Anaheim City Council
September 10, 2024

ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 27, 2024
The regular meeting of February 27, 2024 was called to order at 5:04 p.m. in the Council Chamber of Anaheim City Hall, located at 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard. The meeting notice, agenda and related materials were duly posted on February 22, 2024.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ashleigh E. Aitken and Council Members Norma Campos Kurtz, Jose Diaz, Carlos A. Leon, Natalie Rubalcava, Stephen Faessel, and Natalie Meeks
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Jim Vanderpool, City Attorney Robert Fabela, and City Clerk Theresa Bass
INVOCATION: Imam Mustafa Abdelhafiz, West Coast Islamic Society Prior to the Flag Salute, Council Member Faessel asked to honor front-line healthcare workers, first responders, and military service members.

FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Stephen Faessel
CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT:

City Attorney Fabela stated for the record that at the February 13, 2024 Council meeting regarding Closed Session Item No. 1, approval was given to enter as an amicus curiae in the case of Johnson v. City of Grant Pass, a class action matter addressing public camping.

PRESENTATIONS:

Recognizing Frank Garcia for his years of service to the Anaheim community Mayor Aitken presented the proclamation to Frank Garcia. She mentioned he is a long-time restauranteur and opened La Casa Garcia in 1973. She recognized his successful restaurant career as well as his selfless philanthropy. Combining his passion for food and giving back to the community, she noted over the last three decades his annual event “We Give Thanks” serves free Thanksgiving meals to community members. She explained that the event began in his restaurant in 1986 and is now hosted in the Honda Center parking lot and serves 10,000 free meals on Thanksgiving. She added his philanthropy extends beyond Anaheim from assisting with Hurricane Katrina to delivering supplies to orphanages in Tijuana.

Mr. Garcia stated it has been an honor to be in the City for over 50 years. He thanked the City Council for the proclamation. He thanked his family for their support and thanked all that give back in Anaheim. He announced on May 5th, he and his wife will be celebrating 50 years of marriage and his upcoming 80th birthday in August.

Recognizing Cypress College Foundation’s Citizens of the Year for Anaheim, Jody Daily and Kevin Kidney
Howard Kummerman, Executive Director, College Foundation & Community Relations at Cypress College thanked the City of Anaheim for supporting the event for 49 years. He also noted Frank Garcia has been awarded as a Citizen of the Year. He reported the Foundation has recognized 55 Citizens of the Year. He noted over 4,000 students from the City attend Cypress College and through City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

the event, the Foundation is able to provide scholarships and emergency assistance to students. He presented the new Cypress College President Dr. Scott Thayer. He recognized the Citizens of the Year Jody Daily and Kevin Kidney. He reported they both stand out in the community for leading litter-picking walks and as founders of Green Bird Anaheim, they have rallied community and business support for cleaner streets. Their efforts revived the Anaheim Fall Festival and Halloween Parade and created the City’s mascot Andy Anaheim. Mr. Kummerman added they both have been recognized by local officials and Congress for their environmental activism and preserving local history.

Mr. Kummerman recognized Person of the Year Bobbie Stovall who has delighted audiences as a classically trained musician and jazz pianist. He highlighted her impact on the community through her support of various community organizations from rehabilitation centers to educational institutions. Mr.

Kummerman highlighted the Americana Awards event taking place on March 16th to honor the Citizens of the Year and Person of the Year.

Mr. Kidney expressed his appreciation for the recognition.

Ms. Stovall thanked the City Council and Cypress College for the proclamation.

Recognizing Green Bird for their 10 years of service to the City of Anaheim Mayor Aitken thanked Jody Daily and Kevin Kidney for their 10 years of service to the community.

She explained that Green Bird is a volunteer group that focuses on picking up litter in Anaheim. She provided background on the Green Bird organization which originated in Japan and was introduced to Anaheim by Mr. Daily and Mr. Kidney following their trip to Japan. She noted the Anaheim team is the first Green Bird organization in the United States. She encouraged members of the community to join in the monthly cleanups.

Presentation by Disney VoluntEARS
Mayor Aitken noted that 2023 marked the 40th anniversary of the Disney VoluntEARS program. She added that the program began in 1983 when Disney employees in Anaheim formed a community action team. She noted program members have completed over 10 million service hours worldwide.

In 2023, the Disney VoluntEARS completed over 5,000 hours in Anaheim alone.

Gina Arreola with the Disneyland Resort thanked the City Council on behalf of the Resort and over 35,000 cast members for the proclamation. She noted that the program started in Anaheim and highlighted cast member’s passion for community service. She presented a video of completed project highlights in Anaheim including four (4) park beautification projects, book donation events which distributed more than 60,000 children’s books, back-to-school drives, participation in the Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Orange County, and upcoming community projects.

ACCEPTANCE OF OTHER RECOGNITIONS (To be presented at a later date):

Recognizing February 11, 2024, as 2‐1‐1 OC Day and February 2024, as 2‐1‐1 OC Month
Elizabeth Andrade, Executive Director, 2-1-1 Orange County, thanked the City Council for the recognition and provided a brief overview of 2-1-1. She noted that 2-1-1 Orange County receives over half a million contacts each year. She expressed appreciation to the staff at 2-1-1 OC and for the City Council’s partnership.

City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

Recognizing February 18‐24, 2024, as National Engineers week City Engineer Carlos Castellanos thanked the City Council for the recognition for National Engineers Week. He noted this year’s national theme was “Welcome to the Future” which is dedicated to ensuring a diverse and well-educated workforce. He added that the City invests in the future by offering engineering internships to college and high school students to show the benefits of studying engineering. He encouraged residents interested in a career in engineering to reach out to the City’s Engineering Division for more information.

Recognizing February 2024, as Black History Month
Shedrick Collins, Vice-President of the Orange County Heritage Council thanked the City Council for the recognition for the work they are doing in the community. He noted the organization has been in the City for 13 years. The program began in 1980 in Santa Ana to unite community members and over time became a citywide event that thousands attend. He thanked the Council Members, Disney partners, and members and volunteers of the Orange County Heritage Council for their service. He encouraged the City Council to assist with next year’s 45th Anniversary.

ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS (all agenda items, except public hearings): Prior to receipt of public comments, an outline public comments procedures and a brief decorum statement was provided by City Clerk Theresa Bass.

City Clerk Bass reported that a total of 15 public comments were received electronically prior to 5:00 p.m. [ A final total of 19 public comments were received electronically, distributed to the City Council, and made part of the official records]. – See Appendix.

Mark Richard Daniels expressed opposition to Item No. 24. He noted there should be no giveaway of City-owned property and should be a thoroughfare for the City. He encouraged Council Member Rubalcava to resign given the potential cost of $1 million in election costs to the City. He noted it is not in the best interest of the City to pay for a recall election. He remarked that Council Member Rubalcava should pay for the recall should she lose.

Andrew Gonzalez with the Los Angeles and Orange County Building Trades Council expressed opposition to Item No. 30. He noted the recall is not about corruption, malfeasance, or failure to represent residents, but about sour grapes. He explained that this is truly about Measure A which was an unwarranted and unwanted policy decision that would have destroyed jobs, closed small businesses, and chased away future economic development. He noted that Council Member Rubalcava did the right thing to protect hotel workers with a policy that provided panic buttons for vulnerable hotel workers. He remarked that the recall was wrong and noted that Council Member Rubalcava is a champion for labor. He encouraged the City Council, local leaders, and residents to vote no on the recall.

Randy Wetmur expressed opposition to Item No. 30. He noted that UNITE HERE kills jobs and that Ironworkers Local 416 also has working families living in their cars. He championed Council Member Rubalcava for advocating and supporting labor unions. He noted that the recall was tyranny and encouraged City residents to vote against the recall.

City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

Mike Robbins expressed opposition to Item No. 24 and reported that Magic Way serves 10,000 cars per day. He remarked that at the Planning Commission meeting, the original designer of Magic Way never intended it to be used as a thoroughfare for the freeway or the destinations. He noted that Orangewood Avenue was also never intended to be used as a thoroughfare but it takes three cycles to get through the intersection. He noted the City needs all the arteries for the already existing traffic generated by Disneyland. He explained that Disney has spent millions of dollars to people to speak in support of their project. He encouraged the City Council to work with Disney to pare it down.

Jeanine Robbins reported attendance at the Planning Commission’s DisneylandForward Workshop and noted she heard exaggerations and outright lies. She noted that when residents met with Disney’s consultant Joe Haupt, he told residents to read the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). She noted he then told residents contradictory information after residents read the EIR. She noted that existing city streets cannot handle the current daily traffic flow of the residents, 50,000 daily visitors, plus 37,000 employees daily. She explained that traffic congestion leads to frustration and impacts resident’s quality of life. She encouraged the City Council to bifurcate the Magic Way closure from the agenda item. She encouraged the City Council to attend the planned protest on February 29th from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. at Magic Way and Walnut to see the traffic themselves. She encouraged the City Council to read the EIR report.

G. Price reported that Item No. 24 gives the illusion that DisneylandForward is a done deal. She reported that there is no traffic study of Magic Way in the EIR. She noted the EIR looks like Disney is backing into the taking of a public street. She noted Disney provided a traffic count the day after a resident requested a traffic study. She commented that Disney has indicated that this is being done because of a petition by residents which has never been presented. She noted that 99% of Magic Way traffic is Disney traffic with less than 100 of the over 11,000 trips representing locals. She explained that the numbers do not make sense and are the opposite of the narrative being pushed.

She encouraged the City Council to read the EIR.

Beverly Griggs reported she lives at the corner of Walnut Street and Cerritos Avenue. She explained that anything that can be done to reduce the traffic on Walnut Street is a good thing. She noted that Magic Way was never intended to be a thoroughfare but noted that Disney is going to pay the City $40 million to privatize the road. She commented that Magic Way is being used by Disneyland guests. She encouraged the City Council to approve Item No. 24.

Carolina Mendez, a resident from District 3, noted that few residents are opponents of development.

She explained that they are not against growth but against a model of growth that leaves residents on the sidelines. She encouraged residents to speak for those who cannot, including residents of Walnut Street and surrounding areas, and how it impacts their quality of life. She expressed concern regarding the $30 million investment in housing and noted that residents deserve more and are looking for sustainable solutions. She noted that Anaheim is not just a pitstop for tourists but a home for residents 365 days per year. She encouraged the City Council to consider the residents first.

Randy Lewis expressed opposition to Item No. 24. He explained that he is a resident of the Pepperwood community off Walnut Street, and the issue of keeping Magic Way open is very important to him. He noted that Magic Way is a shortcut through the freeway from Disneyland Drive while avoiding tourist traffic on Katella and Ball Road. He commented that the closure of Magic Way was not studied by Gibson Transportation Consulting for DisneylandForward and noted that no potential impacts or mitigation have been made public. He explained that there has been no public review of these issues because they were not in the study. He referenced a meeting that Disney hosted with residents about being a good neighbor by reducing cut-through traffic. He reported the study commissioned by Disney was performed by Kittleson and Associates during a four-day City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

collection period. He noted it does not represent an accurate sampling of traffic patterns. He commented that it does not meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He encouraged the City Council to oppose Item No. 24.

Cynthia Ward encouraged the City Council to pull Item No. 24 and bifurcate Magic Way out of consideration for a separate discussion. She noted it was not studied in the Gibson report and therefore was not subject to public review. She advised that the traffic count from Disney has not been made public. She noted that Disney also has not addressed that Magic Way was a replacement for Cerritos Avenue as a required mitigation measure under CEQA. She advised that staff started Disney’s application in September 2023 although the public review period was not completed until October 30, 2023. She read a quote from Disney regarding their application that stated, “Since speed is more important than perfection in this moment to stay on track, timewise, you will see a solid B plus effort here.” She expressed concern about Disney operating with no fear of consequences from staff saying no to the application. She provided copies of the sections of the EIR relative to her claims and provided them to the staff. She noted she has an email that shows that staff cannot agree on traffic study numbers. She encouraged the City Council to bifurcate the Magic Way discussion.

Stephanie Mercadante thanked Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz for asking for information regarding the closure of Magic Way and hopes she will reach out with what she has learned. She encouraged the City Council to pull Item No. 24 for discussion and remove Magic Way from any scheduled public hearing.

She noted the documentation does not meet CEQA standards. She remarked that DisneylandForward seems to ignore that Magic Way was a required mitigation measure under CEQA in EIR 311 from 1993, Modified Mitigation Monitoring 0067 from 1996, and included the Developmental Agreement and other documents in late 1996. She explained that Magic Way was a replacement for Cerritos Avenue being closed. She advised that she has spoken to hundreds of neighbors in the area immediately around the resort and has collected 370 physical signatures on a petition in person with another 322 signatures in an online petition which she will forward to the City Council. She noted they did not know that the closure of Magic Way was in the project and they did not request its closure. She noted it is Disney’s responsibility to figure out how to develop their new plans without sacrificing residents who deserve the protection of City Hall. She reiterated that the City Council is the only voice residents have to defend themselves. She encouraged the City Council to remove the discussion of Magic Way from future hearing dates until credible information can be reviewed by the public.

Wes Jones expressed support for Item No. 02. He remarked that Magic Way is not included in the EIR and noted that it was built to remediate the loss of Cerritos Avenue. He encouraged the City Council to work with Disney to not make it too burdensome on the residents.

Ted Watkins reported he has lived right across from the Disney parking structure for over 40 years and has seen many traffic incidents over the years. He noted it can sometimes take 3 to 4 minutes to back out of his driveway. He noted that the increase in traffic on Walnut Street would be dangerous.

He advised that there have been several accidents out in front of his home, a lack of law enforcement presence, and although there is a weight limit of 5,000 pounds on Walnut Street, semis regularly travel the road. He noted that closing Magic Way would be a mistake and encouraged the City Council to visit the area.

Vern Nelson reported that the Planning Commission meeting was broadcast and recorded and thanked the City Council. He encouraged the City Council to consider Zoom meetings so residents can comment remotely. He reported he attended the Planning Commission meeting regarding DisneylandForward. He encouraged the City Council to pull Item No. 24 for discussion. He noted that if Magic Way is closed it will create more traffic on Ball Road and Katella Avenue. He emphasized City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

contrary to the information provided by Disney; Magic Way is not only used by Disney employees. He encouraged the City Council to consider Cynthia Ward for the Planning Commission. He reiterated his request to consider Zoom participation for Council meetings.

Norma Lopez, Vice-President of the Orange County Labor Federation, encouraged the City Council to vote no on Item No. 30. She noted that one organization alone was not happy with the results and called for an election. She encouraged Council Member Rubalcava to not consider resigning. She commented that this issue went before the voters of Anaheim, and they voted no. She pledged to work hard to ensure Council Member Rubalcava remains in office. She noted that during every election cycle, voters determine whether they believe that Council Members deserve a second term.

She reiterated that an organization taking it upon themselves to have an expensive election on the back of the community is uncalled for.

Richard Licerio, a 46-year resident of Anaheim, noted that the recall attempt was appalling. He remarked that the City Council is doing a great job and encouraged Council Member Rubalcava to not consider resigning. He commented on Item No. 24 and mentioned that he is a third-generation laborer out of Orange County. He noted that DisneylandForward is one of the best things to come out of the City Council.

Ross Bunch reported he is a 30-year member of the Operating Engineers Local 12. He noted he is here to stand with the LA/OC Building Trades and the Labor Federation of Orange County in full support of Council Member Rubalcava. He noted that since day one she has been in support of working people being able to benefit from good wages, and benefits, at the end of their career, being able to retire with a pension.

Kenneth Batiste commented that the City of Anaheim is $4 billion in debt due to special interests ruling the City Council. He reminded the City Council that the recall was initiated by a worker's organization. He noted that the City has repaid a $1 billion bond but Disneyland has not paid any tax to the City of Anaheim. He remarked that Disney operates like the City should be grateful that they are here. He recommended that the City Council develop a better partnership with Disney and the Anaheim Angels.

Cecil Jordan Corkern reported he is still working on the security reports for Disney. He noted he was praying for the City Council and the Anaheim Police Department.

Ruben Soto noted that the City Council’s past will come back to haunt them.

Matthew Duncan, a longtime Anaheim resident, expressed opposition to the City's eight-year coyote trapping and gassing program. He reported he spoke with staff he stated that coyotes were humanely euthanized. He noted that coyotes are not humanely euthanized as initially reported. He requested that City officials refrain from stating coyotes are humanely euthanized.

Marc Herbert commented that fire stations and fire service at Disneyland along with Fire Station 12 were discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. He noted that his understanding of the EIR is that Disney is proposing a substation which is not a substitute for Fire Station 12 in the Platinum Triangle. He commented that his understanding was that the goal for Fire Station 12 was to cover Anaheim Canyon and the Resort District. He referenced a letter he sent on February 4th to the Mayor, City Attorney, and City Manager and is awaiting a response to his 21 questions. He inquired if the streaming of the Planning Commission meeting was policy or a one-time event. He also inquired if it is policy to hear proponents before opponents for public hearings. He noted that his public comment time started counting down before he ever spoke a word. He encouraged the City Council to read the City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

6th Cycle Housing Element Update and noted it states that “public participation in the development, adoption, and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning.

During the process, the City must continue to engage with the community.” He noted residents have not been engaged since June 28th when the State notified the City that it is not in compliance.

Bryan Kaye referenced some petitions he submitted to the Mayor and some of the City Council and inquired why he has not received a response. He noted that he has filed approximately 40 reports with the FBI and has seen six people get arrested and serve time which may explain why he has been arrested 15 times with no evidence against him. He explained that he was in court and explained to the public defender that they could not represent him because of forged criminal plea agreements in his name. He encouraged the City to present evidence against him. He encouraged the City Council to follow the rules and follow the law.

Isabella Borrayo, a 12-year-old resident of Anaheim, thanked the City Council for doing their best for the community. She encouraged Council Member Rubalcava to remain in office to stay strong because she is needed by the community. She thanked Council Member Faessel for his hard work in District 5.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz thanked residents and businesses who have taken the time to call, email, or text the District 4 office regarding problems or concerns in their neighborhoods. She stated that the complaints range from trash not being picked up to more serious issues like graffiti, double parking in alleys, illegal fireworks, speeding, poor or nonexistent lighting, and unsafe tree branches and sidewalks. She stated that the areas around Walnut Street, 9th Street, and Cerritos Avenue have 65 upgraded lights because residents expressed concerns. District 4 also has a new left turn at an intersection, parks are being revitalized, a parking study is taking place, sidewalks have been fixed in neighborhoods, and unsafe trees have been trimmed. Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz thanked Anaheim Public Utilities, Public Works, and Community Services for all the help.

