Anaheim City Council
May 29, 2025

ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 29, 2024
The regular meeting of October 29, 2024 was called to order at 4:00 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 October 24, 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
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:

Marc Herbert requested that the Council discuss the cost of labor contracts during Council Communications. He explained that the proposed figures were not discussed during the budget process. He requested that Council Member Rubalcava recuse herself from Closed Session Item No. 1 due to a conflict of interest that he previously raised. He explained that Council Member Rubalcava previously mentioned that her husband is an employee under the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) labor union for the City of Anaheim, and that the City Attorney explained it was not a conflict of interest. He reiterated his previous concerns on whether her vote on an IBEW contract was a conflict of interest, and if not, requested a detailed explanation of why.

City Clerk Theresa Bass reported that no electronic public comments were received related to the Closed Session agenda.

CLOSED SESSION: At 4:05 p.m., Mayor Aitken recessed to Closed Session for consideration of the following:

1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Subdivision (a) of Section 54957.6 of the California Government Code) Agency Designated Representative: Linda Andal, Human Resources Director Name of Employee Organizations: (1) American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (General Management, Professional/Technical, and Confidential Units); (2) Anaheim Firefighters Association, Local 2899; (3) Anaheim Municipal Employees Association (General, Clerical, and Part-Time Units); (4) Anaheim Municipal Employees Association, Police Cadet Unit; (5) Anaheim Police Association; (6) Anaheim Police Management Association; (7) International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local 47; (8) IBEW, Local 47 Part-Time Service Employees; (9) International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 47 (Professional Management and Part-Time Management Units) (10) Service Employees’ International Union, United Service Workers West; (11) Teamsters, Local 952
At 5:07 p.m., Mayor Aitken reconvened the Anaheim City Council.

ITEM NO. 21
City Council Minutes of October 29, 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.

INVOCATION: Pastor Esther Dang, West Anaheim United Methodist Church Council Member Rubalcava expressed gratitude to the trades, public safety, and first responders for their contributions to the country.

FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Natalie Rubalcava
Mayor Aitken thanked the Anaheim Fire and Rescue Department for the shirts worn by the City Council in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

At 5:12 p.m., Mayor Aitken called to order the Anaheim Public Financing Authority, Anaheim Housing and Public Improvements Authority, and Anaheim Housing Authority, in joint session with the City Council.

ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDAS: City Clerk Theresa Bass announced that Consent Calendar Item Nos. 12 and 13 were withdrawn from the agenda by staff.

PUBLIC COMMENTS (all agenda items, except public hearings): Prior to receipt of public comments, City Clerk Theresa Bass provided an outline of procedures for public comments, notice of translation services, and a brief decorum statement.

City Clerk Bass reported that a total of 13 public comments were received electronically prior to 4:30 p.m. [A final total of 15 public comments were received electronically, distributed to the City Council, and made part of the official records]. – See Appendix.

Ruben Greg Soto spoke out against injustices by family law in Riverside and churches.

Avery Violanto spoke about Deer Canyon and provided an explanation on why it should remain as is.

She explained that there are a number of animals and wildlife, and developing in the area will take away their homes. She added that Deer Canyon is a remarkable place with breathtaking sunsets and abundant wildlife, and if it's removed, both the animals and the scenic views will disappear. She recalled memories of going on walks with family in Deer Canyon and taking in all of the sights. She explained that new developments will prevent her from returning in the future and reminiscing on all of her memories. She concluded by stating that new development will alter Deer Canyon for her and for any future resident nearby.

Cecilia Flores reported a serious traffic problem in her neighborhood that took the life of Jessica Ferrino, a mother, wife, and member of the community, by a vehicle that was speeding. She explained that with the Council’s assistance, the speed limit can be reduced for vehicles traveling east and southbound on Rio Vista and Wagner near the Cove Trail in District 5. She noted that the City recently reduced speeds on major streets, but did not consider Wagner. She explained that the current speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph) and then reduced to 15 mph when vehicles approach Wagner. She noted that the distance to slow down is too short, given the overpass and curve on the street. She suggested posting another speed limit sign after South Street to remind vehicles of the speed limit. She added that individuals visiting the Cove Trail, walk across the busy street in the morning and afternoon. She recommended, given a future trail expansion, reducing the speed on Wagner to 30 or 35 mph in both directions and adding another sign to remind drivers of the speed limit, and adding speed monitors.

City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

Mayor Aitken requested that a staff member connect with Ms. Flores for additional information.

Paul Hyek reported a parking issue at the Hazelridge apartments. He requested that red curbs be painted to increase visibility for drivers turning onto the street.

Thuy (Tim) Tran, a 20-year resident, expressed concern over his wife’s safety. He explained that they reside near a fire station in a friendly and supportive community. He reported that recently, patients from a home-care business in the area have been scaring the residents. He shared that an individual from the home was chasing someone with a large kitchen knife and often hear screaming in the middle of the night. He requested that the City look into the situation and monitor the homes and residents’ safety.

In response to Mayor Aitken, City Manager Vanderpool referred Mr. Tran to Senior Administrative Analyst Alyssa Guerrero to speak with the resident.

Anthony Quroga clarified Mr. Tran’s comments and explained that an individual initially purchased the property, and over time, the property was developed into a non-licensed care facility. He reported screaming in the middle of the night and individuals walking into random homes. He requested stricter enforcement of the home.

Mayor Aitken referred Mr. Quroga to Senior Administrative Analyst Guerrero.

Marc Herbert requested the WiFi password and additional seating outside. He also requested better time management and scheduling of City Council meetings where large audiences are expected, and a contentious issue is being discussed. He inquired about why numerous seats were reserved for the developers and not open to the public. He noted that the Housing Element Update Committee has not met in three years, which leaves missed opportunities for fact-checking and public engagement.

Richard Bjorklund echoed Mr. Tran and Mr. Quoraga’s comments about issues in his neighborhood.

He explained that the home is operating without a local license. He requested that the City Council look into the matter.

Mayor Aitken noted Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz represents the district where he resides and will be following up with him.

Matthew Duncan reported that only two Council Members have followed up with him. He shared that Governor Newsom signed the Poison-Free Wildlife Act, which bans rodent poison. He explained that the City and various properties use rodent poison. He shared that rodent poison causes animals to get sick, and any wildlife that eats the animals. He noted that on January 1, 2024, Governor Newsom signed legislation banning dipachinone. He shared that he checked the rodent boxes around City Hall and they contained diphacinone. He explained that he contacted pest control, who assured him they would remove the boxes. He shared that before the meeting, he checked the boxes that contained poisons that were not marked or contained illegal poisons.

Bryan Kaye requested that the City Council listen to concerned residents. He encouraged them to take the time and evaluate their decisions.

Without objection, Mayor Aitken moved Council Communications and the City Manager’s Update to the end of the meeting and considered the remainder of the agenda.

City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

At 5:47 p.m., Mayor Aitken recessed the Anaheim City Council to address the Anaheim Housing and Public Improvements Authority, and Anaheim Housing Authority agendas, reconvening at 5:49 p.m..

CONSENT CALENDAR: The Consent Calendar was considered with Council Member Faessel pulling Item Nos. 16 and 19 for separate consideration, and Council Members Diaz and Meeks recording “No” votes for Item No. 25.

MOTION: Council Member Rubalcava moved to waive reading of all ordinances and resolutions and adopt the balance of the consent calendar, with the exception of Item No. 25, 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.

7. Receive and file minutes of the Community Services Board meeting of September 12, 2024, the Cultural and Heritage Commission meetings of March 17, 2022, June 16, 2022, September 15, 2022, January 19, 2023, February 16, 2023, March 16, 2023, April 20, 2023, May 18, 2023, July 20, 2023, August 17, 2023, October 19, 2023, November 16, 2023, January 18, 2024, February 15, 2024, April 30, 2024, May 16, 2024, and August 15, 2024, and the Library Board meeting of September 9, 2024.

8. Receive and file the list of Professional Service Agreements executed by the City Manager in September 2024 and the list of Visit Anaheim Subcontractor Agreements approved by the Executive Director of Convention, Sports, and Entertainment in September 2024.

9. Accept bids from TYR Tactical LLC and Adamson Police Products, in the amount of $157,842 and $201,452.50, respectively plus applicable tax, for a one time purchase of SWAT Personal Protective Equipment; authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue agreements, in the amounts of $17,799.30 to TYR Tactical LLC and $34,620 to Adamson Police Products, plus applicable tax and a 25% contingency, for a one year period with four one-year optional renewals; and authorize the Purchasing Agent to exercise the renewal options, in accordance with Bid #9765.

10. Accept the bids from Advanced Helicopter Services and Rotorcraft Support Inc., in a combined amount of $348,805.08 plus applicable tax and a 25% contingency, for as-needed Safran Turbomeca engine parts, components, and labor for the Police Air Support Division, for a one year period with four one-year optional renewals, and authorize the Purchasing Agent to exercise the renewal options, in accordance with Bid #9820; and accept the bids from Advanced Helicopter Services and Standard Aero Limited, in a combined amount of $579,034.87 plus applicable tax and a 25% contingency, for as-needed helicopter airframe parts, components, and labor for the Police Air Support Division, for a one year period with four one-year optional renewals, and authorize the Purchasing Agent to exercise the renewal options, in accordance with Bid #9821.

11. Waive Council Policy 4.0 and authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a Purchase Order to Safran Helicopter Engines USA, Inc., in the amount of $761,860 plus applicable tax, for the 3,600 hour helicopter engine overhaul/mid-life inspection and engine rental for the Police Air Support Division; and authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a Purchase Order and exercise any necessary change order required to complete the engine overhaul, subject to available budget appropriations.

City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

12. Accept the bid from A.J.M.F. Enterprises Inc., in the amount of $18,552 plus 20% contingency, to provide vehicle washing services for City vehicles for a one year period with four one-year optional renewals; and authorize the Purchasing Agent to exercise the renewal options, in accordance with Bid #9825.

Item No. 12 was withdrawn by staff.

13. Approve a Master Agreement with eight contractors and such other pre-qualified contractors as may be pre-qualified by the City during the term of the Master Agreement, each in amount not to exceed $1,000,000 per work order package or request for emergency response services, for park facility maintenance, demolition, repair, replacement and emergency response services each for a five year period with two two-year optional extensions; authorize the Director of Public Works, or designee, or Director of Community Services, or designee, to execute the Master Agreements; and to take the necessary actions to implement and administer the Master Agreements, including any extensions; authorize de minimis changes that do not substantially change the terms and conditions of the Master Agreement, as determined by the City Attorney’s Office; and determine that the projects to be performed under the Master Agreement shall be categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, Sections 15301, 15302, 15303, and/or 15304 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations [Academy Electric Inc., Carmody Construction Company, Evolution Landscaping Inc., PALP, Inc., dba Excel Paving Company, Hardy & Harper, Inc., Leighton Consulting, Inc., New Dimension General Construction, Inc., RAMCO General Engineering Contractors, Inc.].

Item No. 13 was withdrawn by staff.

14. Approve a Joint Participation Agreement with the City of Fullerton, in an amount not to exceed $534,624.65, for Anaheim’s pro-rata share for the design, construction, and administration of the Orangethorpe Avenue Rehabilitation from State College Boulevard to Placentia Avenue, and authorize the Director of Public Works, or designee, to execute the agreement and any related documents, and to take the necessary actions to implement and administer the agreement.

15. Approve a Cooperative Agreement with the City of Placentia, in an amount not to exceed $10,000, for Anaheim’s pro-rata share for the design, construction, and administration of Anaheim’s portion of La Jolla Street as part of the City of Placentia FY 2023-2024 Residential Streets Slurry Seal Project, and authorize the Director of Public Works, or designee, to execute the agreement and any related documents, and to take the necessary actions to implement and administer the agreement.

17. Ratify the submission of the Encampment Resolution Funding grant application and attachments to the California Department of Housing and Community Development; authorize the Housing and Community Development Department Director, or designee, to accept the grant, execute required grant documents, and to take the necessary actions to implement grant activities; approve the Encampment Resolution Funding Program Subrecipient Agreement with Mariposa Women and Family Center to provide encampment resolution activities to individuals experiencing homelessness at the specified prioritized site for a two year contract term commencing November 1, 2024, ending on November 1, 2026, with maximum compensation authority in the amount of $3,047,465.21; authorize the Housing and Community Development Department Director, or designee, to execute the agreement and City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

other documents necessary to implement and administer the program, provided that the maximum compensation authority is not increased; and increase the Housing and Community Development Department Fiscal Year 2024/25 revenue and expenditure budget by $3,182,054.17, commensurate to the grant award.

18. Approve an Agreement with The Segal Company, Western States, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $125,000, for continued consulting services for purposes of classification and compensation implementation strategies; authorize the Human Resources Director, or designee, to execute the agreement and enter into any other additional agreements or amendments thereto, for as needed services that may be required for implementation, in an amount not to exceed $50,000, and to take the necessary actions to implement and administer the agreement.

20. RESOLUTION NO. 2024-105 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ratifying the submission of a grant application and the acceptance of a grant on behalf of the City of Anaheim for the FY 2025 Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Grant Program and authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute all required grant documents and amending the budget accordingly [grant funds in the amount of $40,000].

21. RESOLUTION NO. 2024-106 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for the City and various City agencies.

22. RESOLUTION NO. 2024-107 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing the dates and times of regular meetings of the Anaheim City Council for the 2025 calendar year.

23. ORDINANCE NO. 6589 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adding Chapter 11.11 (Obstruction of Public Rights-of-Way and Facilities), to Title 11 (Public Property) of the Anaheim Municipal Code prohibiting interference with the public’s right of access to public streets, sidewalks, rights-of-way and facilities [includes determination that adding Chapter 11.11 to the Anaheim Municipal Code is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and Section 15378 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations] [introduced at the Council meeting of October 8, 2024, Item No. 19].

ORDINANCE NO. 6590 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adding Chapter 11.13 (Prohibition on Repair and Sales of Bicycles and Bicycle Parts in Public Areas) to Title 11 (Public Property) of the Anaheim Municipal Code to prohibit bike sales and bike repairs on public property [includes determination that adding Chapter

11.13 to the Anaheim Municipal Code is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and Section 15378 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations] [introduced at the Council meeting of October 8, 2024, Item No. 19].

City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

ORDINANCE NO. 6591 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Chapter 6.30 (Smoking in Public Places) of Title 6 (Public Health and Safety) of the Anaheim Municipal Code to prohibit smoking in public parks and within specified distances of schools, day care centers and transit stops [includes determination that amendments to Chapter 6.30 of the Anaheim Municipal Code are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and Section 15378 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations] [introduced at the Council meeting of October 8, 2024, Item No. 19].

24. ORDINANCE NO. 6592 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Chapter 17.24 (Underground Utilities) of the Anaheim Municipal Code to establish a timeline for removal of overhead facilities, declare a public nuisance, and authorize enforcement and penalties associated with the removal of overhead telecommunication facilities within Underground Utility Districts [includes determination that amendments to Chapter 17.24 of the Anaheim Municipal Code are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(3), 15378, 15301, 15302, 15303, and 15304 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations] [introduced at the Council meeting of October 8, 2024, Item No. 20].

25. ORDINANCE NO. 6593 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adding Chapter 17.40 to Title 17 of the Anaheim Municipal Code establishing inclusionary housing requirements for new residential projects [includes determination that this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (General Rule) and is not considered a project as defined pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065] [introduced at the Council meeting of October 8, 2024, Item No. 21].

Item No. 25 Council Members Diaz and Meeks requested to record a “No” vote for Item No. 25.

MOTION: Council Member Rubalcava moved to approve the Consent Calendar with the recorded “No” votes on Item No. 25 by Council Members Diaz and Meeks, Second by Council Member Meeks.

ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES - 5 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Kurtz, Leon, Rubalcava, and Faessel); NOES - 2 (Council Members Diaz and Meeks). Motion carried. Ordinance adopted.

26. ORDINANCE NO. 6594 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Section 1.04.310 and adding Section 1.04.312 of Chapter 1.04 of Title 1 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to the procurement of certain equipment, materials, supplies and services for the Public Utilities Department to address emergency repairs, operations, maintenance, and construction of electric and water utility infrastructure.

Determine that the ordinance relates to organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment and therefore is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15378(b).

Approve an agreement with ProcureAbility, Inc., in an average annual not-to-exceed amount of $1,503,704 plus 15% for as-needed extra services, for strategic sourcing and procurement services for a five year term with two two-year optional extensions; and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager, or designees, to execute all related documents and to take the necessary or advisable actions to implement, fund, and administer the agreement.

City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

27. Approve recognitions recognizing Anaheim Fire and Rescue for their assistance with Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton; and Anaheim Police SWAT Team for being selected as the California Association of Tactical Officers 2024 Team of the Year.

