
Budget, Investment and Technology Commission
District 5 appointment: Rory Zaks (term ending December 31, 2024)
(unscheduled vacancy, David R. Heywood)
NOMINATION: Council Member Faessel nominated Rory Zaks. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7
(Mayor Sidhu and Council Members O'Neil, Diaz, Ma'ae, Moreno, Valencia, and Faessel); NOES — 0;
Nomination approved.
PUBLIC HEARING:
E127 21. This is a public hearing to 1) consider and discuss draft Council District Maps submitted to the
City; 2) receive and file public input on communities of interest, district boundaries, and draft
maps; and 3) select a draft map for adoption or select specific draft maps for additional public
review and input.
Public Hearing Item No. 21 continued to January 25, 2022 at the request of staff.
PUBLIC COMMENTS (non-acsenda items): None
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS/AGENDA REQUESTS:
Council Member Valencia hoped everyone had a blessed holiday season, looked forward to a
productive 2022, and wished all good health.
Council Member Valencia left the meeting at 8:07 P.M.
Council Member Faessel recognized Community Services Supervisor Holly Unruh, who was leaving
the City after over a dozen years of service. He offered congratulations, thanked her for her attention
to the City, and noted she would be missed. He wished everyone a safe and well new year and
addressed the ability to get together with family.
City Council Minutes of January 11, 2022
Page 15 of 15
Council Member Ma'ae reminded everyone that Monday, January 17 is Martin Luther King, Jr. Day,
the only federal holiday also designated as a national day of service. She noted AmeriCorps had led
volunteer efforts for the past quarter century and encouraged residents to visit www.mlkday.ctoy to
find volunteer service project opportunities near them. She expressed her honor and privilege to
represent the community into the new year.
Council Member Diaz noted Council's approval of Item No. 16, a new housing project at 910 S.
Western Ave., and supported the project to bring 12 single-family residences to District 1 as step
forward to rebuild Beach Blvd. and West Anaheim by encouraging new development and
homeownership in the area. He noted that Human Trafficking Awareness Day was recognized today
and all month and expressed pride for the work of the City and Police Department with other Orange
County agencies to address this issue. He encouraged residents to visit www.ochumantrafficking.com
to learn more and find ways to help. He welcomed a new business to District 1, LUV 4 Nutrition on
Lincoln Ave., and asked everyone to support new businesses. He wished everyone a happy new
year.
Council Member Moreno echoed Council Member Diaz's statements about Human Trafficking
Awareness Month, thanked the City Manager and Public Works staff for lighting City Hall blue to
create more awareness of the issue, and requested the blue lights continue for the rest of the month.
He addressed COVID and its effects and encouraged residents to visit www.anaheim.net/coronavirus
for resources on testing, vaccines, and data. He wished good luck to the Anaheim High School
wrestling, girls' water polo, boys/girls soccer, and boys/girls basketball in their Orange League
games. He thanked Public Works Director Rudy Emami for a briefing on the City's preparation for
implementing SB 1383 regarding organic waste and its disposal and noted information is available at
www.anaheim.net/organics. He thanked the Public Works and Public Utilities Departments for staring
the $25,000,000 investment in infrastructure improvements in the Northeast Colony area of Anaheim
Blvd, Pauline St., Sycamore St., and La Palma Ave. and encouraged residents to contact his office
and the city with specific areas that need to be addressed. He requested the meeting adjourn in
memory of District 3 resident, Emiliano Perez Garcia, a father, grandfather, business owner, and St.
Boniface congregation member.
Mayor Sidhu welcomed everybody to 2022, stating it was off to a great start. He thanked staff for
their work. He addressed the continuance of the Coronavirus pandemic and hoped the peak of new
cases would come down soon. He asked everyone to continue with safety measures such as wearing
masks, washing hands, and keeping distance and encouraged everyone to take advantage of the six
City sites for testing in addition to the test kits that would be distributed in neighborhoods.