Council Member Faessel thanked Public Works and Anaheim Public Utilities for fixing streetlights and working with Caltrans to fix the lights at the 91 freeway underpass at State College and East Street that was vandalized by unhoused individuals. He stated that residents should have received a copy of the Community Services Spring 2024 Anaheim Activity Guide. He stated that he reviewed every page of the guide and there are hundreds of programs for kids, adults, and seniors. Some of the programs include the STARS After-School Program, Fun on Wheels Mobile Recreation Program, Project S.A.Y. Teen Program, VolunTEEN Program, and Aquatics Program. Council Member Faessel shared that he has been a longtime member of the Anaheim Community Foundation, and they recently presented a $1,500 grant to the Anaheim Ballet for their no-cost community outreach program for underserved Anaheim youth and a $1,000 grant to Girls, Inc. of Orange County for their StrongHer Together Program which provides Anaheim teen girls with educational and health and wellness programming. He noted that District 5 recently hosted a neighborhood community meeting at Sunkist Elementary School and approximately 30 residents attended. He thanked the residents for asking very important questions. He also thanked Community Services, Public Works, Anaheim Public Utilities, Anaheim Police Department, and Code Enforcement for their participation. Council Member wished his wife Susan a Happy Birthday and shared that they will be celebrating their 52nd wedding anniversary in August.

City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

Council Member Diaz highlighted and shared photographs of Aqua-Tots Swim Schools at 3150 West Lincoln Avenue. He shared that swimming classes are available, and the water is always 90 degrees.

There are plenty of chairs for parents to sit and observe their kids learning how to swim. He recommended Aqua-Tots Swim Schools to everyone who has a child who needs to learn how to swim. Council Member Diaz stated that a business like this brings new life to District 1.

Council Member Rubalcava thanked everyone who provided a public comment and participated in the process. She highlighted and shared photographs of events in District 3 including the grand opening of En Familia restaurant. She stated it was an honor to join Evelyn and Chef David Fuerte to celebrate the modern Mexican cuisine at the historic Anaheim Packard Building. Council Member Rubalcava stated that the owners already have reservations because of a convention at the Resort District and it is nice to see that the economic development is trickling into the heart of Anaheim. She thanked Council Members Faessel and Leon for attending the grand opening and the Anaheim Packing District for hosting the event. Council Member Rubalcava congratulated Anaheim High School Girls Wrestling Team Captain, Lilyana Balderas, who placed third at the Girls CIF State Wrestling Championships. Lilyana is a two time CIF-Southern Section Masters Champion and a state competitor. She announced that Little People's Park has been selected for a Kaboom Park makeover and thanked Community Services. Little People's Park was developed in 1969 and officially became a park in 1970. This park has always been a place of significance for a primarily working class Chicano neighborhood, populated by immigrants and first and second generations since the early 1900s. The park was the center of unrest in 1978 when a rival gang opened fire on a celebration in the community. The police response was seen as heavy handed against the victims who reported the incident. The incident became known as the Chicano riots. She stated that since then, significant progress has been made. Residents and the police force came together last year when the new mural was unveiled, and the City Council recognized August as Chicano Heritage Month in the City of Anaheim. Council Member Rubalcava noted that the community design day will be at Benjamin Franklin Elementary School on March 7, 2024, and everyone is invited to participate in the process.

May 14th through the 15th are prep days for the build and May 16 is the actual build day. She mentioned that there are 15 parks in District 3 and residents are happy to have the Kaboom playground equipment at Little People's Park.

Council Member Leon informed everyone that due to rain in the forecast, the park cleanup and beautification project on March 2, 2024 at Modjeska Park has been rescheduled to April 6, 2024. He encouraged everyone to sign up for the event by visiting loveanaheim.org. He stated that the Little Arabia Brookhurst Corridor Ad Hoc Committee met, and the Committee is working towards getting banners and additional signage on Brookhurst Street as the City awaits the approval of the Little Arabia freeway signs by Caltrans. Council Member Leon thanked Mayor Aitken and Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz for their support and recommendations for improvements on Brookhurst Street. He also thanked residents for their patience throughout the approval process as progress is made to address homelessness and quality of life concerns. He thanked everyone who attended the “Cafecito Con Carlos” (Coffee with Carlos) event at Starbucks off Katella Avenue. It was a great opportunity to connect with District 2 residents and hear some of their concerns. He shared that Stoddard Elementary School student Emilio, provided great suggestions for upcoming projects that the District 2 office is considering. He also thanked the West Anaheim Police Team and Community Services for attending the event. Council Member Leon shared that he had the opportunity to tour Sunburst Youth Challenge Academy, which is a residential leadership academy for teens that are at risk of not graduating high school. He encouraged City Council Members to tour the facility because it is amazing. It is a free program that is offered through the Orange County Department of Education to help students develop self-confidence, discipline, and life and education skills that are necessary to become successful and reach their full potential. He was able to connect with a few Anaheim students. He thanked Sergeant Uribe and Katelyn Brazer for the tour and their team's efforts in City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

helping at-risk youth. He stated he looks forward to recognizing Anaheim graduates later this summer. Council Member Leon recognized Angelo's Burgers as the February Restaurant of the Month. Angelo’s was nominated by a District 2 resident who said, “they treat you like you're at home, even though you get sit down restaurant service, and it's a real blessing to have them back.” The restaurant is located off Ball Road, west of Brookhurst Street. They went through a lengthy closure due to a fire but have since reopened. For the February Business of the Month, he recognized Brizuela’s Bakery. Brizuela’s is located off Katella Avenue and Euclid Street. Brizuela’s opened almost 30 years ago by Mexican immigrants Luz and Jose Avalos. Jose shared that when he was growing up in Mexico, his family did not have a lot to eat, and struggled. He came to the United States because it is the land of opportunity. They offer tamales, cakes, and Mexican sweet bread.

Their kids attended Loara High School and participated in the football program. Council Member Leon stated he was proud to recognize Brizuela’s Bakery for all their hard work, commitment, dedication, and support to the West Anaheim community.

Mayor Aitken highlighted and shared photographs of events she attended including the Orange County Business Council Annual Dinner, which was held at the Disneyland Hotel honoring some of the significant contributions of Anaheim’s business community. She mentioned that she was able to visit with former OC Fair & Event Center colleagues including General Manager and CEO Michele Richards. Mayor Aitken attended the District 4 community meeting. She encouraged all residents to attend community meetings in their Districts and thanked staff from all the different departments who attend the community meetings. She shared that after the District 4 meeting, she visited the Don Churros Food Truck at the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace. There is always a long line, but it is well worth it because the churros are amazing. She encouraged everyone to support this Anaheim business. Mayor Aitken attended the opening day of the Anaheim Hills Little League. There was a parade in District 6, and all the kids were in their team uniforms. She wished all the kids a great season. She attended the Access California Services Gala. She stated that Founder and Executive Director, Nahla Kayali and the organization do great work in the community. They not only work with immigrant and refugee families from Arab American communities, but they have expanded and helped absolutely everyone with families that are coming here from Latin America. New community caseworkers were recently hired to work with the families. She congratulated Access California Services for all the work that they do in Anaheim.

CITY MANAGER’S UPDATE:

City Manager Vanderpool stated that the City of Anaheim Department of Public Works and Republic Services will host the Annual Compost Giveaway event on Saturday, March 2, 2024, rain or shine, from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. while supplies last at the Angel Stadium of Anaheim parking lot.

Residents may enter the stadium from Douglass Road off Katella. Residents with proof of Anaheim residency can get up to 60 gallons of fresh compost for use in gardens, potted plants, or as yard soil or ground cover. This event highlights the success of the City’s organic waste collection program and allows an opportunity to “close the recycling loop” by giving back to the community. Earth Machine Compost Bins will be available for purchase at the event for only $20.

City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

CONSENT CALENDAR: At 7:06 p.m., the Consent Calendar was considered with Council Member Leon pulling Item No. 06, Council Member Rubalcava pulling Item Nos. 03, 05, 13, and 24, and Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz pulling Item Nos. 04 and 21 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 as presented, in accordance with reports, certifications, and recommendations furnished each City Council Member, seconded by Council Member Meeks.

ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES – 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Rubalcava, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES – 0. Motion carried.

1. Approve recognitions recognizing Rosary Academy’s Girls Water Polo Team for winning the CIF-Southern Section Division 4 Championship; and Boys and Girls Club 2024 Youth Awardees.

2. Approve the First Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan to allocate $1,694,799 of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for park improvements; $1,000,000 HOME Investment Grant (HOME) funds for Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) for the Senior Safety Net Program and $20,000 for the One Time Rental Assistance Program for security deposits; and $90,000 of Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funds to increase homeless prevention and housing stabilizations services to assist individuals or households who are at risk of homelessness; designate the Director of the Housing and Community Development Department as the Certifying Official authorized to execute all documents related to the administration, management, and implementation of the funding; and amend the Housing and Community Development, Community Services and Public Works Departments’ FY 2023/24 budgets accordingly.

7. Ratify an increase of $50,000 plus a 20% contingency in the value of the current agreement with Waxie Sanitary Supply, from an amount not to exceed $100,000 to $150,000 to accommodate the increased demand of janitorial supplies for the agreement expiring April 30, 2024; authorize the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to exercise a one year agreement renewal, in an amount not to exceed $150,000 plus a 20% contingency, in accordance with the terms of National Cooperative Purchasing Alliance (NCPA) Cooperative Contract #02-27; and authorize the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to execute documents related to the agreement.

8. Award an agreement with Merrimac Energy Group, in an amount not to exceed $2,458,149.40 plus applicable tax and a 25% contingency, for the purchase of automotive fuel for a one year term with up to four one-year optional renewals; ratify a one-month extension of the agreement with AAA Oil, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $120,000 plus a 20% contingency, for the purchase of automotive fuel; and authorize the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to execute the agreement and related documents, and exercise the renewal options, subject to available budget appropriations (Bid #9760).

9. Award an agreement with Universal Protection Service, LP, dba Allied Universal Security Services, in an amount not to exceed $680,142.19 per year plus a 20% contingency, for street-sweeping parking enforcement services for a two year term with up to three one-year optional renewals; and authorize the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to execute all necessary documents, and exercise the renewal options, subject to available budget appropriations (Bid #9740).

City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

10. Award an agreement with American Freedom Security, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $37,030 plus a 20% contingency, for as-needed unarmed security guard services for a one year term with up to four one-year optional renewals; and authorize the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to execute all necessary documents, and exercise the renewal options, subject to available budget appropriations (Bid #9763).

11. Award agreements with Pacific Towing Inc. and Archie’s Towing, in a combined amount not to exceed $146,085 plus a 20% contingency, to provide as-needed towing services for city- owned vehicles for a one year term with up to four one-year optional renewals; and authorize the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to execute all necessary documents, and exercise the renewal options, subject to available budget appropriations (Bid #9748).

12. Award the construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder, All American Asphalt, in the amount of $6,339,671, for the construction of Residential Street Improvement Project – Peary and Avenida, Group 16; authorize the Director of Public Works to execute the contract and any other related documents, and take the necessary actions to implement and administer the contract; authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions; and determine 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.

14. Approve Cooperative Agreement No. 2024-1 between the City of Anaheim and the cities of La Habra, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Fountain Valley to implement traffic signal synchronization on Euclid Street from the intersection of Euclid Street and La Habra Boulevard in the City of La Habra to Euclid Street and I-405 Southbound Ramps in the City of Fountain Valley, for a term through December 31, 2028 and authorize a cost match in an amount not to exceed $230,230.

15. Approve a Cooperative Agreement between the City of Anaheim and the cities of Fullerton, Placentia, and Yorba Linda to implement traffic signal synchronization on Yorba Linda Boulevard/Weir Canyon Road from the intersection of Yorba Boulevard and State College Boulevard in the City of Fullerton to Weir Canyon Road and Oak Canyon Drive in the City of Anaheim, for a term through December 31, 2030 and authorize a cost match in an amount not to exceed $161,077.90.

16. Approve the Final Map and Subdivision Agreement of Tract No. 19192 with OrangeAve 2024, LLC, for a proposed residential condominium project comprised of 24 attached single-family townhomes with open space, private drives, and landscaped areas, located at 2219 W.

Orange Avenue.

17. Approve a First Amendment to Agreement with MWH Constructors, Inc., in the amount of $2,275,863 with a 15% contingency for extra services to be applied to the total Contract Amount, as so amended, to provide for additional construction management and inspection services for the Groundwater Treatment Program; and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager, or designee, to execute the First Amendment and other related documents and take the necessary actions to implement and administer the agreement, as amended.

City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

18. Approve an agreement with NewGen Strategies and Solutions, LLC (NewGen), in an annual not to exceed amount of $60,000, for electric utility cost of service studies and related consulting services for a four year term with two one-year optional extensions; authorize the Public Utilities General Manager, or designee, to execute the agreement and related documents and take the necessary actions to implement and administer the agreement; and authorize de minimis changes that is do not substantially change the terms and conditions of the agreement as long as such changes are determined to be de minimis by the City Attorney’s Office.

19. Approve an agreement with Borrego Energy, LLC, in an annual amount of $125,000 per year with rollovers of unspent funds to subsequent years and an annual Consumer Price Index escalator, for solar photovoltaic (PV) systems operated by Anaheim Public Utilities for a term of five years with up to five one-year optional extensions; and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager, or designees, to execute and deliver the agreement and any supporting documents, including to execute letter agreements and make changes to Exhibits A and B of the agreement on an as-needed basis to add new PV systems to the agreement’s scope of services, and take the necessary actions to implement, fund, and administer the agreement.

20. Approve Agreement No. A0-5296 regarding the assignment of extraordinary supply from the Santa Ana River Conservation and Conjunctive Use Program among The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the Municipal Water District of Orange County, the Orange County Water District, the City of Anaheim, the City of Fullerton, and the City of Santa Ana, with a term of 61 years; and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager, or designees, to execute and deliver the agreement and any related documents, such as extraordinary supply certifications and cost-neutral amendments of the Agreement that is are deemed de minimis by the City Attorney’s Office, and take the necessary actions to implement and administer the agreement.

22. Approve a First Amendment to Agreement with Carpi & Clay Inc. for federal advocacy services for an additional two one-year optional renewals and to increase the total not to exceed contract amount from $180,000 to $315,000; and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to administer the agreement under the terms and conditions of the Agreement.

23. RESOLUTION NO. 2024-013 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting the City of Anaheim Title VI Plan and authorizing its submittal to Federal Transit Administration and California Department of Transportation; and determining this action is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) because it is not a project as defined in Section 15378.

City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

25. RESOLUTION NO. 2024-015 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM vacating a portion of a public equestrian and hiking trail easement located at 7651, 7671 and 7673 East Corto Road and 370 and 371 South Timken Road pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 8330, et seq. - Summary Vacation (ABA2020- 00402).

Authorize the City Clerk to hold the recordation of resolution until a new multi-use trail easement deed is (1) accepted by the Director of Public Works, in accordance with Resolution No. 2021-042, and (2) recorded in Official Records of the Office of the Orange County Recorder; and approve the return of all Park and Recreation Impact Fees, totaling $27,775.84, related to this development in consideration of a supplemental multi-use Trail Easement segment filling in a trail gap.

26. RESOLUTION NO. 2024-016 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting a Memorandum of Understanding establishing terms and conditions of employment for employees represented by the Service Employees’ International Union, United Service Workers West, and repealing Resolution No. 2022-143 (effective December 22, 2023 through December 19, 2025).

27. ORDINANCE NO. 6569 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Section 1.01.389 of Title 1 (Administration) of the Anaheim Municipal Code to make it unlawful for any person to threaten, follow, intimidate, obstruct, or impede any Community Preservation Officer engaged in the performance of his or her respective duties, job description, and/or enforcement authority as provided in the Anaheim Municipal Code; and to authorize Community Preservation Officers to ask persons who are violating provisions of the Code or State law for their identification, as allowed by law, in order to facilitate the enforcement of the Code and State Law [includes determination that is the proposed amendments are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations].

ORDINANCE NO. 6570 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Chapters 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); 18.30 (Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) Overlay Zone); 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations); 18.42 (Parking and Loading); 18.44 (Signs); 18.46 (Landscaping and Screening); 18.52 (Housing Incentives); 18.62 (Administrative Reviews);

18.92 (Definitions); 18.122 (Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1 (SP 2017-1) Zoning and Development Standards) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code; Adjustment No. 7 to the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1 (SP 2017-1) Zoning and Development Standards; and finding and determining that is this ordinance is not subject to 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 (Development Application No. 2023-00047) [Annual Code Update].

28. ORDINANCE NO. 6567 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending certain sections of Chapter 1.09 of Title 1 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to impose limitations on loans to, and the retirement of outstanding debt incurred by, candidates and candidate controlled committees [setting limits on the amount that is candidates may lend to their campaigns, and requiring candidate to retire campaign debt within twelve months of an election] (introduced at the Council meeting of February 13, 2024, Item No. 22).

City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

29. ORDINANCE NO. 6568 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the title of Chapter 4.52 of the Anaheim Municipal Code from “Peddlers and Solicitors” to “Solicitors and Sidewalk Vendors”; amending certain sections of Chapter 4.52 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to establish operational standards for sidewalk vendors in order to protect public health, safety, and welfare; to provide an additional enforcement mechanism and appeal process for a violation of sidewalk vendor regulations; and to make other modifications consistent therewith (introduced at the Council meeting of February 13, 2024, Item No. 23).

BUSINESS CALENDAR:

3. Receive and file the list of Professional Services Agreements executed by the City Manager in January 2024.

Assistant City Manager Greg Garcia introduced the item which is to receive and file the list of Professional Services Agreements signed by the City Manager in January 2024. He reported a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services agreement with the City of Newport Beach was the only agreement executed by the City Manager in January.

Chief of Police Rick Armendariz reported the item is an agreement with the City of Newport Beach for police services they can provide when there is a need for additional resources, specifically events where the City can be reimbursed such as Disney Run. He explained that Disney Run is a three-day event with enormous attendance so the additional resources were tapped for traffic safety control.

He noted the expenses were reimbursed to the City of Newport Beach via Disney. He explained that this is an agreement to establish a relationship with the City of Newport Beach to provide additional services as needed.

DISCUSSION: Council Member Rubalcava noted that Disney plans to have future events. She inquired about how the Anaheim police officers are compensated and if it is held on a holiday weekend if they receive holiday pay.

Chief Armendariz noted that these events are typically during the holiday weekends and are taxing for City services. He noted they work with the various labor unions Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) because it is not only police officers but professional staff such as traffic controllers and Professional Services Responders (PSRs). He further explained they work with the unions to ensure that staff are compensated properly and reimbursed by the vendor.