28. Approve minutes of the City Council meeting of April 2, 2024.

BUSINESS CALENDAR:

16. Determine that the Rio Vista Safe Routes to School Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Title 14, Sections 15301, 15302, 15303, 15304, and 15319 of the California Code of Regulations.

DISCUSSION: Council Member Faessel commended Director of Public Works Rudy Emami, on the Safe Routes to School projects, which fill in areas of sidewalk where no sidewalk exists. He noted the neighborhood around Rio Vista Elementary School will receive substantial sidewalk, curb, and gutter repairs.

MOTION: Council Member Faessel moved to determine that the Rio Vista Safe Routes to School Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Title 14, Sections 15301, 15302, 15303, 15304, and 15319 of the California Code of Regulations, 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.

19. RESOLUTION NO. 2024-104 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM forming Underground Utility District No. 72 (La Palma/East) and determining that said action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Sections 15301(b), 15302(c), 15302(d), and 15303 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.

DISCUSSION: Council Member Faessel noted that Underground Utility District No. 72 is located in District 5. He thanked Public Utilities General Manager Lee for bringing the item forward. He highlighted the benefits the project will have on the area.

MOTION: Council Member Faessel moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2024-104 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM forming Underground Utility District No. 72 (La Palma/East) and determining that said action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Sections 15301(b), 15302(c), 15302(d), and 15303 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, 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.

29. RESOLUTION NO. 2024-108 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM requesting the State of California take emergency action to strengthen and stabilize California’s marketplace for property insurance [continued from Council meeting of October 8, 2024, Item No. 22].

DISCUSSION: Council Member Meeks expressed her appreciation for her colleagues input on the item.

City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

MOTION: Council Member Meeks moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2024-108 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM requesting the State of California take emergency action to strengthen and stabilize California’s marketplace for property insurance [continued from Council meeting of October 8, 2024, Item No. 22], 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. 5:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

30. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. 2023-00050
ADDENDUM NO. 13 TO FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 339 AND ITS ADDENDA, INCLUDING PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED ADDENDUM NO. 11 AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN (MMP) NO. 383; MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM NO. 106C; AND OTHER PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE AREA

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT

PLATINUM TRIANGLE MASTER LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT (CHAPTER 18.20) – PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT (CHAPTER 18.38) – SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2020-00004 INCLUDING AMENDMENT TO MASTER SITE PLAN (MIS2020-00751)

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT

MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT
APPLICANT: Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC, 2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 230, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
PROJECT LOCATION: The approximately 100-acre OCVIBE project site is generally bounded by State Route 57 (SR-57) to the west (excluding the parcel at the southwest corner of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road), the Santa Ana River to the east, the confluence of the SR-57 and Santa Ana River to the south, and the Southern California Edison easement to the north. Off-site improvement areas include the State Route 57 (SR-57) northbound Katella Avenue off-ramp and intersection, SR-57 southbound Ball Road off-ramp and intersection, and dedication and improvements to River Road.

REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of amendments to the previously-approved OCVIBE mixed-use project (DEV2020-00125) in the Platinum Triangle to demolish the Arena Corporate Center office buildings and construct up to 750 additional residential units including affordable units with a density bonus and up to 325,000 square feet (s.f.) of office space; remove the previously-approved pedestrian bridge from Parking Deck C across Douglass Road; remove the approved Meadow Park Amphitheater; and dedicate additional public park space. The request includes the following land use entitlements, collectively referred to as Amendment No. 1 to the OCVIBE Master Site Plan. Following are the proposed applications associated with the request:

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (DEV2023-00050): The applicant requests to amend the General Plan Land Use and Green Elements to modify the total amount of development permitted in the Platinum Triangle to increase the amount of residential development to 18,476 dwelling units, decrease the amount of office development to a range of 7,182,427 s.f. to 7,407,427 s.f.; increase the size of the Public Park (Meadow Park) from 4-acres to 4.85- acres; update the Bicycle Master Plan to reflect bicycle facility changes associated with the previously-approved removal and addition of streets; and, revise maps, figures, text, and tables throughout the General Plan to conform to the proposed changes.

City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

PLATINUM TRIANGLE MASTER LAND USE PLAN (PTMLUP) AMENDMENT (DEV2023- 00050): The applicant requests to amend the PTMLUP to modify the permitted amount of development within the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone to up to 18,476 residential dwelling units, decrease the amount of office development to a range of 7,182,427 s.f. to 7,407,427 s.f.; modify appendices for the OCVIBE Sign and Identity Program and PTMU Overlay Zone District Sub-Area Development Intensities; and, revise figures, text, and tables throughout the PTMLUP to conform to the proposed changes.

ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS (DEV2023-00050): The applicant requests amendments to Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) and Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations). The proposed amendments would amend definitions, development intensities, development standards, and procedures to regulate development within the PTMU Overlay Zone, including within the Arena and Transit Districts.

AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DAG2020-00004): The applicant requests an amendment to Development Agreement No. DAG2020-00004 between the City of Anaheim and Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC including an amendment to Master Site Plan (MIS2020-00751) to amend the boundaries of Arena District Sub-Areas D1 and D2; amend the development intensities associated with residential and office development within Sub-Areas D1 and D2; provide a process for the potential removal of the previously-approved pedestrian bridge from Parking Deck C across Douglass Road; remove the previously-approved Meadow Amphitheater; dedicate additional park space in Transit District Sub-Area B; modify the request for Density Bonus and Development Incentives pursuant to Chapter 18.52 (Housing Incentives) of the Anaheim Municipal Code; increase the number of allowed residential units and the number of required affordable units; increase the off-site Park Contribution Fee, and modify terms related to Community Facilities District (CFD) 08-1 (Platinum Triangle) including annexing two parcels into CFD 08-1 providing partial funds for the new fire station and the proposed River Road.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT (DEV2023-00050): The applicant requests to amend the previously-approved Conditional Use Permit (DEV2020-00125) to add a banquet facility to the list of conditionally permitted uses within the OCVIBE project, which currently allows Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing, Alcoholic Beverage Sales – Off-Sale and On-Sale, Bars and Nightclubs, Entertainment Venues, Farmer’s Market, Recreation Commercial- Outdoor and -Indoor, Retail Sales-Outdoor, and Wine Bar.

MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT (DEV2023-00050): The applicant requests to modify the Coordinated Sign Program and Mural Plan previously approved under a minor conditional use permit.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City Council will consider whether Addendum No. 13 to the previously-certified Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 (FSEIR No. 339) and its Addenda, including Previously-Certified Addendum No. 11 and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 383 (MMP No. 383); Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 106C (MMP No. 106C); and other previously-approved environmental documents for development in the Platinum Triangle area, are the appropriate environmental documentation for the project and approve and adopt Addendum No. 13 and confirm that MMP No. 383 remains valid for the OCVIBE mixed-use project (DEV2020-00125) inclusive of Amendment No. 1 to the OCVIBE Master Site Plan.

ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Recommended City Council approval of the project and approved Resolution Nos. PC2024-028 (recommended City Council approve and adopt Addendum No. 13 to the previously-certified FEIR No. 339 and confirm that MMP No. 383 remains valid for the OCVIBE mixed-use project (DEV2020-00125) inclusive of Amendment No. 1 to the OCVIBE Master Plan), PC2024-029 (recommended City Council approve and adopt a proposed General Plan Amendment and amending the Land Use and Green Elements and the City’s Bicycle Master Plan), and PC2024-030 (recommended City Council approve and adopt the Amended and Restated Development City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

Agreement No. 2020-00004 by and between the City of Anaheim and Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC, as amended, with the deletion of Condition No. 87 and subsequent renumbering thereafter). VOTE: 7-0 (Chairperson Walker and Commissioners Castro, Kelly, Lieberman, Perez, Tran-Martin, and Kring voted yes). (Planning Commission meeting of September 23, 2024).

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-109 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting Addendum No. 13 to the previously-certified Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 and confirming that Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 383 remains valid for the OCVIBE mixed use project (DEV2020-00125) inclusive of Amendment No. 1 to the OCVIBE Master Site Plan (DEV2023-00050).

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-110 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the General Plan Land Use and Green Elements and the City’s Bicycle Master Plan (DEV2023-00050).

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-111 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, and making findings in connection therewith (DEV2023-00050).

ORDINANCE NO. 6595 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) and Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (DEV2023-00050).

ORDINANCE NO. 6596 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting the Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 2020-00004 by and between the City of Anaheim and Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC and making certain findings related thereto (DEV2023-00050).

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-112 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving an amendment to a previously-approved Conditional Use Permit to add banquet facility to the list of conditionally permitted uses within the OCVIBE project, and making certain findings in connection therewith (DEV2023-00050).

RESOLUTION NO. __2024-113____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving an amendment to a previously-approved Minor Conditional Use Permit for the OCVIBE Coordinated Sign Program and Murals, and making certain findings in connection therewith (DEV2023-00050).

Acting Director of Planning and Building Heather Allen reported that the item is a request to amend the previously-approved OCVIBE mixed-use project to adjust for changes and provide flexibility as the development plan has matured. She announced that the OCVIBE project site is approximately 100 acres between the 57 freeway and the Santa Ana River and includes the Honda Center, the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC), and the Arena Corporate Center office buildings, as well as other office and industrial buildings, and associated surface parking lots, and City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

encompasses the Arena and Transit Districts of the Platinum Triangle. She reported that in September 2022, the City Council approved the OCVIBE project, a world-class mixed-use lifestyle, entertainment, and residential neighborhood. The approved project includes a new live performance theater, 1,500 residential apartment units, two hotels, a public park, private parks and open space, office buildings, restaurants and entertainment venues, and an outdoor amphitheater. She shared that the applicant has made significant progress to date in implementing Phase 1 of the project and construction is underway on the streets and the project site. She explained that development in the Platinum Triangle is implemented first through Master Site Plans and Development Agreements. She announced that the applicant proposes Amendment No. 1 to the OCVIBE Master Site Plan in portions of the Arena District and Transit District within the existing OCVIBE project site.

Acting Director Allen reported that in the Arena District, north of Katella Avenue, the amendment proposes to demolish the Arena Corporate Center. She explained that the applicant has determined that these office buildings will outlive their useful life as the project progresses. She noted that this change will allow a reconfiguration of Wellness Park, renamed Neighborhood Park, to be fully integrated into an expanded residential community. She added that the amended plan proposes up to 750 additional residential units, including affordable units with a density bonus, 15,000 square feet of retail and up to 325,000 square feet of office uses. She reported that the residential component of the project is expected to begin in 2026 and extend through 2032, occurring in Phases 2 through 5 of the project. She explained that, given the phased development, the applicant proposes 3 different options for residential and mixed-use development for market flexibility. She noted that the three options involve building six (6) buildings, implemented in the previous Phase 5A. She shared that the options vary in the number of residential units and office development, but each option includes 15,000 square feet of retail use.

Acting Director Allen reported that the previously approved plan proposed a pedestrian bridge over Douglas Road to connect Parking Deck C to the Arena Corporate Center and a new Signature Office Building to facilitate pedestrian traffic from the parking structure to the office buildings. She added that since the amount of office space has been greatly reduced with the amendment and if office uses are constructed, they would be in building 6, closest to the intersection at Douglass Road and Stanley Cup Way, the applicant proposes removal of the bridge. She noted to ensure that the pedestrian infrastructure is designed to facilitate safe and efficient circulation, staff has included a condition of approval that the pedestrian traffic be evaluated at the final site plan stage for Building 6.

Acting Director Allen reported that in regards to the Transit District, south of Katella Avenue, the amendment proposes to remove the previously approved amphitheater, adding dedicated park space to Meadow Park, resulting in a 4.85-acre public park in what is presently the ARTIC parking lot that would be constructed and maintained by the applicant. She shared that the previously approved plan proposed an approximately 4-acre Meadow Park, which is increased in size to 4.35 acres without the amphitheater.

Acting Director Allen reported that the proposed project includes requests for a General Plan Amendment, Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan Amendments, Zoning Code Amendments, a Amended and Restated Development Agreement including Amendment No. 1 to Master Site Plan, a Conditional Use Permit Amendment, a Minor Conditional Use Permit Amendment, and an Addendum to a Previously-Approved Environmental Impact Report.

Acting Director Allen explained that the proposed project includes an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element to increase the amount of residential development in The Platinum Triangle and decrease the amount of office development, depending on the option proposed. She added that the Green Element and the Bicycle Master Plan are also proposed to be amended to reflect the increased size of Meadow Park and to address a cleanup to reflect the previously approved project.

City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

Acting Director Allen reported that in addition to the density changes that would be consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment, the proposed project includes modification to the boundaries of the Arena District Sub Areas D1 and D2 to correlate with the boundaries of the future Neighborhood Park and the residential and mixed-use development location as reflected in the regulatory Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan.

Acting Director Allen outlined the Zoning Code Amendments, including amendments to the implementing Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone in the Anaheim Municipal Code to update development and operational standards in the Arena and Transit Districts, and amendments to the Supplemental Use Regulations Chapter to modify Special Events Permits provisions applicable to the project.

Acting Director Allen reported that the term of the Development Agreement remains the same; however, to implement Amendment No. 1 to the Master Site Plan, an Amended and Restated Development Agreement has been prepared. She noted that in addition the Development Agreement includes an additional off-site park contribution of $1.75 million dollars, annexation of the Arena Corporate Center property into the existing Community Facilities District (CFD) to increase funding available to public improvements and infrastructure in the Platinum Triangle, and applicant consent and support of amendment to CFD 08-1 to provide an additional $1,000,000 from the revenue raised as result of the additional area for Fire Station funding.

Acting Director Allen reported that the public benefits associated with the Amended and Restated Development Agreement have an estimated value of over $300 million, in addition to the economic impact of the development, construction, and operation of the project. She noted that the project will continue to provide affordable housing consistent with the percentages approved under the original development agreement for very-low, low, and moderate-income units. She shared that the original approvals required 195 total affordable units on-site or 225 if provided off-site within a quarter of a mile of the Project boundary and within or adjacent to the Platinum Triangle. She explained that the current proposal provides 300 affordable units on-site or 340 affordable units, including an off-site option. She reported that the applicant and City will execute a Housing Incentives Memorandum that specifies the timing for the construction to ensure the affordable units are constructed throughout the project and in conjunction with each phase of residential development.

Acting Director Allen announced that the Development Agreement includes the changes in the Arena and Transit Districts previously discussed and updates the total development intensities for the Arena District – increasing residential, decreasing office, with commercial unchanged. She reported that the proposed project includes an amendment to the previously approved Conditional Use Permit that conditionally permits various uses within the project to add a banquet facility within Restaurant Row, as well as an amendment to the Minor Conditional Use Permit for the ocV!BE Coordinated Sign Program and Mural plan to reflect the revised project.

Acting Director Allen reported that an addendum to the previously-certified Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 has been prepared pursuant to CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines. She noted that Addendum No. 13 concludes that the Proposed Project would not result in significant new or more severe impacts and or additional mitigation measures. She explained that Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan No. 383 continues to remain valid to mitigate the impacts of the OCVIBE Mixed Use project, including the requested Amendment No. 1.

Acting Director Allen announced that staff believes that the proposed amendment to the OCVIBE Project continues to further the vision of the Platinum Triangle and implement the General Plan. She added that the Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Master Site Plan and associated requests at its September 23rd meeting.

City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

Mayor Aitken requested that the City Council disclose any ex parte communications.

Council Member Diaz disclosed that he met with the applicant twice.

Council Member Leon reported that he met with the applicant.

Council Member Rubalcava reported that she met with the applicant, and the meeting was reflected on her public calendar.

Mayor Aitken disclosed that she met with the applicant several times.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz announced that she met with the applicant and residents.

Council Member Meeks disclosed that she met with the applicant.

Council Member Faessel reported that he met with the applicant.

At 6:08 p.m., Mayor Aitken opened the public hearing.

Brian Myers, Senior Director with OCVIBE, reported that he represents the Samueli family and their vision for OCVIBE, which began seven years ago. He noted that the Samueli family is a philanthropic family in Orange County that committed at the beginning of the project to investing in the community and to continue to invest in the community without condition. He announced the 20th anniversary of the initial General Plan update, which produced the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. He reported that approximately 20 projects have been built with approximately 6,000 residential units and some retail projects. He explained that when the project was proposed two years ago, the applicant believed it to be the most comprehensive and ambitious mixed-use plan in the Platinum Triangle and possibly the country, and was followed by broad community support. He declared that OCVIBE will be the future heart and soul of the Platinum Triangle and the catalyst for projects to come. He announced that construction is well underway and the developer has invested over $1 billion to date with an average of 300 construction workers on site every day. He shared that from the beginning, the developer has committed to a Project Labor Agreement with local unions. He announced that OCVIBE will be home to the first Class A office, the largest contiguous retail and restaurant development in the area, and the first affordable housing in the Platinum Triangle, with the residential component beginning in 2026.