ADJOURNMENT:
At 8:21 P.M., with no further business, Mayor Sidhu adjourned the City Council meeting in memory of
Emiliano Perez Garcia.
Re bmitted,
ATh a , CMC J -
i
City Clerk %/
Jennifer L. Hall
From: Debbie Trabattoni <
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 4:14 PM
To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Jose Diaz; Gloria S. Ma'ae; Avelino Valencia III; Trevor O'Neil;
Jose Moreno; Stephen Faesse)
Cc: Public Comment
Subject: [EXTERNAL] HCD Notice of Violation re: CUP for Grandma's House of Hope
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Dear Mayor Sidhu and Councilmembers:
The Housing and Community Development (HCD) letter to the City of Anaheim dated December 14, 2020,
regarding a "Notice of Violation" relative to the denial of a CUP for Grandma's House of Hope is confusing to
me and many of my neighbors.
If accurate, the letter details embarrassing incompetence by the City of Anaheim for 15 years and creates more
questions, including:
1- Does the City believe the HCD letter to be valid or is it an overreach of HCD's authority?
2- If the HCD letter is believed valid, who on staff are responsible to know these issues and make
reliable recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council?
3- If staff is as misinformed as HCD states, how can the staff recommendation to the Council regarding
a response to the letter be trusted?
4- How have other cities interpreted and implemented the law regarding transitional and supportive
housing?
5- How many "illegal" supportive and transitional housing CUPS have been approved and denied in the
last 15 years? Are all past CUPS for transitional housing now null and void?
6- What was the taxpayer cost to process this specific CUP for the city? What about all the other
supposedly invalid CUPS over the years?
HCD's letter states (Pg 2, Paragraph 3), "...This does not mean that transitional and supportive housing must be
allowed by right in all residential neighborhoods." And yet, HCD's entire letter outlines how supportive and
transitional housing IS allowed by right in single family neighborhoods. How does the City plan to resolve this
apparent inconsistency?
Anaheim has arguably done more for homeless and disadvantaged communities than any other similar sized
city. This includes: 1) Section 8 Low Income Rental Units (more per capita than other cities); 2) two Homeless
Shelters within the City; 3) saturation of our neighborhoods with group homes; and 4) the total number of
affordable housing units per capita. Unfortunately, these programs tend to be concentrated in selected areas of
the city.
This subject deserves clarity and a full community -wide discussion. There may be a substantial cost to the City
to resolve these conflicting and confusing policy objectives. However, doing nothing will cost more in the long
run. I urge you to fight back.
Debra Trabattoni Daly
Anaheim, CA 92805
Jennifer L. Hall
From: Mary Dragieff <
Sent: Friday, January 7, 2022 1:45 PM
To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Gloria S. Ma'ae; Jose Diaz; Avelino Valencia; Trevor O'Neil;
Stephen Faessel; Ted White; City Manager
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Grandmas House at West and Pioneer
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Dear Mayor, City Council members, City Manager and Building Director,
Where shall I start regarding the letter from David Zisser to James
Vanderpool regarding Grandmas House?
Perhaps such a letter is meant to be intimidating, rude or threatening. In this
case, I found it to be all three, plus arrogant. HCD has interpreted the law as
they see it, however is this how Anaheim perceives it, as well as other cities in
the state? Is this the first CUP for transitional housing to be denied by the
city? Why is the state saying a CUP is unnecessary for transitional housing,
when the city obviously had many others from Grandmas House, and other
group home businesses?
Not only did planning and development unanimously deny the CUP, but
you, our city officials agreed unanimously to deny. The reason was "over
saturation." The state should recognize this reason as valid groups.
According to the letter transitional home businesses are permitted to
commercialize our communities. And, have the ability to put any size
occupancy in these homes, including persons with severe mental illness. It
seems to me the state cares nothing about the quality of life in our
communities or the group homes.
We saw yet another show of true arrogance by the founder of
GHH. Contacting the news to do a follow up story on how she beat
Anaheim and is moving into the property. She gave us the impression that
she has a wonderful partnership with the city. This seems to be a case of
throwing the city and the residents "under the bus." For her to say that once
they move into these locations, everyone loves them when at all of the
meetings held, neighbors complained about syringes thrown over walls, men
and women arguing, loud noise, and trash.