In response to Council Member Rubalcava, Chief Armendariz reported Disney reimburses the City for the services they utilize.

Council Member Rubalcava encouraged staff to ensure that the City is fully compensated when being reimbursed by Disney and that the City is going back to them for contract negotiations to ensure City staff is receiving more compensation when the events take place on holiday weekends.

MOTION: Council Member Rubalcava moved to receive and file the list of Professional Services Agreements executed by the City Manager in January 2024, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz.

ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES – 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Rubalcava, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES – 0. Motion carried.

Without objection from the City Council, Mayor Aitken considered the remainder of agenda items that were pulled out of order and heard Item No. 5 prior to Item No. 4.

City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

5. Waive the bidding and publication requirements of Council Policy 4.0 and authorize the purchase of six (6) Tesla Model Y vehicles from Tesla, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $320,000 plus all applicable taxes and fees; waive the bidding and publication requirements of Council Policy 4.0 and authorize the purchase of the parts and associated upfitting for the aforementioned vehicles from Unplugged Performance Inc., in an amount not to exceed $297,000 plus all applicable taxes and fees and a 20% contingency; and authorize the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to complete the purchases and upfittings.

Chief Armendariz reported that the item is a staff recommendation from the Anaheim Police Department, Public Works as well as the Finance Department to request authorization from the City Council to waive the sealed bidding requirements for Council Policy 4.0 and authorize the purchase of six (6) Tesla Model Y long-range vehicles from Tesla Incorporated, in the amount not to exceed $320,000, waiving the sealed bidding requirement for Council Policy 4.0, and authorizing the purchase of the parts and associated uplifting for the aforementioned vehicles from Unplugged Performance, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $297,000 plus applicable taxes and fees.

Chief Armendariz reported that during the pandemic, as a budget-saving measure, the City deferred ordering replacement police vehicles for the years 2020 and 2021 and noted that in 2022, the City began to order replacement vehicles. He explained that due to the national supply and demand challenges, it was unknown when the current replacement orders would be filled. He emphasized that this is a critical need as the APD patrol vehicle fleet is depleted to the point where the City does not have enough vehicles for officers to deploy and properly serve the community. He noted that the current fleet of Dodge Chargers has passed its useful life and is experiencing more frequent repairs due to age and high usage. He advised that this has led to an increase in maintenance and repairs, leaving vehicles out of service for long periods.

Chief Armendariz reported that 69 of 83 patrol vehicles are in service with an average age of seven- plus years. He noted that APD faces daily struggles with maintaining these vehicles and on average, we have 10 to 12 that are always in for repair. He explained that parts and supplies are becoming increasingly difficult due to availability. He reported that Public Works is having to get online and look on Amazon to find certain parts that are no longer being manufactured. He explained that patrol remains a priority so vehicles that are assigned to specialized units are often reallocated to patrol.

Chief Armendariz reported on the mitigation measures that have been taken. He noted that Public Works has done a phenomenal job in trying to maintain the fleet services while going through this challenge. He explained that this is a national supply and demand issue facing every police department. He reported that since 2022, the City ordered 58 Ford Interceptors and two weeks ago finally received 21 of the vehicles. He explained that it is anticipated that the 21 vehicles will not be deployed for at least another two to three months to outfit those vehicles with the necessary specialized equipment. He reported that APD purchased 15 police vehicles that are pursuit-rated. He noted that those vehicles are also in the process of being outfitted with specialized equipment. He reported that Public Works has coordinated the refurbishment of four police vehicles that were previously retired. He noted that those vehicles are continually breaking down and as previously mentioned, is difficult to find parts for them. Lastly, he advised that the department has also reallocated other vehicles from specialized units such as the HALO team, Gang Unit, and volunteers to give back to patrol to ensure that patrol remains a priority.

Chief Armendariz reported that the Tesla Model Y has a practical balance of vehicle features in the electric vehicle market including an extended driving range achieved with a long-range version, affordability, car performance including all-wheel drive acceleration, and handling safety features City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

including cameras and sensors. He noted that the vehicle is also large enough to serve as a police vehicle with rear seats large enough to transport prisoners safely and securely along with extensive storage space. He explained that Tesla has built an expansive supercharging network not only in the city but throughout the nation. He noted that Tesla also offers immediate vehicle availability through their existing inventory.

Chief Armendariz reported that Tesla has successfully collaborated with other California law enforcement agencies to convert all or part of their fleet from gas-powered to electric-powered vehicles including South Pasadena which is in the process of converting their entire fleet, Fremont, and Greenfield police departments. He remarked that several agencies throughout the nation including federal entities such as the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Protective Service, have expressed interest in Tesla’s.

Chief Armendariz reported that Tesla presented the Anaheim Police Department with a unique opportunity to procure six (6) Tesla Model Y Long Range electric vehicles from its current available fleet inventory. He explained that Tesla's associate vendor Unplugged Performance can outfit the vehicles to APD specifications including making them pursuit-rated, adding ballistic panels, increasing safety features, light sirens, and other electronic components, and maintaining the Tesla vehicle warranty. He remarked that Tesla will provide on-site maintenance for most items outside of routine maintenance. He advised that Tesla and Unplugged Performance have committed to delivering the vehicles within one (1) month from the time of order which allows APD to deploy vehicles to patrol. He explained that they will also assist with facilitating testing and evaluation of the vehicle's performance in a patrol setting under real-world operational conditions and adjusting components as necessary.

Lastly, he advised that Tesla would train Public Works staff to perform routine vehicle maintenance including changing tires, brakes, and windshield wipers.

Chief Armendariz reported that the Tesla Model Y long-range vehicles will be assigned to various patrol shifts within 24 hours and operate under real-world conditions. He noted that the department would have 16 officers trained and assigned to the vehicles as primary drivers to evaluate the vehicle's performance. He noted that APD will evaluate the overall performance and functionality of the vehicles for public safety purposes. He explained that there is more up-front investment with the Tesla at $95,000 compared to the Ford Explorer Police Interceptor at $79,100, however, the City can expect cost savings on fuel and maintenance costs in the long term.

Chief Armendariz reported that APD evaluated the Ford Mustang Mach-E and explained that it is not listed as a police fleet vehicle by Ford, is not pursuit-rated, and the turnaround time after purchase is undetermined. He noted they are typically used as an administrative vehicle by some agencies that have them deployed. He reported that APD also evaluated the Chevy Blazer Electric vehicle and explained that it is not available for purchase at this time and would not be available to readily be deployed. He reported that APD plans to use existing charging infrastructure for charging the vehicles and noted that there are already eight charging stations at the Police Department. He advised that there are several charging stations at the Public Works Corporation Yard as well as City Hall. He reported that there are at least three supercharging stations throughout the City. He noted that some agencies that currently utilize the Tesla’s have found impromptu community engagement opportunities when officers are charging their vehicles at a supercharging station.

Chief Armendariz reported that the Tesla Model Y in particular averages 300 miles per charge and noted that APD officers drive approximately 100 miles in a 12-hour shift while on patrol. He noted that the pilot program would evaluate and implement protocols and policies to mitigate any issues related to the vehicles being charged. He reported that the bulk of energy consumed by the batteries is acceleration and highway driving. He reported that the seats are big enough for uniformed police City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

officers with all their police gear and have been tested with officers of various body sizes and shapes and confirmed that they were able to maneuver in and out and operate the vehicles with their police gear.

Chief Armendariz reported that with the authorization of this purchase, APD could obtain six pursuit- rated Tesla Model Y Long Range patrol vehicles upgraded with safety features fully outfitted by the end of March. He confirmed that the upgraded vehicle will maintain the Tesla warranty. He advised that there is no impact on the General Fund budget because these six vehicles will be incorporated into the Fiscal Year 24/25 Vehicle Purchase Plan. Lastly, he reported that there is a neutral cost to potential cost savings with the investment on the front end providing savings for the duration of the vehicles on the back end.

Chief Armendariz reported that in keeping with APD's vision of being strategic, innovative, and collaborative, the public-private partnership being developed can have the potential to position APD to be a leader in the design and utilization of electronic vehicles for the law enforcement profession in the future. He noted that staff recommends waiving Council Policy 4.0 due to Tesla's “No Reseller” policy which requires a purchase to end-consumers directly and waiving the bidding requirement of Council Policy 4.0 due to the vendor's guarantee that work performed does not void the manufacturer's warranty, the highly specialized and proprietary technology offered by the vendor, and their ability to customize the vehicle to APDs exact specifications and last name. He recommended authorization of the purchase.

DISCUSSION: Council Member Rubalcava recalled that the news reported that rental companies are now releasing their Tesla fleets because they have had a lot of challenges with not only the vehicles not holding their charge but also a lack of performance. She inquired if the reason that Tesla has inventory is that the cars are seen as experimental. She also noted that these vehicles seem very “luxurious” and inquired about what happens if the vehicles do not work out.

Director of Public Works Rudy Emami responded that he believes that it was Hertz Rental Car that put their Tesla’s up for sale not due to the performance of the vehicle but because they were not meeting their business model. He commented that the Tesla was the number-one-selling vehicle in the world. He deferred to Chief Armendariz to speak to this aspect in terms of operations.

Chief Armendariz explained that this is a pilot program with the immediate result of putting six fully outfitted police vehicles into service within a month. He confirmed that they would continue to investigate other EVs but they do not solve the immediate need. He reiterated that APD will be putting that vehicle through extensive performance testing and if they do not perform to satisfaction, as a last alternative they can be used for other positions within the Police Department.

Council Member Rubalcava mentioned that Forbes and the New York Times are shedding their electric vehicles due to the increase in the cost of maintenance. She encouraged Director Emami to investigate those reports should this be an option for the City. She explained that she understands that Tesla is trying to increase its market share within the law enforcement sector. She expressed concern that the City is being too experimental with taxpayer dollars and noted that the priority should be procuring cars that are going to be long-lasting for patrol officers so they can respond to calls for service. She noted that she feels that cost recovery will take longer than presented and added that it does not optically feel good for her constituents in District 3.

Council Member Faessel thanked Chief Armendariz and Director Emami for the individual meetings they had with the City Council. He remarked that he would like to ensure that these vehicles are out City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

in the field and not being used as supervisorial vehicles. He inquired if the Tesla data collection system and the City’s data collection system would remain separate due to legal requirements.

Chief Armendariz confirmed that the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) and the Mobile Digital Communicator (MDC) will not be connected to the vehicle's data collection system. He advised that there are several technical measures in place to make sure that data is completely secured.

Council Member Faessel inquired if there is any dependency on Tesla's data collection for information that impacts any legal concerns. Police Chief Armendariz confirmed there is no dependency.

In response to Council Member Faessel, Chief Armendariz confirmed that 16 officers have volunteered and will receive an extensive Emergency Vehicle Operation Course (EVOC) specific to operating the Tesla. He added the week prior; his staff provided an EVOC course.

Council Member Faessel noted that he was very impressed that APD could get the Tesla’s fully outfitted within a month while waiting two years to obtain the first 15 vehicles from an order placed in 2022. He agreed with Council Member Rubalcava that Tesla’s promote a certain look but police vehicles are urgently needed and meet the needs of residents.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz inquired about the supercharger locations in the City. Chief Armendariz reported there is one at Ruby’s Diner and another at the Festival Center in East Anaheim. Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz noted the third was at 2400 East Katella Avenue.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz inquired about the duration of the pilot and how they will determine if they meet APD needs. Director Emami explained that the number one need is obtaining vehicles now and this is the quickest way we can get officers in cars and out on the street and keep the community safe. He advised that the secondary purpose is that APD would like to incorporate electric vehicles and this allows them to evaluate the vehicle and obtain different maintenance data over the full life span of the vehicle. He explained that if a year from now the vehicles are performing well as patrol vehicles, APD may return to the City Council to ask for more. He further explained that if they are not performing well, they will be used for light-duty use. He noted that APD will be ordering and receiving more Ford Explorers as they have in the past. He reiterated that the purpose of the pilot is to get patrol cars on the street now to see how they perform.

In response to Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz, Director Emami confirmed the previous vehicles identified for procurement are slated for delivery. In addition, Director Emami confirmed staff will not purchase additional Tesla’s unless the City Council approves.

Council Member Diaz remarked that the supply chain for police vehicles is very tight and noted that manufacturers do not want to sell to government agencies because they make more money selling to consumers. He reported that other agencies have provided feedback to the City regarding the Tesla’s and noted that have confirmed that they are happy with the vehicle. He remarked that the City is on a police officer hiring streak but there are not enough patrol vehicles. He explained that this is the staff’s response to being innovative, thinking out of the box, and coming up with a solution. He noted that these are not luxury vehicles but regular standard vehicles that many people can afford. He reiterated that this is a tremendous opportunity for officers to interact with residents which helps build continued trust with the police as a community investment. He expressed his support for the item.

City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

Council Member Leon expressed support for the item. He inquired if there is any relief built into the purchase order for the previously ordered vehicles for the extensive delay. Director Emami explained that this is the same supply issue that every other police agency in the state has been dealing with and confirmed that they are purchasing directly from the manufacturer.

In response to Council Member Leon, Director Emami explained that six vehicles fill the need for keeping patrol operations going and give the City just enough data to evaluate their usefulness.

Council Member Leon inquired about the timeframe to get the vehicles on the streets fully equipped.

Director Emami reported that Tesla is ensuring that they will be received by the end of March. He addressed the perception of the Tesla brand name and explained that the City would be purchasing their entry-level vehicle that ranges between the high $30K and the high $40K. He further explained that this is not their luxury vehicle offering.

Council Member Meeks expressed support for the item and noted it is imperative to get patrol vehicles out on the street. She explained that the City has tested or purchased a few different models of police cars since they stopped making the Crown Victoria years ago. She noted that each of those purchases was important and the City learned things from each purchase. She explained that if they do not turn out to be the perfect patrol vehicle, the City can find many different uses for them.

Mayor Aitken referenced the opening of a Tesla dealership in Anaheim and inquired what the timeframe would be to purchase these vehicles from an Anaheim-owned and Anaheim-centered business.

Director Emami reported that he is working with a Tesla representative now and noted the dealership is under construction. He confirmed that the dealership will not be open before the City purchases the six vehicles but has asked them to pull the appropriate paperwork to ensure the first six cars they sell are to the City.

Council Member Rubalcava expressed appreciation for the comprehensive presentation and the time staff took to discuss it with the City Council. In response to Council Member Rubalcava, Chief Armendariz reported that South Pasadena has had their Tesla’s for over four months.

In response to Council Member Rubalcava, Chief Armendariz reported that South Pasadena is a much smaller city than Anaheim with a population of approximately 60,000. He explained that APD was interested in the usage of the vehicle such as vehicle turnover between shifts and how the vehicle performs. He noted that South Pasadena has had nothing but positive comments regarding the performance, endurance, and quality of the vehicle. He confirmed that they are still learning about the vehicle but all the feedback they reported has been positive in many different aspects.

Council Member Rubalcava requested information on the number of average calls for service in South Pasadena compared to Anaheim.

Council Member Rubalcava inquired about the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and how success would be measured. Director Emami reiterated that the most important need is to get patrol vehicles on the streets as there are not enough patrol vehicles today. He explained that the next priority is measuring how these vehicles perform in terms of staying on the road. He noted that one of the biggest issues with the fleet today is that vehicles are breaking down due to their age. He explained that maintenance is a huge factor and noted that the Dodge Chargers are running into oil pump, transmission, and brake failures. He noted that these are not seen in a Tesla. He explained that another improvement would be having the maintenance fleet be trained and certified by Tesla. He reiterated that the only things Tesla technicians need to change on the vehicles are windshield City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

wipers, brakes, and tires. He also reiterated that Telsa will be completing warranty maintenance onsite which will facilitate being able to get these vehicles back on the road on the same day. He explained that today vehicles are being sent back to the dealership or manufacturer which puts them out of service for weeks. He surmised that these are all KPIs that can be taken into measure. He noted that if APD comes back to the City Council to ask for additional Tesla’s they will bring back actual numbers to talk about. He emphasized that Tesla ‘s were not manufactured to be police vehicles and various items would be considered to keep that in mind. He reiterated that these are all things that will be evaluated and will be in the KPIs that are reported back to the City Council.

Chief Armendariz remarked that the KPIs would be performance, endurance, safety, and functionality and would be reviewed during the pilot program.

Council Member Rubalcava expressed concern that the charging stations would be used by Tesla drivers in proximity and not necessarily Anaheim residents. She remarked that she would not be supporting the item because she does not think that Anaheim should be experimenting. She noted that if the City were to be concurrently testing a different hybrid at the same time she would be on board. She expressed support for the staff’s outside-of-the-box thinking. She thanked the staff for all their research and appreciated that it could potentially be purchased in Anaheim to generate additional tax revenue. She commented that she does not think it is a good use of taxpayer dollars for APD at this time.

Director Emami noted that APD is also testing Ford Explorer hybrids as well.

MOTION: Council Member Meeks moved to waive the bidding and publication requirements of Council Policy 4.0 and authorize the purchase of six (6) Tesla Model Y vehicles from Tesla, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $320,000 plus all applicable taxes and fees; waive the bidding and publication requirements of Council Policy 4.0 and authorize the purchase of the parts and associated upfitting for the aforementioned vehicles from Unplugged Performance Inc., in an amount not to exceed $297,000 plus all applicable taxes and fees and a 20% contingency; and authorize the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to complete the purchases and upfittings, seconded by Mayor Aitken. ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-1 (AYES: Mayor Aitken and Council Members Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Faessel, and Meeks; NOES: Council Member Rubalcava). Motion carried.

4. Waive the bidding and publication requirements of Council Policy 4.0 and award an agreement with Airbus Helicopters Inc., in an amount not to exceed $350,000 plus applicable tax and a 20% contingency, to purchase airframe helicopter parts, components and labor for the Police Air Support Division for a one year term with up to four one-year optional renewals; and authorize the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to execute the agreement and related documents, and exercise the renewal options, subject to available budget appropriations.

Purchasing Agent Jered Rakosky reported that the item is a recommendation to waive the bidding and publication requirements of Council Policy 4.0 and award an agreement to Airbus Helicopters Inc., in an amount not to exceed $350,000 plus applicable tax and a 20% contingency, to purchase airframe helicopter parts components and labor for the Police Air Support Division. He advised that the recommendation also authorizes the Purchasing Agent or their designee to exercise agreement renewals for up to four additional one-year periods subject to available budget appropriations.

Purchasing Agent Rakosky explained that Airbus is the original equipment manufacturer of the airframe parts and components of the three Airbus helicopters that the Anaheim Police Air Support Division operates. He explained that as the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) they have a faster turnaround time than other distributors, broader availability of products, and provide overhaul City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

services. He noted that as a direct Airbus customer, the City would also have access to its parts catalog, which is beneficial as it would allow the placing of online orders and viewing of expected delivery times.