Mr. Myers reported that the existing Arena Corporate Center is proposed to be converted for residential use for a more complete neighborhood and that Meadow Park will expand at the amphitheater site. He summarized that the proposal will expand up to 750 units to have a smaller amphitheater than what was initially proposed, to be less commercial grade and more community facing and expand Meadow Park to 4.85 acres. He explained that since the existing approvals were vested in the Development Agreement, the proposal extrapolates the public benefits to support the additional residential units. He explained that the proposal converts office space into residential use and eliminates the commercial-grade amphitheater. He shared that the proposal will create more complete neighborhoods, public parks, and with no additional traffic impacts. He reported that the additional residential units come with the benefit of more parks, more affordable housing, and 115 additional affordable units, bringing the total number of affordable units to 340. He noted that $1 million will be contributed toward a fire station, $1.75 million off-site park contribution in addition to the already $6.75 million contributed, and integration of the site with five community and City events. He added that the proposal in the Development Agreement is to accelerate the neighborhood park improvements with the first phase of residential development.

City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

Mr. Myers reported that the proposed increase from 2.5 acres for park space to 9.5 acres demonstrates the initial plan for community benefits, parks, and affordable housing. He added that residential neighborhoods will be more sustainable with Meadow Park, which has been coordinated with the City’s River Walk project. He concluded that the combined public benefit of the amended plan of over $300 million, with the continued contributions of the Samueli family, will provide for an improved plan for OCVIBE and amplified benefits for the City’s residents. He requested that the City Council support the project.

Seeing no questions from the City Council, Mayor Aitken opened public comments.

Brad Marlowe, representing the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, which represents 1,500 workers, urged the City Council to consider using union workers as stagehands for the amphitheater.

Marc Herbert criticized public engagement. He explained that the OCVIBE project is similar to the DisneylandForward and Hills Preserve projects. He explained that the City’s process of using outside consultants to review environmental reports does not engage the public. He expressed concern over the evaporation rate of water located underneath the project area. He provided the OCVIBE project as an example of how projects change over time and urged the City Council to consider that with the Hills Preserve project.

City Clerk Bass reported that no electronic public comments were received related to Public Hearing Item No. 30.

At 6:19 p.m., Mayor Aitken closed the public hearing.

DISCUSSION: Council Member Faessel expressed appreciation for the changes to include more affordable housing. He mentioned that the Samuelis included the provision voluntarily before the City Council adopted the inclusionary housing in-lieu fee. He noted that the added CFD adds additional funds to the City to help maintain the area. He expressed his support for the item.

Council Member Leon expressed his support for the item. He inquired about the timeline for which option they will move forward with.

Mr. Myers clarified that the area on the corner of Stanley Cup Way and Douglass will only be updated. He noted that the decision will be made during the fourth phase of development or in about five to six years. He explained that staff will be notified through the submittal of the final site plan.

In response to Council Member Leon, Mr. Myers confirmed that 460 additional residential units would be built with Option 3 versus 750.

Council Member Leon added that although Option 3 includes the least amount of additional units, it will still include 460 units. Mr. Myers confirmed there was a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) for the project.

Council Member Leon expressed his support for the project and thanked OCVIBE for providing the information and for being proactive in reaching out.

Council Member Diaz clarified that the River Walk Project is not a part of the OCVIBE project. He also noted that for every project, the developer completes the environmental documentation, and the City issues approval or denial. He explained that the rise in housing units and the reduction in office space City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

reflect an effort to meet today's housing needs. He noted that the additional housing units will offer greater flexibility in the future. He expressed his support for the item.

In response to Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz, Project Planner Judy Dadant confirmed that the project originally consisted of 1,200 units. Acting Director Allen confirmed that 300 are low-income units.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz thanked the developer for including low-income units and access to parks. She noted that the importance of low-income housing is as attractive as other housing. She echoed Council Member Diaz’s comments regarding flexibility, the need for office space, and including housing. She noted that the mobile home park community appreciates the exclusion of the outdoor amphitheater. She expressed her support for the project.

Council Member Rubalcava noted that the project is a great example of economic development by generating jobs for trades and those working at the OCVIBE location. She expressed her support for the item and the changes requested by the applicant. She explained that the commercial landscape has changed and commended the applicant for incorporating affordable housing in place of office space.

Council Member Rubalcava inquired if the units will be reflected in the current Housing Element or the future Housing Element, which has not been approved by the State. Acting Director Allen explained that the Department reports units based on when building permits are issued.

Council Member Rubalcava highlighted that the proposed units will contribute towards low-income housing. She noted that the PLA with trade unions will ensure that the work is completed safely and offer a place for those workers to live. She requested that the applicant consider a public commenter’s request to include International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees union workers for the project. She expressed her support for the project.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz echoed Council Member Rubalcava’s comments to include International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees union workers for the project.

Mayor Aitken noted that the project is exciting for the City to offer a place for people to eat, play, and experience world-class entertainment. She highlighted the inclusionary housing ordinance that was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar. She thanked the developer for their partnership to include affordable housing. She echoed her Council colleague’s comments regarding a PLA with the labor unions.

MOTION: Council Member Faessel moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2024-109 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting Addendum No. 13 to the previously-certified Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 and confirming that Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 383 remains valid for the OCVIBE mixed use project (DEV2020-00125) inclusive of Amendment No. 1 to the OCVIBE Master Site Plan (DEV2023- 00050); RESOLUTION NO. 2024-110 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the General Plan Land Use and Green Elements and the City’s Bicycle Master Plan (DEV2023-00050); RESOLUTION NO. 2024-111 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, and making findings in connection therewith (DEV2023-00050); ORDINANCE NO. 6595 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) and Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (DEV2023- 00050); ORDINANCE NO. 6596 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting the Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 2020- City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

00004 by and between the City of Anaheim and Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC and making certain findings related thereto (DEV2023-00050); RESOLUTION NO. 2024-112 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving an amendment to a previously-approved Conditional Use Permit to add banquet facility to the list of conditionally permitted uses within the OCVIBE project, and making certain findings in connection therewith (DEV2023-00050); and RESOLUTION NO. __2024-113____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving an amendment to a previously-approved Minor Conditional Use Permit for the OCVIBE Coordinated Sign Program and Murals, and making certain findings in connection therewith (DEV2023-00050), 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. Ordinances introduced.

Mayor Aitken noted that seats were available in the Council Chamber for any members of the public in attendance.

In response to Mayor Aitken, City Clerk Bass reported that there were 82 in-person speakers to address the City Council on Public Hearing Item No. 31, with 15 within the noticed area.

Mayor Aitken explained that there were approximately six (6) hours worth of public comments. She requested that the development team limit their presentation from 20 and 10 minutes to 15 and 5 minutes. She asked if those in the noticed area could evaluate if another speaker addressed their concerns and echoed their comments without using their full 10 minutes.

31. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. 2021-00137
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) NO. 355 AND
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 390
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT at

HILLS PRESERVE SPECIFIC PLAN

ZONING RECLASSIFICATION
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT (CHAPTER 18.124) - HILLS PRESERVE SPECIFIC PLAN TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19228

FINAL PLAN

DISCRETIONARY TREE REMOVAL PERMIT

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
APPLICANT/OWNER: SALT Development, LLC, 205 North 400 West, Suite 300, Salt Lake City, UT 84103
PROJECT LOCATION: The approximately 76-acre property is along the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, generally between Eucalyptus Drive to the west and Festival Drive to the east. REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Zoning Reclassification, Zoning Code Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Final Plan, Discretionary Tree Removal Permit, and Development Agreement to permit and construct a 498-unit multiple-family residential building and 40,000 square feet of commercial uses, with approximately 50 acres designated as Open Space (Environmental Impact Report Alternative #2). The following are the proposed applications associated with the request:

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: The applicant requests an amendment to Figure LU-4 (Land Use Plan) of the General Plan Land Use Element to re-designate portions of the Project Site from “Estate Density Residential”, “Low Density Residential”, and “Open Space” to “Medium Density Residential”, “Open Space”, and “General Commercial”, and to amend Figure C-2 of the Circulation Element.

HILLS PRESERVE SPECIFIC PLAN: The applicant has proposed the “Hills Preserve Specific Plan” to establish a land use vision and implement land use designations for commercial, residential, and open space development areas.

City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

ZONING RECLASSIFICATION: The applicant requests to reclassify the property as the “Hills Preserve Specific Plan” zoning designation.

ZONING CODE AMENDMENT: The applicant requests to amend the Anaheim Municipal Code (Code) to establish standards and procedures to implement the Hills Preserve Specific Plan which would be added as Chapter 18.124 of the Code.

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19228: The applicant requests to subdivide the property generally into three development areas in accordance with the Hills Preserve Specific Plan and to provide for internal circulation with private streets for public use including Deer Canyon Road.

FINAL PLAN: The applicant requests approval of a Final Plan for the Multiple-Family Development Area to permit the construction of apartments and associated improvements.

The Final Plan includes items such as the site plan, floor plans, elevations, and landscape plan to demonstrate compliance with the guiding principles and standards as proposed in the Hills Preserve Specific Plan.

DISCRETIONARY TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: The applicant requests to remove trees on the project site within the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone that the Code defines as “specimen trees” which are not dead, diseased, weakened, or otherwise posing a threat to persons or property.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: The applicant requests approval of a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and SALT Development, LLC to provide certainty to the developer to facilitate development of the Specific Plan, and to provide specified benefits to the City including a contribution to the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund; improvement of Deer Canyon Road and trail, Santa Ana Canyon Road and trail; designation of approximately 50 acres of Open Space; Operations and Maintenance agreement for the Deer Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road signalized intersection; and a one-time Fire Protection Enhancement Payment.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City Council will consider whether to certify Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) No. 355 and adopt Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) No. 390 and determine that FEIR No. 355 and MMP No. 390 is the appropriate environmental documentation for the project.

ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:

Recommended City Council approval of the project consistent with Alternative #2 from EIR No. 355 - which includes the reduction of commercial uses from 80,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet and the elimination of the six single-family detached residential lots – with the condition that the applicant provide a covenant requiring the preservation and maintenance of all Open Space (increased from 43.2 to 50 acres with Alternative #2) so that it could not be developed in the future: approved Resolution Nos. PC2024-031 (Recommended the City Council approve and adopt proposed General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element Amendment); PC2024-032
(Recommended the City Council approve and adopt a proposed Development Agreement by and between the City of Anaheim and SALT Development, LLC); PC2024-033 (Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 19228 and making certain findings in connection therewith); and adopted motions recommending City Council approval of the Specific Plan, Zoning Reclassification, Zoning Code Amendment, and Final Plan (Multiple-Family Development).

VOTE: 4-2 (Chairperson Walker and Commissioners Perez, Tran-Martin, and Kring voted yes; Commissioners Lieberman and Castro voted no; Commissioner Kelly was absent) (Resolution Nos. PC2024-031 through PC2024-033 and approvals of a Specific Plan, Zoning Reclassification, Zoning Code Amendment, and Final Plan (Multiple-Family Development)); and approved Resolution No. PC2024-034 (Recommended City Council certify a Final Environmental Impact Report and adopt Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 390 for the project and related actions); and adopted a motion recommending City Council approval of a Discretionary Tree City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

Removal Permit including a condition requiring the applicant to evaluate the tree removal plan to determine if any additional trees could be preserved and/or replanted. VOTE: 5-1 (Chairperson Walker and Commissioners Perez, Tran-Martin, Lieberman, and Kring voted yes; Commissioner Castro voted no; Commissioner Kelly was absent) (Resolution No.

PC2024-034 and the Discretionary Tree Removal Permit). (Planning Commission Special Meeting of September 30, 2024).

RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report and adopt Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 390 for the Hills Preserve Project and related actions (DEV2021-00137).

RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the General Plan of the City of Anaheim (DEV2021-00137).

ORDINANCE NO. (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting Development Agreement No. 2024-1 by and between the City of Anaheim and SALT Development, LLC and making certain findings related thereto (DEV2021-00137).

ORDINANCE NO. (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting Hills Preserve Specific Plan No. 2024-1 (DEV2021-00137).

ORDINANCE NO. (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adding new Chapter 18.124 (Hills Preserve Specific Plan No. 2024-1 Zoning and Development Standards) to Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (DEV2021-00137).

ORDINANCE NO. (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the Zoning Map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to zoning (DEV2021-00137).

RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving Tentative Tract Map No. 19228 and making certain findings in connection therewith (DEV2021-00137).

RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Final Plan and making certain findings in connection therewith (DEV2021-00137).

RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Discretionary Tree Removal Permit and making certain findings in connection therewith (DEV2021-00137).

Acting Director Allen reported the item is for consideration of the Hills Preserve project. She noted that the project site is 76-acres and is located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, generally located between Eucalyptus Drive to the west and Festival Drive to the east. She added that the surrounding land uses include a self-storage facility and a California Highway Patrol weigh station to the north across Santa Ana Canyon Road; a utility transmission corridor containing Southern California Edison overhead power lines to the east; and single-family residential to the west and south.

City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

Acting Director Allen reported that the City-owned Deer Canyon Park Preserve is approximately 825 feet south of the project site and public parking is currently only available on-street on Hollow Oak Drive southeast of the Preserve. She added that the site is situated along Deer Canyon in the City’s hill and canyon area and includes special status plants and wildlife species. She noted that the project site is designated for Estate Density Residential, Low Density Residential, and Open Space land uses in the General Plan. She added that the property has multiple zoning designations, including “Single-Family Residential, Transition, and Open Space. She added that a portion of the site includes the tract map boundary for the Stonegate Project previously approved in 2005, for the development of 34 single-family homes, which currently remains undeveloped. She reported that immediately adjacent to the west is a single-family residential neighborhood zoned RH-2 with one- and two-story homes. She noted that the maximum height in the zone is 25 feet and two stories.

She noted that further east is the area zoned for the Festival Specific Plan. She explained that the area includes the Marriott Residence Inn on Festival Drive, which is four stories (or 49 feet high).

Acting Director Allen reported that CalFire identifies the property as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, a location that is of the greatest risk of wildfire. She explained that a Very High Fire Zone designation does not mean that an area is not safe for development; rather, specific fire protection features that minimize structure vulnerability would be required, specifically those that are specified in the California Building Code and California Fire Code .

Acting Director Allen announced that the project proposes 498 apartments and 40,000 square feet of stand-alone commercial space, along with over 50 acres designated open space in perpetuity.

She reported that the apartments are proposed in the Multi-Family Residential Development Area along the western portion of the site, taking access at Santa Ana Canyon Road and Deer Canyon Road. She noted the units would range from 520 square-foot studios to 3,200 square-foot penthouse suites. She stated that the building is 7 stories or 81.5 feet closest to Santa Ana Canyon at its northwest corner, and with the varying topography drops to 5 stories or 58.5 feet at the southeast corner. She added that the apartments would be wrapped around a nine-level parking structure that would include 1,009 parking spaces, exceeding the parking requirement for residents and guests. She reported that the top of the parking structure is designed with amenities including a central open roof-deck with a pool, barbeques, and lounge areas, as well as enclosed amenity areas on the north and south ends of the parking structure for the fitness center and clubroom. She noted that the highest point of the parking structure with enclosed amenities would be 89 feet on the north and 83 feet, 10 inches on the south. She announced that the building would also include additional amenities such as interior meeting and social gathering spaces, a bowling alley, a bike shop, and a dog spa. She noted that indoor amenity space would include more than 45,000 square feet, while outdoor amenity space would be almost 70,000 square feet. She reported that the proposal includes a membership component that would allow up to 200 non-residents access to the building’s private amenities, limited to no more than 50 members on site daily.

Acting Director Allen reported that with a residential development area of just over 14 acres, the project uses the apartment building with a density of 35.14 dwelling units per acre to cluster development to a portion of the canyon to preserve the existing ridgelines. She displayed an example of the view, which shows both the relationship of the apartment building to the ridgelines to the east as well as to the single-family neighborhood to the west. She added that the apartment building would require excavation and soil export of approximately 514,000 cubic yards, as well as construction of terraced retaining walls on the western and eastern sides of the building. She added that, depending on height and location of the retaining wall, landscape treatment and/or aesthetic enhancement is proposed.

City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

Acting Director Allen reported that the project proposes to deviate from the multi-family development standards, most notably with respect to building and retaining wall height. She noted that the RM-4 multi-family zoning allows a building up to 40 feet in height, while the project proposes up to 95 feet structural height. She added that retaining walls are also proposed at cumulative maximum heights of 65-feet to 88-feet, depending on location, with maximum heights of any single wall between 14 feet, 30 feet or 50 feet, well in excess of City standards. She mentioned that additional deviations are proposed for floor area, the percentage of units that can be studios to allow a larger share, a setback measurement, and a permitted accessory use for the non-resident memberships.