You have heard from many disgusted residents of the community over the
past months. A half dozen people clearly stated said "enough is enough."
Our Westmont Colony has enough! Several realtors told Jenet at meetings
that they will help her find another location. But no, she wants 626 West St.
so GHH can turn it in a MOTEL. And since there is currently no limit on
occupants, it will grow to 25, 35, 45 or more than 55. If Anaheim does not
stand up to the state now, this play will be coming to your street soon.
I hope we can count on your support and challenge the state over their
discrimination against homeowners, and families of this once great state.
By the way, when we contacted our neighbors again to inform them of this
latest stab in the back, two neighbors have moved out of the state. Both
replied, but I think you can guess what they had to say. Permitting a huge
number of these homes into our neighborhood was one of the reasons they
gave. It is beyond comprehension what is happening.
Sincerely,
Mary Dragieff
43 year resident in our home
Mag
N
Jennifer L. Hall
From: Mark McKinley <
Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 5:03 PM
To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Gloria S. Ma'ae; Trevor O'Neil; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; City
Manager
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Anaheim Council Response to California Dept of Housing and
Community Development Itr of 12/14/21 Overturning Grandma's House of Hope CUP
Denial
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Mayor Sidhu and Esteemed Council Members,
I have read the subj letter in its entirety, and I'll be brief, it is a marvel of obfuscation. Had the state reviewed
the same participation graphics provided at the CUP appeal proceeding, they would have noted the outstanding
participation in support and transition housing by the people of Anaheim. Best of neighboring cities in the
county, and likely the entire southland.
Anaheim does not discriminate against men or women, the disabled, at risk groups including juveniles, mentally
impaired, or the income -disadvantaged. Clearly the state did not have all necessary info from the GHH group,
or they ignored it.
The problem is residential area saturation; it has nothing to do with an effort on our part to not live up to
Housing Element Guidelines for the city.
Anaheim is home to this coast's premier resort destination. We do a fine job of welcoming the world, while
leading the county, if not the state, in transition and support Housing facilities.
This should be enough for a counter -campaign. The assertion of delinquency on updating Housing Element
Guidelines from 2014, if valid, is a minor administrative issue. This community is "walking the talk"
irrespective of an overdue guideline. I suggest we work with the state to make Guideline changes at an
appropriate priority.
Mark B. McKinley,
Northwest Anaheim
Jennifer L. Hall
From: Mary Dragieff <
Sent: Friday, January 7, 2022 2:33 PM
To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Ted White; City Manager; Stephen Faessel; Jose
Moreno
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Grandmas House OVERSATURATION OF WESTMONT COLONY
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Dear City Officials:
It is with extreme distain that I write you, once again regarding Grandmas House of Hope,
and her adamant fight to place her business into the home at 626 West Street. Why is she
hell bent" on this property? The reason I and others believe it is because she and the
homeowner are in business together. After all, she stated in her first meeting that she had
five (5) of his houses. The next time, she changed it to one (1) because she was probably
told it did not look good. Who is she kidding?
The letter from the state was quite condescending. GHH must be laughing their head off at
Anaheim. This is shameful that the largest city in the county, providing the state with most
of the money for projects is treated this way. No wonder for the first time, we lost more
residents, than acquiring. As normal business moves out of this state, are we to look
forward to group home businesses to support the state? If this were not so sad, it would be
comical.
I have five friends in real estate. They all said, they have never come across a home with 11
baths. This enterprise with the homeowner has been planned for years. He took a
beautiful ranch home in the historical area of Anaheim and destroyed the charm of this
iconic home in our Westmont Colony. The home no longer has the charm and beauty it was
did when Mrs. Florence Mitchell owned it. The business between GHH and the homeowner
will not stop with this property. They will continue to takeover this area and laugh all the
way to the bank!