DISCUSSION: Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz inquired why a Request for Proposal (RFP) process was not considered. Purchasing Agent Rakosky explained that overhauls and repairs require that Airbus does the work and any other vendor would ultimately end up sending the engine to Airbus anyway. He explained that Airbus prioritizes its direct customers when it comes to parts and performing services over its distributors and resellers.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz expressed concern that the City Council continues to be asked to waive the bidding process which she noted is a requirement of the City Council. She required if this was an emergency. Chief Armendariz explained that Airbus is the original manufacturer of the aircraft and the OEM of the airframe parts and components. He noted that they have a faster turnaround time than their distributors. He explained that one of the things that is important is that many of the parts for the City’s helicopter are only available through Airbus. He confirmed that as a direct Airbus customer, the City will have access to their online parts catalog allowing the placing of online orders and viewing expected delivery times. He noted that Airbus is offering the City a 5% discount off their published manufactured list price on the planned orders and establishing an agreement with the OEM would allow the Air Support Division to provide continual service which is a critical service.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz inquired how staff knows if that is true if there was not an RFP. Purchasing Agent Rakosky explained that very few businesses can perform these kinds of repair services and provide these kinds of parts. He noted that there is currently an engine being overhauled that has been delayed because of parts which have pushed up the timeline for an overhaul of another helicopter.

Chief Armendariz explained that the prior agreement with Airbus and Helimart, Inc., for the airframe helicopter parts components and labor expired on July 31, 2023. He advised that a competitive bid process to procure these contracts opened on May 18, 2018, and closed on June 5, 2018, and was approved by the City Council on July 31, 2018. He noted that the contract was a one-year contract with four annual renewals. He advised that the annual renewal is near and is requesting a sole source contract to continue with air support.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz inquired if asking for a one-year term was considered. She noted that staff could then open the bidding process for any additional years to reevaluate the cost and other vendors. Purchasing Agent Rakosky advised that can be done and there is no obligation to renew any of the option years. Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz remarked that she would like it to be considered instead of just waiting for another five years.

Council Member Diaz explained that is one of those cases where Council Policy 4.0 makes total sense. He noted that Airbus is the manufacturer and other vendors will have to buy from them and sell it to the City. He explained that the City would save money by purchasing parts directly from the manufacturer.

In response to Council Member Faessel, Purchasing Agent Rakosky confirmed that the City has had a contract with Airbus since 2018.

Council Member Faessel agreed with Council Member Diaz's previous comments. He inquired if there had been performance issues or an inability to fulfill parts or services with Airbus in the past. He also inquired if this has been a positive arrangement for the City. Chief Armendariz concurred that it City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

has been positive for the City and has not been made aware of any issues or concerns with the vendor.

MOTION: Council Member Meeks moved to waive the bidding and publication requirements of Council Policy 4.0 and award an agreement with Airbus Helicopters Inc., in an amount not to exceed $350,000 plus applicable tax and a 20% contingency, to purchase airframe helicopter parts, components and labor for the Police Air Support Division for a one year term with up to four one-year optional renewals; and authorize the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to execute the agreement and related documents, and exercise the renewal options, subject to available budget appropriations, seconded by Council Member Faessel. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES – 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Rubalcava, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES – 0. Motion carried.

5. Award an agreement with Golden Buckeye, Inc. dba Burnett Printing, in an amount not to exceed $78,236.50 plus applicable tax and a 20% contingency, for as-needed citywide printing services of envelopes, letterhead and business cards for a one year term with up to four one-year optional renewals; ratify a three-month extension of the agreement with Tajen Graphics, Inc., dba Apollo Printing & Graphics, in an amount not to exceed $30,000 plus a 20% contingency, for citywide printing services of envelopes, letterhead and business cards; and authorize the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to execute the agreements and related documents, and exercise the renewal options, subject to available budget appropriations (Bid #9751).

Purchasing Agent Rakosky reported that the item is a recommendation to award a one-year agreement to Golden Buckeye Inc., doing business as Burnett Printing, in an amount not to exceed $78,236.50 plus applicable tax and a 20% contingency, for as-needed citywide printing services of envelopes, letterhead, and business cards and to authorize the Purchasing Agent or their designee to exercise agreement renewal for up to four additional one-year periods subject to available budget appropriations. He explained that the recommendation is also to ratify a three-month extension of the City's current agreement with Tajen Graphics Inc., doing business as Apollo Printing and Graphics, in an amount not to exceed $30,000 plus a 20% contingency, for citywide printing services of envelopes, letterhead, and business cards. He reported that the Purchasing Division posted Request for Bids No. 9751 on the City's bid portal on December 4, 2023, and advised that 6 responsive bids were received and Burnett Printing was the lowest responsive bidder. He advised that the extension of Apollo's agreement allows for the uninterrupted continuation of printing services while the City completes processing a new procurement to establish a new agreement and covers the time required to fully develop and transition to the new vendors' ordering portal.

DISCUSSION: Council Member Leon expressed concern because it seems like the recommended action is taking business away from an Anaheim-based business and moving to a printer that is based in Placentia. He requested that Purchasing Agent Rakosky clarify the difference between a low bid and a Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Purchasing Agent Rakosky explained that a low bid process is very objective and is purely based on pricing. He further explained that in this case, the bid was based on historical usage and quantities of the various items that the City had printed and the resulting agreement would contain unit pricing. He noted that the ordering would be as needed. He explained that the RFP process would be based on factors other than price, including experience, understanding of the City's needs, and references, and would require an evaluation committee. He noted a low bid is preferred whenever possible to obtain the best pricing for goods and services for the City.

Council Member Leon inquired if other things are taken into consideration such as being a minority- owned business, women-owned, or Anaheim-based. Purchasing Agent Rakosky explained that the City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

City's practice has been to give local bidders a preference of 1%, which is the only preference typically given for such procurement.

Council Member Leon inquired about the difference in numbers in the bids between regular paper and recycled content paper. Purchasing Agent Rakosky explained that the solicitation allowed for a bidder to provide bids for supplying recycled content as a separate optional bid. He further explained that if any of those bids for recycled content were equal to or less than the lowest bid, then the City as part of its environmental policy could have selected that vendor. He noted that in this case, the lowest bid was not for recycled content paper. He confirmed that the City would only select that vendor if it was equal to or less than the lowest bid.

Council Member Leon inquired why the City Council is voting on this item since it is under $200,000.

Purchasing Agent Rakosky explained that staff is anticipating using the four optional years and the aggregate value of the contract would exceed the City Manager’s authority at that point.

In response to Council Member Leon, Purchasing Agent Rakosky explained that only a vendor’s bid amount is considered if they met the minimum qualifications for being a vendor for the City.

Mayor Aitken noted that the City has an environmental program, yet it is making it very difficult to do the right thing with a low bid process. She inquired if the City could require that all its printing was done on recycled paper just for the instance of this contract. Purchasing Agent Rakosky explained that if the solicitation required that upfront it would have been something that could be required.

Mayor Aitken noted that Apollo Printing and Graphics is a union print shop. She inquired if it was an option to take it out of the low bid process and solicit it in a way that opens it to Anaheim-based or union shop print houses. Purchasing Agent Rakosky explained that if it was conducted as an RFP the City could develop the evaluation criteria as it sees fit.

Mayor Aitken expressed concern about the item and noted she would prefer to see future contracts like this conducted as an RFP to ensure the City has flexibility in contracts to give preferences to Anaheim businesses, minority and women-owned businesses, and union shops.

Council Member Meeks commented that the City does give preference to Anaheim businesses by 1%. She explained that the bids are usually priced to get value for the taxpayers. She noted that if the City Council wants to add value to these low-bid contracts it should be a Council Policy and would want to see the Purchasing Division bring back options and values for certain criteria such as Anaheim-based or a union shop to ensure that everyone is treated fairly. She expressed support for moving forward with the item.

City Manager Vanderpool remarked that the Purchasing Agent is following City Council Policy on purchasing. He explained that if the City Council were interested in revisiting that policy, it might be time to reevaluate the entire purchasing policy. He noted that the City needs to enter into some type of contract to move this necessary service forward. He suggested that instead of not voting on the item, the City Council approve a one-year contract to move ahead and at least keep the item in place for now and bring it back for City Council review.

Council Member Leon expressed interest in reviewing the City Council Policy on purchasing and agreed it should continue to be fair. He requested confirmation on whether the Council can proceed with approving the agreement without the renewals.

City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

City Manager Vanderpool advised that he recommends that the City Council approve the one-year agreement with Golden Buckeye; ratify the three-month extension with Tajen Graphics dba Apollo Printing & Graphics, and authorize the Purchasing Agent to execute documents, which would then give ample time for the Purchasing Policy to be reviewed.

Council Member Diaz explained the difference between the low bid process and the RFP process. He noted that they cannot be mixed because they are two separate processes under the law. He commented he was hesitant to even discuss the item because the City requested a low bid process which was fulfilled. He agreed with the dais’ comments regarding keeping business in Anaheim but noted it is important to comply with the law. He requested additional clarification from the City Attorney if the process from a low bid to an RFP can be conducted.

City Attorney Fabela remarked that the policy is set by the City Council and not state law that would be seen in construction contracts. He agreed that it would make him nervous if the City had put out a certain set of rules and switched it. He agreed with Council Member Diaz’s point that it is better to be consistent to be safe.

Mayor Aitken inquired if Golden Buckeye could print on recycled paper and if it is simply more costly.

Purchasing Agent Rakosky confirmed they do have the capability.

Council Member Faessel referenced a large regional utility that has a Small Business Enterprise (SBE) program that scores based upon some criteria and provides an incentive of a percentage that goes towards the cost of the contract. He noted that the bigger question for him is if the City Council wants to move forward with a small business incentive program.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz inquired if any of the other bidders were small businesses.

Purchasing Agent Rakosky explained that the only consideration was the local bidder's preference.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz expressed concern about reviewing this item by item and encouraged consistency. She expressed support moving forward with the one year agreement with Golden Buckeye; ratify the three-month extension with Tajen Graphics dba Apollo Printing & Graphics, and authorize the Purchasing Agent to execute documents and bring the low bid process back for discussion.

MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz moved to award a one-year agreement with Golden Buckeye, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $78,236.50 plus applicable tax and a 20% contingency, for as-needed citywide printing services of envelopes, letterhead and business cards, ratify a three-month extension of the agreement with Tajen Graphics, Inc. dba Apollo Printing & Graphics, in an amount not to exceed $30,000 plus a 20% contingency, for citywide printing services of envelopes, letterhead and business cards, and authorize the Purchasing Agent, or their designee, to execute documents, as necessary, related to the agreements.

DISCUSSION: Mayor Aitken agreed with Council Member Faessel that this is one contract emblematic of a larger issue to give staff consistent rules to follow. She agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz about approving the one year agreement with Golden Buckeye; ratify the three-month extension with Tajen Graphics dba Apollo Printing & Graphics, and authorize the Purchasing Agent to execute documents and then bring the item back for discussion.

Council Member Leon expressed support of bringing the process back for discussion. He noted that it is not about trying to skew the rules but about supporting Anaheim businesses. He agreed with City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

Council Member Faessel’s comments on developing a program for Anaheim entrepreneurs and small businesses here.

MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz moved to award a one-year agreement with Golden Buckeye, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $78,236.50 plus applicable tax and a 20% contingency, for as-needed citywide printing services of envelopes, letterhead and business cards, ratify a three-month extension of the agreement with Tajen Graphics, Inc. dba Apollo Printing & Graphics, in an amount not to exceed $30,000 plus a 20% contingency, for citywide printing services of envelopes, letterhead and business cards, and authorize the Purchasing Agent, or their designee, to execute documents, as necessary, related to the agreements, seconded by Council Member Leon.

DISCUSSION: Council Member Diaz requested clarification on the vote.

City Clerk Bass clarified that the vote is to award a one-year agreement with Golden Buckeye, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $78,236.50 plus applicable tax and a 20% contingency, for as-needed citywide printing services of envelopes, letterhead and business cards, ratify a three-month extension of the agreement with Tajen Graphics, Inc. dba Apollo Printing & Graphics, in an amount not to exceed $30,000 plus a 20% contingency, for citywide printing services of envelopes, letterhead and business cards, and authorize the Purchasing Agent, or their designee, to execute documents, as necessary, related to the agreements.

MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz moved to award a one-year agreement with Golden Buckeye, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $78,236.50 plus applicable tax and a 20% contingency, for as-needed citywide printing services of envelopes, letterhead and business cards, ratify a three-month extension of the agreement with Tajen Graphics, Inc. dba Apollo Printing & Graphics, in an amount not to exceed $30,000 plus a 20% contingency, for citywide printing services of envelopes, letterhead and business cards, and authorize the Purchasing Agent, or their designee, to execute documents, as necessary, related to the agreements, seconded by Council Member Leon. ROLL CALL VOTE:

AYES – 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Rubalcava, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES – 0. Motion carried.

13. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, R.J. Noble, in the amount of $1,384,243.82, for the East Street Rehabilitation from Cypress Street to La Palma Avenue Project; authorize the Director of Public Works to execute the contract and any other related documents, and take the necessary actions to implement and administer the contract; authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions; and determine that is 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.

DISCUSSION: Council Member Rubalcava requested a brief staff report from Director Emami. She noted she would like to express gratitude for the investment that the City is making in District 3. She requested that he highlight some of the good being done in the area. She thanked him on behalf of her constituents who are very grateful.

Director Emami reported that the item is to award a construction contract for a Street Paving Rehabilitation Project on East Street from La Palma Avenue to Cypress Street just north of Lincoln Avenue. He advised that it is anticipated that the project will start this spring and end in the summer.

City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

Council Member Rubalcava noted that this is a significant investment in District 3. She noted that this triggered the City’s Community Workforce Agreement so the project is part of the Workforce Labor Agreement project list which is a plus for the City. She thanked staff for prioritizing the area and ensuring a continued investment in the City’s infrastructure.

MOTION: Council Member Rubalcava moved to award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, R.J. Noble, in the amount of $1,384,243.82, for the East Street Rehabilitation from Cypress Street to La Palma Avenue Project; authorize the Director of Public Works to execute the contract and any other related documents, and take the necessary actions to implement and administer the contract; authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions; and determine that is 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, seconded by Council Member Faessel. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES – 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Rubalcava, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES – 0. Motion carried.

21. Waive Council Policy 4.1 (to the extent applicable) and approve an Attorney Services and Consulting Agreement with Arif Alikhan, Esq. and Alikhan Insights, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $400,000, for advice and services of an attorney-consultant to analyze the practices, processes, and protocols of the Anaheim Police Department and develop a program and strategy to ensure compliance with the principles of Constitutional Policing for a one-year term with two one-year optional renewals; authorize the Chief of Police to execute and administer the agreement and any renewal options; and authorize minimal changes that is do not substantially modify the terms and conditions of the agreement, provided the changes are determined to be de minimis by the City Attorney’s Office.

Chief Armendariz reported that the item is a recommendation that the City Council waive Council Policy 4.1 and approve the Attorney Services and Consulting Agreement with Arif Alikhan Esq. and Alikhan Insights, LLC for advice and services of an attorney-consultant to analyze the practices, processes, and protocols of the Anaheim Police Department and develop a program and strategy to ensure compliance with the principles of Constitutional Policing utilizing best practices throughout the nation.

Chief Armendariz explained that the proposed agreement will allow APD to continue its current contractual relationship with Mr. Alikhan and the Constitutional Policing Program which began in April 2023. He advised that the current agreement has not exceeded the $100,000 amount, however, funds are expected to be exhausted by the end of the month. He explained that the proposed contract will provide APD with an attorney-consultant who will review and assist with policy development systems and processes, accountability systems including auditing and compliance procedures, disciplinary investigations, community complaint procedures, and reviews of uses of force and other critical incidents, programs, and efforts to prohibit discrimination and workplace conflict, efforts to eliminate biased policing and promote procedural justice principles, training, education, and leadership development programs for sworn and professional staff, community engagement, partnerships, and outreach programs.

Chief Armendariz reported that Mr. Alikhan is an experienced senior law enforcement executive and nationally recognized expert who has assisted police agencies nationwide in developing programs procedures and systems that promote Constitutional Policing to protect communities and build public trust. He provided a brief overview of Mr. Alikhan’s career and accomplishments including serving as a Federal Prosecutor and Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Homeland Security for the City of Los Angeles. He added Mr. Alikhan is a subject matter expert for the U.S. Department of Justice on City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

Constitutional Policing and a member of the California State Bar. He advised that due to Mr. Alikhan’s extensive experience, the Police Department recommends the contract be awarded to Arif Alikhan, Esq. and Alikhan Insights, LLC. He requested that Council Policy 4.1 be waived as it does not apply to legal services agreements and noted that this agreement is not strictly limited to legal services.

DISCUSSION: Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz inquired why this did not go through the RFP process. Chief Armendariz explained that he is unique based on his extensive skill set, knowledge, and abilities. He noted that APD believes that the sole source in this matter is justified.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurz requested some examples of how Mr. Alikhan has been utilized. Chief Armendariz reported that Mr. Alikhan was brought on recently and has been assisting APD with policies, procedures, audits and inspections, use of force reviews, Major Incident Review Team (MIRT), critical incident reviews, and reviewing the internal affairs process. He advised that Mr.

Alikhan has already provided several courses for supervisors on Constitutional Policing and is currently in the process of developing leadership courses within the Anaheim Police Department for current and future leaders. He noted that APD has hired over 110 sworn officers and made several promotions over the last year and a half. He explained that while they have a lot of experience, some people may be new to their positions and require a subject matter expert of this quality and caliber to provide guidance.

In response to Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz, Chief Armendariz reported that Mr. Alikhan is a practicing attorney and has provided attorney-client privileged communication on several matters that APD has been involved in. He noted that Mr. Alikhan works collaboratively with the City Attorney’s Office and has been with APD since April 2023.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz inquired about what APD did before Mr. Alikhan. Chief Armendariz explained that previously APD would work with the City Attorney’s Office on legal matters, reach out to attorneys on retainer for certain topics, and look for subject matter experts in the field to provide training. He advised that Mr. Alikhan is a one-step shop as he guides a large variety of topics.

In response to Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz, Chief Armendariz responded that the agreement was not initially presented to the City Council for approval and was executed under the City Manager’s contract authority.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz expressed concern that APD is asking the City Council to waive Council Policy

4.1. Chief Armendariz advised that APD believes that Council Policy 4.1 does not apply because these are legal services. He explained that because Mr. Alikhan is aiding APD in other areas, and out of an abundance of caution, the request is being brought forward to the City Council to waive it.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz inquired if the City Attorney’s Office could provide the legal services that Mr.