Acting Director Allen noted that the exterior of the building is proposed to consist primarily of glass, aluminum, and fine trowel stucco to achieve a Mid-Century Modern architectural style. She added that the plans indicate large spans of windows with a flat roof and the building would include a porte- cochere and large entrance lobby at the west side of the building; while loading and service areas would be screened from view from the public right-of-way, as well as Deer Canyon Road.

Acting Director Allen reported that the commercial area encompasses approximately 12 acres and is located adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road at the northern portion of the project site. She explained that the project was evaluated with a maximum of 40,000 square feet of development in two office buildings and a podium parking garage with semi-subterranean levels. She noted that the ultimate development of this area would be subject to Final Plan review for consistency with the applicable development and design standards, as well as the scope of construction and operations evaluated by the environmental analysis. She explained that the commercial area would provide opportunities for a wide range of commercial uses, would allow for development up to a maximum

0.5 Floor Area Ratio, and comply with the maximum height of 35 feet, consistent with the Scenic Corridor requirement for commercial zones.

Acting Director Allen reported similarly to the multi-family area, the project proposes to deviate from City retaining wall standards with a maximum cumulative height of 60 feet (at the rear of the buildings) with a proposed maximum height of 10-feet for any single wall visible from Santa Ana Canyon Road, and 20-feet for any single wall not visible from Santa Ana Canyon Road. She noted that the Anaheim Municipal Code allows a maximum height of six (6) feet for retaining walls publicly visible, or a maximum height of 10 feet in a hillside area when not publicly visible.

Acting Director Allen reported that the conceptual buildings would require excavation and soil export of approximately 330,000 cubic yards, as well as construction of terraced retaining walls to the rear of the buildings to accommodate the proposed street, office buildings, parking, and related improvements.

Acting Director Allen reported that the multiple-family building would be classified as a “high-rise” pursuant to the CFC. She explained that, given the high-rise classification and the overall project being located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the project would incorporate design features to enhance wildfire resilience. She noted that the project would include a Fuel Modification Plan where zones would be established and maintained to provide buffer areas, minimizing the risk of fire spread, risk of structure damage from fire is reduced when such fuel modification zones and defensible space are implemented, and providing fuel breaks in the event of a wildfire. She reported that all structures would be designed with enhanced ignition-resistant construction standards required by the Building Code. She explained that the requirements would address roofs, eaves, exterior walls, vents, windows, doors, etc., which would result in hardened structures that have been proven to perform at high levels to resist ignition during the typically short duration of exposure to burning vegetation from wildfires. She reported that, similar to the multiple-family area, the commercial area would also include a Fuel Modification Plan where zones would be established and maintained to provide buffer areas, minimizing the risk of fire spread. She noted that the buildings City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

would be designed with enhanced ignition-resistant construction standards required by the Building Code.

Acting Director Allen reported that approximately 50 acres of land would be designated as Open Space, which would result in the retention of a portion of existing undeveloped area with its aesthetic, scenic, and habitat qualities. She explained that the area would be generally consistent with the uses and standards of the Open Space Zone of the Code, the intent of which is to protect and preserve open space for the preservation of natural resources, the conservation and managed production of other resources, for outdoor recreation and education, and for public health and safety. She reported that the project anticipates that use of the open space area could be further limited by a conservation easement or similar imposed by biological resource agencies in furtherance of applicable state and/or federal laws and regulations involving special status species.

She added that the project would also include construction of new multi-use trails along Santa Ana Canyon Road, and on-site along the length of Deer Canyon Road, in accordance with the General Plan. She explained that the applicant would offer public access easements for the trails, which would ultimately connect to the Deer Canyon Park Preserve, and would provide signage and entrance improvements for the Preserve at Santa Ana Canyon Road. She added that sidewalk improvements would also be constructed along both sides of Santa Ana Canyon Road and one side of Deer Canyon Road.

Acting Director Allen reported that internal vehicular circulation is proposed to be provided by three private streets: a north/south street (proposed Deer Canyon Road) from Santa Ana Canyon Road to the property’s southern boundary along the west side of the property; an east/west frontage road ("A” Street) near Santa Ana Canyon Road and a service road (“B” Street) on the east side sides of the apartment building. She added that access to the project would be provided by two new private streets intersecting Santa Ana Canyon Road. She noted that primary access will be provided by the proposed Deer Canyon Road, located approximately 500 feet east of Eucalyptus Drive and would include a new traffic signal. She reported that secondary access would be provided by the proposed “A” Street, located approximately 1,000 feet west of Festival Drive and restricted to right turn in and right turn out. She added that the proposed raised median on Santa Ana Canyon Road will be designed to allow for full access for emergency vehicles off the secondary access. Se reported that the applicant provided a preliminary construction schedule indicating that the project would be built in phases, with the multiple-family residential use, along with Deer Canyon Road, “A”, and “B” streets, to be developed first and anticipated to take approximately three years. She noted that the commercial use would be developed in the second phase. Total construction time is anticipated to take approximately five years.

Acting Director Allen reported that the applicant requests an amendment to the Land Use Element to re-designate portions of the project site from “Estate Density Residential”, “Low Density Residential”, and “Open Space”, to “Medium Density Residential”, “Open Space”, and “General Commercial”. She explained that the existing General Plan land use designations for the project site support up to an estimated 93-unit housing development project, which equates to about 1.2 dwelling units per acre across the 76 acres. She noted that the proposed development of 498 apartments equates to 6.6 dwelling units per acre across the 76 acres (plus 40,000 square feet of commercial use). She added that the proposed development of 498 apartments equates to 6.6 dwelling units per acre across the 76 acres (plus 40,000 square feet of commercial use). She noted that the proposed project density is approximately 5.5 times greater than the existing General Plan allows for residential uses and adds previously unplanned commercial intensity to the area.

Acting Director Allen reported that the existing General Plan land use is projected to generate approximately 50 PM peak hour trips, according to the City’s traffic model for the Circulation Element of the General Plan. She explained that according to estimates by Public Works’ staff, the City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

additional density and intensity of the proposed development is projected to generate an estimated 262 PM peak hour trips for the proposed uses, which is approximately five times greater than the trips projected in the current Circulation Element.

Acting Director Allen shared that when SR-91 traffic flows slowly, Santa Ana Canyon Road becomes an alternate route, which creates congestion for the Anaheim Hills community. She noted that Anaheim Hills has limited means of egress during an evacuation. She reported that the City has responded, following the Canyon Fire 2, by developing the Know Your Way evacuation and emergency preparedness plan to direct evacuations by neighborhood and limit congestion on evacuation routes. She explained that an Evacuation Analysis was prepared to evaluate the project’s “worst case scenario” wildfire event which would require mandatory evacuation of the entire project site under Know Your Way. She explained that the “worst case scenario” wildfire event occurs when a fire occurs in the northeast corner of the project site and that the project trips would increase the total evacuation time by 24 minutes above existing conditions during a typical Friday PM peak
Acting Director Allen reported that they would also require an amendment to Figure C-2 of the Circulation Element to shift access point 12 westerly to the proposed Deer Canyon intersection, shift the signalization from access point 12/12a to access point 12, maintain access point 12a at the existing self-storage as right-in/right-out, and add access point 12b for the proposed intersection at Santa Ana Canyon and “A” Street.

Acting Director Allen shared that the applicant has proposed a Specific Plan for the property’s zoning to implement the three land use designations on the property. She explained that the Specific Plan identifies a number of project objectives including to provide a clustered development with homes and commercial uses condensed into a smaller footprint that considers and accommodates topographical constraints, which protects the top of ridgelines; and allows for the remaining areas of the Project Site to be retained as open space with related aesthetic, scenic, and habitat qualities. She noted that although generally utilizing the City’s multi-family and development standards, the Specific Plan provides for the deviations previously discussed namely for the height of the apartment building and retaining walls. She mentioned that the Specific Plan also includes objective design standards for the multi-family and commercial areas on topics including site design; building form, massing, and articulation, architectural detailing; walls and windows, materials and colors; roof details; and exterior lighting to ensure implementation as proposed. She noted that design standards are also included for the retaining walls. She reported that the project would add Chapter 18.124 to the Anaheim Municipal Code to codify the Zoning and Development Standards for the Hills Preserve Specific Plan and rezone the 76 acres to be covered by the Specific Plan.

Acting Director Allen reported that the project includes a tentative tract map to subdivide the property generally into the three development areas in accordance with the Specific Plan, and to provide for internal circulation with private streets. She noted that recordation of the map would eliminate the 34 single-family lots approved in 2005 for the Stonegate Project.

Acting Director Allen reported the Final Plan for the Multiple-Family Development Area to permit the construction of the apartments and associated improvements. She noted that the Final Plan includes items such as the site plan, floor plans, elevations, and landscape plan to demonstrate compliance with the guiding principles and standards proposed in the Specific Plan.

Acting Director Allen explained that approval of a Discretionary Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove 68 trees on the project site within the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone that the Code defines as “specimen trees” which are not dead, diseased, weakened, or otherwise posing a threat to persons or property. She shared that the trees would be replaced with a minimum of 322 trees or City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

four times the number of specimen trees removed, whichever is greater, with a minimum 24-inch box size.

Acting Director Allen reported that the applicant requests approval of a Development Agreement, which is a contract between the City and a property owner that provides certainty to the developer that the approved project will be exempt from future changes to zoning laws. She noted that in exchange for that certainty, a Development Agreement may require the developer to provide benefits to the city beyond what would otherwise be required by existing regulations and ordinances. She explained that the property owner is also required to submit annual reports to the City demonstrating compliance with the terms of the Agreement. She noted that the proposed initial term is five (5) years, and if vertical construction of the apartments has commenced subject to a building permit issued by October 1, 2029, the term would be extended for an additional ten (10) years. She highlighted the community benefits associated with the project including a $500,000 contribution to the City’s Affordable Housing Fund; construction and maintenance of Deer Canyon Road and trail providing a public connection from Santa Ana Canyon to Deer Canyon Park Preserve; construction and maintenance of improvements to Santa Ana Canyon Road including a trail on the south side of the street terminating west of the Festival Shopping Center, a sidewalk on the north side of the street from Eucalyptus Drive to the new traffic light and a new crosswalk and signalization at the traffic light. She noted that the developer will also enter into an Operations and Maintenance agreement for the Deer Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road signalized intersection. She shared additional community benefits including providing over 50 acres of land designated as open space in perpetuity and maintained by the developer and a one-time Fire Protection Enhancement Payment, in the amount of $2.2 million, to be used by Anaheim Fire and Rescue for the purchase of firefighting equipment, personnel, training, and similar resources intended to support and enhance the City’s fire protection and response capacities to the project site and surrounding neighborhoods.

Acting Director Allen reported that staff has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. She explained that the Draft EIR was presented to the public and Planning Commission at the July 15 workshop. She shared that during the 45-day public review period, the City received comments from five agencies, 332 individuals, and 57 commenters at the workshop. She noted that the City received two additional letters outside of the comment period and provided responses, although not required. She explained that all comments and responses have been included in the Final EIR provided as part of the staff report. She shared that none of the information contained in the Final EIR constitutes significant new information, changes to the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR, or otherwise raises any issues that triggered a requirement for recirculation of the document under CEQA. She noted that staff have received numerous comments in the past few days, which have all been reviewed and have not raised any new issues or requirements for recirculation of the EIR.

Acting Director Allen reported that of the 20 topics evaluated, the Draft EIR found two topics with no impacts, and six with less than significant impacts. She noted that nine topics were found to be less than significant with mitigation. She explained that even with the implementation of comprehensive mitigation measures, impacts related to three topics would remain significant and unavoidable including construction and operation air quality, operation Greenhouse Gas emissions, and Transportation. She reported that to reduce impacts, feasible mitigation measures have been included in the EIR. She noted some of the measures include developer obligations habitat preservation/restoration for the special status species, providing Closed Circuit TV cameras at various locations throughout the public right-of-way, maintenance of fuel modification zones along the entire western boundary of the Project site, payment to assist with Fire efforts to educate and conduct community evacuation exercises, and construction of trails and sidewalks. She shared that the full list is contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan.

City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

Acting Director Allen reported that CEQA requires evaluation of the project in addition to consideration of alternatives to the project in the EIR. She shared that three alternatives were considered, and two of those would minimize the environmental impacts that are identified for the proposed project. She outlined the impacts of each of the three alternatives, including that Alternative 1 would leave the site mostly undeveloped except for the existing maintenance access road and Alternative 2 would reduce the originally proposed commercial square footage by half, eliminate the six single-family lots and supporting road, and limit the number of non-resident memberships, allowing use of the apartment’s amenities. She added that Alternative 2 would still include public improvements to the street, trails, and sidewalk networks. She reported that Alternative 3 assumes development of the site with uses allowed under the existing General Plan designations under the assumption that 93 single-family lots could be developed and would be spread across most of the 76-acre site including rear ridgelines and hilltop, and existing Open Space designations would remain, but no new property would be designated as Open Space. She explained that Alternatives 1 and 2 would be considered environmentally superior under the CEQA Guidelines. She shared that Alternative 1 would fail to meet any of the project’s objectives stated earlier and would not be considered economically feasible, given that no development would occur, leaving Alternative 2 as the environmentally superior build alternative.

Acting Director Allen reported that on September 30, the Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of the project consistent with Alternative 2 (the “Reduced Development” alternative analyzed in the FEIR). She explained that in accordance with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval of Alternative 2, the applicant revised their proposal, which is reflected as the project that has been presented for City Council consideration. She shared that the Planning Commission also recommended that the City Council certify FEIR No. 355 and adopt Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and MMP No. 390. She noted that the Planning Commission also recommended adding the following conditions of approval to the project approvals, both of which have been incorporated into the project as presented that the Owner/Developer provide a covenant requiring preservation and maintenance of the Open Space Development Area to ensure that future development is restricted for perpetuity; and that the Owner/Developer evaluate the tree removal plan to determine if any additional trees could be preserved and/or replanted.

Acting Director Allen reported that when a project has significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, as have been identified in FEIR No. 355, a public agency must balance the benefits of a project against these impacts in determining whether to approve the project, which is completed through the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. She outlined the project benefits have been identified for Council consideration including construction of 498 new units classified as above-moderate income to help achieve RHNA requirements, and a contribution of $500,000 to the City’s affordable housing fund, rezoning approximately 50 acres to Open Space to be preserved and maintained in perpetuity, enhancing bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian connectivity with new and/or improved streets, sidewalks, and multi-use trails, facilitating access to existing trails system and park/recreational amenities, as well as nearby residential and commercial developments. She continued outlining benefits such as development with high-quality architecture ensured through objective design standards, protection of ridgelines, clustering of units, and open space preservation, payment of Impact Fees totaling approximately $7.5 million, plus the $500,000 Housing Trust contribution, improvement of wildfire resilience with construction methods and fuel modification, plus over $2.2 million paid towards fire equipment, personnel, and community training, as well as enhancement of traffic safety with a new signalized intersection at a new public entrance to Deer Canyon Park Preserve. She shared additional benefits included new public access to Deer Canyon Park Preserve and new employment opportunities from initial construction and long-term operation of the commercial and multiple-family facilities, and further support of long-term viability of nearby commercial uses, including the Festival Center.

City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

Acting Director Allen reported that a common theme throughout the public dialogue on this project revolves around the existing condition with respect to evacuation. She shared that several projects in the short, near and long term, already underway that will help continue to evolve the Know Your Way evacuation and emergency preparedness plan to direct evacuations by neighborhood and limit congestion on evacuation routes.

Acting Director Allen shared that the access road to the SR-91 weigh station along Santa Ana Canyon Road was recently paved and has been identified as a direct emergency route to the freeway for the Deer Canyon area. She noted that the City’s public safety and public works teams have been in contact with our partners at the California Highway Patrol and Caltrans and received concurrence on the use of the access road during an emergency evacuation. She explained that the area was previously a dirt road, which, prior to paving, was not a viable emergency route. She noted that the access road is directly across from the proposed Hills Preserve project and provides an additional evacuation option in the short term that would lessen traffic on Weir Canyon and Santa Ana Canyon roads in an evacuation.

Acting Director Allen reported that Public Works is looking at extending South Bridge View Drive in the area of what we refer to as the Mohler loop. She noted that the proposed connector road would link South Bridge View with Fairmont Boulevard, providing another exit point to the southwest for the Mohler loop community. She explained that it would help ease evacuation traffic on Santa Ana Canyon Road, which is the single evacuation route for the community today. She added that it is a potential near-term project to improve evacuation circulation.

Acting Director Allen reported that longer term, the SR-91 Implementation plan includes a project to provide a new interchange with SR-91 at Fairmont Boulevard. She noted that on and off ramps would connect Fairmont Boulevard from the north to both the east-bound and west-bound 91. She explained that the proposed interchange does not include a vehicular connection on the south side, except when authorized by Public Safety. She noted that, proposed as a pedestrian and bicycle connection, the project would be designed to switch to vehicular access in an emergency. She mentioned that emergency access would be provided to both the freeway as well as north on Fairmont, depending on the evacuation needs.