You, our elected officials need fight back and put the brakes on this oversaturation of group
homes and monopolies such as GHH. Why does the founder not open these in her
neighborhood? One guess is because they will fight back. Costa Mesa fought back against
the state and won some victories. There are other cities fighting, and we expect you to care
enough, to do the same.
Sincerely,
1
Paul Dragieff
43 year resident
Mary
Jennifer L. Hall
From: Kanak Ratanjee <
Sent: Friday, January 7, 2022 7:31 PM
To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Ted White; City Manager; Trevor O'Neil; Avelino Valencia; Jose
Diaz; Jose Moreno; Gloria S. Ma'ae; Stephen Faessel; Kanak Ratanjee; Pastor Carlos
Garcia
Subject: [EXTERNAL] re. Grandma House of Hope on West Street and Pioneer Anaheim.
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Dear Mayor Sidhu,
City Manager, Planning Director and Council Members:
Group homes are becoming a problem for communities. I own a home
right next door to this project ,
Grandma's House of Hope, and their intention is to set up a
transitional home in the Westmont Colony and with so many homes
already in this neighborhood why? We still do not understand why this
area is such a big attraction in this residential area
An obvious question, how is the community protected for those that go off
medication and leave the confines of the property? Those with
Schizophrenia are unpredictable, with times of hallucinations. You probably
already know this. I for one would never live next to this property in fear for
my family.
What is problematic for me is that the state has the audacity to reprimand the
city of Anaheim when Anaheim has done so much for the homeless and low-
income family. Aren't you building a learning and training center on the old
Carl Karcher property at Harbor Blvd.? I think I read this is for teens with
criminal tendencies, in an attempt to turn them around.
Do not let the state dictate to you or other cities what is wrong. Change the
ordinances and the laws. The residents of Anaheim depend on city officials
to protect communities.
Stop the madness now. Fight the state!
Respectfully,
Kokrai (Ken) M Ratanjee
Anaheim,CA 92801
Jennifer L. Hall
From: Sandy Schaefer <
Sent: Sunday, January 9, 2022 1:16 PM
To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Ted White; City Manager; Trevor O'Neil;
avelino@avelinovalencia.com; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Gloria S. Ma'ae; Stephen
Faessel
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Grandma's House of Hope
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Dear Sir/Madam:
This is to express my fervent hope that the Anaheim City Council will find a way to defend its decision to deny the application
for transitional housing for Grandma's House of Hope at West and Pioneer, and in doing so, to defend the wishes of the citizens
of Anaheim who must live with this decision. Transitional living homes are needed, but it is unfair to expect this area of
Anaheim to be getting such a high concentration of them. The State should not have the right to make these decisions for us.
Thank you,
Sandra Schaefer, Anaheim Hills
Jennifer L. Hall
From: Maria Eliza Fajardo <
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:12 AM
To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Ted White; City Manager; Avelino@avelinovalencia.com; Jose
Diaz; Jose Moreno; Trevor O'Neil
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Grandma's House of Hope
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Dear Mayor Sidhu, City Manager, Planning Director and Council Members:
Greetings!
We heard about the issue of Grandmas House of Hope and the intention to set up another transitional house last
year. We are wondering why many of these group homes are going into the area of the Westmont Colony. We
still do not understand why this area is such a big attraction.
It seems to us that homes for the "severe and persistently mentally ill", is not a good idea for many reasons.
Safety issues for the residents, and for the inhabitants for one due to the degree of mental illness they state.
I know that this is a lucrative business. It may claim to be nonprofit, but there are huge financial rewards in this
operation. The state thinks it is cost effective to throw money at private enterprise to tackle the homeless
problem. Now they think private entities are equipped to handle those with serious mental illness. Storing three
to five individuals in a bedroom cannot be a healthy way for any person to live. This experiment will fail and at
great cost to inhabitants, residents and the community.
I am very disappointed how distorted picture of this project is being shown. We have several business like this
in our area now. It has changed the feel of security we once knew. Strangers come and go all hours of the day
and night which make us feel unsafe and restless.