Alikhan provides. City Attorney Fabela explained that this is a critical investment and critically important to how the City polices. He advised that the City’s primary advisor to the Police Department is an Assistant City Attorney who has multiple responsibilities. He noted that unless he can hire another full-time Assistant City Attorney, he believes this is a proven solution. He commented that the most important relationship that the government has with its people is policing and ensuring that it is done constitutionally and requires focused attention.

Council Member Faessel inquired if APD is taking a critical review of policing and procedures. Chief Armendariz confirmed that APD is taking a deep dive into its policies and practices. He noted that it is important for law enforcement to review practices and procedures and adjust as needed. He explained that they review major events such as officer-involved shootings through the MIRT process, City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

however, he also believes that day-to-day operations also need to be reviewed. He explained that while APD is reviewing those topics, it is insurmountable to bring in a subject matter expert like Mr.

Alikhan to guide and assist APD. He reported that Mr. Alikhan is working with major cities across the nation and being able to glean those cities' challenges and frustrations and use them as prevention for APD is invaluable in many ways.

Council Member Faessel concurred that it is very important that APD has a subject matter expert of this caliber. He recalled previous difficult periods at APD and does not want to repeat those times. He agreed that a thorough review of policies and procedures, a policing review, and a review of engagement with residents is the top priority for the City.

Council Member Diaz agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz’s comments and inquired why it was so urgent that a nationwide RFP process could not be conducted. Chief Armendariz explained that APD currently employs him as a one-year consultant and noted that his knowledge and resources have proven to be invaluable to himself and the organization. He acknowledged that he would not know how to develop an RFP that would attract someone of his caliber. He noted that Mr. Alikhan’s resume and pedigree in and of itself justifies a reason for sole source which is why they elected not to conduct an RFP.

Council Member Diaz expressed concern that this gives the impression that the City is giving out contracts and not following its policies. He commented that APD could have developed an RFP. He advised that he would support the item but would like to see the process reviewed in the future.

Council Member Rubalcava remarked that she sees the value of preparing police officers and ensuring they are aware of criminal procedures. She inquired about the significant increase in the contract amount. Chief Armendariz explained that Mr. Alikhan was on a one-year not to exceed $100,000 contract. He further explained that his rate is going up to $345 per hour plus reimbursement for itemized costs, and expenses, but it is not to exceed $400,000. He clarified that the agreement is for a one-year term with two annual renewal options but would not exceed $400,000 in total.

Council Member Rubalcava expressed agreement with Council Member Diaz and Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz on the RFP process. She noted that she also wanted to ensure that police officers have the resources they need to conduct Constitutional Policing and are armed with as much information as possible to do their job. She recommended a one-year contract without the option to renew. She noted she was uncomfortable with giving additional options to renew for two more years at $400,000 each year.

Council Member Rubalcava requested being able to attend one of the courses Mr. Alikhan is providing the police officers to understand the value. She inquired if some of the programs and strategies are being reduced to writing so that the City may not need his services in two or three years. Police Chief Armendariz explained that Mr. Alikhan is creating the structure for future programs and strategies. He explained that he sees this as a preventative tool to provide guidance, direction, and input. He noted that Mr. Alikhan provides insight and experience to the organization. He remarked that the Department of Justice leverages to assess and evaluate other agencies. He reiterated that someone who can share current and contemporary information with APD is insurmountable to reevaluate policies, procedures, and practices and make adjustments or pivot to prevent the City from going down the wrong path.

City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

MOTION: Council Member Rubalcava moved to waive Council Policy 4.1 (to the extent applicable) and approve an Attorney Services and Consulting Agreement with Arif Alikhan, Esq. and Alikhan Insights, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $400,000, for advice and services of an attorney- consultant to analyze the practices, processes, and protocols of the Anaheim Police Department and develop a program and strategy to ensure compliance with the principles of Constitutional Policing for a one-year term; authorize the Chief of Police to execute and administer the agreement; and authorize minimal changes that is do not substantially modify the terms and conditions of the agreement, provided the changes are determined to be de minimis by the City Attorney’s Office.

DISCUSSION: Council Member Rubalcava remarked that for $400,000, she hopes that Mr. Alikhan develops a playbook for Anaheim police officers to utilize for years to come. City Attorney Fabela interjected and clarified the amount is not to exceed $400,000 but noted that the hourly rate is $345 per hour. He explained that if the City Council approves the contract for one year, it would also be a good idea to adjust the not to exceed amount otherwise it will be a not to exceed amount of $400,000 for one year. He reported that this is typical for most legal arrangements with the City.

Council Member Rubalcava inquired what City Attorney Fabela recommended as a cap for one year.

Mayor Aitken clarified that at $400,000 per year at $345 per hour, Mr. Alikhan would be working for the City for over 20 hours a week.

Chief Armendariz apologized and explained that the fee is not $400,000 per year, it is a one-year contract with two extensions for a total of three years not to exceed $400,000.

Council Member Rubalcava encouraged Police Chief Armendariz to bring these types of contracts through the RFP process moving forward in the best interest of the taxpayers.

Council Member Rubalcava read aloud the terms of the contract on Page 2 and noted it states that the contract is one year in an amount not to exceed $400,000.

City Attorney Fabela explained that City Council will want to adjust the term so the motion would be a one-year contract not to exceed a determined amount. He noted that he had a sidebar with Chief Armendariz and they agreed that $125,000 would be reasonable.

MOTION: Council Member Rubalcava moved to waive Council Policy 4.1 (to the extent applicable) and approve an Attorney Services and Consulting Agreement with Arif Alikhan, Esq. and Alikhan Insights, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $125,000, for advice and services of an attorney- consultant to analyze the practices, processes, and protocols of the Anaheim Police Department and develop a program and strategy to ensure compliance with the principles of Constitutional Policing for a one-year term; authorize the Chief of Police to execute and administer the agreement; and authorize minimal changes that is do not substantially modify the terms and conditions of the agreement, provided the changes are determined to be de minimis by the City Attorney’s Office, seconded by Council Member Meeks.

DISCUSSION: Council Member Diaz inquired if the motion could include the requirement that APD goes through the RFP process. City Attorney Fabela recapped that the motion is to approve a one- year contract with a cap of $125,000 with the condition that upon renewal or before renewal the Police department will conduct an RFP.

City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

MOTION: Council Member Rubalcava moved to waive Council Policy 4.1 (to the extent applicable) and approve an Attorney Services and Consulting Agreement with Arif Alikhan, Esq. and Alikhan Insights, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $125,000, for advice and services of an attorney- consultant to analyze the practices, processes, and protocols of the Anaheim Police Department and develop a program and strategy to ensure compliance with the principles of Constitutional Policing for a one-year term; authorize the Chief of Police to execute and administer the agreement; and authorize minimal changes that is do not substantially modify the terms and conditions of the agreement, provided the changes are determined to be de minimis by the City Attorney’s Office with the condition that upon renewal or before renewal the Police Department will conduct an RFP, seconded by Council Member Meeks. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES – 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Rubalcava, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES – 0. Motion carried.

24. RESOLUTION NO. 2024-014 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM declaring its intention to consider to vacate certain public streets, highways and easements [three easements for public road purposes generally known as:

Magic Way, lying between Walnut Street and Disneyland Drive; Hotel Way, lying north of Disney Way; and Clementine Street, lying south of Katella Avenue related to the DisneylandForward project; Public Hearing scheduled for Council meeting of April 16, 2024].

Director Emami reported that the item is to set a public hearing date for the proposed vacation and abandonment of three segments of street right-of-way related to the DisneylandForward project. He advised that the abandonment has been requested by the Walt Disney Parks and Resort U.S. (Applicant) as part of the DisneylandForward project.

Director Emami noted that the abandonment request is one of several applications the Applicant has made to the City and a comprehensive discussion regarding the project shall occur at an upcoming City Council meeting. He explained that the public hearing is part of the general vacation procedures set forth by the Streets and Highways Code. Lastly, he advised that this item will simply set a public hearing date for discussion.

DISCUSSION: In response to Council Member Rubalcava, Director Emami explained that the vacation is part of the process for the proposed project being requested. He noted that the Applicant still must come forward with the next part of the process, but a public hearing must be set to consider the proposed abandonment. He reiterated that the item is only to set a public hearing.

Council Member Rubalcava inquired if bifurcating Magic Way from the discussion should be considered. Director Emami explained that the item is to set a public hearing and recommended that the discussion to bifurcate Magic Way should occur at the public hearing.

Council Member Rubalcava inquired if the public hearing would be on the entire DisneylandForward project or just the vacation and abandonment. Director Emami confirmed the public hearing would only be for the vacation and abandonment.

In response to Council Member Rubalcava, Director Emami explained that it would be part of the public hearing of the DisneylandForward project. He further explained that Disney is requesting an abandonment which requires a public hearing.

Council Member Rubalcava inquired if the public hearings would take place on separate dates. In response to Council Member Rubalcava, Director Emami reported the Applicant has the right to request the abandonment which requires a public hearing.

City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

In response to Council Member Meeks, Deputy City Manager/Planning and Building Director Ted White clarified that both hearings will be heard on April 16th. He noted that the reason to have the public hearings on the same date is so that the public does not have to attend two separate dates for consideration of the DisneylandForward project.

Council Member Meeks requested confirmation that this item is a legal requirement for the City Council to set the public hearing so there can be noticing periods and public outreach to advertise it as a public hearing. Deputy City Manager White confirmed that was correct.

Council Member Faessel expressed concern that the City might be moving too quickly on Magic Way and is unsure if it is in the public's or the City's best interest to hear the items at the same meeting.

He noted that this is especially true if there needs to be some fact-finding regarding the mitigation measures, the traffic counts, and other questions raised. He recommended that the City Council bifurcate the Magic Way issue. He agrees there has been enough discussion and questions asked by the public that it warrants a separate discussion.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz explained that the City Council supporting the scheduling of the public hearing in no way implies that it is in support of the abandonments for DisneylandForward. She inquired how the City Council would bifurcate Magic Way for a separate discussion. Deputy City Manager White explained that as currently proposed, the abandonment of Magic Way is intimately entwined with DisneylandForward. He noted that the Draft Development Agreements, the Specific Plan amendments, and all the technical documents incorporate the proposed removal of Magic Way from the Specific Plan. He explained that if there are concerns at the scheduled public hearing related to Magic Way, he would propose to continue the item at that time. He confirmed that it would be very difficult at this time to separate the removal of Magic Way from the rest of the project entitlements without a significant amount of effort by staff. He advised that the scheduling of this item in no way signals the City Council’s support or opposition to the request. He noted that considering this item along with the entirety of the DisneylandForward project is the appropriate way to consider it.

Mayor Aitken requested that Deputy City Manager White provide a high-level overview of what this item means for the public. She noted it appears as though that the language in the proposed resolution give the impression that the abandonment has already taken place. Director Emami explained that the procedure is that the City Council will be deciding on whether it wants to vacate the property at that public hearing. He further explained that setting the date allows the City to advertise to the public what the City Council will be considering. He reported that mitigation measures, project design features, and public testimony will be heard at the hearing for the City Council’s consideration.

He noted that the City Council will then decide on whether to vacate or abandon the streets that evening.

Mayor Aitken recapped that if the City Council approves the resolution and the public hearing is held on April 16th, the expectation is that the City Council will receive public input, ask questions, and decide. She inquired about the next steps. Director Emami explained that the City Council could always make the decision or choose to continue the item, obtain more information, and make the decision later.

In response to Mayor Aitken, Director Emami confirmed the City Council has the opportunity to ask questions, obtain more information, and potentially at a later date.

City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

Deputy City Manager White clarified that at the April 16th public hearing, the City Council will be presented with the recommendation and consideration of all the project entitlements including the abandonment. He explained there would be a public hearing, an open discussion of any technical questions, and the opportunity for the City Council to approve, deny, or continue the item.

Mayor Aitken thanked staff for the information and noted that it is perceived that the City Council is taking action on the abandonment. She wants to give the public comfort that there are going to be other opportunities for questions to be asked. She noted that if something is raised via public comment that warrants a deeper dive, the City Council will have those options available as the project is moving forward.

Deputy City Manager White reported that staff will be presenting the DisneylandForward project at a Planning Commission meeting, knowing the sensitivity and the comments that have been raised. He explained that staff will make a point of ensuring that the record is very clear regarding the history of the item and what the item is involved with. He noted that people can participate in the public hearing at the Planning Commission level as well.

Mayor Aitken advised that she was uncomfortable with bifurcating because if independent decisions are made on one street and not the other it might null and void or render moot the City Council’s decisions on the entire project.

Council Member Meeks remarked that she does not support bifurcating but understands the perception of the way that the resolution reads. She inquired if it would still meet the legal requirements if the resolution stated “it was the intention to consider vacation of certain public streets” instead of originally written. Deputy City Manager White agreed that would be adequate.

In response to Council Member Leon, Deputy City Manager White explained that staff schedules and brings the items to the City Council. He explained that staff have been working from a calendar for quite some time on noticing, staff reports, and working on technical studies. He noted that staff has been loosely holding April 16th as a City Council date depending on the outcomes of workshops and Planning Commission hearings.

Council Member Leon inquired if there is a certain order for the public hearings on April 16th. Deputy City Manager White explained that the DisneylandForward project would be the first action taken with the Magic Way vacation being second. He explained that if the Planning Commission were to continue the item and if staff were not able to bring the public hearing forward on April 16th, staff would continue the item and take no action.

Council Member Leon requested clarification that the City Council would be voting on DisneylandForward first and then the Magic Way vacation second. Deputy City Manager White confirmed that was correct. He explained that like many of the items the City Council considers, this project has multiple resolutions and items attached to them. He further explained that this item would allow staff to package this into one public hearing.

In response to Council Member Leon, Deputy City Manager White confirmed that staff will have additional information during the public hearing to address any resident concerns.

City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

MOTION: Council Member Meeks moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2024-014 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM declaring its intention to consider to vacate certain public streets, highways and easements [three easements for public road purposes generally known as: Magic Way, lying between Walnut Street and Disneyland Drive; Hotel Way, lying north of Disney Way; and Clementine Street, lying south of Katella Avenue related to the DisneylandForward project; Public Hearing scheduled for Council meeting of April 16, 2024], seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz. AYES – 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Rubalcava, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES – 0. Motion carried.

30. Recall Petition of Council Member Natalie Rubalcava, District 3.

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-017 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting the certification of the Orange County Registrar of Voters as to the sufficiency of signatures on the petition to recall Council Member Natalie Rubalcava, District 3.

Approve an increase to the City Clerk’s Fiscal Year 2023/24 budget by $26,224.20 to cover the cost of signature verification of the recall petition by the Orange County Registrar of Voters.

Upon acceptance of the certification of the Orange County Registrar of Voters as to the sufficiency of signatures of the recall petition, in accordance with the requirements of Section 1303 of the City Charter and California Elections Code §§11227 and 11240, take the following actions:

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-018 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM calling, ordering, and giving notice of the holding of a Special Municipal Election to be held in District 3 of the City of Anaheim on Tuesday, June 4, 2024 for the submission of the question of the recall of a certain officer; and requesting that is the Orange County Board of Supervisors direct the Orange County Registrar of Voters to render services to the City relating to the conduct of a Special Municipal Election.

Approve an increase to the City Clerk’s Fiscal Year 2023/24 budget by $700,000 to cover the cost to conduct a Special Municipal Election.

City Clerk Theresa Bass reported that the item is acceptance of the Certificate of Sufficiency as to the signatures on the petition to recall District 3 Council Member Natalie Rubalcava. She noted that upon acceptance of the certification and in accordance with the requirements of Section 1303 of the City Charter, as well as California Elections Code Sections 11227 and 11240, the City Council is required to call, order, and give notice of a Special Municipal Election for the submission of the question to recall the elected official.

City Clerk Bass reported that on August 18, 2023, a Notice of Intention to Circulate Recall Petition was filed with the City Clerk's Office. She stated that on September 21, 2023, the Petition for Recall form was reviewed and determined to meet the statutory requirements, and therefore met the requirements for signature circulation. She explained that pursuant to the California Elections Code the proponents were required to collect no less than 5,123 valid signatures of registered voters in District 3 which equals 20% of the registered voters in the District according to the Statement of Registration at the time the Notice of Intention to Circulate Recall Petition was filed. She advised that the deadline to file the petition was 120 days from the date the petition was approved for circulation.

City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

City Clerk Bass reported that the proponents timely submitted the petition on January 17, 2024. She advised that a prima facie count of the signatures was conducted pursuant to the Elections Code and the petition was found sufficient to forward to the Orange County Register of Voters (ROV) for signature verification. She reported that the signature verification was completed by the ROV which indicated the petition met the requirements of the number of valid signatures to qualify for a ballot.

She noted that pursuant to the Elections Code if the signatures on the petition are found sufficient, the City Clerk is to submit the Certificate of Sufficiency/Signature Verification of the Petition to the City Council at its next regular City Council meeting.

City Clerk Bass explained that following the receipt of the Certificate of Sufficiency, the City Council is required to call for a recall election. She advised that an election should be held no less than 88 days and no more than 125 days from the date the election is ordered. She reported that based on the date, February 27, for calling and ordering the election, the election must take place on a Tuesday between May 25, which is the 88th day, and July 1 which is the 125th day. She advised that the dates within this time frame fall on May 28, June 4, June 11, June 18, and June 25, 2024. She noted that the election cannot take place on May 28, 2024, as the election cannot be held on a day after a holiday.

City Clerk Bass reported that staff is requesting the City Council to determine an election date and by resolution call, order, and give notice of holding a Special Election in District 3 on the selected date and request that the Orange County Board of Supervisors direct the Orange County Register of Voters to render services to the City relating to the conduct of a special election. She advised that the resolution provides, pursuant to the Elections Code, for the recalled officer to submit a statement to be included in the voter information guide with the cost of the statement wholly paid by the recalled officer.

City Clerk Bass reported that staff are also requesting an increase to the City Clerk's fiscal year budget by $26,224.20 to cover the cost of the signature verification as well as an increase of $700,000 to cover the cost of holding a Special Municipal Election. She presented an outline of the proposed special election dates. She explained that the information guide and ballots will be mailed to District 3 residents 29 days before Election Day. She noted that the last day to register to vote is 15 days before Election Day, however, there is a provision for a conditional voter who can still register to vote through Election Day. She advised that 10 days before the election is the date that all vote centers will be open. She noted that the Certificate of Results, which is the canvass of the election results, will be completed 24 days following the election and will be presented to the City Council at their next meeting.

DISCUSSION: Council Member Meeks remarked that she takes no pleasure in acting on any of this, but noted it is a legal obligation of the City.