Acting Director Allen reported that the staff report provided to the Planning Commission recommended that the Planning Commission deny the request to amend the City’s General Plan based on staff’s belief that the required findings for the General Plan Amendment with respect to “public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare” and “site suitability” have not been established, thereby denying the project. She noted that the Planning Commission, however, evaluated the proposed project and made the necessary findings for approval of the project; therefore, recommends approval of this request.

DISCUSSION: Council Member Meeks clarified whether the impact fees are offsets toward the impact of the project and not additional benefits to the City.

Acting Director Allen confirmed that impact fees offset the impacts of the project. She also explained that the City Council could remove or add to the Overriding Considerations for the project.

In response to Council Member Rubalcava, Director of Public Works Rudy Emami explained that the 241-interchange connected to the 91 freeway is a toll road connector. He noted that the project is being stalled because of agreements between the toll road agency (TCA), Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), and the Riverside Transportation Authority. He shared that the environmental components are completed, and the project will continue once the agreements are City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

complete. He noted the proposed Fairmont connector is a separate project identified in the 91- implementation plan for improvements on the 91 freeway and would be funded through toll road revenues. He explained that the project would not impact TCA but would require coordination with Caltrans, the Flood Control District, and the Army Corps of Engineers due to the bridge over the Santa Ana River.

Council Member Rubalcava inquired if the City would pay for the fees to develop the interchange. In response, Director Emami explained that the current proposal benefits traffic on the 91 freeway and would qualify for toll road access revenues.

In response to Council Member Rubalcava, Director Emami confirmed the toll road is owned by OCTA.

Mayor Aitken inquired if the City Council had any ex parte communications to disclose.

Council Member Faessel reported that he met with the applicant a number of times.

Council Member Meeks reported that she met with the applicant and a number of residents.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz disclosed that she met with the applicant and residents.

Mayor Aitken reported that she met with the applicant and a number of residents.

Council Member Rubalcava disclosed that she met with the applicant and the applicant’s consultant.

Council Member Leon reported that he has met with the applicant and their representatives. He noted he has received numerous emails from residents and had various conversations with Deputy City Manager Ted White, Fire Chief Patrick Russell, Chief of Police Rick Armendariz, Public Works Director Emami, and Traffic Engineer Rafael Cobian. He added that he viewed the Planning Commission workshop and the Planning Commission meeting when the project was discussed. He noted that he also visited the project site.

Council Member Diaz reported he met with the developer two years ago, but not recently. He added that he met with staff and some residents in District 6.

Council Member Rubalcava reported that she met with staff multiple times, including the City Manager and both Chiefs, about the project.

At 7:10 p.m., Mayor Aitken opened the public hearing.

Brian Hobbs with SALT Development, LLC expressed appreciation for the opportunity and appreciation to City staff and all who have worked on the project. He reported that the original project in the EIR covered three development areas comprised of 490 apartments, 80,000 square feet of commercial buildings, and six estate lots, over 76 acres. He added that more than half of the site is open space, which can greatly expand Deer Canyon Park. He reported that, as discussed during the Planning Commission meeting, the developer agreed to vacate the development of the six estate lots to reduce the commercial space from 80,000 to 40,000 square feet and set aside the open space permanently, which is reflected in the proposed Development Agreement. He added that the development footprint and impact area are limited to 26 of the 76-acre site, leaving 50 acres or two-thirds of the site as open space to be appreciated by Anaheim residents.

City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

Mr. Hobbs reported that Deer Canyon Park has not had public vehicle access since it was opened 22 years ago due to a lack of a public easement across the private property gates. He noted that there is a paved maintenance road in disrepair leading to the park, but the gate remains locked and has remained locked since the park was completed. He shared that during the past year, the applicant spoke with the property owner of the property adjacent to the park, who supported the proposed vision and granted the applicant an option to purchase their property to record a public access easement.

Mr. Hobbs reported that the road leading up to Deer Canyon Park will be widened and improved for the first time, and will be available to all Anaheim residents rather than a walk-in-only park for those in the area. He shared that all Anaheim residents will be able to enjoy the park’s scenic areas, hiking, biking, and equestrian trails. He added that the existing multi-use equestrian trails will be connected from the park entrance, along Santa Ana Canyon, to the Festival Shopping Center. He noted that the expansion is over a mile of new multi-use trails in the area. He reported that a new traffic light and sidewalks will be installed on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon to enable neighbors to the west and residents to readily access the commercial and retail areas located in the east safely and without requiring motorized vehicles.

Mr. Hobbs noted that the developer wanted to provide as much quality housing as possible without destroying the landscape. He explained that the project clustered housing on the north edge of the site. He displayed a graphic that depicted the four different groups of housing units surrounding the property, each totaling 498 units. He noted that clustering the housing units has allowed the developer to leave most of the property as untouched open space. He clarified that while the buildings may be tall, they will be built in ravines on the north edge of the project, not to disturb the views. He displayed a graphic comparing the height of the multi-family building in relation to the neighboring houses along Autry and Eucalyptus Drive.

Mr. Hobbs reported that over the last four years, the applicant has facilitated a robust outreach effort. He noted that they voluntarily met with residents to discuss the project at large open houses in nearby community centers to small groups on site or in their homes. He shared that there have been over 100 individual outreach meetings and have addressed concerns from residents, including modifying designs where appropriate. He noted that individuals who were previously strongly opposed to the project have changed their position after receiving additional information. He shared that over 150,000 Anaheim residents have been contacted, and the applicant has received thousands of support letters from residents in all six Districts.

Mr. Hobbs reported that the applicant has voluntarily chosen to enter into a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) with a preference to support employment for union members who are Anaheim residents. He expressed appreciation for the support they have received from various groups, including the Anaheim Police Association, LA/OC Building Trades, Apartment Association of Orange County, California Apartment Association, and Pacific West Association of Realtors.

Mr. Hobbs displayed design renderings for the project. He noted that residents can access the project from both directions, from the Imperial Highway exit or the Weir Canyon exit. He shared that hikers, bikers, and horse riders can use the trails to the park and the shopping center. He highlighted the fitness center, rooftop pool, the 300-foot-wide lobby with areas for remote workers, private desks and conference rooms, 50,000 square feet of amenity spaces, a four-lane bowling alley, pet wash, car wash, and massage rooms, Sky Deck, two courtyards with fountains and fire pits. He noted that loud noise or disruptive behavior will not be tolerated, and the development will be one of the nicest and safest places to live in Orange County.

City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

Mr. Hobbs reported that the Development Agreement outlines the project-specific public benefits, including providing additional above moderate housing for Anaheim and the region, improving bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian connectivity and safety through the area, enhancing wildfire resilience within the project site and neighboring properties, protecting existing hilltop vistas and land contours to contain natural habitats for special status species, and minimizing environmental impacts to a feasible extent. He shared that additional benefits include enhanced traffic safety, maintaining public access roads and trails to Deer Canyon Park, development impact fees, and a $500,000 voluntary contribution to the Housing Trust. He announced that the developer is prepared to double the contribution to $1 million toward housing. He shared that the additional $500,000 will be paid during the first two years of operation. He reported that other benefits include creating employment through the PLA and long-term management and operation of the site, and an additional customer base for retail areas. He shared that 50 of the apartment homes will be discounted for Anaheim first responders.

Mr. Hobbs reported that the EIR, DA, and other materials have been prepared over the past two years. He noted that the findings within the EIR were prepared by City staff, CEQA consultants, traffic engineers, wildfire technicians, environmental biologists, urban planners, and more. He shared that the applicant agrees with the findings in the EIR.

Mr. Hobbs reported that the project requires consideration of many complicated issues. He explained that courts show deference to a city's consistency determination because policies in a general plan reflect a range of competing interests, and the city is be allowed to weigh and balance the plan's policies in light of the plan's purpose. He shared that while no project can satisfy every policy in a general plan, the general plan must accommodate a wide range of competing interests.

Mr. Hobbs requested that the City Council exercise reasonable judgment to appropriately weigh in balance competing interests, taking into account the overall intent and purpose of the relevant goals and policies as a whole. He shared that the project EIR confirms that the project meets all relevant General Plan goals and will not be a detriment to public interest, health, and safety. He requested that the City Council consider the 45-page general plan consistency analysis set forth in the land use section of the project’s EIR. He noted that City staff and the CEQA consultants provided a detailed description of how the project is consistent with General Plan goals and policies.

Mr. Hobbs addressed concerns about the project’s proposed intensification of land uses typically used for single-family detached housing. He explained that the project EIR expressly addresses the opposing considerations. He reported that the project would result in additional human activity and ground disturbance, and additional environmental effects. He explained that the existing conditions would not be preserved with the implementation of the project, as development occurs. He reported that the effects have been evaluated in the EIR and have been found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated to the extent feasible. He added that it is reasonable to assume that individuals residing in the project vicinity would desire to keep enjoying the undeveloped condition of the project site, however, the City has an obligation to enhance the quality of life and economic vitality in Anaheim through strategic development, while taking into appropriate account its housing obligations under State law and other community interests.

Mr. Hobbs reported that the EIR determined that there would be no unmitigated significant impacts with respect to emergency access and evacuation. He explained that the additional time to evacuate, as disclosed in the project’s EIR, is a worst-case scenario. He shared that the project’s EIR explains how the evacuation analysis reflects extraordinarily conservative assumptions that are likely not to occur including a combination of a wildfire erupting during rush hour on a Friday afternoon, one precise location in Deer Canyon, the simultaneous mass evacuation from every resident in Anaheim Hills, the absence of full traffic control by the Anaheim Police Department, and City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

extreme fire weather. He explained that the model evacuation time was over three hours without the project and an additional 21 minutes with the project, accounting for Alternative 2. He reported that many scenarios were studied, and the project’s impact on evacuation time would be less or none.

Mr. Hobbs reported that the project EIR notes that under actual emergency circumstances, evacuation events are typically more strategic, surgical, and phased than mass evacuation scenarios that were conservatively modeled for the project. He explained that the evacuation scenarios in the model were conservative and did not account for the Anaheim Police Department controlling intersections and directing traffic, which is typical during evacuation events. He noted that a focus solely on evacuation is contrary to the City’s wildfire strategy. He explained that intrinsic elements of the project substantially enhance the wildfire resiliency of the area compared to existing conditions.

Mr. Hobbs reported that although additional congestion would occur during evacuations, various project design features enhance emergency access and wildfire resilience for the project site and surrounding neighborhoods, decreasing the need for evacuation. He added that the project has been designed to develop building on lower elevations of the project site, working with the site’s topography to minimize wildfire risks. He added that the project would result in several benefits that relate to nearby communities and overall wildfire resilience, which would reduce the risk of loss, injury, and death. He reported that the project’s design features enhance the existing street network and enable improved site access in the event of a fire. He noted that the project provides active fuel modification zones around the building, removing fire-prone vegetation and creating a buffer against a fire. He explained that the project adds numerous fire hydrants that do not exist on the current site and access roads for fighting a potential fire, removes highly combustible vegetation, and replaces those with non-combustible or fire-resistant buildings. He shared that the multi-family building is a combination of Type 1A and Type 3A design, which are highly fire-resistant and non-combustible.

He added that the project employs many additional fire protection features, including a fire command center, smoke evacuation systems, full coverage fire sprinkler systems, areas of refuge, and emergency water storage for firefighting. He noted it contributes $2.3 million to Anaheim Fire & Rescue for equipment and personnel costs, including training to help the City detect and fight future fires.

Mr. Hobbs summarized that focusing on the theoretical increase in evacuation delays fails to acknowledge that the project improves the area compared to existing conditions. He added that if the project had existed over the past 20 years, with its contributions toward wildfire resiliency and with the Know Your Way evacuation plan, residents may not have been required to evacuate.

Mr. Hobbs addressed concerns regarding the proposed height and grading associated with the project to conclude that the project is not physically suitable for the proposed intensification. He explained that the concerns are not related to physical constraints but to the multi-family developments' significant departure from single-family detached development. He shared that dismissing the project based on land use is not persuasive, given that jurisdictions, including Anaheim, are required by State law to facilitate housing for the community. He added that the height and clustering strategy enables the protection of major ridge lines and hilltop vistas and retention of open space. He quoted the EIR regarding the suitability of the project site, stating that the project would enhance the City’s image by only developing in a clustered fashion on the lower elevations of the project site, and maintaining more visually significant ridgelines, the project would allow retention of the lands and their existing open space conditions.

Mr. Hobbs addressed concerns regarding increased fire risks, noting that the project reduces the risk of wildfires, creates a fire break, improves the capability for the City to fight future fires, increases the number of fire hydrants, and improves access roads. He acknowledged that with City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

additional development, traffic congestion will increase; however, the primary culprit is short-cutting off the SR-91 freeway down Santa Ana Canyon Road. He explained that a new traffic signal was always planned for the area, and now there would be a public park to access from that point. He reported that biologists spent months determining which species of plants and animals are present and how to protect them. He added that the EIR reports those findings along with a series of required mitigating measures. He acknowledged that an apartment building is not desired in the neighborhood and houses are preferred; however, he explained that homes over the entire site would destroy the canyon, including the ridge lines, with very little open space. He stated that the current plan saves the canyon by setting aside 50 acres of open space.

Mr. Hobbs reported that if the community understands and follows the City’s evacuation plan, apartment dwellers will not make evacuation more difficult. He concluded that, given the information provided during the presentation and the volumes of studies, reports, and technical conclusions, the City Council has the appropriate information to make the required findings and recommend approval.

City Clerk Bass announced that 17 speakers were within the noticed area and will be called first to speak with a time limit of ten (10) minutes. She noted that following those speakers, those outside the noticed area will be announced.

Rick Clark noted he and his wife have been lifelong Anaheim residents in four of the six districts. He noted that when he moved to Anaheim Hills, there were no developments in the area. He added that once developments increased, no complaints were raised because the projects fit the General Plan and the Scenic Corridor. He highlighted the unique area and criticized the proposed development.

He commended City staff who took an unbiased and non-partisan approach to the project. He shared that the development is not good for the community and will change residents' lives. He cautioned that while a fire may not burn the proposed development, it will endanger the lives of those evacuating the area. He explained that residents are not opposed to single-family developments. He highlighted the various City housing projects and low-income housing developments. He urged the City Council to listen to residents and staff. He noted that the developer can still make contributions to the City without the project. He urged the City Council to deny the project.

Doug Hill distributed material to the City Council, contradicting the EIR reports. He noted that he has been a resident of Anaheim Hills since 1996, and his home would overlook the proposed project. He shared that he has evacuated twice and noted the amount of time it took to evacuate during the 2017 fires and the intense and emotional situation. He explained that residents are familiar with Know Your Way. He reported that three years ago, SALT representatives approached him to discuss the proposed 500-unit development, which would increase the population in the area by 20%. He expressed his immediate concerns due to his experience evacuating the area and recognized the critical nature of the development and the impact on the community’s safety. He shared that of the five community meetings, two were held and three were canceled. He noted his attendance at three Planning Commission meetings, and noted that staff recommended to deny the project, but it was ultimately approved by the Planning Commission. He addressed commissioner’s comments regarding housing in District 6 and the fear of builder remedy. He acknowledged that housing is needed, but in the appropriate area. He explained that the proposed project site is a very high fire hazard severity zone, which creates issues with a dense population. He reported that the development increases the risk of loss of life and property. He referenced a previous plan for six homes where residents would have been required to maintain fire safety with sprinklers. He explained that the development will bring thousands of new residents to the area. He explained that residents were previously told the six homes would provide a fire break, but were too expensive to build. He noted that the developer pushed a false narrative that Deer Canyon needs to be open to City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

all; however, he explained that the area already is with a safe residential road with space for hikers.

He cautioned that the collateral damage is the thousands of homes that border the park. He shared that communities have experienced devastation from irresponsible behavior. He cited examples of other parks with strict rules of constant authoritative presence. He added that the developer is pushing to increase human activity while admitting that any impacts are the responsibility of the City.

He concluded that the State passed State Bill 99, which states to deny developments in high fire hazard areas with fewer than two exits.