We want the city to get involved in this. The state must consider the safety and quality of life for all. Housing
people with special needs requires highly trained, professional staff with regular inspections by authority.
Anaheim, please take a stand, and tell the state to be proactive, not reactive.
Respectfully,
Maria
Jennifer L. Hall
From: Paul Kott <paulkott@pkrealtors.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:11 AM
To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Stephen Faessel; Avelino Valencia; Jose Diaz; Gloria S. Ma'ae;
Jose Moreno; Trevor O'Neil
Cc: Jim Vanderpool; Ted White; Public Comment
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Supportive Housing/Notice of Violation
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Dear Mayor Sidhu and City Council Members:
First of all, I want to thank you for your dedication and commitment to the residents of
our City in connection with protecting our neighborhoods. As a resident of Anaheim
for over 65 years and real estate professional in Anaheim for 45 years, I believe that
there is nothing more important to our residents than promoting and providing a clean,
safe and high quality place where we can live. As a fundamental truth, if we cannot
provide this essential element for a prosperous city, we have failed in our efforts of
responsible governance. This has been especially highlighted during recent times during
the COVID-19 pandemic sheltering-in-place/remotely working from home environment,
in that we have placed extraordinary value on our homes, being the only "safe zone"
that a resident can depend on and should be able to enjoy. It is the only place where we
can control almost all aspects of our respective daily lives affecting our health, our
families and our livelihoods.
I have had an opportunity to read the letter from The Housing and Community
Development (HCD) dated December 14, 2021 and have several questions regarding the
context in which Mr. Zisser places this circumstance and additionally, how the City of
Anaheim has been defining and processing applications of this nature. It is certainly
easy for a Sacramento beaurocrat to sit in his office and make an interpretation based
on the one-sided perspective as continuously and erroneously portrayed by Grandma's
House of Hope by way of its own portrayal during the Community Meeting, the Planning
Commission and City Council Hearings, and in the post -Council decision media including
The OC Register article and NBC television coverage. In the latter, absolutely NO
MENTION MADE of the over -saturation of group homes in the immediate neighborhood
and the UNANIMOUS support for our neighborhoods by both our Planning Commission
and City Council. We have many Community Members who attended these meetings,
the Council Meeting until 1:30 am on a weekday, as they were so compelled and
committed to protecting our neighborhood. There was UNANIMOUS OPPOSITION BY ALL
NEIGHBORS and NO SUPPORT of this project at all except by those directly or indirectly
employed by or associated with the applicant.
The City of Anaheim has a history of caring for all of our residents including those most
vulnerable that fall into the category of homeless or in need of temporary supportive
assistance. Anaheim can hold its proverbial head very high in this regard as it has
championed assistance for those in -need for many years. Of the 34 cities in Orange
County, NOT ONE OF THEM comes close to the commitment, moral, financial and
emotional, that the City of Anaheim has made to address this societal issue. Our
shelters have an aggregate total of over 625 beds where people in need are provided
meals, a safe place to sleep, showers and counseling for a potential life -changing new
direction, if the residents are willing to make a change. I have been told by CitiNet that
there are several beds available at all three (3) shelters (Bridges, Salvation Army and La
Mesa).
Where are the "protections" for our current homeowners? Those who have been
responsible, who have sacrificed, saved, invested in a home for their families and their
retirement and have otherwise made good decisions in their life; are they allowed to
have protections as well? Why should their interests be subordinated to those who, by
and large, have made bad and irresponsible decisions that have led to their
malaise? Should homeowners and home renters that seek to have a quality
neighborhood in which to raise their families across our City be ignored?
Does Mr. Zisser's letter have any legal validity in the eyes of our City Attorney? If so,
why have we been misled otherwise? Who will be responsible for this outrageous
error? If not, then we need to mount our opposition if this is a fraudulent claim
and defend our City vigorously against this egregious state government
overreach. Every Council Member must be concerned for their respective Districts as
this is not just for our neighborhood but has far-reaching implications for every
neighborhood in Anaheim and every city in the state! You will have the support of every
neighborhood in our City! Please utilize every available contact and resource to send a
message to Sacramento that this type of heavy-handed government threat is not
welcomed, is not fair and will not contribute to the long-term good health for
neighborhoods and cities across our State.