City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

MOTION: Council Member Meeks moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2024-017 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting the certification of the Orange County Registrar of Voters as to the sufficiency of signatures on the petition to recall Council Member Natalie Rubalcava, District 3; approve an increase to the City Clerk’s Fiscal Year 2023/24 budget by $26,224.20 to cover the cost of signature verification of the recall petition by the Orange County Registrar of Voters; RESOLUTION NO. 2024-018 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM calling, ordering, and giving notice of the holding of a Special Municipal Election to be held in District 3 of the City of Anaheim on Tuesday, June 4, 2024 for the submission of the question of the recall of a certain officer; and requesting that is the Orange County Board of Supervisors direct the Orange County Registrar of Voters to render services to the City relating to the conduct of a Special Municipal Election; and approve an increase to the City Clerk’s Fiscal Year 2023/24 budget by $700,000 to cover the cost to conduct a Special Municipal Election, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz.

DISCUSSION: Council Member Diaz remarked that his hands are tied and is forced to vote yes on the item. He advised that between Measure A and the recall, taxpayers will be paying $2.2 million because of a specific group's self-centered desires. He expressed disappointment that he had to vote yes for the item.

Council Member Faessel concurred with Council Member Meeks that this is very distasteful. He expressed appreciation for the support of the many who spoke in support of Council Member Rubalcava.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz remarked that even though she was quick to second the motion, it is not something that she enjoys doing.

Mayor Aitken inquired if the date works for Council Member Rubalcava. Council Member Rubalcava advised that she is comfortable with the date as proposed.

MOTION: Council Member Meeks moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2024-017 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting the certification of the Orange County Registrar of Voters as to the sufficiency of signatures on the petition to recall Council Member Natalie Rubalcava, District 3; approve an increase to the City Clerk’s Fiscal Year 2023/24 budget by $26,224.20 to cover the cost of signature verification of the recall petition by the Orange County Registrar of Voters; RESOLUTION NO. 2024-018 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM calling, ordering, and giving notice of the holding of a Special Municipal Election to be held in District 3 of the City of Anaheim on Tuesday, June 4, 2024 for the submission of the question of the recall of a certain officer; and requesting that is the Orange County Board of Supervisors direct the Orange County Registrar of Voters to render services to the City relating to the conduct of a Special Municipal Election; and approve an increase to the City Clerk’s Fiscal Year 2023/24 budget by $700,000 to cover the cost to conduct a Special Municipal Election, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES – 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Rubalcava, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES – 0. Motion carried.

City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

31. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 388
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. 2019-00161 (DEV2019-00161)
PROJECT LOCATION: This approximately 1.5-acre site is located at 125 East Ball Road at the northwest corner of Ball Road and Technology Circle.

REQUEST: The applicant requests approval to permit the demolition of an existing vacant two-story commercial building and construction of a 5-story, 65-foot high 120-room hotel, and a drive-through fast food restaurant with associated parking. The project requires the following entitlements: (i) Rezone APN 234-161-04 from Industrial (I) to General Commercial (C-G), (ii) a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to permit a hotel with a detached drive-through fast-food restaurant, and (iii) a CUP to allow for a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) greater than permitted by the Zoning Code (1.08 proposed, 0.50 permitted), and (iv) a Minor CUP to permit valet parking.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City Council will consider whether the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 388 prepared for the project are the appropriate environmental documentation for this request pursuant to Sections 15070 to 15075 of the State California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.

ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:

Recommended City Council approval of Development Application No. 2019-00161, including a condition regarding ownership; and approval of Resolution No. 2023-033 (adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 388). VOTE: 6-1 (Chairperson Kring and Commissioners Henninger, Castro, Lieberman, Tran-Martin, and Walker voted yes; Commissioner Perez voted no) (Planning Commission meeting of December 4, 2023).

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-019 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 388 for Development Application No. 2019-00161 (125 East Ball Road).

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-020 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving Conditional Use Permits and Minor Conditional Use Permit to construct a hotel, a drive-through restaurant, permit a floor area ratio above 0.50, and permit valet parking and making certain findings in connection therewith (DEV2019-00161) (125 East Ball Road).

ORDINANCE NO. 6571 (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 (DEV2019-00161) (125 East Ball Road) (reclassify a portion of the project site from the “I” (Industrial) Zone to the “C-G” (General Commercial) Zone).

DISCUSSION: Deputy City Manager White reported that the item is a request to construct a hotel with valet parking and a walk-up/drive-through restaurant. He advised that the request requires approval of the following entitlements, a zoning reclassification of a portion of the project site from the Industrial to the General Commercial Zone, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to permit a hotel, a CUP to permit a drive-through restaurant, a CUP to allow for a Floor Area Ratio of 1.08, a Minor CUP to permit valet parking, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

Deputy City Manager White reported that the site consists of two parcels and encompasses approximately 1.5 acres at the northwest corner of Ball Road and Technology Circle. He noted the property is developed with a 10,530 square-foot, two-story commercial building which is currently vacant and designated for General Commercial land uses by the General Plan. He advised that surrounding land uses include commercial uses and associated parking lot to the north and west, commercial and industrial uses to the south across Ball Road, and commercial and vocational school uses to the east across Technology Circle.

Deputy City Manager White reported that the hotel component of the project would consist of 120 rooms in five stories and 65 feet in height. He advised that a walk-up/drive-through restaurant, identified as a Starbucks, is proposed for the single-story restaurant building adjacent to Ball Road.

He noted that the project would include two four-level puzzle-lift enclosed parking structures, three stories above ground and one story below ground. He reported that valet attendants would be responsible for parking and retrieving vehicles using the mechanical system. He advised that the proposed landscaping would include various species of trees, shrubs, and ground cover along the perimeter and interior of the property. He presented a rendering of the hotel, restaurant, and parking structure buildings that would include similar design elements and building materials.

Deputy City Manager White reported that the implementing zone for the General Commercial General Plan designation is the General Commercial Zone. He advised that the applicant proposes to rezone Parcel A from Industrial to General Commercial, consistent with the general plan designation of the site.

Deputy City Manager White reported that an Initial Study (IS) in support of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project and to identify necessary mitigation under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He advised that the study was circulated to public agencies and interested parties. He noted that mitigation measures have been identified to mitigate project impacts on cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources. He explained that with the implementation of these measures, the study concluded that project impacts would be reduced to levels considered less than significant, and there would be no remaining potentially significant adverse impacts related to the project.

The City initially received five comment letters and prepared responses to the comments. One additional comment letter was received after the posting of the City Council agenda which was distributed to the City Council this afternoon along with a corresponding response to comments. None of the comments received result in the need to recirculate the Draft IS/MND or to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and an IS/MND by CEQA is the appropriate environmental document for the proposed project.

Deputy City Manager White reported that staff and the Planning Commission considered the project and found that it is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and would provide additional accommodation options for visitors to the City. He advised that the proposed Project would replace a vacant industrial building with an attractive new hotel development representing a significant positive investment in the area. He noted that the project would also develop an underutilized property at a key gateway to the Center City Corridor. Lastly, he advised that staff recommend approval of the proposed project.

DISCUSSION: Council Member Meeks inquired if the mechanical parking structure was enclosed to buffer noise.

City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

Deputy City Manager White reported it is enclosed on three sides and open on the one facing the interior of the project. He noted that it would screen both visual and noise impacts from adjacent land uses.

Council Member Meeks noted that the parking structure is open on the hotel side. She inquired if that created a noise issue for those hotel guests.

Contract Planner Thomas Gorham advised that the noise study does not exceed any thresholds that would cause impact either to the hotel guests or any adjacent properties around the structures and the mechanical equipment.

Mayor Aitken inquired if Council Members need to disclose any ex-parte communications.

Seeing none, Mayor Aitken opened the public hearing.

Dave Chu, the Applicant, reported that the property was originally purchased for a mini-storage project. He noted that the Redevelopment Agency indicated a desire for a hotel so the applicant worked with them for the last four years to develop the project. He noted that he is a developer and not a contractor so he can encourage local contractors to use union labor but he cannot force them to do so. He noted the parking structure will be closed.

Council Member Rubalcava referenced Mr. Chu’s remarks regarding being unable to force contractors to use union labor. She encouraged him to consider requiring contractors to pay workers fair, prevailing wages in the Development Agreement (DA) or could obtain a Project Labor Agreement.

Mr. Chu explained that the project is too big to be done by small contractors and noted they are already talking to Tom Olson and Slater Construction. He advised that they will be opening the project up to open bidding and that he will encourage all his contractors to use local union laborers.

City Clerk Bass reported that a total of three (3) public comments were received electronically related to Public Hearing Item No. 31. [A final total of three (3) public comments were received electronically, distributed to the City Council, and made part of the official records]. – See Appendix.

William Brown reported that his family has owned and occupied the building next to the project for nearly 37 years. He explained that they have a very important business which will be negatively impacted due to the lack of parking. He explained that the report states that the project far exceeds the parking, but parking is impacted currently with no extra parking. He expressed concern that visitors will be coming into their lots and residents in the cul-de-sac will have their parking invaded.

He expressed belief that this will be very negative for business. He noted that they have been in business for 40 years and fear for the future of the business if the item is approved. He commented that building a five-story building changes the character of the entire area. He noted that they were not opposed to the project when they were assured that the parking would be adequate and it was going to be a three-story building. He restated his opposition to the project. He noted it is unconscionable to have a business move that will completely disrupt and perhaps even threaten existing businesses. He encouraged the City Council to vote no on the item.

Jordan Sisson, representing UNITE HERE Local 11, which has thousands of members in the City, including at least four members within a half mile of the site. He advised that Local 11 submitted comments about concerns about the CEQA review. He explained that this is an MND that is subject to a low threshold which is called the Fair Argument Standard. He noted it is a low threshold because City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

an EIR was not done. He reported that Local 11 raised concerns about a multitude of parts of the project with numerous letters from other commenters including expert comments. He remarked that the City Council should have a hard copy of their response to the staff report which includes an expert noise comment. He expressed concerns about construction-related impacts including air quality, noise, and hazards. He questioned why the site was not maximized for solar panels or included measures to reduce traffic impacts, as well as food and plastic recycling programs specific to hotels. He reported that the hazard section did not include a Phase 1 study which is typical for industrial property redevelopment. He noted that there were many assumptions in the construction that were not only unenforceable but underestimated impacts. He noted that it is assumed that only one piece of heavy equipment during the project's construction. He explained it is problematic given nothing prevents the site from having multiple pieces of heavy-duty construction equipment which according to their noise expert indicates that it will exceed thresholds. He expressed concern that the project is avoiding mitigation measures. He encouraged the City Council to deny this project until a CEQA compliance review is conducted, the MND revised, and changes to the project per their recommendations.

Noah Garrison, representing the law firm of Lozeau Drury, on behalf of the Supported Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER). He reported they have previously submitted comments to both the Planning Commission and the City Council discussing that the MND is improper under CEQA because it fails to acknowledge the potentially significant impact on human health and provides an inadequate analysis of the project's impact on air quality, hazardous materials, energy use, and noise. He requested that the City Council defer a decision on the matter until an EIR is issued and reviewed by the public. He noted that they have energy concerns about solar and electric vehicle charging since the MND relies on compliance with Title 24 for its energy use and this does not meet the requirement of CEQA. He advised that the report that the site will develop solar Photovoltaic (PV), electric vehicle parking, and charging infrastructure, there is no indication that they will be required for the project. He noted the MND does not present a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) for diesel particulate matter. He advised that an HRA was performed by Soil / Water / Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) using the MNDs modeling data and showed that the project would result in 40 pounds of particle emissions per year. He reported that the noise analysis fails to establish a proper baseline and claims that only one heavy vehicle will be on-site rather than using all pertinent equipment values. He noted that a prior business on the site was a motorsports dealership that sold motorcycles, jet skis, ATVs, and generators which could have resulted in hazardous materials being released. He advised that a Phase 1 analysis would determine that there is no substantial risk at this site. He encouraged the City Council to recirculate the project with an EIR.

Bryan Farkas, a member of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters, reported that he lives local area, and lives, works, and recreates in the vicinity of this project. He expressed belief that he will be impacted by the environmental impacts of this project. He noted that the City should require the project to be built with contractors that hire locally, pay the prevailing wage, and utilize apprentices from state-certified apprenticeship programs. He advised that the contractors referenced by the applicant only hire these types of workers when forced to do so. He advised that workforce requirements reduce construction-related environmental impacts while benefiting the local economy and workforce development. He referenced a 2020 report from the California Workforce Development Board that concluded that investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California's workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. He noted that the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) recently found that local hire requirements can also result in air pollution reductions. He advised that the State of California reiterated its commitment to encouraging workforce development and housing affordability through the Affordable Housing and High Roads Act of 2022 or Assembly Bill (AB) 2011, which requires projects to pay workers a prevailing wage and hire from state-certified apprenticeship programs for projects, citing affordability and development City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

standards. He advised that the project would be approved in violation of CEQA as there are fair arguments that the project will have significant noise, transportation, and cultural resource impacts.

Mayor Aitken invited the applicant to provide closing comments.

Mr. Chu reiterated that this is a huge project and that they will be hiring contractors that are qualified and capable of completing this project. He noted that he would encourage the contractor to use union labor but reiterated that he cannot force them to do so. He restated that he will keep a close eye on the project and ensure that it is done locally with quality labor.

Mr. Chu’s son reported that his family has put its blood, sweat, and tears into this project. He emphasized that the existing building needs to come down and is an eyesore in the community. He advised that he is a small business owner in Newport Beach. He noted that they are ready to take the building down and will do everything they can to hire locally.

Seeing no further comments, Mayor Aiken closed the public hearing.

Council Member Fassel inquired if there has been a past financial partnership between the City and the developer. Deputy City Manager White advised that there has been a working relationship between the developer and the City.

Economic Development Director Sergio Ramirez reported that Mr. Chu worked with the City when the department was Community and Economic Development. He reported that Parcel B was the site that the former Redevelopment Agency had an interest in for a long-term lease. He advised that the site was improved in 2008 with the Hahm Motorsports company went under and has since been vacant.

He explained that in 2012 when redevelopment agencies were dissolved, the State of California required the cities to dispose of all its properties. He advised that the City does not own this property but sub-leases it from the adjacent property owner of Shoe City. He explained that Mr. Chu and the owners of Shoe City are working to negotiate the terms of an agreement that would allow the City to remove itself. He noted that currently the City is committed for 25 years and pays $4,000 a month for the sublease. He noted that this item would allow the Successor Agency to be removed from interest.

He confirmed that the agreement between the Chu Family and Li Ying is at fair market value with no subsidy or assistance being provided. He restated that the Economic Development Department simply connected property owners to negotiate terms between the two parties. He reiterated that there is City involvement but there is no economic assistance being provided.

In response to Council Member Faessel, Director Ramirez confirmed that prevailing wage is not triggered in this situation.

Council Member Rubalcava requested additional information regarding the reasoning that staff is recommending the project even though there are CEQA concerns. She expressed concern that the location is a bit odd and compared it to The Viv Hotel, which recently filed for bankruptcy, which is outside of the resort area but closer to residential and industrial. She noted that this area seems like it would be impacted by a significant amount of traffic. She also expressed concern regarding a five- story property versus the three-story property that is currently onsite.

Deputy City Manager White reported that the Planning Department is recommending approval because staff has been able to work with the developer to bring forward a project that meets the development standards required in the commercial zone. He confirmed that it does meet parking requirements and is a compatible use with the adjacent, commercial uses. He noted that there is a Walmart Neighborhood store there and a Shoe City retail outlet. He explained that the project City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

provides another restaurant and a lodging facility which staff believes is appropriate. He noted that the General Plan calls for commercial land uses here and noted restaurants and hotels are allowable uses. He acknowledged that it is a compact and challenging site, hence the mechanical parking. He believes this to be a creative design that staff thinks would work and be a compatible use with the area.

Council Member Rubalcava expressed concern regarding the Starbucks queue lanes and inquired about how many the City is considering. Deputy City Manager White reported that the site plan accounts for a queuing lane for 16 cars.

Council Member Rubalcava noted that is a large queue lane. She disclosed that she frequents the referenced area and that parking is already an issue. She expressed empathy with the adjacent business owner who expressed concern about the parking impacts during public comments. She inquired if staff could address the CEQA concerns that were mentioned along with addressing concerns regarding a letter the City Council received. Deputy City Manager White advised that staff did review and consider the comments that were provided. He advised that they have written responses prepared that have been provided to the City Council by Psomas Environmental Consulting. He explained that Psomas was asked if the MND and initial study had the appropriate environmental documents and if they covered the requirements of CEQA. He reported that Psomas agrees that the environmental analysis follows CEQA and does meet those standards.

Council Member Diaz remarked that there is no CEQA issue but is an issue created by UNITE HERE.

He noted that the only reason they are doing this is to force the developers to do business with them.

He encouraged UNITE HERE to stop the trickery and start doing things the right way. He expressed support for the item and noted the project would improve the area with a Starbucks and a nice hotel.

Council Member Leon requested that City Clerk Bass display a Google Map of the area in question.

He inquired if a decision had been made on the property across the street. Director Ramirez advised that no decision has been made and that the City will be releasing a Request for Qualification (RFQ) for development on that property. He reported that in December 2021, staff brought forward an agreement and the developer was not able to fulfill their obligation due to the lending market at the time. He explained that the City must comply with the Surplus Land Act and fulfill a minimum of 300 residential units. He referenced an earlier comment and noted that part of what the Economic Development Department and former Redevelopment Agency had anticipated for the large site previously was a mixed-use product that would have contemplated a hospitality project, retail food uses, and retail shopping. He explained that together with the proposed project being discussed and area improvements along the Anaheim Boulevard corridor, the City is going to continue to see mixed- use and residential and overall revitalization of the area that connects the resorts to the center city and historic downtown and the Civic Center area.

In response to Council Member Leon, Director Ramirez confirmed that it is proposed as a five-story building and referred to the applicant to respond to the reasoning.

Mr. Chu advised that they have worked with Economic Development every step of the way to meet their requirements and have worked with an architect to design the project. He explained that they originally proposed a two-story mini-storage facility that was not approved. He noted that the City has wanted him to tear down this building for five years and has been trying everything to make the project work. He explained that the parking structure is a new trend in automated parking and is used in the UCLA Santa Monica Medical Center. He advised that they will be using the same contractor that built the parking structure for the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). He reiterated that they have done everything possible to accommodate the City’s requirements. He emphasized that the City City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

wants a hotel on that property so they have been working to accommodate that request and to mitigate the noise of the parking structure. He reported that for this project he has never spoken to a planner because he was directed to work with Economic Development. He explained that when he received approval, he prepared his design and parking requirements and submitted them to the Planning Department.