Tammy Hill thanked Nick Taylor and the Planning Department for their work on the project and SALT Development for their work on their project; however, explaining that the developer did not put together a plan that would provide a safe space for all incoming and existing residents. She noted that the Planning Department, Fire Chief, and Police Chief oppose the project. She addressed the fire and evacuation dangers and SALT’s claims that the project is safe for the environment and the people. She explained that the project is located in a very high hazard severity zone and placing dense housing in the area is irresponsible. She reported that in the Fire Protection Plan, SALT conducted an analysis on radiant heat and its effects on structures. She noted that, unlike heat transfer, radiant heat can travel undetected until impeded by a solid object. She explained that the analysis pertains to the structures and not the people and cited the reference in the report. She shared statistics on various fires and the evacuation times. She explained that based on the projections and other fires, the three-hour evacuation time will endanger residents. She highlighted SB 99 and noted the proposed development violates SB 99. She referenced a report in the EIR, which noted that the proposed scenarios for fire planning solutions were to shelter in place and would have no impact on evacuation times. She reported that 70% of all fire deaths are due to smoke inhalation. She mentioned that some homes were not considered in the evacuation plan due to assumed travel eastbound out of the area. She referenced the statistics for the project's occupancy and noted that during the 2008 and 2017 fires, not all residents in her neighborhood were able to evacuate. She reported that the evaluation was conducted based on two lanes, however, Santa Ana Canyon has two lanes from Festival to Imperial. She noted that with the correction, the estimated evacuation time would increase. She reported that the development will pose a danger to the community and residents in the building, who could not withstand fire by sheltering in place. She urged the City Council to deny the project.

Joni Gaynor commented that the Findings of Fact do not provide clear evidence that the APD can enforce any shelter-in-place regulations as a form of traffic control. She shared that she has evacuated twice, and both times she was not ordered to evacuate because first responders could not reach her location. She shared that the studies do not convey the reality of evacuation. She reported that the Findings of Fact include a vague definition of shelter-in-place. She added that while residents of the development can shelter in place, she inquired what other community members without fireproof homes are supposed to do. She noted that first responders discourage sheltering in place and although there are evacuation plans and programs, residents are still stuck in the area during evacuations. She explained that the development’s structure does not take into account the environmental challenges that take place during a wildfire. She recalled her experience during the Lahaina fires in Maui and residents jumping into the ocean to escape the fire. She shared that District 6 residents are not opposed to housing and support various housing projects in the City.

She explained that residents are against overdevelopment in the canyon. She urged the City Council to deny the project.

John Erb shared that he agrees with the current zoning designation of the property and zoning changes should not occur when it would endanger the community. He explained that the residents, Fire Chief, Police Chief, and Planning Department oppose the project due to increased concerns for fire evacuation safety, which is an existing issue. He urged the City Council to consider residents' safety.

City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

Jennifer Skovseth shared that she owns a home adjacent to the proposed project. She reported that residents were disheartened by the Planning Commission’s approval of the project. She explained that the development endangers the safety and alters the tranquility of the region. She shared that fire is inevitable in the area and a real danger to the community. She reported that traffic on Santa Ana Canyon Road is already congested and the proposed additional evacuation time is not realistic.

She commented that the proposed emergency plans were not under worst-case scenarios. She explained that the proposed site is not the right place for the development. She commented that the proposed development will risk people’s safety, destroy a wildlife habitat, and endanger the community. She urged the City Council to deny the project.

Allison Valdivia, a 30-year resident, shared her safety concerns regarding the project. She shared her experience with evacuations while residing in the City of Orange. She explained that she experiences more evacuating in Anaheim due to the limited number of exits. She requested that the City Council listen to the residents who are fearful. She shared that although the developers have mentioned a builder's remedy, according to an Assistant City Attorney, safety can overrule a builder's remedy. She requested that the City Council deny the project.

Betty Farnsworth thanked Nick Taylor and the Planning Department staff for their work. She noted she and her family have been residents for decades. She explained that the Hills residents are City residents and residents deserve safety. She noted that the City staff recommended denying the project, but ultimately, the Planning Commission approved the project. She shared that the development will threaten lives in the community. She echoed the comments from the young speaker, highlighting the area’s wildlife and nature. She encouraged the City Council to deny the project.

Jason Gearlds shared that his home directly touches the project site and expressed his concern over the project. He noted that once he and his fellow residents learned more about the project, they recognized the danger and negative impact it would have on their lives. He reported that the developer's representatives have attempted to trespass on private property and manipulated facts surrounding the project. He shared that Deer Canyon is home to extensive wildlife and animals despite the developer's claims. He shared that the proposed land for open space is unusable due to the steepness of the terrain and proximity to power lines. He expressed concern over increased noise from the rooftop deck, increased cars traveling to and from the project site, and the 24-hour lighting that would surround the project site. He noted that City staff and fire experts oppose the project and highlighted the development’s fire risk to the City and increased evacuation time. He explained that the hills, narrow streets, and one-way entrance and exit already leave residents in danger during evacuations. He emphasized that the community cannot sustain another development in the area with limited evacuation areas. He commented that if development is necessary, the City should proceed with the proposed development from decades ago. He requested that the City Council listen to the experts and residents and deny the project.

Bill Erickson requested that a bridge be constructed across the river and freeway over to La Palma Avenue as an escape route for the Mohler Drive area and Anaheim Hills residents. He expressed his concerns over the proposed development. He noted that despite claims from the developers, the initial development for six homes showed that the homes break the wind and act as a shield. He shared that the fire models and evacuation plans were based on false information. He applauded the Planning Department for their work and recommendation to deny the project.

Leida Erickson shared her experience during a wildfire in the City in 1982 that almost claimed her home. She shared that in Paradise, CA, the City of Paradise underestimated the power of wildfire due to reduced lanes which raised concerns about evacuation efforts. She requested that the City City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

Council adhere to the adopted General Plan, which designates the area as low-density housing and follow the recommendation from staff to deny the project. She shared her observations from the Planning Commission meeting. She requested that the City Council continue the item.

Shana Aphessetche referenced a traffic study conducted for the City of Paradise. She mentioned that residents’ concerns were not considered. She explained that traffic engineers involved with the project have made similar miscalculations. She mentioned that no similar projects have been approved in areas with high fire severity. She explained that the developer has not conducted adequate research, and therefore, the project should be denied. She encouraged the developer to work with the community and experts to design a project that is appropriate for the area. She requested that the City Council consider staff’s recommendation to deny the project.

Lori Gutierrez expressed her opposition to the project. She shared that the Planning Commission failed to consider the Santa Ana Canyon’s steep topography and the west alignment serves as a wind funnel that increases wind speed and magnifies the effect of fires. She requested that the City Council consider the lives and safety of residents and deny the project.

Tony Baxter shared that as an employee of the Disney corporation, he has witnessed the collaboration between the city and other agencies in the area surrounding Disneyland. He explained that the project lacks collaboration on infrastructure. He echoed previous comments about stressful evacuations. He shared that water resources in the City are stressed and requested information on how the development will impact water use. He shared that deliveries are increasing and the potential impact delivery trucks would have on the surrounding community. He requested that the City Council consider the rural diversity that Anaheim Hills offers. He requested that the City Council ensure that infrastructure issues have been addressed before considering the project.

Pilar Mata expressed concerns over the project and its impacts on evacuations. She requested that the City Council consider the original proposed development and maintain the existing zoning. She requested that the City Council deny the project.

Mike DesRoches shared his experience taking walks in Deer Canyon. He expressed pride in his community and highlighted his fellow neighbors who spoke in opposition to the project. He referenced Fire Chief Russell’s comments during the Planning Commission and Chief Russell’s concerns over the proposed project. He shared that the traffic study considered the Canyon 2 fire as a worst-case scenario but did not account for climate change or that the fire was relatively small considering other fires that have occurred recently in the state. He noted an inconsistency with the traffic study, which calculated evacuation times during the summer when schools are not in session, and that Santa Ana Canyon was considered a three-lane highway. He noted that the Planning Commission was advised that a “Shelter in Place” order would apply to the complex; however, the information was not included in the EIR. He questioned whether potential residents would follow those orders and how the order would be enforced. He explained that the proposed project will only harm the area and increase already existing traffic. He urged the City Council to deny the project.

City Clerk Bass announced that the remaining 73 speakers were outside the noticed area and have three minutes to speak.

Dania Fiorello shared her opposition to the project. She shared the websites that residents created to educate residents on the project. She noted that the developer created websites that mirrored the websites that opposed the project. She explained that the project will increase human activity in an area without park authorities or oversight. She expressed concern about the updated fire study.

City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

Dominic Fiorello expressed his opposition to the project. He shared comments on corruption and referenced examples of corruption in politics. He explained two different forms of corruption, including coercion and collusion. He urged the City Council to deny the project.

Shelly Robbins shared her opposition to the project. She noted that over the last few years, there have been significant increases in traffic gridlocking main roads. She noted that according to a Caltrans census, traffic has increased 133%, due to new housing developments in the surrounding area, with limited growth to accommodate the new builds. She explained that roads are over capacity and spilling into major streets without consideration to ensure that there are an adequate number of roads or freeway lane additions to accommodate the current traffic volume. She shared that she is not opposed to new housing developments but expressed concern over profits being considered over the safety of residents. She noted that District 6 has a unique challenge for housing due to fire dangers and the unique landscape homes are built on. She referenced the evacuations from the Canyon fire and how the roads were ill-equipped to accommodate the high volume of vehicles. She requested that the City Council consider the concerns of the residents.

Linda Chapman reported inconsistencies in the developer’s presentation. She noted that the roads mentioned as alternate routes are not equipped for use. She noted that the developer has not addressed safety and the impact on the community. She urged the City Council to reach out to State officials to seek guidance on the dangers that the developer is proposing.

Ernesto Medrano, Executive Secretary of the LA/OC Building and Construction Trades Council, urged the City Council to support the project. He shared that the developer had proactively contacted the building trades to ensure the project is built in the safest and most efficient manner.

He added that the agreement the trades negotiated contained community benefits, including priority dispatch for local Anaheim residents to work on the project. He shared that local men and women have worked on various projects, including the Convention Center expansion, DisneylandForward, and the OCVIBE project. He urged the City to take ownership of the housing crisis and highlighted the developer for including high wages, benefits, and defined pension plans in the agreement. He shared that Districts 1 through 5 have absorbed the importance of housing and development and called upon District 6 to do the same. He urged the City Council to approve the project.

Andrew Gonzales with the LA/OC Building and Construction Trades Council shared that the City Council can approve more housing developments to remedy the State’s housing crisis. He noted that Districts 1 through 5 have absorbed the majority of housing construction in the community. He noted that the developer contacted the trades to ensure the best materials and workers were contributing to the project. He added that to address the housing crisis, projects like the Hills Preserve development need to be approved. He urged the City Council to support the project, housing, and the workforce.

Douglas Robbins noted that CalFire has designated the area as a high fire severity zone, which is meant to limit development, especially due to evacuation risks. He echoed the comments by his neighbors and requested that the City Council consider the public safety concerns of the residents when voting on the project.

Henry Hillebrecht, representing over 1,000 plumbers and steam fitters of the Local 582, shared that the proposed development would be a major opportunity for the union. He shared that many members reside in Anaheim and would allow them to work close to home and save money. He urged the City Council to approve the project.

Andrew Winger shared that he read over 300 electronic public comments received for the project.

He clarified that the photo of the weigh station was displayed the wrong way and should not be City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

considered an evacuation route. He noted that the three-hour evacuation time is not acceptable and should be reviewed before considering any new developments. He explained that the City Council’s first priority should be resident safety and highlighted the flaws in the Know Your Way plan. He shared that the proposed development will create more issues for residents evacuating from the upper hills. He urged the City Council to support staff’s recommendation and residents and deny the project.

Richard (Rick) Pollgreen highlighted inconsistencies in the developer’s presentation. He expressed his opposition to the project. He shared that the project will be a detriment to the community. He noted that there are other locations in the City better suited for the project. He urged the City Council to deny the project.

Bridget Winger highlighted safety protocols taken by the City and noted the developer has not considered the safety of residents in the area. She referenced safety protocols from a Know Your Way workshop and noted that the hypothetical scenarios proposed by the developer will not solve the problem. She added that Mr. Hobbs previously shared that the City needs to work with the community on Know Your Way and evacuation routes. She explained that the strategies should include limits on development sizes that will create evacuation hazards in an overburdened area.

She shared her experience evacuating with her child and encouraged the City Council to fix the evacuation issues before considering the development.

Nancy Hunter noted that the proposed ‘Shelter in Place’ evacuation method is contradictory. She shared that the Findings of Fact document specifies that the Anaheim Police Department would implement the ‘shelter in place’ tactic to control traffic. She explained that civil rights implications have not been considered. She urged the City Council to deny the project due to the evacuation and geographical challenges of the location.

Mike McMath reported that as a retired firefighter, his priority is life, property, and environment. He shared that the issue with the development is the added risk to the density of the population and the impact on evacuations on the narrow two-lane road. He noted that current residents will be significantly more impacted than the residents of the proposed development. He explained that the proposed development will increase the existing risks.

Brian McGee urged the City Council to deny the project. He shared that wind speeds in the area can exceed 60 miles per hour (mph). He noted that during a wildfire, burning embers can travel for miles due to the wind. He shared that the City’s Know Your Way is unrealistic and calls for an orderly evacuation or sheltering in place until the respective zone is evacuated. He mentioned that his family had to evacuate twice during gridlock traffic, with evacuations taking two and a half hours. He requested that the City Council consider the impacts the proposed development would have on evacuations and support staff’s recommendation to deny the project.

Grace McGee urged the City Council to deny the project. She noted that the City Council can deny a Builders Remedy based on public safety risks to the community. She encouraged the City Attorney to provide additional clarification on the City Council’s options and potential outcomes. She explained that the City’s Know Your Way plan does not adequately address evacuation routes and residents returning to their property for other family members or pets. She noted that expectations for residents to shelter in place are unrealistic given the unpredictable nature of the wildfires. She encouraged the City Council to deny the project.

Kylah Staley, attorney with Lozeau Drury law firm on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), requested that the City Council deny the Hills Preserve project. She explained that the project’s EIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate significant City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas, wildfire evacuation impacts, and fails to adopt mitigation measures as required by CEQA. She noted one mitigation measure requires the developer to use good faith efforts to install and maintain solar power generation for at least 15% of the project’s electric demand. She explained that the non-committal mitigation measure cannot be relied upon to mitigate greenhouse gas impacts. She shared that the measure requiring the developer to purchase 60% green power from Anaheim Public Utilities (APU) could be unreliable if the green power is not available. She shared that there are effective measures that the EIR failed to consider, despite a Statement of Overriding Consideration being proposed. She added that the EIR does not account for significant public safety concerns. She shared that SAFER’s Emergency Planning and Evacuation expert found that the project will increase the evacuation time by 43 minutes, double what was proposed by the developer. She explained that the EIR failed to consider shadow evacuations, which occur when individuals outside of the evacuation zones voluntarily evacuate, resulting in traffic congestion and longer evacuation times. She requested that the City Council deny the project.

Daniel Osborne, representing Ironworkers Local 433, expressed support for the project. He shared that the developer has exhibited responsibility by committing to using a skilled and trained workforce, paying prevailing wages, and using a local workforce. He echoed the comments of Mr.

Medrano and Mr. Gonzales and highlighted the project’s local hire benefit to allow members to learn, receive a living wage, benefits, and earn a pension to help them retire.

Susan Wilson requested that the City Council consider the impacts on residents' safety and evacuations. She noted that the proposed bridge has been discussed since the 1980s and has not been built despite the project’s plans. She shared that the evacuation route on Santa Ana Canyon narrows into a two-lane road from three lanes. She inquired why the City is not in compliance with the Builders’ Remedy. She requested that the City Council consider residents’ concerns.

Steve Herr noted that during the Planning Commission meeting, the Fire Chief, Police Chief, and City staff expressed concerns over the project. He requested that the City Council consider staff’s recommendations despite potential pressure from the developer. He urged the City Council to consider residents safety and deny the project.

Jeff Shimkus, a retired Anaheim Fire & Rescue Department employee, shared his experience responding to fires in the Anaheim Hills area. He noted that in his experience protection of life and property was paramount and called upon the City Council to protect the residents.

Joe Gutierrez shared that despite recommendations from staff and the Fire Chief, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project. He highlighted the Fire Chief’s experience as an incident commander on Type One Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Task Force.

He expressed his opposition to the project. He read excerpts from after-action reports produced by the Orange County Fire Authority, following the 2008 freeway complex fire. He noted that the report recognized evacuation problems, high winds, and a high rate of spread. He shared that the report also mentioned that the unpredictability of a fire moving through an urban interface creates challenges with staying ahead of the fire and identifying areas to be evacuated. He addressed the proposed 24-minute increase to the evacuation time.

Kevin H. Gillette reported that the public comment included CEQA shortcomings in the draft EIR, including the deferral of mitigation measures for biological resources, incorrect inadequacies, and no quantitative shadow analysis. He shared that the final EIR does not address concerns raised in his initial public comment. He noted that other individuals and agencies have raised concerns over the mitigation deferral. He urged the City Council to deny the project based on the inadequacies.

City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

Jeff Walton encouraged the City Council to consider residents’ concerns. He shared his experience evacuating, noting the process took over three and a half hours. He explained that although the unions support the project, public safety should not be overlooked. He explained that a high-density development is not safe for the community. He requested that the City Council deny the project. He noted that streets will be subject to significant damage due to the wear and tear of trucking for the proposed development.