Thank you again for standing up for Anaheim!
Sincerely,
Broker
1225 NAI L4icMn AvetlUe
ma 6ai, CA 9280
Phone: (714) 772... 000, Ext.ll I I
Fax: (714) 772...3372
DRE: //00637576
N
Jennifer L. Hall
From: natalie rubalcava <
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:48 PM
To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Stephen Faessel; Avelino Valencia; Jennifer Diaz; Gloria S. Ma'ae;
Trevor O'Neil; Jose Moreno; Public Comment
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Notice of Violation: City of Anaheim Notice of Violations of Housing
Element Law and Anti -Discrimination in Land Use
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Dear Mayor Sidhu and Anaheim City Council Members:
I am writing this letter in response to the notice of violation the City of Anaheim received from the Housing and
Community Development (HCD) agency dated December 14, 2021. As policymakers I know this type of
response from a state agency can be very daunting however, I urge you to challenge HCD's interpretation of the
housing element policy the city allegedly violated by utilizing a CUP process to deny Grandma's House of
Hope's transitional living facility. Based on HCD's interpretation of the policy, the City of Anaheim cannot
utilize a CUP process to review applications for use of housing in a neighborhood unless it applies the same
policy/process to other similar properties. This is not an apples -to -oranges comparison. Transitional housing
facilities are by definition a business that receives funds from outside sources, including the State of
California to provide shelter for individuals who are not necessarily residents of the city in which the facility is
operating. In this case a CUP should be required to assess whether a business such as a transitional housing
facility could safely operate in a residential neighborhood occupied by families and members of the
community. The city should have local control over the character and zoning of a neighborhood in order to
protect the community. Especially in cases like this where a business is looking to operate in an area zoned for
residential properties.
Anaheim has been a responsive partner to the County of Orange and the state providing opportunities for shelter
for many people including dozens of transitional housing facilities in district 3. As representatives for the city, I
urge you to challenge the states reasoning on this topic and fight to maintain local control over zoning and land
use in cases like this. If we accept their interpretation of a vague housing policy, we will be setting precedent
that will impact surrounding cities in Orange County. Furthermore, this would also create issues for any other
CUP's that have been granted over the years for transitional living facility operators to continue growing and
running their businesses without policies or rules that the city can utilize to protect families, residents and voters
alike. As I have mentioned in a previous letter to council, I am extremely concerned that this type of business
operation puts our community at risk and impacts the quality of life we work very hard to maintain. I
absolutely support providing housing and supportive services for all vulnerable populations. However,
Anaheim has overwhelmingly become the community that carries an unfair burden of the responsibility for
these populations. As a 43 -year resident of the City of Anaheim I have experienced the negative impacts
incompatible land uses, zoning variances, and widely allowed Conditional Use Permits have had on our
community.
Thank you,
Natalie Rubalcava
Anaheim, CA 92805
From: natalie rubalcava
Sent: Monday, October 25, 20219:19 PM
To: hsidhu@anaheim.net <hsidhu@anaheim.net>; SFaessel@anaheim.net <SFaessel@anaheim.net>;
AValencia@anaheim.net <AValencia@anaheim.net>; JDiaz@anaheim.net <JDiaz@anaheim.net>; GMaae@anaheim.net
GMaae@anaheim.net>; TONeil@anaheim.net <TONeil@anaheim.net>; jmoreno@anaheim.net
jmoreno@anaheim.net>; publiccomment@anaheim.net <publiccomment@anaheim.net>
Subject: October 26, 2021 City Council Meeting: Agenda Item 23
Dear Mayor Sidhu and Anaheim City Council Members:
I respectfully request that you accept the unanimous recommendation made by the Planning Commission and oppose
the Conditional Use Permit for 626 N. West Street, agenda item 23. The proposed CUP is located in a residential
neighborhood and should be denied because a 15 to 21 bed transitional housing facility is a business that changes the
character of a community.