In response to Mayor Aitken, Director Ramirez explained that when the applicant initially engaged City staff, it was with the former Community and Economic Development Department which, at that time, had indicated the desired use based on the commercial zoning and what was being proposed in the area. He explained that Mr. Chu was required to discuss the development with the Economic Development Department due to this Successor Agency-controlled real-estate transaction. He advised that once the concept was identified, he was directed to the Planning Department for the entitlement process.

Mayor Aitken referenced Council Member Leon’s inquiry and inquired if the City was involved in weighing into the number of stories. Director Ramirez confirmed that the Economic Development Department did not weigh into what story level was acceptable to the City. He noted it was based on the applicant’s economic drivers based on project costs.

Council Member Leon requested confirmation if there are houses or apartments on the property facing north Director Ramirez advised north of the property is a Walmart Neighborhood store and across from that are offices. He advised that immediately north is industrial and apartments.

In response to Council Member Leon, Director Ramirez confirmed the property has been vacant since 2008.

Council Member Meeks agreed that this is a great site for redevelopment and is a good investment that will improve the area. She expressed concern regarding the parking because of the convenience scissor lift parking and inquired if the valet parking would be free.

Mr. Gorham explained that the plan requires that a valet operations plan be approved by the Transportation Director. He noted that he is unsure if a condition to make valet parking free can be imposed. Deputy City Manager White agreed that is something that should be considered and should inquire if the applicant is agreeable to this condition. He advised if the applicant is agreeable, the language could be added as a Condition of Approval.

Council Member Meeks inquired if any other conditions could be placed on the property that would protect the surrounding properties from overflow parking to ensure that hotel guests are using the parking spaces designated for them. Mr. Gorham clarified that there is no direct access to the property from the Shoe City or Walmart. He advised that a visitor must walk all the way around so it is not convenient from a circulation standpoint. He clarified that there is a gate for emergency access.

Council Member Meeks recommended making the valet parking free to encourage visitors to park there and use those parking spaces. She noted that other than that, she supports approval.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz clarified that north of the property is the Walmart parking lot and apartments.

She explained that the apartments are on Clifton Avenue north of the Walmart parking lot so the hotel site is far removed from actual residents. She expressed support for guests using the hotel parking for free. She inquired if there is currently parking on Technology Circle because this will potentially impact businesses if parking continues to be allowed. She noted that there is blight in the area and the building is ready to fall apart. She hoped that the applicant would encourage the contractor to pay City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

the prevailing wage, hire locally, and follow the safety protocols of union workers in the building trades. She noted that it is very important to members of the City Council. Mr. Gorham confirmed that parking is allowed on Technology Circle and there will be curb, gutter, and landscaping improvements made along with creating a right turn lane and a left turn lane for more efficient traffic flow.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz recommended that staff should consider no overnight parking on the street from 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. so visitors would not be inclined to park there.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz requested that Mr. Chu make paying laborers the prevailing wage a priority. Mr.

Chu reported that for the parking structure, they have made a commitment to the City to use parking attendants and for liability purposes, no guests will be allowed in the structure at all.

In response to Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz, Mr. Chu confirmed he will remain the owner of the hotel but it may pass to his son as he is currently 80 years old. He reiterated that only qualified and experienced tradespeople will be working on this project and he is not looking to save pennies or incur delays that may happen with less qualified workers.

Council Member Rubalcava inquired why staff would not approve of the originally proposed mini- storage facility in the industrial area. Director Ramirez hypothesized it is because of the ties to the Successor Agency property and the fact that the self-storage facility would only generate property value. He explained that this was an opportunity to create a hotel that would generate new Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and Sales Tax from Starbucks. He noted it was identified as an extension of the economic engine of the other eateries and what was planned at the time across the street with the former Redevelopment Agency so it would have complemented what was proposed. He advised that the project on the southeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Ball Road has changed to be a bit more residential with some retail but will be primarily residential. He explained that of the Successor Agency's interest, there was guidance provided as to what the City would like to see there.

Council Member Rubalcava questioned why a subsidy was not triggered if the Successor Agency was involved. Director Ramirez explained that the City was just involved with the planning and was not involved in the economic terms between the two parties. He further explained the owner of Parcel B is allowing the City to be removed from the existing contract and 25-year obligations because Mr.

Chu will bring in retail tenants that will produce the same benefit that he currently has with the lease.

Council Member Rubalcava commented that as much as she likes to see TOT generated, she is concerned that the City is costing businesses money by trying to sway them towards more economic development opportunities for the City. She noted that the City has cost the applicant money by not entertaining their original concept which fits into that industrial area. She emphasized that she does not think the site is conducive to a hotel and expressed concern that it is now creeping in closer to residential. She restated that she does not believe the project fits in this area. She expressed concern that the City told the applicant not to move forward with a mini storage which she believes would have been a great idea in the area. She advised that she would not be able to support the item.

Deputy City Manager White explained that he was not part of the original discussions regarding the mini-storage facility, however, noted that there is a long-standing Council Policy in place since the late 1990s related to self-storage facilities that state they should only be allowed on properties that are otherwise not viable as commercial sites. He confirmed that this is a viable commercially zoned property with one small piece of it zoned industrial. He explained that this would not have been a site that would have been encouraged for self-storage.

City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

Council Member Rubalcava inquired if the City Council was allowed to weigh in on that or if the applicant was allowed to challenge Council Policy. Deputy City Manager White advised that he could not speak to the particulars but wanted the City Council to understand the large-scale context.

Council Member Rubalcava expressed concern with the way that the project has gone.

Mayor Aitken remarked that many of her initial concerns related to parking being pushed into an already parking-challenged residential neighborhood have subsided as well as the driver issues, and the drive-thru issues. She inquired if there have been discussions with the applicant or City staff on how to protect adjacent businesses from being a victim of overflow parking. Deputy City Manager White referenced Council Member Meeks’ earlier comments and advised that Condition No. 59 of the draft resolution indicates that a Valet Parking Operations Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review by the City Engineer and the Planning Director. He advised that it would be beneficial to potentially add language that would state that “a Valet Parking Operations Plan which includes the provision of free parking for guests and workers of the hotel shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division.” He advised that if the applicant would be amenable to the condition this would be part of the change to ensure that there is not a barrier to guests or workers using the valet parking plan. Director Ramirez clarified that there is a gate at the roundabout on Technology Circle for the two industrial properties in the back, but there is no gate for the property immediately to the east.

Mayor Aitken expressed concern for the business owner who spoke during public comments and recommended that the applicant or City staff work with him to make sure the City is protecting his customers as well. She inquired if there were any signage concerns for the businesses that are in the cul-de-sac on Technology Circle.

Deputy City Manager White advised that staff does not anticipate that the properties to the north and east located on Technology Circle would be impacted by obstructed views. He noted that visitors would need to make a right turn on Technology Circle and proceed to the end of the cul-de-sac where there would be an unobstructed view of the property.

Council Member Rubalcava referenced the attorneys who spoke during public comments who tried to use CEQA as a reason to oppose the project. She noted that CEQA has become a weapon to oppose projects that people do not like for different reasons. She cautioned bringing CEQA forward as an argument to oppose a project. She advised that she will be opposing the item because she feels it is not the right location for a hotel to go up so close to residential. She reiterated her concerns that the City is allowing hotels to creep closer into residential areas and further away from the Resort district.

MOTION: Council Member Meeks moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2024-019 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 388 for Development Application No. 2019-00161 (125 East Ball Road); RESOLUTION NO. 2024-020 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving Conditional Use Permits and Minor Conditional Use Permit to construct a hotel, a drive-through restaurant, permit a floor area ratio above

0.50, and permit valet parking and making certain findings in connection therewith (DEV2019-00161) (125 East Ball Road) with the amendment to Condition No. 59; and introduce ORDINANCE NO. 6571 (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 (DEV2019- 00161) (125 East Ball Road) (reclassify a portion of the project site from the “I” (Industrial) Zone to the “C-G” (General Commercial) Zone).

City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

DISCUSSION: Deputy City Manager White inquired if Council Member Meeks’ motion included the amended free parking condition. He remarked that it would be prudent to ask the applicant if they are comfortable with the amended condition. The applicant confirmed they were in agreement with the amendment.

MOTION: Council Member Meeks moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2024-019 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 388 for Development Application No. 2019-00161 (125 East Ball Road); RESOLUTION NO. 2024-020 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving Conditional Use Permits and Minor Conditional Use Permit to construct a hotel, a drive-through restaurant, permit a floor area ratio above

0.50, and permit valet parking and making certain findings in connection therewith (DEV2019-00161) (125 East Ball Road) with the amendment to Condition No. 59; and introduce ORDINANCE NO. 6571 (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 (DEV2019- 00161) (125 East Ball Road) (reclassify a portion of the project site from the “I” (Industrial) Zone to the “C-G” (General Commercial) Zone), seconded by Council Member Diaz. ROLL CALL VOTE: 5-2 (AYES: Mayor Aitken and Council Members Kurtz, Diaz, Faessel, and Meeks; NOES: Council Members Leon and Rubalcava). Motion carried.

32. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. 2023-00011
PROJECT LOCATION: The approximately 0.81-acre property is located at 2125 - 2129 South Harbor Boulevard, approximately 300 feet south of Orangewood Avenue.

REQUEST: The applicant requests a determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to permit off-site sales of alcoholic beverages in an existing retail sales-general use that is incidental to and integrated with The Carriage Inn motel, an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2725 to remove a condition of approval requiring a restrictive covenant on the property, and approval of an administrative adjustment for a 5% reduction in Code-required parking spaces.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City Council will consider whether to find and determine that is the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15300.2 (c) and 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.

ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:

Approved a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity for the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption, an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2725 to remove a condition of approval, and an administrative adjustment for a 5% reduction in Code- required parking and making certain findings in connection therewith (PC2024-002). VOTE: 7- 0 (Chairperson Kring and Commissioners Henninger, Castro, Lieberman, Perez, Tran-Martin, and Walker voted yes).
(Planning Commission meeting of January 17, 2024) Appealed by: Talab Ibrahim.

RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM denying the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision and approving a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity for the sale of alcoholic beverages for off- site consumption, an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2725 to remove a condition of approval, and an administrative adjustment for a 5% reduction in code-required parking and making certain findings in connection therewith (Development Application No. 2023-00011) (2125-2129 South Harbor Boulevard) [includes determination that is the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15300.2 (c) and 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations].

Deputy City Manager White reported the item is an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve entitlements to permit off-site sales of alcoholic beverages in an existing retail market at The Carriage Inn Motel. He advised that the request was approved 7-0 by the Planning Commission on January 17, 2024, and appealed by Talab Ibrahim, an Anaheim resident. He noted that the project site is located at 2125 - 2129 South Harbor Boulevard, just south of Orangewood Avenue. He advised that the property is in the Commercial Recreation District of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and is surrounded by commercial uses to the north, south, and east across Harbor Boulevard, with multiple-family residential uses to the west.

Deputy City Manager White reported that in 1985, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was approved by the Planning Commission and allowed for the construction of a 51-room motel on the subject parcel where an existing commercial building was located, along with a variance from parking requirements for the site. He explained that Adventure Land is an existing small retail sales-general use that currently occupies the 2,667 square foot freestanding commercial building within the parking lot of the Carriage Inn Motel, and primarily serves motel patrons and non-motel patrons in the Anaheim Resort area by selling souvenirs, clothing, and other travel and food convenience items.

Deputy City Manager White reported that the applicant requests a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity for the sale of alcoholic beverages, including beer, wine, and distilled spirits, for off-premises consumption in conjunction with the existing retail establishment. He advised that the hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Monday to Thursday, and 7:00 a.m. to midnight Friday through Sunday. He noted that the total alcohol display area occupies less than 10% of the floor area.

Deputy City Manager White reported that the applicant also requested the removal of a condition of approval from the original CUP, limiting the use of the freestanding commercial building to a retail wig shop that was used at the time to justify a parking variance. He advised that in place of the variance, the applicant requests an administrative adjustment for a reduction in parking, supported by a parking demand analysis conducted on the project site over several days when both the motel and retail use were operating under normal conditions.

Deputy City Manager White reported that the appellant, Talab Ibrahim, provided four reasons on the basis for the appeal. He advised that the first reason was that the applicant provided misleading and inaccurate information to the Planning Commission, including in response to questions from the Commission. He confirmed that details explaining the specific misleading and inaccurate information were not provided by the appellant. He noted that Condition of Approval No. 1 in the Draft Resolution requires that the business be operated in accordance with the Letter of Justification, which was reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and the Anaheim Police Department.

Deputy City Manager White reported that the appellant also stated that the Planning Commission did not have enough time to thoroughly read all the submitted letters that were received for the project.

He advised that the Planning Commissioners received all public opposition letters before the public hearing for the project, and printed copies of correspondence received on the day of the meeting were also printed and provided to the dais for reference.

Deputy City Manager White reported that the appellant also argues that the granting of the alcohol sales license would violate State law because of the proximity of the project to schools and public playgrounds or non-profit youth facilities. He advised that the Department of Alcoholic Beverage City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

Control (ABC) is authorized, but not required, to deny alcohol sale licenses that are within 600 feet of schools, public playgrounds, or non-profit youth facilities. He explained that the rear property line of Parkview Elementary School in the City of Garden Grove is approximately 550 feet away from the Adventure Land building when directly measuring the distance between the properties.

Deputy City Manager White reported that the appellant indicates that the applicant has not met its burden of establishing public convenience or necessity. He advised that a determination of public convenience or necessity is required when a license is requested in a police reporting district with a crime rate above the City average, or when there is an overconcentration in the number of ABC licenses within a census tract. He explained that Adventure Land is located within a police reporting district that is below the City average in crime, but the census tract is allowed 2 off-sale licenses and there are currently 3 such licenses in this tract, with two of those licenses being in Garden Grove.

Deputy City Manager White explained that the existing retail use is incidental to and integrated with the Carriage Inn Motel and would provide additional convenience to patrons of the motel and the surrounding Anaheim Resort area. He advised that conditions of approval from the Police Department have been included in the resolution that requires the installation of CCTV, proper lighting, and policing of loitering by the business operator to ensure the business would not negatively affect the neighborhood. He reported that the Planning Commission determined that all the required findings could be made and approved the project with conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Department and the Anaheim Police Department. He advised that the conditions of approval help to ensure that the business would not negatively affect the surrounding area and are consistent with other public convenience or necessity applications approved by the Commission.

Deputy City Manager White reported that staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission approving the project with the findings included in the staff report and draft resolutions.

DISCUSSION: In response to Council Member Faessel, Deputy City Manager White confirmed that ABC licensure requires employees to complete an alcohol training program.

Council Member Diaz inquired if the appellant sells alcohol at his location. Deputy City Manager White reported that the appellant is the business owner of a market in proximity that sells alcoholic beverages. He would recommend having the appellant confirm that when they have an opportunity to comment. Council Member Diaz noted that this seems like a case of competition.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz referenced an earlier discussion that indicated that the former wig shop received a parking variance because there was not sufficient parking. She inquired if the applicant was asking for the same variance. Deputy City Manager White explained that this would clean up the CUP to remove the deed restriction on the property that stated it could only be used for a wig shop but had somehow been lost to history and the building has been occupied by many different businesses over the years. He explained that in doing so, staff wanted to apply current parking standards for the property which have been applied for by the applicant. He advised that staff could do this because it is only a 5% deviation from the parking code and is being done through an Administrative Adjustment. He explained that when an Administrative Adjustment is packaged with something that requires a CUP, it comes forward to the City Council for consideration as well.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz inquired if the property has fewer parking spaces than the City would ask for another business of its size. Deputy City Manager White explained that the cumulative requirement for parking on the property is taken for both the motel as well as the convenience store. He advised City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

that they have 5% less parking than the 46 spaces required by code. He reported that they have 44 parking spaces.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz inquired about how many rooms were available at the Carriage Inn Motel.

Deputy City Manager White reported that they have 51 rooms. He advised that the code-required parking is 0.8 spaces per room, which is complying.

Mayor Aitken inquired if there were any ex-parte communications the City Council would like to disclose. Seeing none, Mayor Aitken opened the public hearing.

Joshua Kaplan, the attorney representing Talab Ibrahim, reported that Mr. Ibrahim does not own or operate any alcohol sale beverage establishment. He advised that Mr. Ibrahim is a 23-year resident of the city with his wife and two young children. He noted that Mr. Ibrahim is very involved in community affairs, including the betterment of the social life and welfare of this community, which is his motivation for the appeal. He confirmed that he is not a competitor, but a concerned resident.

Mr. Kaplan explained that the issue before the City Council is whether they feel there is some legal excuse to put another alcohol sale establishment in an area that is oversaturated. He noted that two are allowed and recalled that staff has indicated that three already exist. He explained that ABC and the State developed these rules against over-concentration to limit the amount of alcohol available in certain census tracks to decrease crime and prevent instances of driving under the influence. He advised that the State does provide for exceptions if the applicant can show that it would satisfy public convenience or necessity, a license could be granted at the discretion of the City Council.

Mr. Kaplan reported that it has come to be known through some court decisions that public convenience means that it requires the applicant to provide something unique in connection with the sale of alcohol, something that is not already available in abundance, and provided examples. He advised that the applicant is not offering anything unique and there is already an abundance of alcohol outlets in the area. He likened adding alcoholic beverages to a shop next to a motel that caters to tourists and the motoring public is akin to having an alcohol sale outlet in a highway ticket booth. He explained that the clientele for both are tourists and the motoring public. He noted that will increase the consumption of alcohol in cars or the public and that is going to create more problems.

He explained that it does not satisfy any public convenience or any public necessity.

Mr. Kaplan reported that the appellant's position is that the applicant has failed to establish anything unique or offer anything of benefit to the community that is not already available in abundance. He noted this is a profit motive. He explained that there are reasons for these rules and the reason is more alcohol is going create more problems and it is not for the public benefit. He expressed belief that the applicant did not bear his burden and should be denied.

Mr. Ibrahim, the appellant, reported that he is a life-long, Anaheim resident and a property manager of some commercial properties in the City. He noted that he firmly believes that the applicant did mislead the commissioners at the January 17th Planning Commission meeting. He advised that there are a total of 44 parking spots shared between the motel and the proposed liquor store. He noted that of the 44 stalls, three are disabled parking spots, four are marked reserved, and one is currently being used as storage.