Linda Hurley shared inconsistencies with traffic mitigation measures. She noted that the developer redefined telecommuting programs, resulting in minimal traffic impacts. She explained that the developer only considered recommendations that fit the project and ignored residents’ safety. She noted that the evacuation study inaccurately assumes project areas will not be impacted by wildfires. She urged the City Council to deny the project.

Teresa Ploum expressed concern about the increased risk to residents’ lives and property, given that current evacuation plans are not successful and timely. She mentioned financial implications to the City and residents if safety is ignored or modified with concessions. She noted that the proposed shelter-in-place method is not reasonable. She emphasized that residents are not opposed to development. She explained that safe evacuations are not currently feasible in the existing area, and adding more density would endanger the lives of residents. She encouraged the City Council to deny the project.

Linda Merrell shared her experience evacuating, noting that none of the fires have been mitigated with the Know Your Way plan. She explained that fires are unpredictable. She voiced concern about children's safety and the current lack of adequate resources. She noted that residents live in constant fear over potential fires. She requested that the City Council listen to residents’ concerns.

Ross Bunch, with the Operating Engineers, Local 12, expressed the union’s support for the project.

He highlighted his personal experience in the union, which provided opportunities for him to purchase his first home and receive a well-paying wage and benefits.

Nicholas Yagar shared his experience evacuating during previous fires. He explained that the project would endanger the lives of residents. He requested that the City Council consider the concerns of residents and deny the project. He suggested that the City purchase the project area and include it as part of Deer Canyon.

Chuck Bertocchini reported that the proposed evacuations for children overlook emotional realities.

He noted that many parents pick up their children at more than one school, noting that there may not be enough resources to evacuate all the children. He shared another concern over the proposed evacuation efforts for the elderly, pets, and disabled individuals. He explained that the method underestimates real-time emergency situations. He expressed concern over the developer's ability to prevent proposed residents and vehicles from evacuating if the development is not directly impacted. He requested that the City Council represent the residents.

Suzanne Disparte reported that the information presented does not reflect real-life experiences. She shared that the developer did not address residents' concerns about ongoing traffic issues. She explained that the developer’s claims are based on unrealistic best-case scenarios. She requested that the City Council consider residents and their concerns. She urged the City Council to consider staff’s recommendations and deny the project.

Chris Cugno expressed concern over residents’ safety. He noted that supporters of the project are not from the immediate area. He shared that the fire evacuation plan proposed mitigation zone evacuation and shelter-in-place measures, which could lead to a higher risk to residents if the fire City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

spreads. He inquired if a cellular assessment was conducted in response to proposed evacuation measures. He outlined mitigation measures listed in the EIR and requested that the Council review the measures while considering current evacuation times. He urged the City Council to deny the project.

Andrew Austin expressed his support for the project. He explained that Deer Canyon currently lacks public access. He expressed interest in additional engineered fire hydrants and fire protection in Deer Canyon. He addressed traffic concerns, noting that the traffic is not a result of the community and will continue to grow as the Inland Empire develops. He requested that the traffic issue be addressed separately to prevent impacts on proposed new developments.

Doug Mangione, representing the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, expressed support for the project. He recognized the concerns raised by residents and noted that the problem of limited road access has been an ongoing issue for decades. He shared that additional families and a new development will not be intrusive to the community.

Chip Ahlswede, Vice President of External Affairs for the Apartment Association of Orange County, reported that the City must construct 17,453 units by 2029 to meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment assigned by the State. He shared that the development will bring opportunities for jobs and new residents. He noted the legal repercussions if the City does not comply with the State. He shared that cities are losing opportunities for their communities. He encouraged the City Council to support the project.

Rose Edwards echoed residents’ concerns and encouraged the Council to oppose the project. She pointed out the distinctive landscaping, evacuation difficulties, and ongoing development as important factors to take into account. She urged the City Council to Diane M. inquired why the project is being considered despite the area's high fire risk and the evacuation challenges experienced during past fires. She noted that staff have expressed safety concerns over the development. She shared that the developer has not considered residents’ safety. She urged the City Council to deny the project and put residents’ safety over financial interests.

Engler Fish Phelps challenged the developer's example of a hypothetical resident of the Hills Preserve development. He explained that the example did not account for income and questioned how many individuals would be able to afford to live in the development. He noted that the project does not help reach the City’s housing goals due to its lack of affordability. He shared that residents are not opposed to development if the projects are appropriate, functional, and affordable.

Andrea Phelps expressed concern over the impacts on evacuation times as a result of additional vehicles from the development, despite claims from the developer that the times would not be impacted. She shared that the unpredictable nature of fire, limited resources to enforce Know Your Way, and residents’ urge to flee, counter the methods proposed by the developer. She noted that the project does not consider an accurate number of vehicles for residents, visitors, and employees of the development. She added that the development would not offer residents access to Deer Canyon because of insufficient parking.

Ted Cramer highlighted staff’s work on the project and Council Members Faessel and Diaz’s service. He shared that additional considerations for the project include earthquakes, school evacuations, power lines, wind, and the Scenic Corridor. He highlighted the staff’s recommendation to deny the project and noted that the area’s topography is not suitable for the project. He urged the City Council to deny the project.

City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

Karen Lynch shared her experience during various fires. She shared safety concerns based on previous evacuations. She requested that the City Council take additional time to consider the project.

Bill Armstrong noted that staff recommended denial of the project based on safety concerns. He shared that the EIR contains assumptions based on the proposed development, misleading information about the abatement of flammable brush, and inaccurately describes traffic procedures during evacuation. He requested that the City Council support staff’s recommendation and deny the project.

Patrick Pepper reported that the proposed development conflicts with the General Plan. He shared that the developer has not considered residents’ input on the project. He urged the City Council to deny the project. He inquired if the developer would pay California taxes on the property.

Matt McConnell expressed safety concerns for the project. He shared two key issues with the project, including evacuation issues, including residents returning to their property during a fire. He noted that the fire evacuation study does not account for or mitigate human elements during the evacuation process. He challenged the assumption that new residents of the development sheltering in place during a wildfire. He recommended that the City Council support staff’s recommendation to deny the project.

Linda Loveng shared her experience of evacuating during two wildfires. She shared that residents’ primary concern is about safety. She expressed concern over her neighbor's safety and noted the existing challenges they face. She urged the City Council to deny the project.

Stephanie Mercadante, on behalf of District 6 resident Georgia Price, voiced concerns over the impacts the project will have on Anaheim residents. She explained that the developer’s contribution to the Local Housing Trust Fund is not sufficient to build affordable housing units. She expressed concerns over the proposed amenities and the strain the development would place on local resources. She shared that residents of the developer’s project in Salt Lake City face issues related to security and public safety. She added that the Deer Canyon park is open to the public despite the developer's claims and has been a place where residents enjoy hiking and nature. She encouraged the City Council to listen to the residents and staff and deny the project.

Anthony Violanto reported that the project sets a dangerous precedent for developers. He noted that the City’s consultant provided guidance to the developer from multiple state agencies, including the Attorney General’s Office, which advises against sheltering in place. He referenced a quote included in the EIR from the Attorney General’s Office, claiming that despite the need for housing, safety is a priority. He added that the Attorney General’s Office only recommends sheltering in place as a las resort. He shared that the developer ignored research with government agencies regarding wildfire behavior and presented misleading and false assumptions in the EIR. He encouraged the City Council to deny the project.

Marc Herbert cited a study from the LA Times that concluded wildfires are spreading more rapidly and with greater intensity. He shared that California fires spread four times faster in 2020 than they did in 2008. He referenced a study from scientists at the University of California, University of Colorado, University of California (UC) Merced, and UCLA, which found that across the west, fires group 250% more quickly in 2020 compared to 2001. He shared that the proposed improvements on Santa Ana Canyon Road will not solve the traffic issue, given the housing expansion in the Inland Empire. He explained that the State has required the City to build around 17,400 homes, with City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

half of the units designated as affordable. He suggested that the City Council explore producing affordable housing to prevent individuals from having to commute.

Noah Ruiz, Painters and Allied Trades District Council 36, expressed support for the project. He explained that the Project Labor Agreement will provide quality jobs for employees, fair wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. He reiterated his support for the project.

City Clerk Bass reported that a total of 476 public comments were received electronically related to Public Hearing Item No. 31. [A final total of 485 public comments were received electronically, distributed to the City Council, and made part of the official records]. – See Appendix.

Mayor Aitken invited the applicant to provide closing remarks.

Mr. Hobbs reported that the project will provide benefits to the City, including 500 high-quality housing units to contribute towards the State’s mandated numbers, a Project Labor Agreement, and economic benefits. He shared that 10% of the units will be discounted for first responders, increased fire protections, and noted that the Scenic Corridor requirements are met. He explained that the developer saw the opportunity to build a world-class project and make an underutilized park accessible to all. He highlighted the proposed million-dollar donation to the Housing Trust Fund for affordable housing production. He addressed comments regarding evacuations and fire safety and shared that similar concerns have been used to oppose previous projects in the area. He provided an anecdote of his interaction with a resident opposed to the project, citing traffic concerns over safety concerns, and fire evacuation concerns. He summarized the Fire Chief’s claims that any additional housing and residents added to an area that requires evacuation are not ideal. He mentioned that many Anaheim Hills residents support the project but reportedly chose not to attend due to the behavior of other residents. He added that the development will increase safety in Deer Canyon and reduce fuel and dry brush in the area. He explained that the project will contribute to the housing shortage and will boost the local economy and labor market. He reported that additional traffic will be coming to the area regardless of whether the project is approved. He noted that the development and proposed street light will deter commuters from taking a shortcut through the hills. He requested the City Council’s support and approval of the project. He shared that the EIR combines and evaluates the many technical reports and studies completed by the City’s consultant, Psomas. He noted that the evacuation concerns were based on previous experiences before additional fire mitigation measures, police-controlled intersections, and the Know Your Way evacuation plan. He shared that the success of any evacuation plan is contingent upon residents’ understanding and willingness to follow the plan. He explained misconceptions regarding the proposed evacuation plans and shared that additional evacuation studies were performed, incorporating strategies such as Know Your Way, phased evacuations, and partial voluntary evacuations. He addressed comments related to shadow evacuations and noted that experts determined that shadow evacuations would contribute six minutes or less to the total evacuation time. He countered claims that Santa Ana Canyon Road was not evaluated as a two-lane street, explaining that the road was evaluated with three lanes as it approached Imperial Highway and the rest with two lanes. He addressed claims about the Builders’ Remedy and explained that letters were sent prior to the Planning Commission hearing as a backup development to the Hills Preserve project.

At 11:31 p.m., Mayor Aitken closed the public hearing.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz reported that Anaheim has evolved over time. She noted Accessory Dwelling Units are being built, sober living homes fill communities, and parking challenges have occurred as a result of State policies allowing apartment owners to remove parking and build additional units. She shared that change is not only occurring in the City, but throughout the State. She shared that she City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

visited the State Capitol to inquire about housing policies impacting neighborhoods throughout the City. She noted that the State’s response was that residents should expect change.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz shared that if the Inclusionary Housing Policy had been adopted prior to the project being introduced, the affordable housing contribution would have been substantially higher.

She expressed appreciation for the developer’s contribution to the Local Housing Trust Fund. She inquired when the contribution would be paid. In response, Mr. Hobbs reported that the Development Agreement requires that the developer pay the initial $500,000 payment at the time the building permit is pulled. He shared that the developer will defer the second $500,000 donation until the building is operational, which will be 18 months following construction. He clarified that the second payment would be in approximately four and a half years.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz thanked Public Works and the Planning Department for collaborating with Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol to locate additional evacuation routes. She agreed with Council Member Rubalcava’s comments regarding difficulties with constructing a bridge. She encouraged City departments to obtain grants from the State and federal government for the construction of the bridge, whether the project is approved or not. She inquired if City staff had worked with Caltrans to prevent individuals outside of the evacuation area from entering the freeway.

In response to Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz, City Traffic Engineer Rafael Cobian explained that, based on previous fires, City staff conducted multi-agency collaborative meetings with CHP, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, local police departments, and school districts. He shared that the staff have worked with CHP to shut down all off-ramps at Weir Canyon and Imperial, as these were identified as the primary factors contributing to traffic congestion during the Canyon Fire. He shared that freeway shutdowns will be determined by CHP and based on the location of the fire, trajectory, and where and type of emergency personnel dispatched.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz thanked staff for working on a solution.

Council Member Meeks thanked the public for attending the meeting. She acknowledged residents’ fear over fire risks and evacuations. She acknowledged the need for a better evacuation plan and to address freeway traffic. She shared that the language in the EIR does not guarantee that the developer will meet the mitigation measures. She explained that safety needs to be the highest priority, and the proposed location is not suitable for the development. She noted that the area is a severe fire hazard zone with limited evacuation routes, and the proposed project deviates greatly from the General Plan. She shared that the project will set a precedent throughout the City, constructing high-rise structures in single-family neighborhoods. She expressed her support for staff’s recommendation to deny the project. She shared that her top priority is safety, including safety during evacuations. She clarified that over the last five years, District 6 has built more housing units than other districts and highlighted housing projects in the Anaheim Hills community. Council Member Meeks explained that she will move to deny the project.

In response to Mayor Aitken, City Attorney Fabela clarified that a motion is not on the table and advised that he can assist with wording an informal motion.

Council Member Meeks noted she will wait to initiate a motion.

Fire Chief Patrick Russell reported that at the Planning Commission public hearing, due to the significant density increase associated with the complexities of wildfire evacuations, the Fire & Rescue Department did not support the project. He shared that the Department is not opposed to some aspects of the projects. He highlighted the benefits of the project, including breaking the continuity of fuel for fires and the ability to reduce the energy release component and fire spread. He City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

added that the Fire Department is not opposed to development in the Anaheim Hills community. He explained that in his experience, the shelter-in-place tactic is only used when options are limited. He shared that individuals are either evacuated or evacuation is not required. He shared that anytime complexities are added, there are concerns. He noted that whether the project is approved, Anaheim Fire & Rescue will continue to provide the highest level of safety to citizens throughout the City, including Anaheim Hills, by reworking evacuation plans, training, increasing mutual aid responses, and fuel reduction.

In response to Council Member Faessel, Chief Russell explained that non-combustible construction consists of concrete roofs and materials that have a high likelihood of surviving a fire’s thermal insult or brand production.

Council Member Faessel inquired if the Department concluded that the structure was adequately fire- resistant for the construction area.

Chief Russell explained that, according to the Building Code and Fire Code, the structure fits the standard of non-combustible materials. He added that with the increased fire protection, the building would include sprinkler systems, monitored alarm systems, and additional features found in other high rises in the City. He noted that any development built in the area would serve as a way to break the fuel continuity.

In response to Council Member Faessel, Chief Russell reported that when the Department meets with developers, staff reviews development impacts, including funding for enhanced fire protection. He shared that the Department requested the additional funding to enhance the City’s fuel modifications and brush clearance. He explained that the $2.28 million Fire Protection Enhancement contribution would cover one-time salaries and equipment to start the project.

Chief Russell clarified that the funds would contribute to vehicles and salaries to support the entire City, primarily the eastern portion of the City, for brush and weed abatement.

Council Member Faessel shared that he and his wife assisted with evacuating an individual during the 2008 fire. He expressed his understanding of residents’ fears and emotions during the evacuation process. He explained that when the project was proposed years ago, he supported the project. He expressed interest in seeing a similar project developed in District 5. He noted that as the project progressed, he became increasingly aware of residents' concerns and safety risks. He recognized City staff’s recommendation. He shared that his interest is in what is best for the community. He shared that in his experience, he has always supported housing projects recommended for approval by City staff. He explained that the difference with the proposed development is that it does not have staff’s support.

In response to Council Member Faessel, Chief Russell shared that he has been involved with all of the major local fires with the exception of the Gypsum Canyon fire in 1982. He highlighted his involvement at the Sierra Peak, 241, Canyon, Canyon 2, Freeway Complex, Silverado Canyon, and Airport fires. He added he has been dispatched to the Dixie, Mosquito, Ferguson, Caldor, Whittier, and La Brea fires in Northern California.

Council Member Faessel shared his opposition to the project based on staff’s recommendation. He commended City staff for their fact-checking efforts and ultimately recommended that the project be denied.

Council Member Leon reported that, regardless of the project’s approval, updates on evacuation procedures would be beneficial to residents in the area.

City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

In response to Council Member Leon, Chief Russell reported evacuations occurred for the Canyon 2 and Freeway Complex fires. He shared that limited evacuations occurred during the Sierra Peak fire and the 214 fire. He summarized that four or five evacuations have occurred over the last twenty years.

Council Member Leon inquired if evacuation plans were in place during the fires in 2008 and 2017.