During this process it has become apparent that District 3 is saturated with transitional housing facilities. As a matter of
fact, city staff does not have an accurate count as to how many single-family residences are currently operating as
transitional housing facilities in Anaheim. There are at least 10 in the general area of this proposed CUP. District 3 is a
diverse population of predominately working-class citizens with the majority being members of the Hispanic
community. Our community works hard and chooses to reside in a safe place where we can raise our families and live
peaceful lives.
I am extremely concerned that this type of business operation puts our community at risk and impacts the quality of life
we work very hard to maintain. This single-family residence is located within 700 feet of a public high school, two
elementary schools (less than 2,200 feet away) and two public parks (less than a half mile away).
I absolutely support providing housing and supportive services for all vulnerable populations. However, District 3 has
overwhelmingly become the community that carries an unfair burden of the responsibility for these
populations. Furthermore, Grandma's House of Hope has utilized the downtown neighborhoods to grow a multi-million
dollar business, carrying the burden for all 34 cities in Orange County. Grandma's House of Hope receives large sums of
taxpayer dollars from the County of Orange to provide services to the homeless population. In most cases Grandma's
House of Hope clients are not residents of Anaheim. When clients fail the program, they may end up back on the
streets, this time in Anaheim, which increases the number of homeless in our city.
At a recent community meeting on Thursday, October 21, 2021, the CEO of Grandma's House of Hope confirmed that
she chooses to have multiple business locations in District 3 so that she can use her staff at each location more
efficiently, as oppose to identifying locations across the County of Orange that would be more conducive to serving the
region at -large.
As a 42 -year resident of the City of Anaheim I have experienced the negative impacts incompatible land uses, zoning
variances, and widely allowed Conditional Use Permits have had on our community. The addition of this very large
facility in an already impacted area is not good for the community.
I urge you to support the unanimous decision of the Planning Commission, and prioritize Anaheim's residents and
neighborhoods above all else and deny this application by Grandma's House of Hope.
Thank you,
Natalie Rubalcava
Anaheim, CA 92805
Jennifer L. Hall
From: Carrie Rodriguez <
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:59 PM
To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Trevor O'Neil; Jose Diaz; Gloria S. Ma'ae; Jose Moreno; Avelino
Valencia; Stephen Faessel; City Manager
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Grandma's House - 626 N West St & 945 W Pioneer Dr
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Hello,
Thank you all for voting against this project. I appreciate that you listened and voted to support the nearby
residents.
Of course, it is disappointing to hear the news that the state is going against the decision. I ask that you please,
in any way possible, continue to support the homeowners in the area. Please do all you can to maintain our
local control of this issue.
Thank you!
The unfailing love of the Lord never ends!
Great is his faithfulness, his mercies begin afresh each day.
t"JII' Ifl(,{II")I! 2 t
1
Jennifer L. Hall
From: Danny Allen <
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 1:15 PM
To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Ted White; City Manager; Trevor O'Neil;
avelino@avelinovalencia.com; Jose Diaz; Jose Moreno; Gloria S. Ma'ae; Stephen
Faessel
Subject: [EXTERNAL] State HCD letter RE: Grandma's House if Hope
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
ISSUES WITH STATE HCD LETTER TO ANAHEIM
GRANDMA'S HOUSE OF HOPE (GHH)
State HCD letter to the city is so overstated there are only two interpretations:
o The City's planning process is seriously flawed OR
o HCD is wrong
HCD says the City of Anaheim is incompetent and doesn't know the long-
standing law regarding transitional and supportive housing
o Why has the City processed CUPs for these homes for years if they were not allowed?
o How do other cities process these?
o Why has GHH already processed and approved 6 CUPs for these homes in Anaheim if they
didn't need to?