Mr. Ibrahim reported that the Carriage Inn Motel does not currently have 51 rooms as reported by the applicant. He explained that 51 rooms were approved back in 1985, but there are currently 60 to 65 rooms according to Expedia.com and Hotels.com. He advised that he conducted a study and counted 18 rooms on the first floor, 24 rooms on the second floor, and 26 rooms on the third floor totaling 60 City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

guest rooms. He explained that using the lower count of 60 rooms and assuming the proposed liquor store does fall as a retail store within a hotel, the total number of required rooms per Anaheim Municipal Code must be 60 multiplied by 0.8 which would require 48 parking spots, plus 2.66 parking spaces for the space retail of 2,667 square feet and 1.5 parking spots for employees for a total of

52.16 parking spots not 46 as stated. He noted that this will allow for a reduction of 19%, not 5%.

Mr. Ibrahim explained if the proposed liquor store is considered a freestanding business, the parking requirement would change to 10.66 parking plus the hotel requirements of 48 plus 1.5 perform employees, the total required parking spots would be 60.16 which is 17.16 more spots than they currently have or 39% reduction request. He noted that both scenarios conclude a high number of parking spots to be included in the reduction.

Mr. Ibrahim reported that he submitted with his application, a few Yelp reviews of guests who stayed at the hotel and faced parking issues including one that was instructed by hotel staff to park in the handicapped spot and another that had to park at Carl's Jr. next door because there was not enough parking. He expressed concern that a parking analysis was conducted during the Thanksgiving week, which is one of the slowest weeks of the year in the Resort district. He explained that the analysis does not account for busy seasons such as summer or spring break. He reported that the previous night at 11:30 p.m. during a very calm night at the Resort there were only 18 stalls available.

Mr. Ibrahim reported that Mr. Ayaz, attorney for the applicant, assured the Planning Commission that his client would abide by all conditions and laws required by the City and the State at the Planning Commission meeting. He advised that the applicant is already engaging in illegal activities at the Adventure Land market by selling flavored tobacco and flavored vapes. He noted that the map provided by the applicant for the Planning Commission meeting is not the same one being presented and did not include pertinent details. He advised that the map failed to show the other alcohol stores within the census tract.

Mr. Ibrahim responded to Council Member Diaz's previous comments and confirmed that he has family members who do have stores that sell alcohol, including restaurants and convenience stores but that he does not own any of them. He advised that he is a property manager in the City and operates other businesses that his family owns but does not own any liquor stores.

Mike Ayaz, attorney for the applicant, advised that the appellant's family owns 510 Orangewood Avenue and he manages the property. He encouraged the City Council to ask the appellant if he manages the property at 510 Orangewood Avenue which is owned by his father Najim Akar. He noted that Mr. Ibrahim, at the very least, has a relationship with a competitor. He remarked that Mr.

Kaplan commented on ABC law but noted that it is not within the jurisdiction of what is being considered. He noted that the item is centered around a staff report and a staff process that took two years to finalize. He referenced the work of Associate Planner Amanda Lauffer for finding the history of the wig shop after digging through the entitlements, the support of the Anaheim Police Department who verified the ownership connection, full support by staff, and full support from the Planning Commission who approved the item 7-0. He noted this is a competition-quashing effort to stop a reasonable project.

Mr. Ayaz reported that the applicant has agreed to every condition including a reduction of space and a reduction of hours because the applicant wants a fair opportunity to do business and meet the public necessity and convenience of the customers. He confirmed that the applicant does not own the hotel and does not know how many rooms are at the hotel but they do know what is on file with the City. He noted that rooms cannot be added to an existing hotel without the City knowing about it. He explained that the appellant still must deal with this protest at the ABC level. He noted that he would City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

be shocked if the appellant under penalty of perjury stated that there was no connection with King’s Liquor. He expressed hope that the City Council would see through this and noted that his client paid $5,047 for the appeal and the appellant paid $450. He implored the City Council to stay within the bounds of what the governing body should be considering. He explained that his client wants every opportunity to be successful and every opportunity to compete with the market. He offered to answer any questions and provide supplemental information to the City Council.

City Clerk Bass reported that a total of five (5) public comments were received electronically related to Public Hearing Item No. 32. [A final total of five (5) public comments were received electronically, distributed to the City Council, and made part of the official records]. – See Appendix.

Noting no public speakers for the item, Mayor Aitken inquired if the appellant had any additional comments.

Mr. Kaplan advised that whether the appellant's family is involved in alcohol sales or not is a complete distraction and not an issue in this case. He clarified that the issue before the City Council is the undue concentration and the allowance of more licenses. He noted that it does not matter who comes before the City Council objecting to the issue. He emphasized that the question before the City Council is whether the application will add value, public convenience, or necessity to the area, or does it believe that adding another alcohol license is going to hurt the community. He noted that the burden does not shift to the appellant. He advised that it is the burden of the applicant to show how it satisfies public convenience and necessity. Mr. Kaplan explained that the determination of public need and necessity is the City Council’s to make by law. He reiterated that it is up to the City Council to advise if adding a fourth license to the area adds value or something unique to the community. He noted that he and his client do not believe that it adds value.

Mayor Aitken asked the applicant if he would like to respond.

Mr. Ayaz advised that the laws relating to public convenience and necessity and the census tracks along with the numbers that were put into place, were defined in the 1960s and 1970s. He explained that comparing two licenses allowed in the census track in the middle of the Anaheim Resort from then to now is ridiculous. He explained that State law has given deference to city governments to make those determinations because it realizes that a census track and the information that is relied on today, has changed significantly from when it was implemented.

Mr. Ayaz explained that the request should not be considered overconcentrated and the applicant made its case to the Planning Commission as to why the application serves public convenience and necessity. He noted that this is a hotel where visitors are staying with their children and are looking to find a convenient location outside the Resort area for milk, souvenirs, bread, and alcoholic beverages after a long day. He encouraged the City Council to consider a unanimous approval from the Planning Commissioners, approval from staff, and no objection from the Police Department.

Seeing no further comments, Mayor Aitken closed the public hearing.

DISCUSSION: Council Member Rubalcava advised that she had seen the documents and felt it was misleading because it is not part of the hotel but a separate entity. She explained that if the hotel were to go out of business, the liquor store would be a stand-alone business. She noted that the Police memorandum states that a transient population exists within 500 feet and recommends that the applicant implement crime prevention precautions. She inquired about what type of crime prevention precautions are planned to be implemented. She expressed concern about a liquor store that does not need to be in an area that already is low income.

City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

Mr. Ayaz emphasized that this is not a liquor store and is ancillary to the hotel's use. He explained that the applicant never stated that they were a part of the hotel or shared ownership.

In response to Council Member Rubalcava, Mr. Ayaz clarified that it was made clear at the Planning Commission meeting and during the application process that two separate owners worked symbiotically together. He noted that Adventure Land certainly complements the use of the hotel next door. He advised that there was a litany of conditions promulgated by City staff as well as the Police Department in a memo that included items such as signs for loitering, security camera systems, and state-mandated Responsible Beverage Service (RBS) training.

Mr. Ayaz reported that the applicant and hotel security staff monitor the parking lot area. He advised that the hotel owner is very supportive of the use and reiterated that it is a symbiotic relationship. He reiterated that this project is being approved with several conditions to address transient related concerns.

In response to Council Member Diaz, Mr. Kaplan confirmed that Mr. Ibrahim has been a resident of Anaheim for 23 years.

Council Member Diaz inquired how far Mr. Ibrahim resided from the subject location. Mr. Ibrahim advised that he lived at his previous residence for 21 years, which is about a two-minute walk from the location in question. He noted that last March he moved to the other side of Disneyland into District 4.

Council Member Diaz inquired about the stores that the appellant manages but does not own. He inquired if any of the stores sell alcohol. Mr. Ibrahim explained that he manages a laundromat business and a Mexican restaurant that allows on-premises alcohol sales. He confirmed that his father owns a liquor store but explained that he does not manage the store. Council Member Diaz questioned the circumstances of the appellant’s motives.

Mr. Ibrahim confirmed that he does live in Anaheim, is raising his family in Anaheim, and knows the area very well. He agreed that it is a low-crime area, but that does not mean it does not have any crime. He noted that adding a liquor store to the area does not help in any way. He advised that the Anaheim Police Department has determined that most calls in the area are for public intoxication, homelessness, assault, and theft. He advised that he considers the fee for appealing the item a part of his budget that he allocates every year for local communities and local non-profit organizations.

Council Member Meeks requested clarification on the number of rooms. Deputy City Manager White explained that he did not have a definitive answer. He explained that the discrepancy may be with the number of suites the hotel offers. He noted that he does believe that they have somehow expanded from 51 rooms to 64 rooms. He advised that the staff went with the information that was presented to them as to the number of hotel rooms and went from there.

Council Member Meeks remarked that she was uncomfortable with the parking count since the rooms number of rooms cannot be verified and it cannot be confirmed if they have divided suites that used to be one room. She noted that any room change would change the parking requirements on the site and impact approval.

In response to Council Member Meeks, Chief Armendariz confirmed there have not been problems in the area or at the site. He explained that the Police Department looks at any issues or concerns and then makes recommendations. He confirmed that crime in the area has gone down in the last five years, but there is still a prevalence of vagrancy and homelessness-related crimes. He advised that City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

they did add some additional restrictions which prevent the business from selling one can to an individual along with not being able to sell alcohol under 12 ounces.

Council Member Meeks inquired if the cameras and signage are for the entire site or just specific to the store. Police Chief Armendariz advised that it was just specific to the store.

In response to Council Member Meeks, Deputy City Manager White confirmed that the safety measures outlined in the Conditional Use Permit apply to the entirety of the property. He remarked that he would feel more comfortable if there were specific requirements related to lights and other provisions.

Council Member Meeks noted that her last concern is determining whether the property meets the parking requirements, which is dependent on the number of rooms that they are operating.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz commented that she hopes the City is collecting the correct amount of TOT given the uncertainty of the rooms. She emphasized that the hotel and liquor store operate in conjunction with one another and not as two separate sites. She requested clarification on how many for-sale liquor stores are on that tract. Chief Armendariz advised that this area is allowed to have two off-site ABC licenses. He reported that there is currently one in the City of Anaheim and two in the City of Garden Grove. He noted that as it stands today, there are three, and this would constitute a fourth.

Council Member Faessel referenced the Police Department report that states that the top three offenses were 66 thefts, 36 motor vehicle thefts, and 33 assaults. He inquired if any of these offenses were associated with the sale of alcohol. Chief Armendariz commented that he could not determine if any of them were associated with alcohol or even public intoxication. He confirmed that these numbers are accurate and APD has seen a decrease in calls for service in that area over the last two years. He reiterated that vagrancy and homelessness-related calls are consistent with trespassing disturbances, mental health cases, and public intoxication.

Council Member Leon requested clarification that the current parking requirement is 0.8 spots per room and if the market receives the license, that parking will need to change. Deputy City Manager White explained that the parking requirement is cumulative of the required parking for the hotel which is 0.8 spaces per room. He further explained that based on the presumed 51 room count, there is a requirement for 41 spaces based on 0.8 per room plus one space for an employee and one space for an on-site manager, which would equal 43 spaces. He noted that in addition to that, the retail sale building, which is 2667 square feet, requires one space per 1000 square feet, which adds another three, which comes to a total of 46 parking spaces required for the entire property. Lastly, he confirmed that there are 44 spaces on site, which is a 5% reduction from the number of code-required parking spaces.

Associate Planner Lauffer reported that a parking analysis was conducted on the site during weekdays and a weekend when both the motel and retail use were operating under normal conditions. She advised that during the peak time of the survey, a total of 38 parking spaces were occupied, which could support up to a 17% reduction based on the number of stalls that are provided on-site at 44 spaces.

Council Member Leon requested clarification that the property is not up to code based on the existing code. Deputy City Manager White confirmed that is correct noting they are short of the number of parking spaces required by code.

City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

Council Member Leon inquired how that would be rectified. Deputy City Manager White explained that this request does not increase the total number of parking spaces that are required. He further explained that this is a cleanup effort as it relates to the previous wig shop to reestablish the parking minimums for retail use. He confirmed that this would not increase the number of parking spaces. He emphasized that the addition of alcohol sales does not increase the number of parking spaces that are required. He confirmed that the site is short on the number of parking spaces required by code.

He noted, for the record, that staff cannot verify the total number of rooms other than what was provided to the City in the application. He confirmed that there needs to be a follow-up on the parking spaces regardless of this request.

Council Member Leon requested additional clarification on a statement that the City does not usually grant licenses for alcoholic beverage businesses. Deputy City Manager White explained that an alcohol license is typically a discretionary action that comes before the Planning Commission, City Council, or approved by the Planning and Building Director. He noted public convenience or necessity requests are not uncommon and are processed regularly. He confirmed that dozens if not hundreds of public convenience and necessity requests have been considered by the City over the years for similar situations where businesses are either in a crime area that exceeds the City average or an over-concentration of licenses.

In response to Council Member Leon, Deputy City Manager White confirmed that there are multifamily residences just west of the property and an elementary school in the City of Garden Grove approximately 550 feet from the site.

Council Member Leon inquired if liquor options were added into the area with the existing safety concerns and if safety concerns would increase. Chief Armendariz confirmed that safety concerns would increase. He referenced the Police Department memorandum previously referenced by Council Member Faessel. He noted that under Requirement No. 03, additional security measures shall be provided as deemed necessary by the Chief of Police or designee. He explained that those additional conditions can be reviewed. He clarified that the APD's job is to assess, evaluate, and make recommendations on conditions based on the information. He emphasized that APD provides input based on experience, training, and evaluation of the request.

Council Member Rubalcava remarked that there is already an over-saturation of liquor stores allowed on the tract. She expressed the belief that most of the people visiting the liquor store will not be individuals staying at the hotel but will be people from surrounding neighborhoods. She stated that she does not support approval as she is opposed to bringing more liquor stores into low-income areas. She commented that the applicant was misleading in making it appear as though the store was part of the hotel but is a separately operated business. She advised that she has no problem amending the CUP to not limit businesses in the area but does not think this liquor license should be in that area.

Council Member Meeks inquired about the options before the City Council as to what can be done about the discrepancy in the number of units that weigh into the parking on the site. Deputy City Manager White explained that the City Council always has the discretion to approve, deny, or continue. He explained that staff were operating on the assumption that the information provided was valid and accurate in the application. He advised that the City Council has the option to approve the request if it were determined through Code Enforcement and further action, that the information that was provided was inaccurate, the application would be brought back to amend the entitlement. He explained that the other option would be for the City Council to continue the item and for staff to do additional research and make sure the number of hotel rooms is accurate. He noted that if the information is found to be inaccurate, the request would need to be amended to reflect the greater City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

deviation in the number of parking spaces. He emphasized that it does not mean that the recommendation would change but the record would be changed to have accurate information.

Lastly, he advised that the City Council has the option of denying the action.

Mayor Aitken inquired if the additional assessment to validate the accuracy of the number of rooms and parking spaces can be completed and presented by the next City Council meeting. Deputy City Manager White recommended continuing the item if the City Council wanted to consider it at the next meeting. He explained that if the City Council were to move forward and approve the request and staff were then to determine that the information provided was inaccurate, then a new public hearing would be needed to amend which would take significant time along with the possibly of going back through the Planning Commission.

Mayor Aitken remarked that she was more comfortable continuing the public hearing rather than having to restart the entire process. She requested staff determine how many rooms are operating either via Code Enforcement for the parking or the Audit Department for the TOT.

Mayor Aitken inquired if all the items that were suggested in the Police Department memorandum were accepted and moving forward. Chief Armendariz confirmed that the suggestions were accepted and moving forward and there have been additional tweaks to the hours of operation.

Mayor Aitken thanked Chief Armendariz for addressing the single-can items purchasing so individuals cannot purchase one-off items. She suggested that it be a citywide rule in all places that sell alcohol.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz remarked that there may be some Council Members who are ready to deny the application simply because of the number of stores that sell alcohol in the area.

Mayor Aitken explained that many of the locations on the map were restaurants where an individual cannot carry the alcohol off the property. She noted that there is only one off-sale location in that tract in Anaheim and does not believe that there is an over-saturation.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz commented that it is one area where the City Council is affecting alcohol sales.

She reiterated that she would like to vote because some Council Members do not like the number of stores that are selling liquor for out-sales.

MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz moved to uphold the appeal, seconded by Council Member Rubalcava. ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-4 (AYES: Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz and Council Members Leon and Rubalcava); NOES: (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Diaz, Faessel, and Meeks). Motion failed.

MOTION: Council Member Meeks moved to continue the public hearing.

DISCUSSION: City Attorney Fabela noted that if there were a motion to continue it would be on March 19th. Deputy City Manager White recommended a four-week continuance to March 26th.

Council Member Diaz recommended placing a condition of approval that the information provided to the City is correct and if not correct, it is not approved. Deputy City Manager White noted that the challenge in doing so is that if the information is not 100% correct then the application would be deemed denied. He advised that it is in the City’s best interest to obtain accurate information before the City Council acts.

City Council Minutes of February 27, 2024

Council Member Diaz stated that he does not see the difference between 24 and 26 rooms as it does not change the bigger picture. Deputy City Manager White agreed that it may not be a big difference, but it is prudent to make sure things are accurately recorded and that there is disclosure for the public hearing process. He reiterated that it would be the staff's recommendation to get the information accurately reflected.

Mayor Aitken noted that for her it is not so much about the alcohol but the parking variance and would like the decision made on accurate information.

Council Member Rubalcava urged the City Council who voted to not deny the license to drive by the hotel and the community. She reported that she grew up across the street from a 7-Eleven and good things do not happen in those areas. She noted that it impacts property values and kids living in the area. She noted that the application was misleading. She expressed concern that this area was deemed not safe and required a lot of parameters to keep the area clean, safe, and burden-free. She advised that she would be supporting the continuance.

Council Member Meeks inquired if the public hearing could be closed so that the City Council could simply consider it. Mayor Aitken reported that she has already closed the public hearing.

MOTION: Council Member Meeks moved to continue the public hearing to March 26, 2024, seconded by Mayor Aitken. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES – 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Rubalcava, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES – 0. Motion carried.

PUBLIC COMMENTS (non-agenda items): None
COUNCIL AGENDA SETTING:

Council Member Rubalcava requested a recognition for Lilyana Balderas, an Anaheim High School student, who placed third at the Girls CIF State Wrestling Championships. She requested to agendize the City’s purchasing policy for City Council review.

Council Member Leon requested to agendize general clean up language for the Campaign Ordinance, a discussion on a gift ban, and a retirement recognition for California Highway Patrol Officer Ray Payton.

Council Member Meeks requested to agendize a workshop regarding the Workforce Development Program.

ADJOURNMENT:

At 11:57 p.m., Mayor Aitken adjourned the City Council.

Respectfully submitted,
Theresa Bass, CMC
City Clerk