Chief Russell explained that evacuation plans were not in place at the time. He shared that the Department developed the Know Your Way plan in response to the shortcomings realized during large evacuations. He noted that the plan can be evaluated and updated. He shared that not all evacuations go as planned based on multiple factors. He concluded that the City’s plan is a good starting point and will constantly be improved.

In response to Council Member Leon, Chief Russell clarified that evacuations were discussed after the Freeway Complex fire. He noted that the City bolstered mutual aid agreements and communication, and discussed evacuation directions and zones. He shared that major evacuation challenges were realized following with Canyon 2 fire.

In response to Council Member Leon, Chief Russell explained that the Canyon 2 Fire did not reach Deer Canyon. He noted that if the fire had reached Deer Canyon, it would have been well established. He shared that for the Freeway Complex fire, the fire was well-established in Deer Canyon. He noted that the Department was able to control the fire with aircrafts. He explained that unless a fire originates in Deer Canyon, most fires run along the 241 corridor and move south into Orange Hills and Cowan Heights. He stated that because the Canyon 2 Fire did not start in Deer Canyon, the development would not have made a difference. He added that if the fire had originated in Deer Canyon, the situation would have been different.

In response to Council Member Leon, Chief Russell stated that there are no fire hydrants in the Deer Canyon area.

Council Member Leon requested information on the project’s area’s current density. Acting Director Allen confirmed that the area is zoned as single-family residential.

In response to Council Member Leon, Acting Director Allen explained that it is common for properties to be rezoned and for General Plan Land Use designations to be updated. She shared that often underutilized parcels and commercial corridors are presented to the Planning Commission and City Council requesting rezoning and General Plan Amendments. She clarified that the proposed project is unique due to the size and setting.

In response to Council Member Leon, Acting Director Allen explained that there are three development areas associated with the project. She reported that one area would replace the commercial area with multi-family zoning, another would replace the multi-family zoning with additional multi-family, and the third application would use the area previously designated for single- family homes to construct townhomes. She clarified that the total is 1,280 units across all three applications.

Council Member Leon inquired whether staff had concerns over earthquakes or landslides in the area. In response, Director of Public Works Rudy Emami reported that landslide concerns were not reported following a Geotechnical Analysis.

City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

In response to Council Member Leon, Fire Marshal Lindsey Young clarified that a new high-rise building and anything over 75 feet above the lowest level of Fire Department access have additional requirements. She explained that the additional requirements are based on the necessity of ensuring all residents can safely evacuate the building without the path of egress. She shared that any high- rise buildings would need to be built in accordance with the most current Building and Fire Codes.

She added that due to the location in a very high fire hazard severity zone, the development is required to meet Chapter 7A of the California Building Code to include additional hardening of the structure. She clarified that it includes different windowpanes, ember prevention of ember intrusion, and box thieves.

In response to Council Member Leon, Fire Marshal Young reported that landscaping and fuel modification for the exterior of the building is a standard required for very high fire hazard severity zones, which outline distances, zones, and irrigation.

Council Member Leon requested additional information on standard practices for developers hiring their own consultants for studies and how the City verifies the information provided. In response, Public Works Director Emami confirmed that the standard practice is that the developer is required to conduct a traffic analysis. He explained that based on the scale and size of the traffic study and complexity, Public Works staff will review the analysis or hire a peer reviewer to review and verify the analysis.

In response to Council Member Leon, Public Works Director Emami reported multiple factors contributed to the Canyon 2 Fire evacuation, including the time of day, the day itself, lack of coordination with the school districts, and communication with Caltrans and CHP. He explained that staff learned from the evacuation process.

Council Member Leon inquired if there have been discussions to update infrastructure, whether the project is approved or denied. In response, Public Works Director Emami explained that the proposed infrastructure updates are independent of the project. He shared that the evacuation issue is a priority and staff are always looking to improve the Know Your Way program. He summarized the proposed improvements, including secondary routes out of Mohler loop, utilizing the 91 freeway ramp behind the weigh station, and accelerating the current plan for the Fairmont connector.

In response to Council Member Leon, Mr. Hobbs confirmed that a parking lot currently exists for the Deer Canyon Park trail. He explained that the lot is overgrown and angled and can accommodate a few vehicles once public access is established. He shared that additional parking spaces can be included along the road.

In response to Council Member Leon, Assistant City Attorney Leonie Mulvihill reported that the Development Agreement outlines certain maintenance requirements. She added that the maintenance standards are also reflected in a covenant required by the Public Works Department as part of a tract map. She reported that the 50 acres of open space will be coveted to be maintained as open space, maintained by the developer or association if there is a transfer of interest.

Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill clarified that the maintenance standards are not meant to conflict but will potentially supplement the maintenance covenants required as part of the tract map. She reported that the developer is required to maintain the open space by maintaining the trails, conducting regular and routine maintenance, regular cleaning, and repainting of signage. She shared that the developer is required to have maintenance personnel patrol the areas and establish schedules at their own cost and expense. She added that the developer will maintain the open space in accordance with the approved tract map and there would be landscape maintenance, cleanup City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

maintenance, graffiti removal, campsite removal, painting, striping, monthly inspections, emergency maintenance, and repair and replacement obligations.

In response to Council Member Leon, Mr. Hobbs reported that the building will take approximately three years to build and another year and a half during construction. He noted that fire mitigating measures in the Development Agreement and EIR include removal of brush, clearing, water storage tanks, and fire watch.

In response to Council Member Leon, Mr. Hobbs clarified that the site would have a full site fence. He noted that there would be cameras around the perimeter and fire watch cameras through the interior.

He shared that personnel would also be monitoring the area.

Council Member Leon requested information on the timeline for the fire hydrants to be installed. Mr.

Hobbs reported that the fire hydrants will be built first during the mass excavation.

Council Member Leon expressed his commitment to making decisions for the entire City. He shared that the benefit of districts is that the Council Members each represent different experiences and backgrounds when making decisions. He explained that the multi-family apartment buildings already exist throughout the districts. He shared that the site is currently a hazard. He explained that he recognizes the need for additional housing, but recognizes the evacuation concerns. He expressed his appreciation for staff’s work and efforts. He recognized the wildfire mitigation risks included in the project and noted that, regardless of the outcome, he expressed interest in addressing residents' concerns.

In response to Council Member Rubalcava, Deputy City Manager White reported that staff discussed concerns related to the intensity of the project with the developer. He shared that the developer explained that a reduced intensity development would not accomplish their goals for the project. He explained that for that reason alternative methods were not discussed.

Council Member Rubalcava requested the number of high-rise developments in the City and District

3. Deputy City Manager White confirmed there is one high-rise residential development in the City that meets the 75-foot criteria. He confirmed the development is located in District 3 on Center Street.

In response to Council Member Rubalcava, Mr. Hobbs reported that the project is classified as a combination of a Type 1A and Type 3A structure. He explained that a Type 1A building is any kind of high-rise, concrete and steel, and noncombustible structure. He noted that a Type 3A building is a fire-rated wood structure that is fully encapsulated without any framing members that would catch fire, and fully fire sprinklered. He shared that there were not many examples of developments that use the shelter-in-place strategy.

A representative from SALT reported that they contacted numerous cities about whether shelter-in- place was a strategy used. He explained that without the proper structure, the strategy may not be an option. He added that the strategy is used if the development has the appropriate rating.

In response to Council Member Rubalcava, the representative confirmed that no developments in Southern California have that rating.

Council Member Rubalcava shared that as part of the Housing Element Update Committee, the Committee identified parcels across the City for development to meet the RHNA goal. She shared that, representing a densely populated district with many multi-family dwellings, she looks to Anaheim Hills for development. She explained that although she supports development, she values the recommendation by staff and the Fire Chief. She addressed the developer’s consideration to apply City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

for a Builder’s Remedy if the project is denied. She highlighted her support for labor unions and approval of the Community Workforce Agreement and projects that created jobs for the unions. She explained that her opposition to the project is apart from the respect and care for the labor community. She explained that due to staff’s recommendation and the recommendation from the Fire Chief, she will not be supporting the project.

Council Member Diaz highlighted the benefits of the project, including expanding Deer Canyon, a million-dollar donation toward affordable housing, and a luxurious building in the City. He shared that the developer has been successful in other locations, and the development will provide property and sales taxes to the City. He added that the project will provide fire protection, housing, and jobs to the community. He reported that the negative aspects of the project include its location in a very high fire hazard severity zone. He noted that Santa Ana Canyon is constantly used as an alternative road to the 91 freeway, and residents often try to return home during the evacuation process. He added that the expectation to shelter-in-place during a fire is unrealistic. He explained that when the project was initially proposed, the City Council was not fully aware of the drawbacks. He shared that he has always supported housing projects and each project had been recommended for approval. He expressed his support for housing in the City but shared concerns over the proposed project’s location and current difficulties with evacuations. He concluded that he will not be supporting the project.

In response to Mayor Aitken, Acting Director Allen explained that the General Plan identifies distinct areas in the City. She explained that the proposed area is master planned and considered the Hill and Canyon area of the General Plan. She explained that while reviewing the General Plan, staff is reviewing policies with respect to the Hill and Canyon Area implemented through the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone which outlines building heights, setbacks, and specimen tree removal requirements.

Mayor Aitken inquired if the project is consistent with the Master Plan for the area. Acting Director Allen reported that the site is not subject to a master plan. She explained that the site has zoning and General Plan designation, and Scenic Corridor Overlay zones.

Mayor Aitken requested additional information on what additional equipment and staffing the Fire and Rescue Department will require and if the $2.3 million contribution will cover those additions. Chief Russell reported that the funds would be used for equipment and salaries of the hand crews for the first year. He explained the funds would not cover ongoing costs.

In response to Mayor Aitken, Chief Russell reported that when Fire Station 12 is built, Engine 12 would be relocated from Fire Station 10. He explained that less resources would be available in the Canyon area for incident response. He clarified that the personnel will move to the new station. He shared that the station temporarily holds two fire companies and two paramedic units, once Fire Station 12 is built, the number will reduce to one.

Mayor Aitken reported that if the project is built, there will be more residents with fewer resources.

Mayor Aitken thanked residents for attending and expressing their opinions on the project. She shared her experiences as an Anaheim native and watching the City evolve. She highlighted the area’s improvements, including the Festival Center and new parks. She noted that there have been drawbacks, including increased light pollution and traffic on Santa Canyon Road. She shared that the Anaheim Hills community is not against housing development and noted that overall, the area has more housing than any other part of the City. She reported that she has spoken with residents who expressed genuine concerns over the project. She noted that the project offers promising benefits, including set-asides for public safety. She echoed residents' concerns about fire safety and shared her experience evacuating during the Canyon 2 Fire. She recognized residents’ concerns over the City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

property’s proposed zoning designation and how it differs from the property’s original zoning. She explained that her two main concerns are that the area’s original zoning designation was for single- family homes and the drastic change and Builders’ Remedy. She agreed with speakers to challenge the State due to decreased local control. She emphasized that the project is not supported by the community and safety concerns raised by staff. She shared that she will not be supporting the project.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz highlighted Chief Russell’s comments to adapt plans to protect residents and businesses. She shared challenges in District 4 regarding larger development utilizing a mobile home park for parking. She expressed hope that the same reasoning would be applied consistently across the City, and not just in District 6. She added that although staff are opposed to the project, that future developments in District 6 will be considered. She highlighted a Sergeant’s comments at a community meeting and requested that the Police Department continue its commitment to protect and serve the community.

Chief of Police Rick Armendariz assured the City Council that the Department will continue to serve the community and prioritize residents, visitors, and businesses safety.

Council Member Meeks clarified that the area is open space and countered claims that it is a wildfire hazard. She shared that the open space should be embraced when the opportunity presents itself.

She added that there is parking in the area and invited everyone to attend Oak Canyon Nature Center.

MOTION: Council Member Meeks moved to deny the project.

DISCUSSION: City Attorney Fabela advised that if the City Council is inclined to deny the project, the effective way would be to deny the General Plan Amendment and provide the basis for the denial based on potential findings.

MOTION: Council Member Meeks moved to deny the project, seconded by Council Member Faessel.

DISCUSSION: Acting Director Allen read the basis for the denial into the record to deny the project as follows: (1) amending the General Plan to increase development density and intensity at the requested magnitude on Property located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, would exacerbate existing conditions beyond those currently planned for in the General Plan with both the proposed density and peak vehicular trips over 5 times greater than identified in the General Plan.

Because the magnitude of the increased density and intensity, inhabitants, and vehicular trips will increase evacuation time and result in an exacerbation of risk, the General Plan Amendment would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City; and therefore, Required Finding No. 2 that the proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City is unsupported; and (2) the General Plan Amendment would increase the residential density on the Property and considering the physical constraints of the site largely attributable to topography, Required Finding No. 4, that the subject property is physically suitable to accommodate the proposed modification, including but not limited to, access, physical constraints, topography, provision of utilities, and compatibility with surrounding land uses, is not established.

MOTION: Council Member Meeks moved to deny the project via RESOLUTION NO. 2024-114 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM denying proposed amendment to the General Plan of the City of Anaheim, based on the findings that (1) amending the General Plan to increase development density and intensity at the requested magnitude on Property located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, would exacerbate existing conditions beyond those currently City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

planned for in the General Plan with both the proposed density and peak vehicular trips over 5 times greater than identified in the General Plan. Because the magnitude of the increased density and intensity, inhabitants, and vehicular trips will increase evacuation time and result in an exacerbation of risk, the General Plan Amendment would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City; and therefore, Required Finding No. 2 that the proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City is unsupported; and (2) the General Plan Amendment would increase the residential density on the Property and considering the physical constraints of the site largely attributable to topography, Required Finding No. 4, that the subject property is physically suitable to accommodate the proposed modification, including but not limited to, access, physical constraints, topography, provision of utilities, and compatibility with surrounding land uses, is not established, seconded by Council Member Faessel.

DISCUSSION: Council Member Leon thanked his colleagues for their comments. He stated that, regardless of the outcome, he requested a review of the infrastructure and safety concerns raised.

City Manager Vanderpool noted that the presentation outlined infrastructure projects currently in process. He added that staff can evaluate additional strategies based on the concerns raised by the City Council and at the Planning Commission meeting.

Council Member Leon thanked Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz for her comments to consider safety in projects throughout the City.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz requested clarification on the action.

City Attorney Fabela explained that an affirmative vote would deny the General Plan Amendment.

In response to Council Member Diaz, Mayor Aitken confirmed that supporting the motion would be to deny the project.

MOTION: Council Member Meeks moved to deny the project via RESOLUTION NO. 2024-114 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM denying proposed amendment to the General Plan of the City of Anaheim, based on findings that (1) amending the General Plan to increase development density and intensity at the requested magnitude on Property located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, would exacerbate existing conditions beyond those currently planned for in the General Plan with both the proposed density and peak vehicular trips over 5 times greater than identified in the General Plan. Because the magnitude of the increased density and intensity, inhabitants, and vehicular trips will increase evacuation time and result in an exacerbation of risk, the General Plan Amendment would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City; and therefore, Required Finding No. 2 that the proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City is unsupported; and (2) the General Plan Amendment would increase the residential density on the Property and considering the physical constraints of the site largely attributable to topography, Required Finding No. 4, that the subject property is physically suitable to accommodate the proposed modification, including but not limited to, access, physical constraints, topography, provision of utilities, and compatibility with surrounding land uses, is not established, seconded by Council Member Faessel. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES – 5 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Diaz, Rubalcava, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES – 2 (Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz and Council Member Leon).

Motion carried.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:

City Council Minutes of October 29, 2024

Council Member Faessel requested to adjourn the meeting in memory of District 5 resident Jessica Ferrino who passed away tragically and unexpectedly on October 8th. She was a Rio Vista Elementary School Instructional Assistant for four years. She leaves her husband William, son William Jr., and daughter Elena.

CITY MANAGER’S UPDATE: None
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS (non-agenda items): None
COUNCIL AGENDA SETTING:

Mayor Aitken requested to recognize the Anaheim Fall Festival organizers to acknowledge the amazing job that they did on the 100th anniversary of the Fall Festival.

Council Member Leon requested to recognize a West Anaheim Girl Scout Troop on their 50th anniversary and GBS Linens for their 40th anniversary. He also requested a Strategic Plan update.

Council Member Diaz requested a resolution encouraging State of California Legislators and the Governor to abolish Senate Bill 357 which legalizes the solicitation of prostitution.

Council Member Rubalcava requested to agendize an update from the Visit Anaheim CEO regarding the State mandated Oversight Committee.

Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz requested an update on the Police Department’s Tesla vehicles.

ADJOURNMENT: At 1:13 a.m. on October 30, 2024, Mayor Aitken adjourned the City Council in memory of Jessica Ferrino.

Respectfully submitted,
Theresa Bass, CMC
City Clerk