We are not aware of any similar sized city in California that has done more for the homeless and
disadvantaged communities
o What are other similar sized cities doing?
o Anaheim needs to summarize and highlight the outstanding resultsthat have been
produced regarding:
Section 8 Low Income Rental Units (more per capita than other cities)
2 homeless shelters
Huge number and saturation of group homes
Number of affordable housing units
This letter represents HCD's interpretation of the law
o What is the City's interpretation of the law?
o How are other cities interpreting the law?
o Is this the first transitional/supportive housing CUP denied by the City?
HCD is threatening Anaheim (and other cities) regarding local land use. Anaheim is one of the
few cities that has the resources to fight back to save our neighborhoods.
o Has the city done all that it can to influence HCD?
Form a coalition with other cities?
Talked to our legislators to change the law through the legislative process?
Considered legal action?
GHH (and other transitional home businesses) are now empowered tocommercialize our
neighborhoods and put mental health facilities of any size in any neighborhood of our city
o Don't you find it odd that the City has approved 6 CUPs for GHHand the very first denial
they get is immediately red flagged to the state and may cause substantial financial liability
to the City?
o Did City staff talk to HCD in advance of receiving the letter dated 12/14/21?
We are asking you to take a stand now because we don't have a choice.
o If HCD has its way, there will be businesses operating in every neighborhood of
Anaheim - including yours.
o Please don't surrender our local control to bureaucrats in Sacramento.
Sent from my iPhone
N
PublicComment
From:Youth-on-the-Move, Inc. and the International Educators' Hall ofFame Program
p_adelekan+yahoo.com@ccsend.com>
Sent:
To:Public Comment
Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] Join us for our Fundraiser
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Preserving Legacies , Honoring Excellence,
Uniting Generations
P.O. Box 5983, Garden Grove, Ca 92806
1
January 7, 2022
Dear Hall of Famers, Friends, Families, and others,
The Board of Directors of Youth-on-the-Move, Inc. (YOMI)a501
c)(3) nonprofit organization that started in 1986 is having a
fundraiser to help support our programs.
We hereby humbly invite you to support us and to attend the
drawing-celebrations from 1PM to 4PM, on March 13, 2022 at
the Headquarters of YOMI and the International Educators' Hall
of Fame: 1850 E. 17th Street #103, Santa Ana, CA. 92705
At this time, we are having a raffle fundraiser and would like you
to buy and/or help us sell raffle tickets which are only $10.00
each or 3for $25.00.
The First Prize is a 3-wheel adult Schwinn Bicycle
nd2 Prize; a Mercedes vehicle for youths ages 3-6
rd3 Prize; $50.00 cash
th4 Prize; a one One-Year Membership to YOMI
th5 Prize; ABook: A Teenager’s Handbook of Success
From the websites, you can easily purchase the raffle tickets by
using the "donate" button. The receipt you get for your donation
will inform you (and us) about the number of tickets you buy/sell.
And we shall enter your name, phone, and email on your
numbered receipt.
We encourage you to visit our websites and to view and like
some of our activities i.e. our 2021 2nd Virtual International
Educators' Hall of Fame Ceremony: youthonthemove.net and
educatorshalloffame.org
2
We sincerely thank you in advance for your needed and kind
support.
Linda Jaeckels, Board Member and Raffle Coordinator 714-495-
1750
Dr. Patricia Adelekan, Founder, 714-628-9844
P.S. If you would like to support us by selling at least 25 tickets,
please let us know.
Visit our 2nd Virtual
Celebration 2021
Watch VideoLearnAboutOurPrograms
Contact Us
Youth on the Move
International Educators
Hall of Fame
3
Youth on TheMove
Donate Now
International Educators' Hall of Fame
Dr. Patricia Adelekan, Retired Educator,
Founder, CEO; 714-628-9844;
Email:iehof2015@gmail.com
International Educators' Hall ofFame | 1850E. 17thStreet, Room103, SantaAna, CA 92705
Unsubscribepubliccomment@anaheim.net
UpdateProfile | AboutConstantContact
Sentby
4